In 2022, the United States of America had a conservative majority in the supreme court with six out of nine judges being conservative. In the US supreme court the ideological majority has a major impact on the resolution of the cases. The rights of LGBT+ people have improved very much in the USA, for example, same-sex marriage being legalized in 2015. This 303 Creative v. Elenis case is still a great example of how LGBT+ rights are still debated.
The dissenting opinion in 303 creative case was written by Judge Sotomayor and other liberal judges were concurring with it. In short, the case was dealing with a wedding website company 303 creative. The company wanted to refuse to serve same-sex couples on the basis that they thought gay marriage is not godly and associating with gay people is a sin in their books.
In 303 creative case both the majority and the minority judges are focusing on different things when thinking about the case. The majority focuses on the US constitution 1st amendment clause about free speech. They claim that Mrs. Smith’s, who is the owner of 303 Creative, free speech is being violated if she cannot state on her website that she will not make websites for same-sex weddings. On the other hand, the dissenting opinion focuses on whether Mrs. Smith is discriminating against LGBT+ people by not wanting to make the websites.
The biggest differences between the opinion of the court and the dissenting opinion are, for example, whether 303 Creative should be considered a business or whether Mrs. Smith is an artist. This divide also brings up the question whether the case is about a business violating Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) and trying to discriminate against LGBT+ people or about an artist whose free speech is violated. The dissenting opinion argues that 303 Creative is a business that wants to provide goods and services to the general public, so the compelled speech laws are to be taken into consideration. The dissenting opinion argues that the facts in this case are similar to Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission where the cakeshop did not want to make a cake for a same-sex wedding and the Supreme Court declared that to be discriminatory. Similarly, 303 Creative case has a business, that is selling their goods and services to the general public, wanting to refuse service for same-sex couples.
The court and Mrs. Smith go to great lengths to claim she is not discriminating against same-sex couples. They argue that the discrimination claims don’t have any basis in this case because she is not discriminating. She said that she refuses to make a website for a same-sex wedding but will not refuse service for same-sex couples. Sotomayor responded to this with “This logic would be amusing if it were not so embarrassing” because it does not make sense that she will only serve same-sex couples if they want to purchase a hetero-weddingwebsite, the website cannot then be for the said same-sex couple. Sotomayor argues that it is discrimination. He brought out the Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States case in which the Motel refused to serve Jewish people with a sign “no dogs or Jewish allowed”. With the majority’s logic in the 303 Creative, it would have been allowed that the heart of Atlanta motel allows Jewish people to buy a hotel room for their white friend. There are multiple of these kinds of cases where a business states either with a sign or in their website that they will refuse service for some people.
Sotomayor gives many examples of flaws that tell how this logic is discriminatory. For example, a photographer can choose to only take school photos, but it becomes discriminatory if they only choose to photograph white or straight students. With this logic, the dissenting opinion also gives examples of how Mrs. Smith could express her views without discriminatory behavior. It is discrimination to put out a sign that refuses service of some marginalized community but it is not discriminatory if she only provided websites that have biblical quotes or even “marriage is between one man and one woman” written. A business can choose what they sell but not who they sell it to.
Sotomayer also points out many societal problems this case encourages. Historically, LGBT+ people have been stigmatized and their rights have been, and still are, threatened. The case does not only affect LGBT+ people but all minorities. Civil rights movements in the USA were originally generated to fight racial segregation and have been reaching all minorities. These cases send a message to minorities, and here especially LGBT+ people, that others do not care.
Team 303 Creative, Case Argumentation Analysis