Poli Alert Political & Civics
Related Articles
The Supreme Court ruling in the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which involved a Christian website designer who didn’t want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples, has raised legal questions regarding businesses’ ability to refuse service to LGBTQ individuals or same-sex couples.
Legal experts have varied opinions on the matter, but the general consensus is that the ruling, while narrow in scope, does not grant businesses the broad ability to discriminate against protected classes such as sexual orientation, gender identity, race, religion, or age.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the majority opinion, emphasized that the case specifically dealt with a type of speech that involved “expressive” and individualized services. However, many businesses provide expressive services, which has led to concerns that the ruling could be expanded in the future to erode nondiscrimination laws. Examples of businesses providing expressive services mentioned by legal experts include hairstylists, architects, college application essay assistance services, and photography studios.
Mary Bonauto, who argued on behalf of same-sex couples in the landmark Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges, which established marriage equality, viewed the ruling as protecting only businesses that offer services as unique and specific as those involved in the case. She warned that it could open the door for other businesses to claim they provide customized services and use that claim to discriminate against certain individuals or groups.
Certain creative businesses, such as florists, cake decorators, and DJs, are seen as falling into a “danger zone” because they create tailored, expressive content for customers. However, it is important to note that the ruling does not grant businesses the right to discriminate based on speech alone.
Legal experts believe that the ruling primarily protects businesses engaged in speech creation and does not extend to businesses providing off-the-shelf goods or services. Nondiscrimination laws would still apply in cases where a business sells pre-made, non-customized items. The distinction lies in situations where speech-specific messages are created and the First Amendment is invoked to protect businesses from being compelled to express messages they disagree with.
Some experts, such as Katherine Franke from Columbia Law School, argue that the decision could be used by various businesses to refuse services to certain individuals. The concern is that the First Amendment is being used to override democratically determined rights, particularly those related to equality for the LGBTQ community.
While the ruling focused on freedom of expression, future lawsuits might explore claims based on freedom of association, allowing businesses to argue that they should not be forced to associate with or provide services to individuals or groups they disagree with. The full implications of the ruling and its potential extension into different areas and protected classes remain uncertain, and further legal battles are likely to shape the boundaries of businesses’ ability to refuse service.
