I am sure I am not the only person confused by the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of 303 Creative LLC. A small business owner did not want to be subject to the state law in Colorado that does not allow for discrimination against LGBTQ people. The plaintiff, Lorie Smith, wanted to offer services in website design for weddings. I remember listening to the oral arguments before the Court months ago and the question of the legal standing of her case was debatable. At the time of filing her complaint she was not a website designer and now it is coming to light that she did not receive a request from a gay couple to provide such services. She felt that the anti-discrimination laws of her state would force her to provide these services to same sex couples, violating her free speech and her religious beliefs about gay marriages. Neil Gorsuch’s final opinion on the case was that: The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed.
European Pilgrims came to this continent to avoid religious persecution. Then the colonists broke away from British rule and established their independence and created the Declaration of Independence. In the preamble of that document, it states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal." It does not state that Christian people are more equal than others.
Christianity is a religious belief system. You are not born Christian. At birth an infant is too young to understand and embody all the tenants and beliefs of the faith. The family may practice the religion, but at birth it has no meaning for the infant. Religion is learned. Desiring an intimate relationship with a person of the same sex is not learned behavior. It is hard wired. It is in my case. I did not decide one day to pursue a same sex relationship as a lark and face all the societal pressures associated with living as a gay person because I thought it would be a fun thing to do. It was as much a part of my being as it is for heterosexuals. I could not decide to be heterosexual on a whim or to just to see how it was not to be gay, to experiment in the same way that people can change religious affiliations.
When you are born you are an instant member of humanity. You will always be a member of humanity for as long as you are alive. You can, and some people often do, change religious affiliations. My mother was raised a Baptist but became a Roman Catholic when she married my father. Christians are free to switch to Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or Wicca, etc. Religious identity can be fluid, but being born a human being is set in stone. We are all members of the set called humanity. People with religious beliefs are a subset of that group. I believe that this is what the founders were referring to in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence that we are all members of humanity and are equal in that sense.
“…All men are created equal,” is meant to protect the larger set called humanity as well as the subsets within that set. I don’t believe that the Supreme Court decision considered the fact that we are all part of humanity. They decided that it is okay to put aside the statement “…all men are created equal,” to protect a religious subset of humanity, Christians. There are LGBTQ people who practice Christianity. Will they be protected by this decision too? The goal is to protect us all, including the person who has religious beliefs that run counter to what most people consider reasonable, that living a life that does not cause direct physical or emotional harm to others is not a threat to another’s religion or existence.
This decision has been draped in a false cloak of protection for First Amendment Rights. I don’t agree that this case should have even come before the Court. It was not properly vetted. Lorie Smith is not a victim. She was neither a website designer nor was she requested to design a website for a same sex couple. If she wanted to have a business that could legally discriminate against same sex couples, she could have moved it to a state where there are no anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBTQ people like: Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana. If her religious faith is so strong, it would not be too much of an ask for a person of such religious conviction. She chose the Supreme Court, not God, to protect her rights, and the decision of the Court is lopsided because it does not protect humanity, just a religious subset of it.