Here’s the problem with the latest LGBTQ equality vs.religious freedom“the case that Supreme Court listen this week, Creative LLC vs. Eleniss. That was not the substantive outcome—the case was a closed one, and with the convictions of six conservative judges, the actual outcome was predetermined.
It is this narrow case that would be interpreted much more broadly than it actually is, and that would hurt homosexuals, denigrate our right to marry, and possibly lead to those rights. removed. take it completely. Of course, that’s exactly why right-wing activists put it in the first place.
The truth is very simple. Lorie Smith is a website designer and a devout Christian who wants to create wedding websites. But Smith felt she couldn’t date heterosexuals rather than homosexuals, so was forced to choose between damaging her religious beliefs (obviously, Jesus said) that you can’t create a gay website) and run after Colorado’s objections. discrimination law.
So even though no one pursued her, not even a gay person asked her to design the service, and in fact, Jesus told his disciples (Ma- Psalm 22:21) “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and what is God’s to God”—that is, to obey the secular laws of the government—she sued for a religious exemption.
The reason this case comes this close is that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found it unconstitutional to force someone to say something, even in a commercial context. Restricting commercial activities is one thing, but forcing someone to say or write things they don’t want to say is another.
Members of both sides of the argument stand before the U.S. Supreme Court on December 5, 2022 in Washington, D.C. The Superior Court heard oral arguments in a lawsuit related to the lawsuit. by Lorie Smith, owner of 303 Creative, a website design company in Colorado that refused to create a website for same-sex weddings despite state anti-discrimination laws.
Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
Therefore, as Judge Brett Kavanaugh put it in the oral argument, the question is whether web designers are “more like restaurants, jewelers and tailors,” who can be forced to must sell food, jewelry, and clothing to everyone, “or are they like… other similar publishers and free speech agencies?”
Based on today’s oral arguments, that distinction will likely decide the case in favor of Lorie Smith. Justice Samuel Alito (and perhaps Justice Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch) would want to go further, saying that disapproving of same-sex marriage is not the same as disapproving of interracial marriage (Alito put it) make that point in oral debate). The three libertarians will disagree, arguing that web design is a commercial activity. Justice Gorsuch, as he usually does, can vote on his premises. But the new center of the Court—Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Judges Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett (God help us)—will likely decide that building a website is “speech” and thus should be treated differently than turning against gay men. from your pizzeria.
“…even though no one pursued her, not even a gay person asked her to design services, and in fact, Jesus told his disciples (Ma- Psalm 22:21) ‘return to Caesar what is Caesar’s and what is God’s’—that is, to obey the secular laws of the polity—she sue for religious exemption.“
Now, as a gay father, former LGBTQ activist in ten years and was after weaponizing “religious freedom” since 2013, I have some feelings here. But I also realized that this is a close case.
Despite Elon Musk’s distortion of the concept, free speech is the foundation of our democracy. We don’t want governments to force people to say things they don’t believe, whether it’s “Nazis are bad” or “gays are good”. And so, while I think ultimately a wedding website is more like a commercial than a personal expression, I concede that it sits right on the border.
The thing is, that’s not how it would be interpreted.
Several years ago, in 2018, the Supreme Court decided a different decision on “Gay versus Religious,” Masterpiece bakery. That case involved a baker who didn’t want to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple (even if one of his employees decorated it). In an idiosyncratic decision, the Court ruled in favor of the baker because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not take his religious objections seriously, considering them ludicrous or shell-shocked. wrap for homophobia or both.
It was a very narrow decision, on a somewhat unconventional basis. My news on the case for The Daily Beast is title, “The Supreme Court sided with the anti-gay Baker. It’s not a loss to LGBT equality.” Because instead of giving a major religious exemption to any business that wanted to deny gay people, the Court simply decided that governments needed to take religious objections into account.
But then came the consequences. Everywhere, both on the right and on the left, the decision was seen as a victory for anti-gay people. Whether the baker was a hero or a bigot, everyone agreed that he won, and the Supreme Court just said, yes, you can reject gay people.
One hundred Masterpiece small bakeries did exactly that. From small government officials, yes, pizzeria, businesses feel encouraged to decline services based on the sexual orientation of their customers. This case is a hit for the Tucker Carlsons and Steve Bannons of the world. It was seen as a victory for Trump. And, I would argue, it’s another instance of the trickle-down cases that make same-sex marriage less equal than normal marriage.
Protesters try to block each other’s signs as they gather in front of the US Supreme Court on December 5, 2022 in Washington, DC
Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
Fulton vs Philadelphia, decided last year, is a different person. Once again, the case itself was narrowly decided: a Catholic adoption/education agency would not give children to same-sex couples, and the Court found that the city of Philadelphia did not follow its own procedures in considering whether to allow them to do so. therefore. But the headlines promoted the idea, “adoption agencies can reject same-sex couples.”
This has happened many times—including in the case of “religious freedom,” Hobby lobby v. Burwell, about a family-owned business that refuses to cover contraception under Obamacare’s mandatory insurance plans. It was indeed a narrow decision, but it opened the door to an erosion of civil rights that now spans a decade and culminates (so far) in overturning civil rights. people. Roe sues Wade.
It’s a problem with this week’s case. In fact, it’s close. But it won’t be read that way. When it drops for a few more months, it will be heralded as yet another setback for same-sex marriage. It will chip itself on the bottom right. And it could pave the way for the Court to limit or completely abolish the right to same-sex marriage.
Which everyone on the right knows. This case is not real. To reiterate: Smith did not seek or be denied a religious dispensation. She just sued. But it’s not even her, really; it’s the Alliance for Freedom, a largely black-funded Christian Rights organization that has been involved in most of the major “religious freedom” cases over the past decade. (I’m afraid to quote this term because religious freedom really means practicing your religion freely, not using it to deny someone else’s rights.)
And if the ADF is like every other legally operating organization, it found this case, and this plaintiff, through careful research and strategic planning. They knew that if they could land a case close enough to free speech—more than a baker, a wedding chapel, a photographer, and a restaurant—they could win. And they knew that a victory on any basis, however narrow, would achieve their real goal, which was to destroy my family by denying legal protection and recognition.
That’s what this case is really about: turn upside down Obergefell sues Hodges and leave same-sex marriage up to state legislatures to decide. (“The “Respect for Marriage Act”—to be signed into law by President Biden—only requires states to respect same-sex marriages from other states, not legalize them themselves.)
It’s about reducing my equality on paper rather than in practice. And finally, just like the Court did to millions of women last summerit’s about removing them altogether.
