LGBTQ+ Rights and Religious Freedom

In recent years, the Supreme Court has made several rulings in favor of gay, lesbian, and transgender rights, including:
- Legalizing gay marriage.
- Ruling that the Civil Rights Act applies to gay and transgender employees.
Conservatives are now employing alternative legal arguments to uphold the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

A primary argument centers on the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.
The argument posits that preventing discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals infringes upon the religious freedom of those who oppose LGBTQ+ rights due to their religious beliefs, effectively discriminating against religious individuals.

Justice Samuel Alito argued that legalizing same-sex marriage would be used to condemn those unwilling to accept the "new orthodoxy."

Justice Clarence Thomas expressed concerns that the decision to legalize gay marriage threatens religious liberty.

The Court has increasingly sided with religious business owners, exemplified by the Masterpiece Cake Shop case.
Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop and an evangelical Christian, refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple in 02/2012 due to his religious objections to same-sex marriage.
Colorado filed a lawsuit against Phillips for violating the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
Phillips argued that the law violated his right to free exercise of religion.
In 02/2018, the Supreme Court ruled in a five to four decision that Phillips had the right to refuse to make the cake.

The Supreme Court is considering an appeal from Yeshiva University in New York City.
Yeshiva University, an Orthodox Jewish university, denied a petition to establish a pride alliance club for LGBTQ+ students in April 2021.
The New York City Human Rights Commission ruled that the university's refusal violated the city's civil rights ordinance.
The university responded by disbanding all clubs on campus and appealing to the Supreme Court.
Given the court's current conservative majority, the university is likely to win.

The free exercise clause is being used to challenge other laws.
- In Burwell versus Hobby Lobby (02/2014), the Supreme Court ruled in a five to four decision that certain companies could refuse to provide birth control in their employee insurance plans on religious grounds.
- In April 2022, a federal judge in Texas struck down a law requiring insurance policies to cover HIV prevention drugs, citing religious freedom concerns related to beliefs about homosexuality.
- In another instance in April 2022, a nurse was fired for refusing to provide contraceptives due to religious objections and is suing the pharmacy.

Conservatives are also using the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech to justify discrimination.
The Supreme Court will hear a case involving a website designer who refused to design websites for LGBTQ+ weddings and was sued by Colorado.
She argues that designing a website is a form of creative expression and that she cannot be forced to express beliefs she disagrees with.
The court's conservative majority will likely rule in her favor.

A key question is whether the same logic could extend to racial discrimination.
For example, could a cake shop owner or website designer discriminate against interracial couples based on religious or moral beliefs?
The court has not yet provided a definitive answer to this question.