Reaction to 303 Creative Decision

Massachusetts LGBT Chamber of Commerce

Massachusetts LGBT Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Grace Moreno released the following statement about the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis SCOTUS decision backing a business opposed to same-sex marriage.

"In the last 48 hours we have seen rulings from the Supreme Court that drastically set our country back and harm historically marginalized communities. Let's be very clear: today's ruling in the web designer case is an attack on not just the LGBTQ community, it is an attack on the very freedoms our constitution holds most dear. It is evident that all settled law is now vulnerable to the whims of right-wing ideology. Our LGBTQ community is not the first, nor will it be the last, to be targeted. Our Chamber will be relentless in our pursuit of justice and equality in spite of the political extremists who have placed Justices on the Court who are dragging us backwards."

GBPFLAG

GBPFLAG is resolved to continue the fight against discrimination.

This decision is a decisive blow in years of organized attacks that are chipping away at civil rights. Greater Boston PFLAG will continue to do our education work in schools, places of business, and community groups to ensure that students of color, LGBTQ+ students, and first-generation students all feel welcomed and valued in all institutions. We will also continue to work to create allies so that discrimination is seen and called out, not accepted and ignored. We will not stop doing our work until we create a more caring, affirming, and just world for all LGBTQ individuals and the people who love them.

Mass Equality

In an upsetting rebuke of equality, the Supreme Court today ruled in favor of a web designer who sought to refuse service to gay couples seeking websites for their upcoming wedding. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, affirmed the web designer's right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples in need of web design services. This decision marks a troubling instance where the Court failed to protect the principle of equal treatment for allindividuals, irrespective of their sexual orientation.

The case, constructed upon a deceitful narrative and centered around a business that does not specialize in designing wedding websites, undermines the urgency of presenting a genuine and pressing grievance before the Court. It is concerning that there was never an actual instance where a gay couple approached this business for a wedding website. This glaring lack of immediate relevance diminishes the gravity of addressing legitimate and time-sensitive concerns in front of the Court.