Supreme Court Says LGBTQ+ Discrimination Is OK

The Supreme Court has determined that a business can refuse to serve someone simply because they are LGBTQ+.

The nation's highest court sided with a web designer in 303 Creative, Inc. v. Elenis, who argued that making websites for queer weddings would violate her religious beliefs, and therefore her First Amendment rights.

Except, no LGBTQ+ customer asked her to make a website for their wedding — in fact, she had never made a website for a wedding at all.

Despite this, the court determined in a 6-3 decision that an anti-discrimination law in Colorado, which included protections for LGBTQ+ people, does not apply to services that are “expressive,” “artistic,” and “customized."

Falling along party lines, conservative Supreme Court justices wrote that "the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees."

The case was actually brought on Smith's behalf by the same conservative group -- the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) -- that brought the 2018 case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado in which a Colorado baker refused to make a cake for a queer wedding. The court at the time ruled 7-2 in favor of the baker.

The ADF is a group dubbed a “Christian legal army” by its founder, which has a long history of opposing civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ people. The Southern Poverty Law Center categorizes it as an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group.

Trending Stories

Elon Musk uses burner accounts on X, doesn’t fact-check: report

Your Lovable Trans Auntie asks, "Where do we go from here?"

Out and About with Karan Soni

A new documentary on the making of 'West Side Story' highlights the four queer men behind it

​'Naked Gun' trailer: Liam Neeson dons drag, reveals strawberry panties​

Broadway's best raise over $1 million for LGBTQ+ and HIV causes

Broadway bound: The best hotels in NYC’s Theater District for every type of traveler

Lesbian former police officer wins $10 million in sexual harassment lawsuit

Beyond Wonderland's accepting & unifying rave culture is needed more than ever

Gerald Garth is keeping people of color happy and healthy through trying times

Chris Kluwe got arrested protesting MAGA. He's still protesting because 'it's the right thing to do'

When Lady Gaga met Chappell Roan, she made sure to tell her this

Season 4 of The Switch on resilience & radical self-love returns this spring

The Charles is Pacific Grove's new LGBTQ+ hotel

Cowboys & Queens U.S. tour by Jane Hilton: A modern American dream

Prosecutors seek 7-year prison sentence for George Santos in sweeping fraud case

France becomes world’s first country to enshrine abortion rights in constitution

Tracy Chapman's debut album turns 35: Watch these iconic performances

Trump's orders prompt CDC to erase HIV resources

Plastique Tiara reaches 4M followers—close to surpassing Trixie Mattel

All 6 rogue Mississippi cops got long prison sentences in 'Goon Squad' torture of 2 Black men

How climate disasters hurt mental health in young people

Charges dropped against trans advocate falsely accused of assault by Nancy Mace for giving her a firm handshake

Discover the power of Wellness in your life

Joe Biden has tied the record for most LGBTQ+ judges confirmed in federal courts

• 0
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8

The nonprofit writes that the ADF is "a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ+ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has contended that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia; and claims that a 'homosexual agenda' will destroy Christianity and society."

The beliefs of one woman and a hate group have now set a precedent that U.S. businesses can legally deny their services to LGBTQ+ people under the First Amendment.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the dissenting opinion, joined by liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. They wrote: "Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class."