The Battle Between Religious Freedom and LGBTQ Rights Continues

This term, the clash between freedom of speech and LGBTQ rights continues as the Supreme Court is slated to hear oral arguments in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. The following question is before the Court: Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Lorie Smith is the owner and founder of 303 Creative LLC, a graphic design firm that offers graphic and website design services to the public. Smith wishes to expand her portfolio to include wedding-related services. However, Smith refuses to design websites for same-sex weddings on the ground that it violates her religious beliefs. She claims that offering wedding-related services to non-heterosexual couples “would compromise [her] Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God’s true story of marriage – the very story He is calling [her] to promote.”

Smith wants to post a message on her business page explaining her wedding service policy, but the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating on the basis of a protected characteristic, including sexual orientation. Further, CADA includes a Communications Clause that prohibits businesses from posting a notice that indicates that goods or services will be denied to an individual based on a protected characteristic. Smith brought this action to challenge CADA’s constitutionality.

Lots of tough questions asked of folks who feel they have a “God-given” right to discriminate against fellow citizens of the GOUSA.

3 thoughts on “ The Battle Between Religious Freedom and LGBTQ Rights Continues

  1. Just business says:

    An angry white mob attacks a racially mixed group that sought to integrate a whites-only lunch counter in Mississippi’s capital city on May 28, 1963. (Fred Blackwell photograph – some of the students in the sit-in were beaten, and one was knocked unconscious)

    • p/s says:

      “Allowing Lorie Smith, a Colorado designer, to decline the business of same-sex couples, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted, would mark “the first time in the court’s history” that it permitted a commercial business open to the public to “refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.”
      …If this exemption applies to same-sex couples, why not, for example, to interracial couples? Or to couples from different religions? Or for couples who opt for civil rather than religious marriages? Why not to other forms of discrimination that have nothing to do with marriage?
      But such questions also invite us to examine the case from a different perspective: Why do conservative Christians want this exemption in the first place?” ( E.J. Dionne Jr. Washington Post 12/11/22)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.