The Supreme Court has announced today that it will be taking on a freedom of speech case involving the refusal to serve gay couples. Matthew Andrade has more on the case.
Colorado-based web designer, Lorie Smith, says her religious beliefs prevent her from building websites for gay weddings. She also wants to include a notice on her website that she will not be serving same-sex couples, but she’s unable to do so because of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. Smith argues that this is a violation of her freedom of speech and religion.
If this sounds familiar, that’s because of the 2018 Masterpiece Cake Shop case where a Colorado baker declined to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. The Supreme Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had acted with anti-religious bias. However, the court did not decide whether a business is allowed to decline service to LGBTQ customers on the basis of their religion.
Members of the LGBTQ community are frustrated that their rights are constantly up for debate. Hayes Waycaster - a gay student at USC - believes that the facts of the case are dehumanizing.
Hayes Waycaster: No one should have to deal with that type of discrimination in their daily lives when it’s something so simple and easy as baking a cake or a website or something like that. I mean, it just makes you feel lesser than other people in a way that people who haven’t experienced that type of discrimination can’t even understand.
The Supreme Court said it would take up the case to consider whether applying a law that forces an artist to speak or stay silent violates the First Amendment. Colorado’s anti-discrimination law fits that bill.
Smith’s lawyers argue that the law requires religious artists to celebrate same-sex marriage while allowing other artists to decline anti-religious messages.
Some members of the LGBTQ community, such as Waycaster, argue that Smith should be allowed to exercise her religious beliefs up to a point.
Waycaster: Sometimes you can’t change people. but I think that they should be able to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as it doesn’t affect or hurt someone else. And the second you start discriminating against other people based on your belief, that’s when you’re hurting someone else.
This case is unique because there is no evidence that a gay couple ever asked Smith to build a website for their wedding. Instead, the lawsuit involves the dispute between the business owner and the state.
What will be the outcome of the case? It’s difficult to know but USC alum Frank Lee, who majored in history, law, and culture notes that the court could decide to throw out the case altogether.
Frank Lee: It’s possible that this court that is now more conservative could try and answer the question head on. But there’s also a chance that the court could just duck the question by noting that because there hasn’t been actual harm suffered by Mrs. Smith, the case doesn’t have, or Mrs. Smith doesn’t have standing to bring a case. In which case there would be nothing for the court to actually decide.
The Supreme Court will begin deliberation on the case in the fall.
for Annenberg Media, I’m Matthew Andrade.