A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court today has further cemented the notion that people who provide business services may invoke their First Amendment rights when refusing service inconsistent with their beliefs.
The main issue addressed by the Supreme Court had been raised previously in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission concerning “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.”
The Supreme Court ruled today in 303 Creative LLC v Elenis that a Colorado website designer was able to refuse her services for same-sex weddings under the First Amendment, despite a Colorado state law that forbids discrimination against people who identify as LGBTQ+.
This case follows the ideological reasoning of the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop case wherein the trial court ruled in favor of a Christian baker that refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. The two rulings demonstrate an important clash between the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and those claiming religious freedom and freedom of speech, while also limiting the ability of state governments to enforce anti-discrimination laws.
Supporters of the ruling have celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision, arguing it is unconstitutional to allow a state government to force artists to state things that are against their core beliefs.
Conversely, opponents of the ruling are concerned about the potential for this decision to open the door for discrimination against individuals because of their sexual orientation, notwithstanding numerous state and federal anti-discrimination laws. Interestingly, the Supreme Court did not address claims that one of the key pieces of evidence in the case was falsified. Specifically, reports have indicated that the initial request for services by a man named “Stewart” were faked, because the identified individual asserted he never sent the request.
Ultimately, the key takeaway from this notable ruling is that certain business owners, ones that see themselves as artists, will be able to refuse services to people who embody a message or a belief that they do not support. The Michigan State Legislature has recently expanded its anti-discrimination laws, so it is imperative to consult with an attorney to understand your rights as an employer in the changing legal landscape.
Add a comment
Topics
- Employment Liability
- Employment Discrimination
- Employment Agreement
- Labor Law
- At Will Employment
- Human Resources
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Wage & Hour
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Arbitration
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Minimum Wage
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- National Labor Relations Act
- COVID-19
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- National Labor Relations Board
- Coronavirus
- Noncompete Agreements
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Civil Rights
- Contract Employees
- Regulatory Law
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Title VII
- Earned Sick Time
- OSHA Issues
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- Tax Law
- Retaliation
- Sick Leave
- Workplace Harassment
- Transgender Issues
- Unemployment Benefits
- Contracts
- Federal Trade Commission
- Civil Litigation
- Settlements
- Business Risk Management
- Hostile Work Environment
- ERISA
- Workers' Compensation
- Accommodations
- First Amendment
- Public Education
- Cannabis
- LGBTQ
- Class Actions
- Department of Justice
- Medicare Issues
- Sexual Harassment
- Garnishments
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- RICO
- Emergency Information
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Diversity
- Union Organizing & Relations
Recent Updates
- Federal Court Rules State Discrimination Claims Subject to Mandatory Arbitration
- Are Boilerplate Terms in Employment Applications Enforceable?
- Is Your Business Ready for Pay Transparency Laws?
- Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split in Reverse Discrimination Cases
- Michigan Legislature Avoids Chaos by Amending Earned Sick Time Act Just Prior to Deadline
- Implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act: Key Insights for Employers
- Federal Court Throws out DOL’s Attempt to Rewrite White Collar Overtime Rules
- Civil Rights Litigation Filed by Christian Employers Gets New Life Following Federal Appellate Court Ruling
- Michigan Supreme Court Clarifies Minimum Wage Decision
- Judge Strikes Down Federal Ban on Non-compete Agreements




