The web designer who won her case today in the Supreme Court has not yet opened her business and has not been asked to design a wedding website for a gay couple. I’m not sure why she had standing to overturn the state’s anti-discrimination law when she has no business.
The case, though framed as a clash between free speech and gay rights, was the latest in a series of decisions in favor of religious people and groups, notably conservative Christians, who celebrated the ruling on Friday as a victory for religious freedom.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the ruling “profoundly wrong,” arguing that the Colorado anti-discrimination law “targets conduct, not speech, for regulation, and the act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment. Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group.”
The designer, Lorie Smith, said her Christian faith requires her to turn away customers seeking wedding-related services to celebrate same-sex unions. She added that she intends to post a message saying the company’s policy is a product of her religious convictions.
A Colorado law forbids discrimination against gay people by businesses open to the public as well as statements announcing such discrimination. Ms. Smith, who has not begun the wedding business or posted the proposed statement for fear of running afoul of the law, sued to challenge it, saying it violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion.
But when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, 303 Creative L.L.C. v. Elenis, No. 21-476, it agreed to decide only one question: “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.”
In a news conference Friday in Washington, Ms. Smith said she was grateful to the court, who “affirmed today that Colorado can’t force me or anyone to say something we don’t believe.”
Here’s what else to know:
- Progressive interfaith groups and L.G.B.T.Q. advocacy organizations around the country condemned the ruling. Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement that the ruling was “a deeply troubling crack in our progress and should be alarming to us all.”
- Both sides have said that the consequences of the court’s ruling could be enormous, though for different reasons. Ms. Smith’s supporters said a decision for the state would allow the government to force all sorts of artists to state things at odds with their beliefs. Her opponents said a ruling in her favor would blow a hole through anti-discrimination laws and allow businesses engaged in expression to refuse service to, for example, Black people or Muslims based on odious but sincerely held convictions.
- The decision appeared to suggest that the rights of L.G.B.T.Q. people, including to same-sex marriage, are on more vulnerable legal footing, particularly when they are at odds with claims of religious freedom. At the same time, the ruling limited the ability of the governments to enforce anti-discrimination laws.
- Lower courts have generally sided with gay and lesbian couples who were refused service by bakeries, florists and others, ruling that potential customers are entitled to equal treatment, at least in parts of the country with laws forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation.
On her dissent, Justice Sotomayer wrote:
The unattractive lesson of the maiority opinion is this: What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is yours. The lesson of the history of public accommodations laws is altogether different. It is that in a free and democratic society, there can be no social castes. And for that to be true, it must be true in the public market. For the “promise of freedom” is an empty one if the Government is “powerless to assure that a dollar in the hands of lone person] will purchase the
same thing as a dollar in the hands of another].” Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409, 443 (1968). Because the Court today retreats from that promise, I dissent.
No business yet and pulls this off. Stay away, she’s trouble. Narcissistic Personality Disorder comes to mind here, I could be wrong, but I’d doubt it. .
Lorie Smith sounds like a “tangled web”designer.
It won’t happen, but our country would be far better off if religious institutions were treated as taxable entities. They are largely corrupt,misogynistic institutions trading on fear and prejudice to make their sheeplike members feel superior.
Nailed it, Ms. Mulligan
Tax all churches at corporate rates.
“Lorie Smith, said her Christian faith requires her to
turn away customers seeking wedding-related services to celebrate same-sex unions.crucify Jesus Christ a second time”Fixed it for her.
You are no doubt aware of Ray Bradbury’s use of this trope in artisan Chronicles
Actually , no, I was not aware of that, but if there is a play, Lorie Smith will be a shoe in for the part of Judas 2
Martian Chronicles, that is. It was his 1950s commentary on America during that time. I will not spoil it if you have never come across it.
what is the test for a “sincerely held religious belief”? Do you just have to assert it? Do you have to show where Jesus said it?
