THE VOICE OF CHICAGO'S GAY, LESBIAN, BI, TRANS AND QUEER COMMUNITY SINCE 1985

According to NBC News, the court ruled six to three in the case 303 Creative LLC et al. v. Elenis et al. that Smith has a free-speech right under the Constitution's First Amendment to refuse to endorse messages if she disagrees with them.

The ruling could allow other similar business owners to avoid punishment under laws in 29 states that protect LGBTQ+ rights in public accommodations in some form.

"The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place, where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court.

The case gave the court another chance at a legal question it considered but never resolved when it ruled in a similar case in 2018 in favor of Christian baker Jack Phillips, also from Colorado, who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

—Andrew Davis

From a GLAAD press release

(New York, NY, June 30, 2023) GLAAD, the world's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) media advocacy organization, is responding to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative, Inc. v. Elenis.

In a 6 to 3 vote, The Court upheld the right of a website business to violate Colorado's nondiscrimination law and deny services to same-sex couples. The business had not been asked to serve any same-sex couple.

The case was brought by Alliance Defending Freedom [ glaad.org/gap/alliance-defending-freedom-adf/ ] , which has argued and lost cases at the U.S. Supreme Court to legalize discrimination against LGBTQ people, and fought to overturn Roe v. Wade [ msmagazine.com/2023/06/23/dark-money-abortion-leonard-leo-federalist-society/ ] , and block access to abortion medication.

In her dissent [ www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf ] , Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes: "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… the act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment. Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group."

In contrast to the plaintiff's hypothetical case, Sotomayor noted examples of actual same-sex couples who have been discriminated against by businesses, including a man in his 80s denied funeral services for his husband and partner of 52 years, and a cemetery that refused to inscribe a headstone for a lesbian couple with the words "beloved life partner." Sotomayor: "Wedding websites, birth announcements, family portraits, epitaphs. These are not just words and images. They are the most profound moments in a human's life. They are the moments that give that life personal and cultural meaning… There are many such stories, too many to tell here. And after today, too many to come."

Statement from Sarah Kate Ellis (she/her/hers), President and CEO of GLAAD:

"This decision will bring harm and stigma to LGBTQ families and is yet another example of a Court that is out of touch with the supermajority of Americans who believe in fundamental freedoms and know that discrimination is wrong. Businesses that are open to the public should serve all in the public. Not one LGBTQ couple sought the business' services so this case is a massive abuse of the judicial system and part of a coordinated effort from groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom to leverage corrupt extremist justices to roll back rights of marginalized Americans. The decision does not reflect a country that supports LGBTQ people and recognizes our relationships are equal, valid and valued."

Additional research references:

—GLAAD Accelerating Acceptance Study [ glaad.org/publications/accelerating-acceptance-2023/ ] (June 1, 2023) shows supermajority support of LGBTQ people:

—91% of non-LGBTQ Americans agree that LGBTQ people should have the freedom to live their life and not be discriminated against

—84% support equal rights for the LGBTQ community

—GALLUP: 71% of Americans support marriage equality, eight years after the Court's Obergefell decision legalized it nationwide [ news.gallup.com/poll/506636/sex-marriage-support-holds-high.aspx ]

—A NORC at the University of Chicago poll [ www.norc.org/research/library/majority-of-u-s-public-opposes-using-religious-beliefs.html ] (June 15) shows 71% of Americans oppose using religious beliefs as a reason to discriminate against LGBTQ people - including 59% of people who say they attend religious services. Women and people of color were more likely to object to religious-based discrimination

—NPR/Marist Poll [ maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/the-2024-presidential-candidates/ ] shows ongoing declining confidence in the Court, with 59% of Americans reporting low to no confidence.

—500+ anti-LGBTQ bills [ www.equalityfederation.org/state-legislation ] were introduced across the country this year, to criminalize health care for transgender youth, ban LGBTQ-inclusive curricula in schools, ban books, prohibit transgender students from participating in school sports, and prohibit drag performances. Tennessee's drag ban was struck down as unconstitutional earlier this month.

—GLAAD tracked more than 160 attacks [ glaad.org/anti-drag-report ] on drag events and performers.

—More than 20 children's hospitals faced bomb threats, fueled by disinformation spread online, extremist media and extremist social media.

—In a first-of-its-kind report [ www.adl.org/resources/report/year-review-anti-lgbtq-hate-extremism-incidents-2022-2023 ] released last week, the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, in partnership with GLAAD, tracked 356 anti-LGBTQ+ hate and extremism incidents from June 2022 to April 2023, including 305 acts of harassment, 40 acts of vandalism and 11 incidents of assault.

