Commentary
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that it’s unconstitutional for Colorado to punish a commercial designer for refusing to create a same-sex wedding website in violation of her Christian beliefs. In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Court didn’t, as its critics contend, validate discrimination based on sexual orientation. Indeed, the Court explicitly didn’t rule that businesses can refuse service simply because a customer is gay. Rather, the Court found that designing a webpage is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. In other words, the case protected against state-forced speech. Nothing more.
It’s indisputable that LGBT people remain a specifically “protected class” under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal and state laws and regulations. These protections now often include transgender people. The 303 Creative case didn’t change this. Thus, a service station still can’t legally refuse to allow a gay person to buy gas. A restaurant can’t refuse to sell food to lesbians. A bank can’t refuse to open an account for a transgender woman….