These people use religion to justify discrimination. This woman gets a lot of free publicity for her business at the expense of the LGBT community. Bigots will flock to her website.
It was in the Nashville downtown library this weekend I saw a picture in a civil rights exhibit. An angry woman in 1960 or so. The sign reads God created segregation. It referenced Genesis.
God saw the light, that it was good. And God divided the light from the darkness” — Genesis
What could be more black and white than that?
The Genesis of Segregation
Black is night
And white is day
And in God’s sight
The black’s at bay
The reference was actually to Genesis 9: 25-27, which tells a story of Noah’s sons. I will let you read without commentary
Since precedent no longer exists, why should legal standing?
Sherlynn Ifill, former legal counsel for the LDF, tweeted that there is a new form of legal standing:
“So let me understand this. There is now a category of standing called “she worries” standing which allows a potential plaintiff to file a case in federal court simpliy “to clarify her rights”? I’ve now heard it all. supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf…”
!!!!
Very odd that Ifill doesn’t know that plaintiffs bringing pre-enforcement challenges do not need to have actually suffered injury to have Article III standing.
Attaining a general understanding of this stuff is not rocket science. All it requires is a willingness to spend 15 minutes reading an opinion and, if that doesn’t answer the question, maybe googling what the relevant legal standard is.
Nailed it, Greg
There was no legitimate legal standing in the overturn of the Biden debt cancelation either. The claim of legal standing was based on pure fabrication, something the Supreme Majority have come to rely on for their rulings.
Click to access RI_Flawed-Claims-of-Legal-Standing-in-Biden-v-Nebraska_brief_202305.pdf
The Supreme Majority have given up on all pretense that they follow any sort of law except of the religious type. It’s actually pathetic — and damning — that they have do little respect for the law when so many of them are graduates of “elite” law schools.
How much more “activist” a judge can one be if one can choose issues, invent cases, and then rule on them to, in essence, turn their pathologies into public policy?
Standing right behind Ms. Smith at her press conference, Ted “Ooze Cruise” Cruz
Are you saying she had “Ted Cruz standing”?
I can see where that would be powerful legal standing. After all, he went to Hawvid Law.
She had clearly stepped in it.
As one who’s studied some law, I wonder how the appellant had “standing.” She had never been asked to make a cake for someone with another religion or lifestyle, so it hadn’t actually been a problem and she hadn’t actually suffered any harm.
You don’t understand, Jack. We now practice “New Law” in the United States, which is Whatever TF six backward troglodyte Just Asses feel like they want the rest of us to have to live with.
Blind Justass
Justass is blind
To any but kind
Who give them a ki$$
Or even a fi$h
Hmmm. Thanks for that clear explanation and humorous words of wisdom. I have to add, that in arbitration–unlike a court of law–we look for the “preponderance” of evidence, in arriving at a decision. In looking at our current Supreme Court, as in looking at our political system overall, the preponderance of evidence is that we’re in for a heap a trouble! But, as our Mother Jones taught us, “Don’t mourn. Organize!” Let’s start by vowing to never again allow a candidate put forth for the Supreme Court to go unrecognized. Also, for those in coastal regions, who largely control the media and the national dialogue, remember that hinterland states–such as Rachel Madow’s Ohiowa–have many electoral votes, senators, and representatives. Thus, it is necessary to learn their language and communicate with them, so that we may have a majority of sane, reasonably honest people in Congress.
Jack, did you read the majority opinion? Presumably it sets forth its reasoning for why there was standing. You may end up disagreeing, but it’s a much better source to start with than the comments section here.
Jack, below is the 10th Circuit’s brief discussion of the legal standard for standing. (The 10th Circuit found that this plaintiff had legal standing, but affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff on the merits.) I think reasonable minds may differ about the application of the law, but as you’ll see, the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing does not require plaintiffs to have actually suffered an injury.
I just skimmed the Sotomayor’s dissent, Jack. She doesn’t even argue that the plaintiff lacked standing.
