Catholic LGBTQ+ Advocates Condemn U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in “303 Creative” Case

Catholic LGBTQ+ advocates have criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative, which ruled that a web designer could refuse services to queer couples based on the designer’s Christian beliefs, and could do so regardless of any otherwise-applicable non-discrimination laws. (You can read more about the case here.)

Yunuen Trujillo, an attorney who helps lead the Archdiocese of Los Angeles’ Catholic Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Persons, wrote about the case in the National Catholic Reporter. Trujillo, who is a regular contributor for Bondings 2.0, suggested Catholics should analyze the Supreme Court’s rulings “in two forms of analysis: the legal analysis and a vulnerability analysis.” The legal analysis “includes an analysis of current jurisprudence, legal arguments and the power dynamics at play,” and the author noted, acknowledges the Court makes bad rulings. Trujillo continued:

“The vulnerability analysis focuses on the impact on the common good, with emphasis on the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable. Vulnerability is not determined by simply being a ‘minority’ but by belonging to minoritized communities — communities that face marginalization and persecution due to systemic oppression. . .

“When assessing vulnerability in a lawsuit, it is crucial to analyze the parties involved and the purported vulnerable groups. In cases where there is a clash between two purportedly vulnerable groups, a case-by-case evaluation is needed to determine which group is more vulnerable and/or more adversely affected by the outcome.”

Trujillo contrasted some Catholics’ false claims that the church in the U.S. faces persecution with the reality that LGBTQ+ people face real threats, concluding:

“While 303 Creative v. Elenis might only create a limited exemption to nondiscrimination laws, this opens a door to a series of future lawsuits that will continue to exclude, marginalize and systemically oppress LGBTQ people — the most vulnerable in this case.”

New Ways Ministry’s statement, available here, said the Court’s ruling “dangerously allows religious beliefs to be weaponized for discrimination,” harming not only LGBTQ+ people, but all people of faith and the country at large. Francis DeBernardo, the executive director, added:

“LGBTQ+ people and so many other marginalized communities continue to suffer greatly in the present national atmosphere where division and exclusion are rampant. Religion should be a tool to help unite people across ideological lines, not cause greater isolation into camps that oppose one another.”

Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA, highlighted in a statement that the organization had joined an amicus brief filed in support of LGBTQ+ rights by interfaith groups. She continued:

“We are heartbroken that this Pride Month ends with such a stark reminder that inequity and discrimination still make life harder for our community. We recommit ourselves to our longstanding mission of working for justice, equality, and full inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people in our church and society.”

Christine Zuba, a transgender Catholic involved with Fortunate Families, told the Associated Press that the ruling was “extremely disappointing and concerning,” and said conservative justices in the majority were “naive” that their ruling would be limited.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which submitted an amicus brief in favor of the web designer, praised the ruling. Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, chair of the Committee for Religious Liberty, said in a statement:

“This case was never about discrimination. It was about moral disagreement. The government must allow room for people to disagree on hot-button issues. It’s even more important when the person disagreeing has an unpopular view. Ms. Smith is perfectly willing to design other kinds of websites for same-sex-attracted customers. In the same way, the ministries of the Church provide goods and loving care to everyone in direct need of assistance, no questions asked. Problems only arise when the government tries to force us to support, by our words or actions, behavior that we believe is wrong.”

One Catholic response came from the Court itself. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, wrote a strong repudiation of the majority’s decision and the door to greater discrimination it opens. She was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor noted:

“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.”

Earlier this week, Bondings 2.0 published a commentary on the 303 Creative ruling from Professor Leslie C. Griffin, an expert in constitutional law and religious liberty issues, who also holds a doctorate in theology. Her piece, “Why We Should Like Public Accommodations Laws: A Response to ‘303 Creative,'” is available here.

—Robert Shine (he/him), New Ways Ministry, July 10, 2023