US Supreme Court Allows Businesses to Discriminate Against LGBTQ Customers

The United States Supreme Court has made a ruling that allows certain businesses to refuse services for same-sex weddings, which is seen as a setback for LGBTQ rights in the country. In a 6-3 decision, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court supported web designer Lorie Smith’s request for an exemption from a Colorado law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and other factors.

Lorie Smith, an evangelical Christian who opposes same-sex marriage, filed a lawsuit against Colorado’s civil rights commission and other state officials in 2016, expressing concerns about potential punishment under the state’s public accommodations law if she refused to provide services for gay weddings. Smith and her legal team argued that being compelled to participate in a same-sex wedding would force her to express messages conflicting with her Christian beliefs, violating her right to free speech under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Advocates for LGBTQ rights have argued that Smith’s position infringes on the rights of LGBTQ individuals to access goods and services from businesses without facing discrimination. Writing for the majority, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch supported Smith’s stance, stating that Colorado sought to compel her to provide speech she did not wish to deliver, thus infringing on her protected First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court ruling primarily focused on a specific category of commercial activities, such as artists or businesses involved in creating content. However, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed dissent, cautioning that this decision could be applied to any business, contributing to a broader “backlash” against LGBTQ equality in the country. She noted that the ruling granted a business the constitutional right to refuse service to members of a protected class.

Civil rights groups and legal scholars warned of potential ripple effects if the Supreme Court favored Smith’s position, as it could undermine laws established to safeguard against various forms of discrimination. Many US states have laws, known as public accommodations laws, that prohibit businesses open to the public from denying goods or services based on characteristics like race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and others. Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act, for instance, prohibits businesses from denying goods or services to people on these grounds.

President Joe Biden’s administration supported Colorado in the case, arguing that Smith’s request for an exemption went too far, as it sought the right to refuse creating any wedding website for same-sex couples, even a basic one with logistical details. President Biden expressed deep concern about the decision, stating that it could invite more discrimination against LGBTQ+ Americans and weaken long-standing laws protecting all Americans from discrimination in public accommodations.

The American Civil Liberties Union and LGBTQ civil rights group Human Rights Campaign both criticized the ruling, emphasizing its potential negative impact on civil rights laws and the safety and inclusivity of commercial spaces. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative religious rights group representing Lorie Smith, celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision as a victory for free speech rights.

The Supreme Court issued this ruling one day after another case in which they unanimously supported employees’ ability to obtain accommodations for religious practices at work. The case involved a former mail carrier who accused the Postal Service of discrimination for disciplining him after he refused to work on Sundays.

The United States Supreme Court’s recent ruling allows certain businesses to refuse services for same-sex weddings, creating concerns about its implications for LGBTQ rights and civil rights laws protecting against discrimination.