Facts of the 303 Creative v. Elenis
In 303 Creative v. Elenis, Lorie Smith is a conservative Christian wedding website designer who runs a company by the name 303 Creative. She was willing to expand her service to marriages but posted that she won’t make a marriage website for the people of same sex. She placed a banner on the home page of her website where she explained why she doesn’t want to give even her simple service to same-sex people.
She was in clear opposition to same-sex marriage and doesn’t want to serve them because of religious objections. It is against her Christian belief and practice to serve a Gay.
As per public accommodation laws, discrimination based on sexual orientation is barred in many states and by making a statement of refusal, she is violating a law. Accommodation laws ban discrimination in hotels, housing, restaurants, and education along with retail businesses.
Lorie Smith challenged the validity of accommodation Law
Smith sued the Colorado CivilRights Commission & challenged the validity of Colorado public accommodation law. She claimed that it is unconstitutional to compel her to give her service to everyone equally or create a website for someone even if she doesn’t want to. She challenged the validity even before any gay asked for her service because she has a fear of getting punished in the future for the statement she made.
She supported her claim by the first amendment of the US Constitution where she has the right to refuse to create wedding websites for any people.
Justice Neil Gorsuch inclined towards Smith’s Claim
The United States Supreme Court passed Judgement on 30 June 2023, it was a 6-3 decision that gave a blow to the rights of LGBTQ in America. Justice Neil Gorsuch in addition to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas SC, and Brett Kavanaugh supported the Smith opinion. It was held that the businesses that offer expressive products and services can discriminate against LGBTQ Americans and it is an exception of the public accommodation laws.
Justice Neil Gorsuch drew said that the government should not interfere with the “uninhibited marketplace of ideas” and In case of conflict between state laws and constitutional law the latter must prevail over the former. The first amendment act of the Constitution sees the United state as a rich and complex place. It gives the right to free to think and speak as they wish, to all persons. Here speech includes all manner of speech including oral, picture, painting, printed words, film, drawings, and engravings. Hence smith’s online statement is protected under the first amendment Act.
The scope of rights to free speech extended to the right to discrimination after this case. So expressive business owners may discriminate against LGBTQ in some situations and refuse to serve them.
Neil Gorsuch made a distinction between discrimination based on caste, sex, creed, or religion and discrimination in a statement made by Smith. The focus of the ruling was only on certain categories of business such as artists or creating content.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissents her opinion
It weakens the law that is made to protect the LGBTQ and other people from discrimination.
The liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor in support of justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented her opinion by making various statements. She said it is a historic judgment where an open business can refuse service to the disfavoured group under the constitution. The ruling day is one of the saddest days in LGBTQ lives and especially in the USA constitution.
Gays and lesbians are given the status of second-class citizens simply by issuing new licenses to companies to discriminate. Companies get the federal right to discriminate against a certain group of the community. The rulings of the SC will undermine the law that is made to protect from discrimination.