<h3>What’s the story?&nbsp;</h3><ul><li>The&nbsp;<a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/12/05/us/supreme-court-religion-gay-rights?name=styln-scotus-gay-rights&amp;region=TOP_BANNER&amp;block=storyline_menu_recirc&amp;action=click&amp;pgtype=LegacyCollection&amp;variant=show&amp;is_new=false" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Supreme Court is hearing arguments for a case</a>&nbsp;questioning the constitutionality of a state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating against LGBTQ+ customers. This case,&nbsp;<a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/303-creative-llc-v-elenis/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">303 Creative LLC v. Elenis</a>, asks whether the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act violates the free speech clause in the First Amendment.&nbsp;</li></ul><h3>303 Creative LLC v. Elenis</h3><ul><li>Today's case involves a Colorado business owner who refused to work with a same-sex couple, disregarding the state’s laws protecting LGBTQ+ people from discrimination. Graphic designer Lorie Smith limited her wedding-related services to only celebrate heterosexual marriages because of her religious beliefs, and sued in anticipation of facing punishment.&nbsp;</li><li>At the center of this case is the same Colorado anti-discrimination law that came before the court in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html?name=styln-scotus-gay-rights&amp;region=TOP_BANNER&amp;block=storyline_menu_recirc&amp;action=click&amp;pgtype=Article&amp;variant=show&amp;is_new=false" rel="nofollow noopener">2018 when a baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple</a>. The justices ruled in favor of the baker, deciding the Colorado Civil Rights Commission displayed bias against his religious views.&nbsp;</li><li>The Supreme Court left the question unanswered of whether the First Amendment allows discrimination by businesses open to the public based on the owner’s religion. Smith asks if, under the Colorado anti-discrimination law, she should be forced to create messages celebrating LGBTQ+ marriages. She said:&nbsp;</li></ul><blockquote>“When I chose to start my own business as an artist to create custom expression, I did not surrender my First Amendment rights.”</blockquote><ul><li>Phil Weisner, Colorado’s attorney general, asserted that there is no constitutional right to discrimination. He said:&nbsp;</li></ul><blockquote>“Once you open up your doors to the public, you have to serve everybody. You can’t turn people away based on who they are.”&nbsp;</blockquote><h3>What could this case mean?</h3><ul><li>This court case could set a precedent of a lack of tolerance and acceptance of sexual, racial, and religious minority groups in America. Both sides say that the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/us/politics/gay-rights-supreme-court-first-amendment.html" rel="nofollow noopener">court’s ruling could lead to enormous impacts</a>.&nbsp;</li><li>A ruling in favor of Smith could tarnish anti-discrimination laws across the country, allowing businesses to refuse service to minorities based on learned prejudice.</li><li>Smith's supporters say if the court rules against her, artists will be stripped of their First Amendment rights, specifically by being forced to work with communities they do not support.&nbsp;</li></ul><h3>What's expected?</h3><ul><li>The Supreme Court holds a six-justice conservative supermajority. Many expect the court to rule in favor of the web designer, despite the state’s anti-discrimination laws.&nbsp;However, several justices are searching for limiting principles not to disregard all anti-discrimination laws.&nbsp;</li><li>The LGBTQ+ community, allies, and activists fear that this case will likely lead to the undoing of <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556" rel="nofollow noopener">Obergefell v. Hodges</a> — the 2015 decision that established the right to same-sex marriage.</li></ul>&nbsp;Should businesses be able to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people?&nbsp;&nbsp;-Jamie Epstein(Photo credit: Flickr/<a id="yui_3_16_0_1_1670270405757_11596" class="owner-name truncate" title="Go to Ted Eytan’s photostream" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/taedc/" data-track="attributionNameClick" rel="nofollow noopener">Ted Eytan</a>)

<h3>What’s the story? </h3>
<ul>
<li>
The <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/12/05/us/supreme-court-religion-gay-rights?name=styln-scotus-gay-rights&amp;region=TOP_BANNER&amp;block=storyline_menu_recirc&amp;action=click&amp;pgtype=LegacyCollection&amp;variant=show&amp;is_new=false" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Supreme Court is hearing arguments for a case</a> questioning the constitutionality of a state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating against LGBTQ+ customers. This case, <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/303-creative-llc-v-elenis/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">303 Creative LLC v. Elenis</a>, asks whether the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act violates the free speech clause in the First Amendment. 
</li>
</ul>
<h3>303 Creative LLC v. Elenis</h3>
<ul>
<li>
Today's case involves a Colorado business owner who refused to work with a same-sex couple, disregarding the state’s laws protecting LGBTQ+ people from discrimination. Graphic designer Lorie Smith limited her wedding-related services to only celebrate heterosexual marriages because of her religious beliefs, and sued in anticipation of facing punishment. 
</li>
<li>At the center of this case is the same Colorado anti-discrimination law that came before the court in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html?name=styln-scotus-gay-rights&amp;region=TOP_BANNER&amp;block=storyline_menu_recirc&amp;action=click&amp;pgtype=Article&amp;variant=show&amp;is_new=false" rel="nofollow noopener">2018 when a baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple</a>. The justices ruled in favor of the baker, deciding the Colorado Civil Rights Commission displayed bias against his religious views. </li>
<li>The Supreme Court left the question unanswered of whether the First Amendment allows discrimination by businesses open to the public based on the owner’s religion. Smith asks if, under the Colorado anti-discrimination law, she should be forced to create messages celebrating LGBTQ+ marriages. She said: </li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
“When I chose to start my own business as an artist to create custom expression, I did not surrender my First Amendment rights.”
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Phil Weisner, Colorado’s attorney general, asserted that there is no constitutional right to discrimination. He said: </li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
“Once you open up your doors to the public, you have to serve everybody. You can’t turn people away based on who they are.” 
</blockquote>
<h3>What could this case mean?</h3>
<ul>
<li>This court case could set a precedent of a lack of tolerance and acceptance of sexual, racial, and religious minority groups in America. Both sides say that the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/us/politics/gay-rights-supreme-court-first-amendment.html" rel="nofollow noopener">court’s ruling could lead to enormous impacts</a>. </li>
<li>
A ruling in favor of Smith could tarnish anti-discrimination laws across the country, allowing businesses to refuse service to minorities based on learned prejudice.
</li>
<li>Smith's supporters say if the court rules against her, artists will be stripped of their First Amendment rights, specifically by being forced to work with communities they do not support. </li>
</ul>
<h3>What's expected?</h3>
<ul>
<li>
The Supreme Court holds a six-justice conservative supermajority. Many expect the court to rule in favor of the web designer, despite the state’s anti-discrimination laws. However, several justices are searching for limiting principles not to disregard all anti-discrimination laws. 
</li>
<li>The LGBTQ+ community, allies, and activists fear that this case will likely lead to the undoing of <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556" rel="nofollow noopener">Obergefell v. Hodges</a> — the 2015 decision that established the right to same-sex marriage.</li>
</ul>
 
Should businesses be able to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people? 
 
-Jamie Epstein
(Photo credit: Flickr/<a id="yui_3_16_0_1_1670270405757_11596" class="owner-name truncate" title="Go to Ted Eytan’s photostream" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/taedc/" data-track="attributionNameClick" rel="nofollow noopener">Ted Eytan</a>)