Supreme Court hears case of Colorado wedding website refusing gay marriage work

Activists gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court, as justices were set to hear arguments in a major case pitting LGBT rights against a claim that the constitutional right to free speech exempts artists from anti-discrimination laws in a dispute involving an evangelical Christian web designer who refuses to provide her services for same-sex marriages, in Washington, U.S., December 5, 2022.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a case involving a Colorado web design company that does not want to do work for same-sex weddings.

Conservative justices were sympathetic to the arguments made by the lawyer. Liberal justices were worried that a ruling on her behalf would open the door to legalized discrimination against minorities.

The case is likely to be decided by the court next year. Six of the nine justice seats are held by Conservatives.

The limit of yours? The lawyer for the company's owner was asked if he supported gay marriage.

While sitting next to conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who is married to a white woman, she asked, "How about people who don't believe in interracial marriage?"

Do you mean about people who don't believe that disabled should be married? She wanted to know where the line was. I don't want to serve someone I don't agree with because of their race or disability. I have the ability to not sell to them.

There was an objection to that idea.

"I'm not saying that at all."

Smith would be forced to engage in speech by creating a website for weddings that she doesn't like if Colorado's law is passed, argued the lawyer. The right to speak is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

He said that every page of the website was his client's.

She believes that the announcement of the wedding is a lie.

Thomas suggested that Smith's argument for refusing to create content for people in a protected class is different from other businesses refusing to accept minorities as customers.

This is not a place to stay. This isn't a place of business. Thomas said that this is not a train or a boat. There is an intersection of public accommodations law and speech.

People raising First Amendment speech objections to those laws is what we don't see over the long history of public accommodations laws in this country.

There is a history of public accommodations carving out speech. All of them apply to those operating a trade to the public. They don't say "except those engaged in expression."

The lawyer said that the free speech clause exemption the company is seeking is sweeping.

It would apply not just to sincerely held religious beliefs, but also to all sorts of racist, sexist and bigoted views.

Justice Samuel Alito asked a hypothetical question about a Santa Claus at a mall not taking pictures with Black children.

Black Santa doesn't want to have his picture taken with a child who's dressed up in a Ku Klux Klan outfit, so he has to do that "Alito, what do you think?"

The Ku Klux Klan outfits are not protected under public accommodations laws.

The Ku Klux Klan outfit would be the same if the child was black or white.

There are a lot of Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits. There were some laughs in the courtroom.