The media has been awash with the reportage of the United States Supreme Court judgment of 30th June 2023 in the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis which in effect holds that a private business can refuse to render services to customers they believe are gay if their beliefs are against gay and the state cannot force them to go against their belief to render services to any and everybody.
I have so far seen and read a series of false reportage embellished with propaganda on this case, obviously sponsored by gay rights activists so as to cause public uproar but most of those reportage are false and misleading but herein is a summary of the event leading to this famous case, the judgment of the Supreme Court and its ratio decidendi;
Lorie Smith, a Christian graphic artist and website designer based in Colorado was contacted by a gay couple to design a website for them for their gay marriage, Lorie Smith being a Christain turned down the job stating affirmatively that her beliefs and faith as a Christain is against same-sex marriage and it will go against her believe to design a website that is promoting and passing gay messages.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 16 (Feb 10 – May 3, 2025) opens registrations; register today for early bird discounts.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
The state of Colorado was to compel her to take any and every job and turning down any job just because it offends her beliefs will go against Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act. Lorie Smith then approached the court seeking an injunction against the state of Colorado not compelling her to design artwork for gay couples.
The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision subsequently ruled that Lorie Smith cannot be compelled by the state to design same-sex marriage sites if it offends her belief or faith, forcing her to do that offends the United States first amendment rights.
This case has cast a shell against gay rights activists who always want to force their sexual orientation down the throat of others and if you dare resist them they will come after you for discriminating against them based on their sexual orientation.
Therefore, from now henceforth, a restaurant owner may refuse to attend to gay couples or allow gay couples to host their events in his venue if it offends his or her belief; a Christian priest can now legally turn down officiating a gay couple’s wedding and he won’t be sued for discrimination.
As you are validly exercising your right to be gay, another person can as well exercise his or her rights not to be associated with you and both exercises will be valid and legal. You cannot force the exercise of your own rights down the throat of others.
It was a somewhat narrow ruling. The Supreme Court did not say that any and all businesses can turn away LGBTQ+ people, but that certain businesses cannot be forced to create artistic content that goes against their religious beliefs.