When is a website just a website and when can it be considered a form of expression covered by the First Amendment?
And if the law applies to a website owner who wishes not to serve LGBTQ clients, then could a website be a restaurant that wishes not to serve gay people?
Or maybe even a private university that wishes not to serve LGBTQ students? The ACLU, which heretofore has been absolutist on free speech rights for even the most odious, has reportedly released a statement that warns what could happen:
“If 303 Creative wins here, we will live in a world in which any business that has an expressive service can put a sign that says, ‘Women Not Served, Jews Not Served, Black People Not Served.”
It’s hard not to think of the history we’ve had to overcome as we hear the oral arguments in the 303 Creative Ltd. Vs. Elenis case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.
It’s the case where a Colorado web designer, Lorie Smith, refuses to make wedding websites for LGBTQ couples because it infringes on her artistic free speech.
