Catholics File Dueling Briefs in Supreme Court Case Over LGBTQ+ Non-Discrimination
U.S. Supreme Court
Several organizations, including Catholic groups, have filed amicus briefs in a U.S. Supreme Court case which could decide whether non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ couples are enforceable, according to Crux.
The case, 303 Creative v. Elenis, is being taken up by the nation’s highest court in its current session. It concerns plaintiff Lorie Smith, a web designer from Colorado who claims a First Amendment right to deny her services to same-gender couples’ weddings. The suit is being brought against members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC).
Two LGBTQ+ Catholic advocacy groups, New Ways Ministry and DignityUSA, signed onto a pro-CCRC brief from 30 groups which support LGBTQ+ non-discrimination protections. The brief reads, in part:
“‘Carving out this broad exemption would allow public businesses to legally exclude customers based on their identities. . .instead of safeguarding every citizen’s right to buy goods and services from businesses open to the public. . .[the proposed exemption] would further hurt the very people these civil rights laws were designed to protect.'”
On the other side, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Colorado Catholic Conference filed an amicus brief in favor of the LGBTQ-negative plaintiff. The brief appeals to Justice Clarence Thomas, who now holds greater influence on the court given the conservative supermajority, which will decide the direction of the court this year. Right wing religious groups like Catholic Vote, the Thomas More Society, and Becket have also filed briefs.
The case is a follow-up from the Supreme Court’s 2020 case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled that CCRC mishandled a case involving a cake shop owner who refused service to same-gender couples. The court’s decision in that case did not address the larger question of whether business owners should have the legal right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples when providing service. Crux reported:
“One difference is that in the current case, the artist, Lorie Smith, is not fighting a specific incident, as was the baker who denied baking a custom cake for a same-sex couple. Smith wants the court to weigh in before she is even asked to design a website for a same-sex couple.
“Even though she does not wish to provide a service based on her Christian beliefs about marriage, the case hinges on her freedom of speech claim.
“[Law professor Amanda] Shanor said Supreme Court preview panels in 2017 likely didn’t predict the baker winning, but now she already is pretty sure the court will likely rule in the artist’s favor and said the case could have broad implications about who can be viewed as an artist.”
Several other civil rights and LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations have filed amicus briefs in favor of CCRC. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a brief that cites the 1984 civil rights case Hishon v. King & Spalding, which, the ACLU argues, states the constitution does not protect discrimination perpetrated by public businesses:
“Discrimination by businesses open to the public ‘has never been accorded affirmative constitutional protections.’”
Lambada Legal, GLAD, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the National LGBTQ Task Force filed a joint brief in support of CCRC. The brief highlighted the potential for a re-segregation of the U.S. economy, which could occur if businesses are allowed to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation:
“This Court has repeatedly rejected attempts to create First Amendment exemptions to public accommodations and other anti-discrimination laws. The departure urged by Petitioners from this longstanding settlement of civil rights law invites a regression to segregated marketplaces.”
Mary Bonauto, the civil rights director for GLAD, further illustrated the problems which would occur if business owners received constitutional protections to deny services to customers:
“‘People shouldn’t have to call ahead to find out if a business serves people of their faith or other personal characteristics.'”
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, argued that constitutional protections for anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination would cause further societal division:
“‘We are one country, and ensuring that everyone has equal access to commercial goods and services plays an essential role in preventing social conflict and fragmentation.'”
Given that the Supreme Court is notably more conservative than it was when Masterpiece Cakeshop came before the justices, the outlook for LGBTQ+ advocates is less optimistic.
The USCCB should not use church resources to pursue legalizing discrimination against LGBTQ+ people. Efforts to legitimize the denial of services to queer people undermines the dignity of all people, and is an affront to the image of God in which all human beings are made.
—Andru Zodrow (he/him), New Ways Ministry, October 14, 2022
I find this all so hurtful…..a happy couple falls in love, they want to get married, make plans, and then are turned down by a wedding service provider. I know gay couples who have been together for 30 – 40 years. They are among the most caring, giving, hard-working, devoted and compassionate people I’ve ever met. They have felt “different” from their peers from a very early age and at a time when their parents were at a loss to explain why. Most likely they themselves did not know why. I would recommend reading updated information by scholars who have delved into the aspects of the LGBTQ community in our midst. Why make life more difficult for anyone? Jesus said, “Love one another as I have loved you.” I don’t recall any exceptions. Gentle blessings.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” – Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.
Remember when African-American-born citizens who were traveling within their own country, the U.S., had to consult a guide known as the Green Book, that listed motels, restaurants, and businesses, who accepted African-American as guests and patrons? That is what these cases would bring us back to, essentially, with gender diverse and gender non-conforming U.S. citizens, who are one of the new targeted minorities in recent years, the Straw Man targets of politicians who wish to deal in prejudices, rather than facts. More to the specific point in these specific Court filings, neither this particular web designer, nor the Catholic organizations that filed amicus briefs joining the case, have suffered any actual real-world harm, so they have absolutely no standing to go before the SCOTUS, regardless of the Court’s current makeup, that is irrelevant, as the law is the law, and the Constitution is the Constitution, regardless of the interpreters of same. This is a discriminatory solution, in search of a real-world problem that is theoretical and does not actually exist, much like Florida’s Pastor Protection Act and Don’t Say Gay laws from 2022. Such filings are an advance request for a license to discriminate, and indicate a plan to do so. As far as Justice Thomas, his association with an identified accomplice to treason against the government of the United States, and his refusal to recuse himself from cases where there is a clear indication of conflict of interest, as well as the appearance of a conflict of interest, whether actual or not, which is a violation of legal ethical principles, is concerning, as is the fact that he does see his failure to recuse as a problem, which is a real-world existent problem. That is all, over and out.
On 303 Creative v Elenis
One of the more frustrating circumstances of this case is that the plaintiff, Lorie Smith, is not fighting a specific incident; she wants the court to weigh in before she is even asked to design a website for a same-sex couple.
She has not experienced a concrete harm. Therefore, in the view of many, she does not have standing to bring the case to the court. This case should have been dismissed by the district court below.