The Supreme Court of the United States is set to hear the case 303 Creative v. Elenis this afternoon. The case centers around a Colorado Law which blocks businesses open to the public from discriminating against gay people or even announcing their intent to do so. In other words, it does not allow privately owned businesses to refuse work for gay people simply because they are “open to the public.”
Before I dive too far into the minutia of this case, I want to make something clear. I believe it is a bad practice to mix business with personal religious and/or political views. That being said, I am certainly not going to tell a business owner with strict religious beliefs how to run their business.
Now, for the case at hand. It is reminiscent of a prior SCOTUS case, Masterpiece Cake Shop Ltd. v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which Th Court ruled in favor of a cakeshop owner who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding based upon his personal religious beliefs. In the current case, the owner of 303 Creative refused to build a website for a gay wedding and is working on expanding into the business of wedding websites. As a so-called “devout Christian” who believes that marriage is only between “one man and one woman,” she wants to post a message on her business website to that effect, which is in violation of Colorado law. Her claim is that the Colorado law impedes her freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is the one area in which SCOTUS did not opine in the Masterpiece case, which makes the 303 Creative case pivotal in the ongoing battle of civil rights issues. The question boils down to the government’s authority to curtail one group’s civil rights, to protect the same rights of another group. It is quite a quandary, in my view. I don’t expect The Court to hand down a ruling of a wide berth; instead, I foresee another narrowly defined ruling in favor of 303 Creative’s ability to post a message of her beliefs on her website, which may dissuade homosexual couples from seeking her services.
If we step into reality for a moment, this is likely to be beneficial for such couples seeking services. What kind of quality can you expect, as a consumer, if a business is being forced against its will to provide its services to you? This circles back to my beliefs that mixing religion and politics in business is a terrible decision. The money paid for services by gay people is no less valuable than that paid to a business by straight people. Not to mention negative reviews of a business tend to garner further reach and effect than positive reviews and experiences.
I will continue to follow this case and post an update once a ruling is delivered. In the meantime, what do you think?