—GLAAD and Ipsos poll [ glaad.org/research/ipsospridepoll/ ] (June 22, 2023) shows a majority of Americans support companies that include LGBTQ people:

————74% of Americans are neutral or positively impacted by knowing a company offers Pride merchandise.

————59% of Americans believe companies offering Pride merchandise are showing support and acceptance of the LGBTQ community.

From an Equality Illinois press release

When a business decides to open its doors to the public, that business should be open to all—a core American principle at the heart of how we treat one another. Yet, during a Pride Month when LGBTQ+ people are under attack across the country by hateful policies and violence, six anti-equality justices on the United States Supreme Court today issued a radical and reckless ruling that strikes at that American principle.

This ruling ignores long-standing precedent and public norms to say that some businesses can turn some people away because of who they are. This is not what Illinoisans want. Illinoisans want a state where all people—including LGBTQ+ people—are equally welcomed in public spaces across the state. We know this because Illinoisans have spoken through their elected leaders to champion the cause of equality and fairness.

In response to this ruling, Equality Illinois will collaborate with our legal partners, pro-equality public officials, and LGBTQ+ community stewards to determine the best course of action to defend the non-discrimination protections in the Illinois Human Rights Act. We will work to ensure the ruling is not used to allow further discrimination because of a customer's sexual orientation, gender identity, race, religion, national origin, sex, or other protected class.

June is Pride Month, and Pride was founded in an uprising fueled by resistance, resilience, and fighting back. We will resist. We will fight back. Our dignity will not be diminished.

From a New Ways Ministry press release

MOUNT RAINIER, Maryland—The LGBTQ+ community, people of faith, and the entire country have been greatly wounded by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the 303 Creative case which dangerously allows religious beliefs to be weaponized for discrimination.

The decision makes LGBTQ+ people second-class citizens by putting them at greater risk of discrimination and limiting their use of public accommodations, such as businesses. Discrimination violates our nation's ideals for building a more just and equal society. Moreover, it goes against Catholic social teaching which upholds that every person has inherent human dignity and deserves equal treatment in society.

Broad exemptions to allow religious-based discrimination hurts people of faith, too. The legacy of people from particular religious backgrounds facing discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations from people with different religious beliefs persists. Historically, Catholics from a variety of ethnic groups know this kind of exclusion only too well. The court's exemption will further fuel the violence against religious minorities, particularly against non-Christian adherents, that still continues to poison our national life.

The Supreme Court's decision also harms the entire country by affirming that theocratic ideas can trump the democratic processes of a pluralistic society. The court endangers democracy by eroding laws designed to protect equality and justice for all. This ruling supports the rising tide of Christian nationalism which threatens true religious freedom, and opens the door to discrimination in public life based on gender, race, disability, and other legally protected categories.

As Catholics, we encourage members of our church, and indeed all people of faith, to follow Pope Francis' advice for building a better world: encountering those who are different from ourselves and treating them with respect and courtesy. Such encounters are the opposite of that discrimination this new ruling condones.

This case did not have to be a struggle between religious beliefs versus civil law. Business people whose religious beliefs prevent them from following civil law can choose to stop providing services they do not want to offer to everyone. If the owners of 303 Creative LLC do not want to provide wedding websites for same-gender couples, they have the option not to offer that service to any couple. If beliefs are truly strongly held, religious people would be ready to live by them even if that means losing revenue by curtailing their businesses to honor both their personal beliefs and the law of the land in which they elect to set up shop. Religious people have long redirected their lives so as not to follow laws with which they disagree. They should not seek loopholes that carve out exemptions which create new injustices targeted against marginalized groups.

Instead of upholding the principle in the U.S. Constitution's Preamble to "form a more perfect union," the Supreme Court's decision instead enhances the growing divide in our country by giving the blessing of so-called "religious freedom" to people who want to discriminate.

LGBTQ+ people and so many other marginalized communities continue to suffer greatly in the present national atmosphere where division and exclusion are rampant. Religion should be a tool to help unite people across ideological lines, not cause greater isolation into camps that oppose one another.

From a Human Rights Campaign press release

WASHINGTON — Today, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) civil rights organization, condemned the Supreme Court's radical decision on 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case regarding whether a business that is open to the public can be granted an unprecedented free speech exemption from state anti-discrimination law in order to turn away customers they would rather not serve. In a radical, unprecedented 6/3 decision, the Court ruled that a "free speech" exemption can be given to public accommodations non-discrimination laws for custom goods and services.

