What if It’s Against My Religion to Deal with Mediocre Heteros?
In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a controversial decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, granting certain businesses the legal right to refuse services to LGBTQ+ individuals on the grounds of free speech. The case, centered on a Colorado web designer who objected to creating wedding websites for same-sex couples, has sparked heated debates about the balance between First Amendment protections and anti-discrimination laws. This ruling not only raises pressing questions about the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals in public spaces but also sets a precedent with far-reaching implications for civil rights in America. Understanding the details of this decision and its broader impact is crucial as the LGBTQ+ community faces potential setbacks in the fight for equality.
The Backstory: 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis and Its Path to the Supreme Court
Lori Smith, a website designer from Colorado and owner of 303 Creative LLC, initially built her business around general website development services. However, she sought to expand her offerings to include custom wedding announcement websites—while reserving the right to refuse to create designs celebrating same-sex marriages. Smith intended to post a notice on her website clarifying her stance, citing her Christian beliefs, and offering to refer same-sex couples to other designers.
According to the American Bar Association, Smith stated that she serves all clients regardless of race, sexual orientation, or gender but would decline requests for content that contradict her interpretation of the Bible. This includes, in her words, declining to create content that “promotes atheism, gambling, the taking of unborn life, incites violence, or promotes a concept of marriage that is not solely the union of one man and one woman.”
Smith realized, however, that such a notice would violate Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws. Colorado’s Public Accommodations Clause prohibits businesses from denying services based on protected characteristics such as sexual orientation, while its Communications Clause bars businesses from displaying notices that suggest services will not be equally available to all customers.
In 2016, Smith filed a pre-enforcement lawsuit in federal court to challenge the anti-discrimination law, arguing that it infringed upon her First Amendment rights. She was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative Christian legal advocacy group that has campaigned against LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive rights, and the separation of church and state. Notably, ADF has ties to figures like former Vice President Mike Pence and Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
The case stalled as the courts awaited the outcome of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, another Colorado-based case involving a baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: A Precursor to 303 Creative
In 2012, Colorado couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins planned to marry legally in Massachusetts—since same-sex marriage was not yet recognized in Colorado—and celebrate with friends and family in their home state. As part of their wedding plans, the couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to order a custom wedding cake. However, they were turned away by the shop's owner, Jack Phillips, who refused their request on the grounds of his religious opposition to same-sex marriage.
Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, citing the state's Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against customers based on protected characteristics, including sexual orientation. The Commission ruled in favor of the couple, ordering Masterpiece Cakeshop to comply with anti-discrimination laws, change its policies, provide staff training, and submit reports to ensure compliance.
Rather than comply, Phillips, who was also represented by the ADF, chose to appeal. The case escalated through the courts, ultimately landing before the U.S. Supreme Court after the Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
On June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, reversing the Commission's decision. While the Court acknowledged that businesses open to the public are subject to generally applicable anti-discrimination laws, it found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission displayed hostility toward Phillips’s religious beliefs, violating the state’s obligation of religious neutrality.
Though the decision was narrowly focused on the specifics of religious bias by the Commission, critics have argued that the ruling set a troubling precedent for permitting discrimination under the guise of religious freedom, which laid critical groundwork for the broader issues at stake in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis: The Supreme Court Decision That Redefined Public Accommodations
Following the Supreme Court’s narrow ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the legal battle over LGBTQ+ rights and public accommodations law reignited with 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.
In February 2022, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, specifically limiting the scope to whether Colorado’s anti-discrimination law violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Oral arguments were held on December 5, 2022, where ideological rifts among the justices were on full display. Justice Samuel Alito faced criticism for a controversial hypothetical involving a “Black Santa” refusing a photo with a child in Ku Klux Klan attire, which many viewed as an inappropriate and offensive analogy.
On June 30, 2023, the Court issued its ruling, siding with Smith in a 6-3 decision. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the conservative majority, argued that the First Amendment protects Smith from being compelled to create messages that conflict with her religious beliefs. “The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands,” Gorsuch wrote, framing the decision as a victory for free speech.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent vehemently opposed the ruling, calling it a departure from the Court’s longstanding support of anti-discrimination laws. “In a free and democratic society, there can be no social castes,” she wrote, emphasizing the importance of ensuring equal access to public accommodations. She warned that the decision undermines protections for marginalized groups and could pave the way for further discriminatory practices.
The ruling also acknowledged the broader consequences of the decision. Even Gorsuch conceded that the decision could lead to “misguided and hurtful messages.” Nevertheless, the majority maintained that protecting free speech outweighed the potential harms.
