Gay Rights Ruling
The decision appeared to suggest that the rights of L.G.B.T.Q. people, including to same-sex marriage, are on more vulnerable legal footing, particularly when they are at odds with claims of religious freedom.
Lorie Smith, a Colorado web designer, is at the center of the case, which involves whether she can refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages.Credit…Michael A. McCoy for The New York Times
Here’s what to know about the gay rights decision.
The Supreme Court on Friday sided with a web designer in Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages despite a state law that forbids discrimination against gay people.
In a 6 to 3 vote, split along ideological lines, the court held that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion.
The case, though framed as a clash between free speech and gay rights, was the latest in a series of decisions in favor of religious people and groups, notably conservative Christians.
The decision also appeared to suggest that the rights of L.G.B.T.Q. people, including to same-sex marriage, are on more vulnerable legal footing, particularly when they are at odds with claims of religious freedom. At the same time, the ruling limited the ability of the governments to enforce anti-discrimination laws.
The designer, Lorie Smith, said her Christian faith requires her to turn away customers seeking wedding-related services to celebrate same-sex unions. She added that she intends to post a message saying the company’s policy is a product of her religious convictions.
A Colorado law forbids discrimination against gay people by businesses open to the public as well as statements announcing such discrimination. Ms. Smith, who has not begun the wedding business or posted the proposed statement for fear of running afoul of the law, sued to challenge it, saying it violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion.
But when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, 303 Creative L.L.C. v. Elenis, No. 21-476, it agreed to decide only one question: “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.”
Here’s what else to know:
The case, framed as a clash between free speech and gay rights, is the latest in a series of decisions in favor of religious people and groups, notably Christians.
Both sides have said that the consequences of the court’s ruling could be enormous, though for different reasons. Ms. Smith’s supporters said a decision for the state would allow the government to force all sorts of artists to state things at odds with their beliefs.
Her opponents said a ruling in her favor would blow a hole through anti-discrimination laws and allow businesses engaged in expression to refuse service to, for example, Black people or Muslims based on odious but sincerely held convictions.
The decision could affect how states enforce their anti-discrimination laws.
Lower courts have generally sided with gay and lesbian couples who were refused service by bakeries, florists and others, ruling that potential customers are entitled to equal treatment, at least in parts of the country with laws forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In his majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch used George Orwell to take a swipe at the dissenting liberal justices, writing that they had abandoned “what this Court’s cases have recognized time and time again: A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all.” He added, citing a quote attributed to Orwell, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor responds to the Orwell reference in her dissent. Emphasizing her view that prohibiting business from discriminating against gay people is a regulation of conduct, not speech, she writes: “The majority’s repeated invocation of this Orwellian thought policing is revealing of just how much it misunderstands this case.”
Today’s ruling comes a day after another decision cheered by religious conservatives, in which the court ruled in favor of a postal carrier who refused to work on the Sabbath. The rulings come from a court that has now delivered a string of similar judgments in favor of religious conservatives.