Can a business owner refuse to serve homosexual customers on the grounds of their religious beliefs? The conservative-leaning United States Supreme Court reopens this ultra-sensitive discussion Monday in a case that closely resembles one from four years ago.
(Also: Does he measure up? This can win a rat exterminator in New York)
In June 2018, the country’s highest court ruled in favor of a Colorado (western) pastry chef, who had refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
(Keep Reading: Donald Trump’s Controversial Proposal: Calls For ‘Destroying The US Constitution’)
But it did not directly address the question of whether a business can refuse to serve gays and lesbians on religious grounds.
The topic, very divisive in the United States, was not long in coming up again, raised this time by a website designer: lorie smithwho defines herself as a devout Christian, does not want to offer her services to gay couples because it would be “inconsistent” with her religious beliefs.
Like pastry chef Jack Phillips, Smith works in Colorado, where a law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation since 2008 and can impose penalties of up to $500 on violators.
(You can read: The US state where slavery is legal 150 years after its abolition)
Unlike him, however, she was not solicited by homosexual clients.. That didn’t stop him from filing a lawsuit against the Colorado law preemptively.
After losing at first instance and on appeal, he appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to intervene, limiting the issue to the freedom of expression of merchants whose work has an artistic dimension.
(Also: The controversial ‘killer robots’ that the San Francisco Police will use: video)
Does it violate the First Amendment?
In their brief to the Supreme Court, Smith’s lawyers said their client is “willing to create custom websites for anyone, including those who identify as LGBT, as long as their message does not conflict with religious views.” her”.
But you must sell everything you offer to customers regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.
But “forcing artists, such as painters, photographers, authors, graphic designers or musicians to transmit messages that violate their convictions violates the First Amendment of the Constitution” that guarantees freedom of expression and religion, they added.
(Furthermore: These are the key points of the meeting between Biden and Macron)
For their part, the Colorado lawyers pointed out that state law “simply requires that once a business offers a product or service to the public, it must sell it to everyone”.
“The company can define its service however it wants, including offering only websites that include Biblical quotes that describe marriage as the union of a man and a woman,” they said. “But you must sell everything you offer to customers regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation or other characteristics.”
(You can read: Video: this is how they rescued a child and a grandmother from freezing to death in a lake)
aggressive
Reflecting the deep divisions in American society, the case is splitting waters: Republican elected officials, religious groups and conservative associations have expressed their support for Smith, while Democratic elected officials and minority advocates back the state of Colorado.
Dozens of representatives of both groups clashed this Monday in front of the Court’s headquarters, brandishing blue and white balloons with the words “Create freely” or signs indicating “Religion is no excuse for discrimination”.
The United States government, which under the presidency of the Republican Donald Trump was on the side of the confectioner Phillips, defends this time the position of Colorado.
The law in this state “does not require the adoption or transmission of a message prescribed by the authorities,” argues the representative of the Democratic administration of Joe Biden.
(Furthermore: ‘The US must offer an opportunity to Colombian migrants’: Murillo)
Pointing out that many companies have a creative dimension, minority advocacy groups have asked the Supreme Court, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2015, to reject Smith’s arguments.
On the contrary, “Architects might refuse to design homes for black families, pastry chefs to bake birthday cakes for Muslim children, florists to provide bouquets for a gay person’s funeral.”listed David Cole, legal director of the ACLU civil liberties organization, during a presentation to the press.
But these associations are concerned about “the aggressive position of the Court”, in the words of Mary Bonauto, president of GLAD, which defends the rights of LGBT people.
Renewed by Trump, the Supreme Court has undergone a radical transformation since the 2018 ruling: it has six of the nine conservative justices, who recently delivered resounding victories to the religious right, in particular by blowing up the right to abortion.
The Supreme Court must issue its decision in Smith’s case by June 30, 2023.
AFP
#Refusing #serve #homosexuals #discussion #reaches #Supreme #Court