Washington (Trends Wide) — The US Supreme Court decision in favor of a Colorado web designer who is Christian and refuses to create same-sex wedding sites over religious objections will have a major impact on other minority groups. It could also open the door to a series of cases that seek to further undermine the protection of civil rights in the country.

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by the court’s five other conservatives, the justices said First Amendment free speech protections allowed web designer Lorie Smith to refuse to extend their services to same-sex weddings.

The ruling was based on free speech and could create a gaping loophole in state public accommodations laws for companies that sell goods described as “expressive,” allowing companies that offer personalized and creative products and services to choose with whom they work.

Legal experts told Trends Wide that the decision by the conservative majority will likely cause confusion about which companies fit the description provided by the ruling. They also stressed that members of the Lgbtq community are not the only ones affected.

“I don’t think the Court was at all clear. I think it invented categories that don’t exist in commerce. The idea of ​​’personalized’ or ‘creative’ services are not categories,” said Elizabeth Sepper, a law professor at the University of Texas and an expert in public accommodations law.

“So I think the category of companies that will be able to claim free speech rights against anti-discrimination laws is far from clear. But it’s not small,” Sepper added. “There’s going to be a relatively wide range of companies that will be able to claim free speech rights against anti-discrimination laws.”

The experts also warned that the decision in the case 303 Creative vs. Elenis is just the opening chapter in what will likely be years of litigation by individuals seeking to push the boundaries of state and local laws that protect the civil rights of various minority groups.

Jennifer Pizer, legal director of Lambda Legal, an Lgbtq Rights advocacy group, also said the court did not make it clear what types of companies fall into that category.

“I think the issue is the vast array of goods and services in society that involve some degree of personalization and creativity,” Pizer said.

“Today’s decision does not condone discrimination against anyone or anyone who uses a certain creativity, talent or skill to create a custom product,” he added. “Today’s decision is about a specific thing and describes that thing as something that involves extensive collaboration with the client to create a unique work that involves the artistic expression of the designer.”

The vast majority of Americans live in some area where state or local public accommodation laws exist. As of this month, 22 states, the US Virgin Islands and Washington, had laws on file that explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit think tank that advocates for the rights of LGBTQ people, while five other states interpret the “existing prohibition(s) on sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and/or gender identity.”

The confusion over the scope and meaning of Friday’s ruling may be similar to the legal fights that followed a major gun rights case last year. In that case, the conservative majority changed the test courts must use to review the constitutionality of gun rules, opening the door to all sorts of gun safety laws that can be challenged in federal courts.

For example, the judges agreed this Friday to review in their next term a federal law that prohibits a person subject to a restraining order for domestic violence from possessing a firearm, a law that a lower court reconsidered in light of the decision of the Supreme Court last year in the second amendment case.

The ruling affects other minority groups

The three liberal members of the Supreme Court disagreed with the sentence of this Friday. Judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the majority was giving companies a “new license to discriminate.”

Sotomayor suggested that the “logic of the decision cannot be limited to discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

“It threatens to split the market and allow other groups to be excluded from many services,” he wrote.

Gorsuch countered in a footnote.

“Our decision today does not concern, let alone endorse, anything like the ‘straight couples only’ ads that dissent conjures up out of thin air,” he wrote.

But legal experts believed Sotomayor was not exaggerating in her dissent that the opinion could open up other minority groups to the same type of behavior for which Smith sought approval.

“The concern is that this gives any business owner the green light to refuse to serve anyone based on their identity, whether they’re gay or lesbian, Jewish or black, or whatever, because they have an objection to that those kinds of people are in your business,” said Katherine Franke, a professor at Columbia Law School.

“There is nothing in the ruling to limit it to objections to same-sex marriage,” Franke added.

Sepper also said the majority did not specifically limit the decision to LGBTQ people. He said that in other court cases in this area there has been language about race, for example, being different.

“We don’t see that here in the [caso] 303 Creative. So this opens the door to discrimination based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, any type of discrimination,” she said.

For his part, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a statement Friday that the decision promises to “destabilize the public marketplace” by allowing all kinds of businesses to have “the first amendment right to reject customers for who they are.” “.

Future disputes loom

The Court’s decision in 303 Creative represented a notable departure from other major LGBTQ rights cases it has decided in recent years.

In 2020, Gorsuch delivered a massive victory to the LGBTQ community when he delivered the majority opinion in a case that extended federal protections to gay, lesbian, and transgender workers. And in 2015, the Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, a victory long fought for by members of the community.

However, in the wake of Friday’s decision, LGBTQ rights advocates and experts warned that far from resolving the issue at the heart of the case, the ruling will likely embolden opponents of LGBTQ rights and spur a new wave of litigation that could remove civil rights protections in other areas.

“There is nothing in this ruling to limit it solely to website design cases, and the rules articulated by the court today could easily be extended to all types of businesses. Whether it is employment, housing, any type of business, and those cases will be next,” Franke said.

Pizer insisted on this point, stating that the decision “punches another hole in civil rights law and is likely to be taken as a message that justifies much more discrimination.”

“I think the big problem here, and it has been and continues to be a big problem, is that these types of cases don’t resolve the issue,” he said. “It invites a lot more litigation to determine where the lines may be,” she added.