By overturning decades of legal precedent supporting public accommodations laws, the Court’s decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis represents a significant shift in how discrimination and free speech are interpreted under U.S. law, fueling concerns that similar exemptions could erode protections for LGBTQ+ individuals and other marginalized communities, creating a more fragmented and unequal legal landscape.
Beyond the Courtroom: The Emotional Toll of Discrimination
The ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis has reignited a common refrain: "If one business won’t serve you, go to another." While this argument might seem pragmatic on the surface, it fundamentally dismisses the deeper, more personal impact of being turned away because of who you are.
For LGBTQ+ individuals, discrimination isn’t just about inconvenience; it’s about rejection. For many of us, the pain begins long before we step into a business or seek a service. Growing up queer often means internalizing a barrage of homophobic remarks, societal disapproval, and messages that being different is inherently wrong—long before understanding what it even means to be LGBTQ+. This societal shame doesn’t disappear with adulthood; it lingers, manifesting as wounds that require constant attention and healing.
When a business refuses to serve someone because of their sexual orientation, it reopens those wounds. It reinforces the message many of us heard growing up: that we are “other,” less than, and unwelcome. The rejection isn’t about a single website or a single cake—it’s a reminder of every moment we’ve been made to feel like we don’t belong.
This shame isn’t ours to bear; it’s the shame society has imposed upon us. But despite years of progress, one act of discrimination—legitimized under the guise of free speech or religious freedom—can rip off the scab, exposing the pain beneath.
And this is just about cakes and websites. What happens if this precedent extends further? What if discrimination creeps into essential services? Imagine an EMT refusing to treat a life-threatening injury because it’s “against their religion.” Dismiss this as an extreme example if you will, but the trajectory of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and policies over the past decade suggests otherwise.
The point isn’t where the line is drawn today—it’s where it could be tomorrow. Laws that enable businesses to discriminate don’t exist in a vacuum; they feed a culture of exclusion that undermines decades of progress. It’s not just about a single act of denial—it’s about the message it sends to a community already fighting to exist in a world that too often tells them they don’t belong.
This ruling, and others like it, aren’t just legal setbacks. They’re deeply personal, emotional wounds that threaten to undo the hard-fought progress of millions of LGBTQ+ individuals. And as we grapple with the implications of this decision, the question isn’t just about where we shop—it’s about what kind of society we want to live in.
The Unequal Domino Effect: Why This Ruling Was No Surprise
While the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis decision was disheartening, it wasn’t entirely surprising. For many of us in the LGBTQ+ community, the signs were already there. The overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 and the affirmative action ruling the same week as this case signaled a clear ideological shift in the Supreme Court. Hoping for a different outcome was one thing; preparing for disappointment was another.
Interestingly, while many LGBTQ+ individuals braced themselves, straight allies seemed genuinely shocked. This surprise feels misplaced.
A common argument often voiced is that the older, conservative generation will eventually age out, paving the way for progress. However, this perspective is both flawed and dismissive. It implies that marginalized communities should patiently wait decades—possibly 20 or 30 years—for their rights to be fully realized, effectively putting their lives and equality on hold. This notion does not reflect true justice or equity.
This optimistic assumption also ignores the growing wave of conservative ideologies among younger generations and the far-reaching impact of decisions like this one. With this ruling, the Supreme Court has effectively laid down the dominoes for rolling back LGBTQ+ rights, and we can only speculate how far-reaching the consequences will be.
For those shocked by this decision, it’s worth reflecting on the current state of public opinion. While a 2023 Gallup poll found that 71% of Americans support marriage equality, the numbers are less reassuring when it comes to anti-discrimination protections. According to Pew Research Center, only 38% of respondents believe business owners should be required to serve LGBTQ+ customers if doing so conflicts with their personal beliefs. Similarly, Data for Progress found that just 65% of voters oppose allowing businesses to turn away customers based on sexual orientation.
These figures paint a sobering picture. While general support for LGBTQ+ rights exists, meaningful action lags behind. Elections matter, as does understanding the broader implications of who appoints Supreme Court justices. If straight allies are truly surprised, it’s a stark reminder that staying informed and engaged is more critical than ever.
Legitimacy Concerns Surrounding Smith’s Lawsuit
Lori Smith's 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis lawsuit also raises significant questions about its foundation. Central to this scrutiny is a supposed website request submitted by a man named Stewart for a same-sex wedding website for himself and his husband-to-be, Mike.
