JULY 9, 2023
THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BLACK LAWYERS (NCBL) REJECTS THE U.S. SUPREME COURT’S MAJORITY OPINION IN THE FREE SPEECH CASE 303 CREATIVE LCC v. ELENIS, HOLDING THAT A BUSINESS, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, BASED ON A RELIGIOUS BELIEF, TO REFUSE COMMERCIAL SERVICE TO MEMBERS OF THE LGBTQ+ COMMUNITY.
The National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL) rejects the majority opinion’s attack on the civil rights protections of those who have been denied them historically.
The Court’s opinion harkens back to the time of chattel slavery in the United States when white Christians defended slavery with a misguided and literal interpretation of the Bible: “the bondage of Black people was godly and for their benefit.” This Decision is profoundly troubling because it, likewise, validates invidious discrimination based on a person’s status, enshrining it in law while hiding behind religiosity.
According to Justice Sotomayor, in her Dissent, joined by Justice Elena Kagen, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, “invidious discrimination” is something this Court had never affirmed.
The petitioner, an evangelical Christian and web designer refuses to design a website for a same-sex couple’s wedding because she opposes same sex marriages on religious grounds. She does not dispute that respondents are a “protected class”, rather she claims her speech, if she had spoken, should be “protected speech.”
She further claims that the Colorado anti-discrimination law would have denied her the freedom to speak or act on her religious convictions. The opponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made that identical argument and were defeated.
Indeed, petitioner never spoke; and she never designed a webpage. The actual speech would have been that of the specious Gay couple that does not exist. If petitioner had done anything, it would have been to provide a commercial service which would be commercial speech that could not receive the constitutional protections she demands.
This case is contrived, not a legitimate case or controversy before the Court but rather an advisory opinion. The majority of the Court is playing the long game and acting in dangerous bad faith to weaken anti-discrimination laws upon which our precious freedoms rest.