303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

-

Unbiased Case Analysis:

Today, we will be looking at 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. This case was decided on during the 2022 term year. Lorie Smith owns the graphic design firm 303 Creative LLC. 303 Creative LLC is a business that offers many services including wedding websites. She does not support same-sex marriage based on religious ground. Therefore, she does not want to offer custom services to same-sex couples. She also wants her website to have a message which makes clear her views on not offering services to same-sex couples. She lives in the state of Colorado which has the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”). The act “…prohibits businesses that are open to the public from discriminating based on numerous characteristics, including sexual orientation. (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis). The act also specifically prohibits “…publishing any communication that says or implies that an individual’s patronage is unwelcome because of a protected characteristic.” (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis). Lorie decided to challenge Colorado’s law before it would be enforced on her. The district court gave a summary judgment, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision. In a 6-3 decision SCOTUS ruled in favor of Lorie Smith and 303 Creative LLC. The Court found Colorado’s law could not compel Lorie Smith to offer custom services to same-sex couples since that would contradict her religious beliefs. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the dissenting opinion. She pointed out how this ruling essentially gives businesses the right to deny custom services and goods based on who they are.

Personal Perspective:

I am conflicted about SCOTUS’s ruling on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. On one hand as a Christian, I understand Lorie Smith’s desire to not offer services and goods to same-sex couples. She does not want to be associated with them or look like she supports them. However, I understand Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s perspective on the ruling. The case essentially gives businesses the right to deny custom services and goods to whoever they disagree with. This decision departs from the Court’s longstanding support of public accommodations for protected groups.

Media Critique and Analysis:

            303 Creative LLC v. Elenis received moderate media coverage from a variety of outlets. The case caught the attention of civil rights groups and outlets that sought to bring attention to this landmark case. LGBTQ+ activists knew the weight of the case and attempted to sway the Court’s opinion in their favor. After the Court’s ruling the media focused on how the case will affect LGBTQ+ individuals and other minority groups.

Sources:

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis | Oyez

303 Creative, Inc. v. Elenis | American Civil Liberties Union

Supreme Court sides with Colorado web designer in blow to LGBTQ protections: NPR

Comments

  1. William RileyFebruary 18, 2024 at 8:42 AM

    Hey man another cool story and post. I think that protecting religious freedom is pinnacle to a free and moral society. I also believe everyone should have access to goods no matter their beliefs. In such cases, if there are plenty of other options for the LGBTQ community to get their goods, those that wish not to deal to them shouldn't be persecuted. If there aren't options, it is up to the government to provide, not the people. IMO. Great post!

    ReplyDelete
  2. MGaddisFebruary 20, 2024 at 3:02 PM

    This even was very intresting in the fact that she didnt want to offer her services towards a specific minority and faught the decsion resulting in the Court ruling in her favor blows my mind. I understand having personal opinions but even with a law set in place to protect minoritys and her case going through is very sad.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

-
Image
  Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College Unbiased case analysis:             Harvard College uses an admissions process that considers the race of applicants to determine whether they should be accepted or not. This is a common practice for many colleges in the United States. Harvard College was sued by Students for Fair Admissions over their use of affirmative action. Affirmative action is simply an action that helps specific demographic groups due to the United States’ history of discrimination. A district court ruled in favor of Harvard and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Frist Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The case was eventually brought before the Supreme Court. It was initially going to be consolidated with another case, but the Court chose to hear it individually.             The Court ruled 6-2 in favor of ...
Read more

Biden v. Nebraska

-
Image
Unbiased Case Analysis:             During his presidential run Joe Biden promised to cancel up to $10,000 of federal student loan debt per borrower. He kept his word and used executive action to enact his promise. Nebraska and five other states challenged Biden and his forgiveness program. They argued on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed the case. The Supreme Court stepped in to decide on it.             The Court decided 6-3 in favor of Nebraska. The Court found that the Secretary of education does not authority under the HEROES Act “…to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in dept principal and affect nearly all borrowers.” Most of the justices cited the major questions doctrine as their reaso...
Read more

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

-
Image
For my first blog post I am going to examine one of the latest cases SCOTUS ruled on: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer. Unbiased Case Analysis: Deborah Laufer is a disabled woman who checks hotel websites to see if they provide accessibility information required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She sued Acheson Hotels after discovering one of their hotel websites failed to provide accessibility information. The district court dismissed her case since she did not plan to visit the hotel. Therefore, she would suffer no injury from the hotel’s lack of accessibility information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision determining that a lack of intent to visit the hotel did not excuse Laufer from injury. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case and rule on it. The Court unanimously voted to vacate the case. The Court found the case to be moot which means it has lost its relevance which no longer neces...
Read more