LGBTQ rights case aka 303 Creative to be heard in Supreme Court


The official group photo of the Supreme Court as it was composed on June 30, after Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the Court. The judges are ranked by seniority, with five seats and four standing. Seated left to right are Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Samuel A. Alito and Elena Kagan. Standing left to right are Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Photo: Credit: Fred Schilling, United States Supreme Court Collection.

The United States Supreme Court has set December 5 as the date for hearing oral arguments in the case of a Colorado web designer who wants to refuse to create marriage websites for same-sex couples.

Lorie Smith, owner of 303 Creative, wants to grow her wedding business but says serving same-sex couples would violate her conservative Christian beliefs and free speech rights.

Smith filed a lawsuit in 2016 challenging Colorado’s LGBTQ-inclusive non-discrimination law.

She lost in federal district court and appeals court.

The Supreme Court agreed in February to hear his case, but only on the free speech claim. He announced the date on Tuesday.

Jon Stewart Asks Arkansas Attorney General About Anti-Trans Law

Smith is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-LGBTQ+ legal nonprofit.

The ADF also represented Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who in 2018 won a measured high court victory.

Phillips had refused to create a personalized wedding cake for a same-sex couple, and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission found he violated state anti-discrimination law.

The Supreme Court overturned the commission’s judgment against him, saying the commissioners had been biased against his religious beliefs, but it did not establish a general right to discrimination.

Jennifer Pizer, chief legal officer of Lambda Legal, recently told the Washington Blade that “an immeasurable sum is at stake” in the 303 Creative case.

“This contrived idea that making personalized goods or offering a personalized service somehow implicitly conveys an endorsement of the person — if that were to be accepted, that would be a sea change in the law,” Pizer said. . “And the stakes are very high because there is no practical, obvious and principled way to limit this type of exception, and if the law is not clear in this regard, then the people who risk being discriminated against have no security , no effective protection by having non-discrimination laws because at any time as one makes one’s way through the commercial market you don’t know if a man business in particular will refuse to serve you.

The Supreme Court now has a 6-3 majority of conservatives, including three justices appointed by Donald Trump. This led to the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that guaranteed the right to abortion nationwide, in Dobbs v. June Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In his deal in Dobbs, Judge Clarence Thomas said he would like to see key rulings on LGBTQ+ rights overturned – those that guarantee the rights to intimacy and marriage – as well as a 1965 ruling that upheld the right to contraception.

This article originally appeared on Advocate.comand is shared here as part of an LGBTQ+ community exchange between Q Voice News and Pride Media.

Previous Official: the lane had to be out of service before 2 dead were killed
Next Boris Johnson's return as Prime Minister would be a 'nailed disaster', says former minister | Rishi Sunak