In February 2017, Smith’s legal team stated that she didn’t need to receive a request for a same-sex wedding website to challenge Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. However, they also claimed she had received such a request—a website inquiry submitted just days after the lawsuit was filed in September 2016. This form, reportedly sent by Stewart, was included in court filings, alongside an affidavit from Smith affirming its receipt.
But there’s a major twist: Stewart, the man allegedly behind the request, has denied any involvement. Contacted by a reporter from The New Republic after the June 30 ruling, Stewart said he never submitted the request and wasn’t aware his name had been invoked in the case. Adding to the intrigue, Stewart is straight and, at the time the request was submitted, was married to a woman. He also explained that as a designer himself, he would have no reason to hire someone else for website design.
While the request did include Stewart’s correct name, phone number, and address, he maintains he had no involvement, casting doubt on the authenticity of the form. Kristen Waggoner, Smith’s lawyer, dismissed the idea of fabrication, suggesting the request could have been the work of a troll, but she emphasized that this detail was irrelevant to the case.
Critics, including Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, have challenged the case’s legitimacy. Weiser called it a “made-up case,” noting that Smith wasn’t even offering wedding website services when she filed the lawsuit. He further argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should not have addressed a case with such tenuous connections to reality.
Despite these concerns, Smith’s lawyers insist she did not need to violate the law or receive a legitimate request to file the challenge. However, the case’s shaky foundation has amplified concerns about its long-term implications for anti-discrimination laws and LGBTQ+ protections, raising troubling questions about the integrity of the process behind this landmark decision.
The Uncertain Future of LGBTQ+ Rights
The Supreme Court's decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis has left many questioning its broader implications for LGBTQ+ rights. Concerns are growing over what this ruling could lead to, with some actions already underway that test the boundaries of equality.
In Texas, for example, there are reports of efforts to petition for the legal denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing the Supreme Court's decision as precedent. While the outcome of such efforts remains uncertain, the situation underscores fears about a potential rollback of LGBTQ+ rights.
This also raises a critical question: Could the Supreme Court target Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide? While the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act was celebrated as a safeguard, it does not codify Obergefell. Instead, the act requires states without marriage equality laws to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
If Obergefell were overturned, the Respect for Marriage Act would not prevent individual states from refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Legal experts have voiced concerns that re-establishing marriage equality nationwide could be challenging in such a scenario, particularly given the current makeup of the Court.
Taking Action to Protect LGBTQ+ Rights
In the face of growing challenges to LGBTQ+ rights, staying informed and proactive is crucial. With the new Trump era upon us, it's more important than ever to pay close attention to the political landscape and take steps to ensure equality remains a priority.
One critical action is ensuring you're registered to vote and informed about the candidates running for office. The judicial appointments of one administration—like the three conservative justices appointed during Donald Trump's presidency—can shape the course of civil rights for decades. Understanding where candidates stand on LGBTQ+ issues can help prevent further erosion of rights.
Encouraging friends and family to stay informed and vote thoughtfully is equally vital. Conversations about how political decisions affect LGBTQ+ life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can inspire action and foster understanding.
Additionally, advocating for legislative protections, such as the Equality Act, is essential. This federal legislation would provide comprehensive anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ individuals across various areas, including housing, employment, and public accommodations.
Organizations like the ACLU make it easy to contact your senators about passing the Equality Act. Their online tool allows users to quickly send personalized emails urging support for the legislation. It takes less than a minute to complete and can have a significant impact.
Standing Strong Together
In moments of fear, worry, and uncertainty, it’s natural to feel overwhelmed. These challenges can leave us questioning our sense of control over our own lives, bodies, and rights. But while it’s easy to feel powerless, it’s essential to remember that there are actions we can take to fight for a better future.
We can educate our friends and family about the issues affecting the LGBTQ+ community, urging them to support leaders who value equality. We can take concrete steps, like contacting our senators to push for the Equality Act, ensuring that discrimination has no place in our society. Every voice raised, every vote cast, and every conversation had brings us closer to lasting change.
At the same time, it’s important to embrace the strength and resilience within our community. Whatever challenges come our way, LGBTQ+ people have always been here, and we always will be. No ruling, law, or backlash can erase our existence or extinguish our pride.
This is a time to stand together, support one another, and call on our allies to step up and speak out. Change requires unity, perseverance, and a refusal to let hate win.
Yes, these moments are difficult, but they also remind us of our collective power. And with that power, we can face whatever comes next, knowing that love, resilience, and community will always endure.
And remember: every day is all we have, so you've got to make your own happiness.
For more information on this topic, listen to Episode 67. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.
Tune into your favorite podcast player every Tuesday for new episodes of A Jaded Gay.
