The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that businesses can deny services to LGBTQ+ clients and customers. Christian web designer in landmark LGBTQ+ rights case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, didn't want to design a website for her Queer identifying clients. What a way to wrap Pride Month, per People.

In the case of Lorie Smith, a website designer of 303 Creative, challenged a Colorado law prohibiting businesses from discriminating against LGBTQ+ customers. Smith, whose case involved a hypothetical scenario, argued she shouldn't have to design websites for LGBTQ+ weddings because it violate her religious beliefs and right to free speech.

Smith sued Colorado in attempt to block its anti-discrimination laws. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, even though she had yet to actually design a website. SCOTUS decided on June 30 that “the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.”
Article Continues Below
More Entertainment News
Max
New to Max in June 2025Burtland Dixon ·
Cowboys, Netflix
New to Netflix in June 2025Burtland Dixon ·
Disney+ logo on TV in living ahead of the new titles coming in June 2025.
New to Disney+ in June 2025Andrew Korpan ·
Netflix, new to netflix this weekend
New to Netflix this Weekend (May 29-June 1, 2025)Burtland Dixon ·
Apple TV+ logo in front of beach to represent June.
New to Apple TV+ in June 2025Andrew Korpan ·
Hulu logo in front of beach to represent June.
New to Hulu this Weekend (May 29-June 1, 2025)Andrew Korpan ·
The largely conservative Supreme Court determined that U.S. businesses can legally deny their services to LGBTQ+ people under the First Amendment.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the court's opinion, wrote, “In saying this much, we do not question the vital role public accommodations laws play in realizing the civil rights of all Americans. This Court has recognized that governments in this country have a ‘compelling interest' in eliminating discrimination in places of public accommodation. … At the same time, this Court has also recognized that no public accommodations law is immune from the demands of the Constitution.”