Christian web designer must be compelled to serve same-sex weddings

Published: December 9, 2022, 2:51 pm

Dr. Rashad Richey

National TV Political Analyst, Talk Radio Host, Univ. Prof.
Archive | View full bio

This week the Supreme Court heard arguments from a website designer and devout Christian who is creating a custom wedding site but refusing to work on same-sex weddings. Lorie Smith is challenging a Colorado law that prohibits most businesses from discriminating against LGBTQ customers.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed concern about the precedent it would set, asking “how about people who don’t believe in an interracial marriage or about people who believe that disabled people shouldn’t get married?” Chief Justice John Roberts, however, argues Smith has a free speech right to choose not to do work on a same-sex wedding project due to the conflict with her Christian faith. Straight Arrow News contributor Rashad Richey echoes Sotomayor’s concerns, that ruling for Smith is a slippery slope and would lead to businesses choosing not to serve other protected groups.

All right, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case about marriage and if private companies can discriminate against individuals who are same-sex, same-sex couples, gay marriage, lesbian marriage, all right? Once again, we’re here.

Isn’t that ironic that every time we hear about one of these religious exceptions, it’s never to create love, coalition, unity. It’s always to say one thing: Can we legally discriminate against somebody?

That’s it. I thought we settled this in 2015. Obviously, we did not. So let’s look at the current case.

There’s a design company owner, whose name is Miss Lorie Smith. Lorie Smith says, well, you know, I do actually serve gay people. But I’m about to start a new company inside of the company, a new venture, a new service, and this new service deals with weddings, and I don’t want to serve gay people, as relates to this new service. So the argument from one side says, well, you know, she has the right under her own freedom in order to discriminate, she has this right. But Colorado law says, no, you do not. You see, members of the lesbian and gay community are part of a protected class, similar to Black folk, a part of a protected class – there’s protected classification, based on the statutory law of Colorado. It extends to businesses that are open to the public, that serve the public.

Now, this is a slippery slope here. If the justices decide that a public company or a company that is allowed to be frequented by the public, if they say yes, this company can legally discriminate, something would change in this nation.

Let me read exactly what Justice Sotomayor said, and I agree with the justice on this concept. She said, and I quote, “This would be the first time in the court’s history where a commercial business open to the public, serving the public, that it could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.”

Keep in mind, precedent is powerful. If you say a business can legally say no to a same-sex couple, what stops them from saying no because people happen to be Black, brown, anything else? It opens a floodgate, is bad policy…it will be a bad ruling.

But based on reading of the tea leaves, there seems to be some justices, conservative obviously, who are supportive of this idea. At the end of the day, the decision is this: What kind of country do you want to live in?

All right, the US Supreme Court is here with a case about marriage. And if private companies can discriminate against individuals who are

same sex, same sex couples, gay marriage, lesbian marriage, all right? Once again, we’re here. Isn’t that ironic that every time we hear about one of these religious exceptions, it’s never to create love coalition unity, it’s always to say one thing, can we legally discriminate against somebody? That’s it? I thought we settled this in 2015. Obviously, we did not. So let’s look at the current case. There’s a design company owner, whose name is Miss Laurie Smith, Laura Smith says, Well, you know, I do actually serve gay people. But I’m about to start a new company inside of the company, a new venture, a new service. And this new service deals with weddings, and I don’t want to serve gay people, as relates to this new service. So the argument from one side says, Well, you know, she has the right under her own freedom.

In order to discriminate, she has this right. But Colorado law says, No, you do not. You see, members of the lesbian and gay community are part of a protected class, similar to black folk, a part of a protected class, there’s protected classification, based on the statutory law of Colorado, it extends to businesses that are open to the public, that serve the public. Why is that so important? That’s important, because you know, the public, they’re the ones who pay taxes, and your business, your private business benefits from the Texas private individuals pay. And they still no matter if they like your company or not part of their taxes will go to protect your company, not only through some tax abatements, but also if you call 911, you own a company you call 911. Guess what? Now when one arrives, the police, fire rescue ambulance, whatever you need, well, who undergirds that for you for the business? The taxpayer does, the taxpayer has to pay that regardless of their affinity to you as a company. So in exchange, you have to serve the community, regardless if you as a company agree with the individual or not. Now, this is a slippery slope here. If the justices decide that a public company or a company that is allowed to be frequented by the public, if they say yes, this company can legally discriminate.

Something would change in this nation. Let me read exactly what Justice Sotomayor said. And now you agree with the justice on this concept. She said and I quote, this wouldn’t be the first time

in the courts history.

Where commercial business open to the public, serving the public, that it could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. Keep in mind, precedent is powerful. If you say a business can legally say no, to a same sex couple.

What stops them from saying no, because people happen to be black, brown, anything else? It opens a floodgate is bad policy. It will be a bad ruling. But based on reading of the tea leaves, there seems to be some justices conservative, obviously, who are supportive of this idea. At the end of the day, the decision is this. What kind of country do you want to live in?