A Century's Worth of Progress, Lost
- Hannah Tovar
- Aug 25, 2023
- 4 min read
Updated: Aug 25, 2023
By Hannah Tovar
You beam with joy, anticipating your marriage to the man you love. You want every detail to be perfect, down to the decorative frosting on your cake. But when you place your order at the local bakery, you are refused service for nothing more than who you are—discrimination that you should be protected from. In 2012, a gay couple was victim to this scenario and filed suit against the baker who refused to sell them a wedding cake. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights would eventually make it to the United States Supreme Court—and in 2018, SCOTUS found the law to be on the baker’s side. He was allowed to refuse service to same-sex couples because of his religious beliefs.
Just blocks away from Masterpiece Cakeshop, a wedding graphic designer, Lorie Smith, refused to serve same-sex couples and has taken her case to SCOTUS. But the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act grants citizens equal access to public services no matter their race, gender, sexuality, or any other part of their identity. In early 2022, Smith took her case to SCOTUS, arguing that Colorado’s law violates her first amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Because her business is creative, she said, she should not be obligated to provide a design which conflicts with her religious beliefs. However, the law in Colorado—where her business and Masterpiece Cakeshop operate—does not differ if the business is creative or not. That does not mean it restricts Smith’s creative freedom; it simply requires that, if she chooses to sell something to the public, she sells it to everyone. 303 Creative can choose what they sell and how they sell it, but just not who they sell it to. Being a creative business does not allow it to discriminate in the eyes of Colorado state laws—so it should not in the Supreme Court’s eyes either.
On June 30st, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lorie Smith. In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS concluded that the first amendment gives Smith the right to refuse to support messages she disagrees with. Though she will cater to the LGBTQ+ community, she will only do so for opposite-sex weddings. As Smith’s religious beliefs forbid same-sex marriage, she is allowed to deny her service to same-sex couples. Speaking of the dissent, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayer compared this accommodation to historical racially discriminatory practices where restaurant owners allowed people of color to pick up orders at the side counter but refused to serve them inside. To LGBTQ+ customers, Sotomayer said, Lorie Smith “will sell at a side counter.” This ruling, which makes some violations of anti-discriminatory laws legal, allows the owners of small, creative businesses like Smith’s to evade prosecution in the twenty-nine states with existing protection for LGBTQ+ people. In the remaining twenty-one states, such discrimination never had any explicit consequence. SCOTUS’s ruling on 303 Creative v. Elenis has dealt a major setback to the LGBTQ+ community’s decades long struggle for equal rights.
Now that once previously banned discrimination has become legal, where does it end? It’s not only sexuality-based discrimination—once laws start to condone discrimination, not only the LGBTQ+ community will be at risk. Perhaps next, school photographers who refuse to photograph children of color or employers that discriminate on the basis of religion will also be protected under the law. SCOTUS’ decision has opened the door to discrimination in public business—a door we thought was closed.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Smith on the basis that it violates the first amendment to force someone to serve a person or people in a way that contradicts their religious beliefs, but the fourteenth amendment gives us all equal protection under the law—regardless of sexuality or any other part of our identity. Laws cannot be passed or enforced that limit the rights of same sex couples, or any other group. SCOTUS ruling in favor of Lorie Smith in 303 Creative v. Elenis does exactly that.
America was already set decades back after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and when the Supreme Court chose to vote in favor of Lorie Smith and allow discrimination, our country lost a century's worth of progress.
Hannah is a 14-year-old avid writer and an activist for LGBTQ+ rights.
References
ACLU Writers. “303 Creative, Inc. v. Elenis.” American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union, 7 Mar. 2023, www.aclu.org/cases/303-creative-inc-v-elenis.
Daily Iowan Writers. “Can You Be Fired for Being Gay? How to Protect Your Right.” The Daily Iowan, University of Iowa, 21 June 2022, dailyiowan.com/2022/06/21/can-you-be-fired-for-being-gay-how-to-protect-your-right/.
De Vogue, Ariane. “Supreme Court Conservatives Seem to Side with Website Designer Who Doesn't Want to Work with Same-Sex Couples | CNN Politics.” CNN, Cable News Network, 6 Dec. 2022, www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-lorie-smith/index.html.
Hurley, Lawrence. “Supreme Court Rules for Web Designer Who Refused to Work on Same-Sex Weddings.” NBCNews.com, June 30, 2023. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-web-designer-refused-work-sex-weddings-rcna68629.
Perez, Pattrik. “U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Case Involving Colorado Web Designer's Refusal to Serve Gay Couples.” Denver 7 Colorado News, Denver 7 Colorado News, 23 Feb. 2022, www.denver7.com/news/local-news/u-s-supreme-court-to-hear-case-involving-colorado-web-designers-refusal-to-serve-gay-couples.
Vkimber. “303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1 Dec. 2022, www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/21-476.