Get your Straight White Jesus-y graphic design here, folks!
Yes, there is Straight White Jesusy-y graphic design.
It looks like what graphic design looked like 20 years ago with hints of the high-school year book and prom decorations. With crosses.
Revised:
Get your straight white Jesusy-y graphic design here, folks!
“What is straight white Jesusy-y graphic design?” you might ask.
Well, it looks like real graphic design from 20 years ago, but with hints of high-school yearbook and prom decoration.
With crosses!
Oops. Bless my heart. That would be Jesus-y.
Straight White Jesus
Jesus was white
As white as the snow
It has to be right
There’s photos , you know
Jesus was straight
As straight as my vote
His marriage less trait
Was nothing to note
His hanging around
With men every day
Is surely not grounds
For thinking him gay
Haaaa! Hilarious!!!
The Gay 13?”
Jesus and the Twelve
Apostles weren’t out
But there we will not delve
Or entertain a doubt
HAAAA! One of your best, SD!
Anyone who thinks that the plaintiff could not have had legal standing here because she had not yet been “injured” should review the law on injury-in-fact in the context of pre-enforcement challenges of laws. Below is the 10th Circuit’s summary of that law. It is boilerplate, well-established, and not controversial. People also should be aware that Justice Sotomayor’s dissent does not contest whether the plaintiff had legal standing.
Mystery solved!
FLERP,
So she had standing, but she had no injury.
She had not yet opened her business.
She had never been asked to design a wedding website for a gay couple.
The substantive meaning of the decision is even worse: any proprietor can refuse anyone if that person’s identity is abhorrent to his religion.
I fail to understand how this is a free-speech case. Writing for a wedding requires dates, locations, and times.
It does not require endorsement of the couple getting married or their religion or beliefs.
I tend to agree with you on the substance of the decision. I probably would have ruled against the petitioner.
The standing issue, however, is fairly rote. I could see opinions differing about the application of the law, but the idea that an actual injury is required to show legal standing is completely false. Sherrilyn Ifill, who I assume has a legal degree, should be embarrassed.
If a lawyer submitted false info. to SCOTUS in the 303 Creative case, could he/she be subjected to a disbarment hearing?
Investigative report from New Republic
This suit was clearly “concocted” to elicit a predetermined “religious” response from the Supreme Court majority.
Anyone who claims that it is not discriminatory behavior to refuse service based on sexual preference is simply being dishonest.
It has become a common ruse to hide one’s bigotry behind claims of “religious belief” but that does not change the reality.
That the folks engaging in and even supporting such a transparent fuse claim to be Christian is just laughable.
The judges are careful not to publicly use religious belief as cover for their bigotry. The narrative promoted by influencers, media and Catholic power brokers, distances religious beliefs in favor of cover like Pat Buchanan’s “culture wars” and, Cardinal Dolan’s, “This case was never about discrimination. It was about moral disagreement.” That’s how he is quoted at the USCCB page explaining the amicus brief submitted for the Lorie Smith case. Fist to sign the brief was the USCCB, second to sign was the Colorado Catholic Conference. Then, the rest included two organizations associated with the Grahams (Billy and Franklin) and the smaller sects of Assemblies of God and Seventh day Adventists.
It shows how emboldened the USCCB is. They don’t care about public backlash. It’s a luxury they have by being aligned with Charles Koch. It’s luxury when Catholic organizations are the nation’s 3rd largest employer and their coffers are filled with taxpayer money. It’s a luxury when they have Leonard Leo’s billion dollar connections. It’s a luxury when they have 6 SCOTUS judges. And, it’s a luxury when media and tribalists run defense for them.
Briefs for Lorie Smith were also submitted by Koch’s Cato and AFP.
New Republic reports the person “requesting” the web page creation, when contacted by media, didn’t know anything about the case. He’s married, heterosexual with a child, and designs web pages himself. If that’s true what is the consequence of fraud in filings with the court?