Supreme Court ruling for 303 Creative is about the message, not the speaker (Your Letters)

To the Editor:

I appreciate when newspapers and organizations stick to the facts concerning court decisions, especially when today’s readers don’t necessarily read further than the headline or first paragraph. So it was disappointing reading the following concerning the recent Supreme Court ruling in 303 Creative v. Elenis:

Newspaper headline: “Supreme court rules for web designer who wanted to discriminate against gay clients.”

President Joe Biden’s statement: “In America, no person should face discrimination simply because of who they are or who they love. . . today’s decision weakens long-standing laws that protect all Americans against discrimination in public accommodations.”

ACLU statement: “The Court’s decision opens the door to any business that claims to provide customized services to discriminate against historically marginalized groups.”

If these headlines and statements were true, most reasonable people would agree. However, they are not. The fact is the 6-3 decision clearly addressed only the message of any creative request, not the person or group requesting the message or service. The Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot criminalize the creating of products with messages contrary to one’s sincerely held beliefs, regardless of the person asking. (Apart from the message, I understand the designer in this or other cases is happy to serve these clients.)

This is a win for everyone! Should a T-shirt company, whose owner is gay, be forced to create T-shirts with anti-gay messages on them? Should a graphic designer be forced to create political materials supporting a candidate he or she opposes? Or advertisements for cigarettes, guns or anything else the designer opposes? Of course not. And thankfully with this ruling, they won’t have to.

Peter Irvine

Syracuse

Related: Designer doesn’t want to work with gay couples, and Supreme Court says that’s OK