It was only this week that I learned there are wedding websites. I don’t mean the kind that tell you how to have the perfect wedding. I mean websites devoted to a specific wedding, i.e., the one you and your prospective spouse plan to have. A site for brides explains:

A wedding website provides a hub for important information regarding a couple’s big day. It can house venue details, dress code specifics, and your registry wishes. Plus, it provides a space to keep guests easily updated and to collect wedding RSVPs. But with a number of options out there, which are the best wedding websites?

Okay, that makes sense. We use the internet for a whole lot of stuff these days.

But if you’re not a web designer, how do you get a site for your wedding, something like, say, (don’t click on it) http://www.Mary_and_John_Are_Having_a_Wedding.org? Fortunately, there are lots and lots of companies that make it easy to do just that. If you visit the link above for brides, you’ll find this list:

8 Best Wedding Websites of 2023

• Best Experience: Joy
• Best for Planning: The Knot
• Best Registry: Zola
• Best Variety: Minted
• Best Customization Options: WedSites
• Best for RSVPs: Riley & Grey
• Best Design Templates: Bliss & Bone
• Best Free Website: Wix

The first one on the list, Joy, offers this:

So you can use the site for free, they have 601 designs to choose from, and if you want a designated domain name (like Mary_and_John_Are_Having_a_Wedding) you have to give them a nominal sum, maybe $20 a year.

As I said above, there are lots of companies that offer this service to people getting married. And it doesn’t look like there’s a lot of money to be made by doing so.

Yet, a woman in Colorado with a web design business called 303 Creative apparently decided that she wanted to begin offering this service. But wait! Wouldn’t that require her company to sell her services to prospective spouses who happen to be gay? Yes, it would.

Gay people are one of the “protected classes” referred to in federal and/or state laws. In particular, Colorado has a “public accommodations” law that says:

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.

And a “place of public accommodation” includes any business that sells its services to the public.

So what? Well, the owner of 303 Creative claims to be the kind of non-Christian “Christian” who abhors the idea of gay marriage. She says she could never bring herself to sell her services to a gay couple. What to do?

A reasonable person might say to themselves, all right, given my particular (albeit peculiar) religious beliefs, I guess I’ll skip the wedding web design business. There are weddings I wouldn’t want to handle and I don’t want to break the law.

This is where the Alliance Defending Freedom enters the picture. (I don’t know if this Colorado woman contacted them or they contacted her — maybe they went looking for a web designer with a hatred for gay marriage — it doesn’t really matter.) Here’s what the Southern Poverty Law Center says about the ADF:

Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has contended that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia; and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society.

ADF also works to develop “religious liberty” legislation and case law that will allow the denial of goods and services to LGBTQ people on the basis of religion. [ADF was] one of the most influential groups informing the [previous] administration’s attack on LGBTQ rights.

The ADF helped 303 Creative’s owner file a lawsuit to stop the state of Colorado from enforcing its public accommodation law against her, assuming that (1) she one day began offering wedding website design services, (2) a gay couple tried to buy her services, (3) she refused to sell to them and (4) the state of Colorado was interested enough to prosecute her.

Apparently, it’s an interesting legal question whether 303 Creative had “standing” to sue. Usually, you need to say you’ve suffered an injury in order to sue somebody. But the six reactionaries on the Supreme Court don’t worry much about details like that anymore. They decided the Dobbs forced-birth case in favor of doctors who said they might one day have patients who were upset after they had an abortion.

To make this long story shorter, 303 Creative’s owner sued Colorado in federal court; she lost; she appealed that decision; she lost again; and (as ADF hoped all along) the Supreme Court decided to accept the appeal, after which the Renegade Six decided in her favor. As usual it was 6-3. The majority’s main “justification” for voting that way was that making her accept a gay couple as customers would somehow interfere with her First Amendment right to free speech. Whatever.

Here’s some of Justice Sotomayor’s response to the Six’s radical decision (her dissent begins on page 33):

Five years ago, this Court recognized the “general rule” that religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage “do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law”.

… Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples…. The Court also holds that the company has a right to post a notice that says “no [wedding websites] will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages”.

… “What a difference five years makes.” Around the country, there has been a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities. New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion. This is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar. When the civil rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims. 

Now the Court faces a similar test. A business open to the public seeks to deny gay and lesbian customers the full and equal enjoyment of its services based on the owner’s religious belief that same-sex marriages are “false.” The business argues, and a majority of the Court agrees, that because the business offers services that are customized and expressive, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment shields the business from a generally applicable law that prohibits discrimination in the sale of publicly available goods and services.

That is wrong. Profoundly wrong…. The law in question targets conduct, not speech, for regulation, and the act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment. Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group….

The people of Colorado have adopted the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act… A public accommodations law has two core purposes. First, the law ensures “equal access to publicly available goods and services”…. For social groups that face discrimination, such access is vital…. Second, a public accommodations law ensures equal dignity in the common market. Indeed, that is the law’s “fundamental object”: “to vindicate ‘the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments.’

… Preventing the “unique evils” caused by “acts of invidious discrimination in the distribution of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages” is a compelling state interest “of the highest order”…

A public accommodations law does not force anyone to start a business, or to hold out the business’s goods or services to the public at large. The law also does not compel any business to sell any particular good or service. But if a business chooses to profit from the public market, which is established and maintained by the state, the state may require the business to abide by a legal norm of nondiscrimination.

In particular, the state may ensure that groups historically marked for second-class status are not denied goods or services on equal terms.
The concept of a public accommodation thus embodies a simple, but powerful, social contract: A business that chooses to sell to the public assumes a duty to serve the public without unjust discrimination….

The unattractive lesson of the majority opinion is this: What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is yours. The lesson of the history of public accommodations laws is altogether different. It is that in a free and democratic society, there can be no social castes. And for that to be true, it must be true in the public market. For the “promise of freedom” is an empty one if the Government is “powerless to assure that a dollar in the hands of [one person] will purchase the same thing as a dollar in the hands of [another]”. Because the Court today retreats from that promise, I dissent.

Republicans outnumber Democrats by six to three on the Supreme Court. With even five votes, they can do whatever they want. One way to fix this problem is to expand the Court. We now have thirteen federal judicial districts, instead of nine. We should have at least thirteen justices on the Court to handle the additional workload and, more importantly, restore some sanity to the institution. Together, the Congress and the President can add justices. We need to keep a Democrat in the White House and add motivated Democrats to Congress. Otherwise, the renegades will keep whittling away at our society. There’s nothing to stop them as long as they have enough votes.