Human Rights Campaign President (HRC) Kelley Robinson released the following statement:

"This decision by the Supreme Court is a dangerous step backward, giving some businesses the power to discriminate against people simply because of who we are. Our nation has been on a path of progress — deciding over the course of many decades that businesses should be open regardless of race, disability or religion. Many states have expanded this promise to include sex, sexual orientation and gender identity—this is a deeply troubling crack in our progress and should be alarming to us all. People deserve to have commercial spaces that are safe and welcoming. This decision continues to affirm how radical and out-of-touch this Court is, especially when 80 percent of Americans support robust and LGBTQ+ inclusive nondiscrimination laws.

"Make no mistake, this case was manufactured by the Alliance for Defending Freedom to create a new license to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people. Despite our opponents claiming this is a major victory, this ruling does not give unfettered power to discriminate. This decision does not mean that any LGBTQ+ person can be discriminated against in housing, employment or banking—those protections remain enshrined with federal law. The LGBTQ+ community is in a state of emergency where all levels of government are trying to erase us, but we will not let them erase us—we will fight back."

The 303 Creative case involves the owner of a Colorado website business who claims that the business involves speech and requiring her to sell to same-sex couples is compelled speech; therefore the business is entitled to a First Amendment exemption from state anti-discrimination law. However, the business does not currently sell wedding websites and no same-sex couple has asked to buy one. Represented by the hate group Alliance Defending Freedom, the website owner claimed that the anti-discrimination law would "compel" her to express support for a marriage with which she disagrees if she is not permitted to refuse such a sale in the future.

From a National Black Justice Coalition press release

WASHINGTON — Following the Supreme Court's decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, siding with a Colorado business in allowing it to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community based on religious beliefs, Dr. David J. Johns, executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition (NBJC), a leading Black LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, issued this statement:

"Today's decision is a significant blow to the civil rights and liberties of the LGBTQ+/SGL community, undoing meaningful progress towards equality and justice. The decision sends a distressing signal that business owners' religious beliefs can be used as a license to discriminate, perpetuating harmful stereotypes and further marginalizing a vulnerable community.

"It is important to recognize that this decision not only affects the LGBTQ+ community but also has far-reaching implications for the broader civil rights of all marginalized communities that have dealt with our country's long history of prejudice and inequity. The decision threatens the progress towards achieving full equality, creates a climate of uncertainty and fear for LGBTQ+ individuals who already face significant discrimination and violence when simply trying to live their lives, and, as a result, weakens democracy.

"The anti-democratic, segregationist, white nationalistic Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is party to this case, has a well-documented history of using legal strategies to erode LGBTQ+ rights, perpetuating discrimination and stigmatization. A perilous precedent is set when the ADF is allowed to manufacture a case in search of a solution to a problem that doesn't even exist for the plaintiff, undermining the principles of justice, equality, and nondiscrimination that are the bedrock of our nation.

"We call on lawmakers and advocates to pass legislation that preserves and affirms the rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, alongside our other constitutional protections not below them. We urge everyone who believes in equality and justice to join us in pushing back against these regressive attacks on our communities by contacting your congressional representatives and encouraging them to modernize and make fully inclusive our nation's civil rights laws by sending President Biden the Equality Act to sign into law."

From a GLAD press release

June 30, 2023 (BOSTON) — In a 6-3 ruling today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a highly fact-specific decision authorizing a narrow exception to a state nondiscrimination law for a website developer whose work it found involves selecting customers to convey the designer's message. While the case allows for the first time a limited First Amendment exemption from laws requiring businesses open to the public to offer the goods and services they sell without discrimination, the unusual nature of the transaction in the case suggests the ruling has virtually no application to the overwhelming majority of businesses providing goods and services to the public.

Based on the facts agreed upon by the parties, the Court found that the seller vets and endorses each client meets with the couple to discuss "unique" stories, creates original artwork, designs and text for each, and explicitly expresses her support for their wedding. All of this, the Court said, pointed to the "expressive" nature of her conduct and justied a narrow exception to the nondiscrimination law. This is different from virtually all businesses that sell goods and services to the public and does not reflect how the overwhelming majority of companies operate.

