The Supreme Court will revisit the intersection of LGBTQ rights and religious liberty on Monday, when it takes up the case of a graphic designer who seeks to start a website business to celebrate weddings – but does not want to work with same-sex couples.
The case comes as supporters of LGBTQ rights fear the 6-3 conservative majority – fresh off its decision to reverse a near 50-year-old abortion precedent – may be setting its sights on ultimately reversing a landmark 2015 opinion called Obergefell v. Hodges that cleared the way for same-sex marriage nationwide.
The House this week is expected to pass a bill that requires states to recognize another state’s legal marriage if Obergefell were ever overturned. The bill would then go to the White House for President Joe Biden’s signature.
“I am concerned,” Mary Bonauto, senior attorney of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, told CNN in an interview. “I am concerned only because the Court seems to be reaching for cases and literally changing settled law time and again.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance, when Roe v. Wade was overturned, explicitly called on the court to revisit Obergefell.
On one side of the dispute is the designer, Lorie Smith, whose business is called 303 Creative. She says she has not yet moved forward with an expansion into wedding websites because she is worried about violating a Colorado public accommodations law. She says the law compels her to express messages that are inconsistent with her beliefs. The state and supporters of LGBTQ rights respond that Smith is simply seeking a license to discriminate in the marketplace.
Four years ago, the court considered a similar case involving a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, citing religious objections.
That 7-2 ruling favoring the baker, however, was tied to specific circumstances in that case and did not apply broadly to similar disputes nationwide. Now, the justices are taking a fresh look at the same state Anti-Discrimination Act. Under the law, a business may not refuse to serve individuals because of their sexual orientation.
Smith says that she is willing to work with all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, but she refuses to create websites that celebrate same-sex marriage.
Why Jim Obergefell is not celebrating the Senate’s same-sex marriage bill
“The state of Colorado is forcing me to create custom, unique artwork communicating and celebrating a different view of marriage, a view of marriage that goes against my deeply held beliefs,” Smith told CNN in an interview.
When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in February, the justices sidestepped whether the law violated Smith’s free exercise of religion. Instead, the court said it would look at the dispute through the lens of free speech and decide whether applying the public accommodations law “to compel an artist to speak or stay silent” violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
In court papers, Smith’s lawyer, Kristen K. Waggoner, said that the law works to “compel speech the government favors and silence speech the government dislikes” in violation of the First Amendment. She said the state could interpret its law to allow speakers “who serve all people to decline specific projects based on their message” such a move, she contended, would stop status discrimination “without coercing or suppressing speech.”
Twenty states have weighed in in favor of Smith in friend of the court briefs. They say that they have public accommodation laws on the books, but their laws exempt those businesspeople who make their living creating custom art.
Smith says she has written a webpage explaining that her decision is based on her belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman. But she has not yet published the statement because she is in fear of violating the “publication clause” of the law that bars a company from publishing any communication that indicates that a public accommodation service will be refused based on sexual orientation, Waggoner claims in court papers.
Smith lost her case at the lower court. The 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals held that while a diversity of faiths and religious exercises “enriches our society,” the state has a compelling interest in “protecting its citizens from the harms of discrimination.”
Conservatives on the current court are sure to study the dissent penned by Judge Timothy Tymovich.
“The majority,” he wrote, “takes the remarkable – and novel stance that the government may force Ms. Smith to produce messages that violate her conscience.”
“Taken to its logical end,” he concluded, “the government could regulate the messages communicated by all artists.”
Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson argued in court papers that the law does not regulate or compel speech. Instead, he said, it regulates commercial conduct to ensure all customers have the ability to participate in everyday commercial exchanges regardless of their religion, race, disability, or other characteristics.
He said that the law protects customers’ “equal access and equal dignity” and that when Smith seeks to issue a statement announcing why she would not create wedding websites for same sex couples, that is akin to a “white applicants only” sign.
He added that the law does not aim to suppress any message that Smith may want to express. Instead, 303 Creative is free to decide what design services to offer and whether to communicate its vision of marriage through biblical quotes on its wedding websites. But critically, the law requires the company to sell whatever product or service it offers to all.
Bonauto also warned of a slippery slope.
“Are you going to have the Protestant baker who doesn’t want to make the First Communion cake?” Bonauto said. “Do you want to have the school photographer who has their business but they don’t want to take pictures of certain kids?”
Twenty-two other states support Colorado and have similar laws.
The Biden Justice Department, which will participate in oral arguments, supports Colorado, stressing that public accommodations laws “guarantee equal access to the Nation’s commercial life by ensuring that all Americans can acquire whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.”
A decision in the case is expected by July.