By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
Buttigieg Sees Grander Scheme in Place With Antigay SCOTUS Ruling
The opposition is organized and they have the most powerful court — and many state legislatures — on their side.
Like many of us, out U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has thoughts on the recent Supreme Court ruling that granted a Christian web designer the right to deny services to same-sex couples.
The former presidential candidate stated his frustration with the case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, during CNN's “State of the Union” Sunday, calling particular attention to the fact that the designer was reportedly never asked to create an LGBTQ+ wedding website.
“I think it’s very revealing that there’s no evidence that this web designer was ever even approached by anyone asking for a website for a same-sex wedding. Matter of fact, it appears this web designer only went into the wedding business for the purpose of provoking a case like this,” he said.
Per The Hill, the person who the designer claimed made the request denied having done so and told the media that he is a straight man. While the case did not go to trial over this alleged request, it was referenced at various points by the designer's attorneys.
Buttigieg sees 303 as part of a larger, nationwide trend.
“I think there’s something in common between this Supreme Court ruling and what we’re seeing happening in state legislatures across the country, which is kind of a solution looking for a problem,” Buttigieg said.
“In other words,” he continued, “sending these kinds of things to the courts and sending these kinds of things to state legislatures for the clear purpose of chipping away at the equality and the rights that have so recently been won in the LGBTQ+ community.”
As it stands, the designer in question and other businesses may legally refuse certain creative services to LGBTQ+ people, although the scope of the ruling is narrow. Still, it’s breathtaking to think about what the conservative justices have allowed. Justice Sonia Sotomayor described the ramifications best.
Writing in the dissenting opinion, Sotomayor wrote, “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.”
