The courts have established this as a free speech issue, but looking at the huge part that religion plays in this, I am going to present it from a free exercise standpoint. Looking at a past case that is relevant, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is an important precedent to keep in mind. In 2018, this ruling set a tone for how LGBTQ+ religious opinions will be decided moving forward. This case is based around how a cakemaker was approached by a gay couple who wanted to have their wedding cake made at his shop. Same-sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado at the time and the owner of the shop was Christian and deeply opposed to same-sex marriage. He argued that he should not be forced to put something on a cake he did not agree with, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of him due to the fact that he was exercising his religious freedom and additionally his freedom of speech.
In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the lower courts ruled in favor of CADA. Multitudes of discrimination are not allowed under this law (specifically discrimination in relation to sexual orientation) and the lower courts ruled in favor of that finding. The lower court in Lorie’s case ruled that CADA’s Accommodation Clause, which reads that any public accommodation cannot refuse to serve a group because of sexual orientation, narrowly survived the strict scrutiny test. Strict scrutiny means that the Judicial Review assumes a policy to not be well-founded unless a compelling interest is presented. If this interest is present, the policy can be justified. The Tenth Circuit Court ruled that Colorado has a compelling state interest in ensuring equivalent access of public goods or services to all the citizens of Colorado. The Supreme Court overturning this decision sets a precedent which will most likely be used for 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. The Supreme Court ruled that although same-sex couples are granted civil rights and liberties, free exercise and free speech are Constitutionally protected rights and these two things need to both exist under the Court’s rulings and the Constitution. All of these things are protected expressions, which I believe can get a little slippery if they are all to be fully protected. This means that a private business can not serve LGBTQ+ couples due to religious beliefs, even though same-sex couples also have civil liberties and protections as guarded under the Constitution. This is important in my opinion because it establishes that freedom of religious exercise is more important of an interest to the Supreme Court than preventing discrimination of same-sex couples and giving them access to the same goods and services non-LGBTQ+ couples have access to.
Although I do not agree with the morality of denying same-sex couples the right to consume products just as any other American, I do believe that under the guise of the Constitution, 303 Creative LLC and Lorie should be able to not cater to same-sex couples when making marriage websites. Lorie does not oppose working for LGBTQ+ individuals by themselves, but she does believe that marriage is a sacred right under God for a man and a woman, so she is not able to make marriage websites for same-sex individuals for this reason. Under the Constitution, Lorie should be able to post a message about her beliefs on this specific topic, especially since she has her religious beliefs about God posted throughout her website already. Lorie’s right to free speech is being silenced through CADA and, additionally, through this silencing of free speech and free expression, Lorie will be forced to serve same-sex couples, which violates her religious beliefs. For these reasons, I oppose the lower court's decision to uphold CADA.
Sources:
https://adfmedia.org/case/303-creative-v-elenis
https://denverlaborlaw.com/colorado-employment-law/colorado-revised-statutes-crs-24-34-401/#:~:text=401%20et%20seq.-,C.R.S.,Colorado%20employment%20lawyers%20right%20away.
https://303creative.com/about/
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/303-creative-llc-v-elenis/
https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/supreme-court-report-303-creative-llc-v-elenis-21-476/
https://mslegal.org/cases/303-creative-v-aubrey-elenis-et-al/
7 comments:
I agree with you that constitutionally, Lorie should get her case overturned due to the precedent set in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Although that case's decision was largely centered around the Baker's hostile treatment due to his beliefs, the precedent does give room for individual's to not make art that goes against their religious beliefs. While members of the LGBTQ+ community should be able to get a wedding website made, they will have to have it done by somebody other than Lorie.
Nice post! I thought you did a great job of outlining the case and the constitutional question at hand. For my consideration in this case, it would be important for me to know if the Colorado law had provided any exemptions for other religiously-affiliated design companies or if there was evidence that the Colorado law displayed any hostility towards the company as a result of their religious beliefs, as was the case in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision. With regards to the Sherbet Test, I agree with the Supreme Court’s belief that the constitutional rights of free speech and free exercise supersedes the compelling state interest of the equal access of public goods and services. Furthermore, I believe these individuals can simply go to another design company that will serve them. Moreover, I believe making it known that her religious beliefs prevent her from serving them through the website is a more narrowly tailored means of preventing outright discrimination if they were to engage in her service and then be denied. Similarly, to the case I did last week, I believe not allowing 303 Design LLC and Lorie to publicly release a message that they don’t serve LGBTQ+ individuals forces her to act in a way that is inconsistent with her religious beliefs.
Great work! In one of my classes last year we did a mock trial exercise that argued a case for Arlene’s Flowers v. Washington, determining whether Arlene’s refusal to sell flowers to a gay couple because of her religion violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination and Consumer Protection Act. One of the main points discussed was whether Washington state acted with hostility because of Arlene’s religious beliefs against gay marriage. Meaning, did Washington persecute Arlene because the opinion of the deciding state officials leaned toward supporting gay marriage? This is very similar to the case at hand, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. For example, if Lorie refused to serve Christian pro-life activists because it went against her own religious beliefs, would Colorado state have filed suit because of a violation of the CADA? Although this was not discussed in your case, I am curious to see if, in the appeal, the courts consider whether or not the state was hostile towards Lorie’s specific religious beliefs.
Great post, Alexandra! I especially like the way you outlined the facts and clearly stated the way that prior cases established a precedent that showcases how the Supreme Court prioritizes religious freedom over the prevention of discrimination. As we've discussed in class, we are provided constitutional rights to freely practice religion (or abstain from religious practices), but not provided the right to avoid discrimination in every situation. It can be argued that if the lower courts' decision stands, the substantial burden falls on Lorie. Her religious rights will be restricted because she will be made to act in a way that doesn't align with her beliefs, causing this substantial burden. One could also say that the burden on Lorie is greater (emotional stress caused by violating her religious beliefs) than the hypothetical burden that would fall on the LGBTQ+ couple if the lower courts' decision was reversed (simply having to find a different designer).
Ultimately, this case revolves around the question of whether or not a compelling government interest exists in abridging Ms. Lorie Smith's religious convictions in the name of preventing discrimination and promoting social justice. Upon consideration of the evidence presented and stare decisis, I do not believe this interest is sufficiently compelling. Homosexual individuals can simply find another designer to hire if the owner of 303 Creative choses to decline to serve them. On the other hand, Ms. Smith would be forced to participate in an act she views as religiously unconscionable if she legally may not deny services (an inherently coercive requirement). When weighing the two sides of the legal question, I must side with the argument made by 303 Creative LLC.
I agree with how you fall morally in that same-sex couples should not be denied "the right to consume products just as any other American," I also believe that Lorie should be allowed the right to produce goods for only specific individuals based off of her religious beliefs. This could lead to a slippery slope if the court forces Lorie to produce goods even though it's against her religious beliefs because if she is forced to along the lines of state law, then what other courses could be decided against the Constitution in line with state laws. Lorie's rights under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment were violated, and she should appeal this. Now we come to the question of do state laws outweigh constitutional laws in some scenarios? And what would these scenarios look like?
I think that this is such an interesting case and I agree with the conclusion which you offered. I think that cases like these need to be separated from the idea that they are blatant discrimination, as it seems as though 303 Creative would be happy to offer services to members of the LGBTQ+ community, but does not feel comfortable offering her services when the service is directly related to an event that violates her religious beliefs. I think that it is important for the courts in the future to distinguish a precedent for separating blatant discrimination and freedom of exercise.
Post a Comment