Skip Header to Content
GLAD Logo Skip Primary Navigation to Content

News

Statement on Supreme Court Ruling in 303 Creative v. Elenis

In a 6-3 ruling today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a highly fact-specific decision authorizing a narrow exception to a state nondiscrimination law for a website developer whose work it found involves selecting customers to convey the designer’s message. While the case allows for the first time a limited First Amendment exemption from laws requiring businesses open to the public to offer the goods and services they sell without discrimination, the unusual nature of the transaction in the case suggests the ruling has virtually no application to the overwhelming majority of businesses providing goods and services to the public.

Based on the facts agreed upon by the parties, the Court found that the seller vets and endorses each client, meets with the couple to discuss “unique” stories, creates original artwork, designs and text for each, and explicitly expresses her support for their wedding. All of this, the Court said, pointed to the “expressive” nature of her conduct and justied a narrow exception to the nondiscrimination law. This is different from virtually all businesses that sell goods and services to the public and does not reflect how the overwhelming majority of companies operate. 

Mary Bonauto, Senior Director of Civil Rights and Legal Strategies at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, issued the following statement:

“While today’s ruling is extremely limited, we are disappointed to see that for the first time, and in the context of LGBTQ+ people who are already facing a “heartbreaking” “backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities,” as the dissent noted, an unprecedented exemption to nondiscrimination laws that have always been considered to forbid conduct, not speech. This is not the broad victory Lorie Smith and her counsel sought – today’s ruling importantly upholds the validity of nondiscrimination laws, including for LGBTQ+ people who may obtain goods and services ‘on the same terms offered to other members of the public’ – but it is not the end of efforts to push LGBTQ+ people and couples into a second class status. GLAD and our movement will resist that effort every step of the way.

For decades, case law and public agreement have upheld the principle that nondiscrimination laws are bound up with first principles of equality, with mutual respect and civic unity, and with our need for goods and services no matter who and where we are. It is crucial to ensure today’s ruling remains limited to the highly specific and customized services the Court found in this case, and is not seen as a green light to assert a free speech defense in other areas of law. Denying services to same-sex couples is out of step with what the vast majority of Americans believe, and the overwhelming majority of Americans, including business owners, strive to treat everyone with dignity and respect as they too want to be treated. Today’s decision from the Supreme Court does not change that.

LGBTQ+ people are family members, co-workers, business owners, and customers in every community and we remain committed to working alongside our neighbors to ensure all people can go about our daily lives and access the goods and services we need without discrimination. As Justice Kennedy summarized for several of the current justices in Masterpiece Cakeshop just 5 years ago, ‘religious and philosophical objections of business owners and other actors in the economy and in society” do not suffice to ‘deny protected persons equal access to goods and services” under public accommodations laws like Colorado’s.’ We will fight to maintain that principle for all of the people protected by nondiscrimination laws.”

GLAD submitted a friend of the Court brief in this case for GLAD, NCLR, Lambda Legal, HRC, The Task Force, and thanks White & Case for its assistance.

Visit the 303 Creative v. Elenis case page.

303 Creative v. Elenis

UPDATE: On July 27, 2023, GLAD, National Center for Lesbian Rights, American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, Human Rights Campaign, Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund, and National Women’s Law Center released a FAQ on the Court’s decision and its potential impact on LGBTQ+ people and nondiscrimination protections.

June 30, 2023: In a 6-3 ruling the U.S. Supreme Court issued a highly fact-specific decision authorizing a narrow exception to a state nondiscrimination law for a website developer whose work it found involves selecting customers to convey the designer’s message. While the case allows for the first time a limited First Amendment exemption from laws requiring businesses open to the public to offer the goods and services they sell without discrimination, the unusual nature of the transaction in the case suggests the ruling has virtually no application to the overwhelming majority of businesses providing goods and services to the public. Learn more.


303 Creative v. Elenis was brought on behalf of a website development business seeking an exemption from state nondiscrimination law that would allow them to deny service to same-sex couples if they offer wedding websites in the future. The petitioners are seeking a special exception to Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act which requires them, and all businesses, to provide their services equally to everyone.

On August 19, 2022, GLAD co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief with Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), and White & Case LLP, and joined by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the National LGBTQ Task Force. The brief argues that the broad, unbounded exemption from Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act the petitioners seek would undermine bedrock protections provided by state and federal public accommodation laws for over a century.

Learn more.

Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel

No one should be fired for speaking out against racial harassment, and employers cannot misuse religion to harm workers and justify discrimination.

GLAD signed onto a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the 10th Circuit Court by National Women’s Law Center in support of Gregory Tucker, an employee at Faith Christian Academy (FCA) who was fired after speaking out against race discrimination. FCA is attempting to strip Mr. Tucker of his civil rights protections using the “ministerial exception,” a doctrine designed to let houses of worship hire their own faith leaders. The arguments made by FCA are yet another dangerous example of employers seeking to use religion as a means by which they can deny employees workplace protections. More background on the case is available here.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

On June 4, 2018, the United States Supreme Court reversed the original ruling by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission on grounds specific to Masterpiece Cakeshop and this case, finding that the commission had not acted impartially when originally considering the case. This ruling applies only to Masterpiece Cakeshop and does not broadly allow similar businesses to discriminate. In this decision, the Court affirmed the importance of nondiscrimination laws and the need to protect LGBT people from discrimination.

On December 5, 2017, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in this case. Listen here or read the transcript.

On October 30, 2017, GLAD and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) submitted an amicus brief urging the United States Supreme Court to affirm the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in 2014 that Masterpiece Cakeshop unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple.

This case involves David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2012, with Charlie’s mother, to order a cake for their wedding reception. The owner of the bakery, Jack Phillips, informed them that he could not sell them a cake for their wedding because, based on his religious beliefs, he could only sell wedding cakes to different-sex couples.

David and Charlie filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which found that the bakery had violated Colorado nondiscrimination law. The bakery does not deny its policy to refuse service to gay couples seeking wedding cakes, and argues that it has a constitutional right to do so based on religious and free speech grounds.

The brief submitted by GLAD and NCLR states that nondiscrimination laws like Colorado’s “seek to assure citizens access to, and equal enjoyment of, the fundamental elements of full participation in civic life: access to homes, jobs, and public accommodations,” and that the exemption from anti-discrimination laws the bakery is seeking “will reach beyond the lives of LGBT persons to harm their children, families, and friends.”

The exemption the bakery seeks “would undermine the compelling goals of public accommodation laws, which were enacted based on the recognition that the discrimination they prohibit both deprives persons of their dignity and denies society the benefits of wide participation in political, economic and cultural life. We urge the Court to reject a rule that would constitutionalize a new right for commercial enterprises to discriminate against individuals because of their membership in a particular group.”

As a nation, we decided a long time ago that businesses that are open to the public should be open to everyone on the same terms, and that includes customers who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Nobody should be turned away from a business, denied service, fired from their job, or evicted from their home simply because of who they are.

This case has been brought by the ACLU, and the amicus brief was written with assistance from Pierce Atwood LLP.

en_USEnglish