"While today's ruling is extremely limited, we are disappointed to see that for the first time, and in the context of LGBTQ+ people who are already facing a "heartbreaking" "backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities," as the dissent noted, an unprecedented exemption to nondiscrimination laws that have always been considered to forbid conduct, not speech. This is not the broad victory Lorie Smith and her counsel sought — today's ruling importantly upholds the validity of nondiscrimination laws, including for LGBTQ+ people who may obtain goods and services 'on the same terms offered to other members of the public' - but it is not the end of efforts to push LGBTQ+ people and couples into a second class status. GLAD and our movement will resist that effort every step of the way.

For decades, case law and public agreement have upheld the principle that nondiscrimination laws are bound up with first principles of equality, with mutual respect and civic unity, and with our need for goods and services no matter who and where we are. It is crucial to ensure today's ruling remains limited to the highly specific and customized services the Court found in this case, and is not seen as a green light to assert a free speech defense in other areas of law. Denying services to same-sex couples is out of step with what the vast majority of Americans believe, and the overwhelming majority of Americans, including business owners, strive to treat everyone with dignity and respect as they too want to be treated. Today's decision from the Supreme Court does not change that.

LGBTQ+ people are family members, co-workers, business owners, and customers in every community and we remain committed to working alongside our neighbors to ensure all people can go about our daily lives and access the goods and services we need without discrimination. As Justice Kennedy summarized for several of the current justices in Masterpiece Cakeshop just 5 years ago, 'religious and philosophical objections of business owners and other actors in the economy and in society" do not suffice to 'deny protected persons equal access to goods and services" under public accommodations laws like Colorado's.' We will fight to maintain that principle for all of the people protected by nondiscrimination laws."

GLAD submitted a friend of the Court brief [ www.glad.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/303-Creative-v.-Elenis-GLAD-et-al.-Amicus-Brief.pdf ] in this case for GLAD, NCLR, Lambda Legal, HRC, The Task Force, and thanks White & Case for its assistance.

From a press release by U.S. Representative Mike Quigley

Chicago, Ill. — Today, U.S. Representative Mike Quigley (IL-05) released the following statement after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a web designer who refuses to create websites for same-sex couples:

"When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer, they signaled a willingness to throw out decades of precedent, roll back hard-won rights, and legalize treating some Americans as second-class citizens. Today's ruling is the latest in that trend. This decision is a massive step backward that allows some businesses to discriminate based on who someone is or who they love. This court has shown us once again their inability to put personal, extremist biases aside. In this case, they have weaponized free speech as a means to attack marriage equality.

"The individual who brought this case did so based purely on a hypothetical. She went out of her way to show prejudice and in this process has ensured others like her can do the same. It is obvious that this decision will further empower bigoted individuals who believe their first amendment right provides them a license to discriminate.

"We cannot let this decision deter us in the fight to protect LGBTQI+ Americans. Right now, far right activists across the country are relentlessly attacking the LGBTQI+ community. While this ruling is a blow, the moment calls for more determination than ever before. I stand with my LGBTQI+ constituents and I will not back down from fighting for them no matter how loud or powerful the opposition grows."

From a press release by the American Psychological Association

WASHINGTON — The American Psychological Association decried a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court allowing a designer to refuse to create websites for same-sex weddings because she says it conflicts with her First Amendment right to free expression.

"We are disappointed that the court granted permission to individuals to discriminate in providing their services in a way that is contrary to the goals of Colorado's anti-discrimination law," said APA Chief Executive Officer Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD. "Research has shown that laws like Colorado's can decrease stigma and associated adverse health consequences. By allowing discrimination in public accommodations, the court is preventing Colorado from curtailing the discrimination experienced by LGBTQ people and members of other disfavored groups, and the harmful stress that ensues."

APA filed an amicus brief in the case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis [ www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/elenis ] , citing the substantial scientific research demonstrating the negative impacts of discrimination based on sexual orientation. "For LGBTQ people, being the target of stigma is associated with elevated stress responses, which in turn are linked to adverse physical and psychological health outcomes," according to the brief. "This stress results in negative health effects. As a population, LGBTQ people manifest more overall psychological and physical health problems than heterosexual people." In Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent from the court's decision, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, she cited the Annual Review of Psychology in support of one of the main points APA made in its brief about the harms of stigma that stem from permitted discrimination.

APA's brief was joined by the National Association of Social Workers and the Colorado Psychological Association.

"While laws like Colorado's will not eliminate discrimination based on sexual orientation or other characteristics, research shows that they are associated with better psychological and physiological health outcomes for members of protected classes," Evans added. "APA is discouraged that the court's majority has undermined Colorado's important statutory scheme to serve the compelling state interest of protecting the rights of LGBTQ people and other minority populations."

From a press release by American Atheists

Washington, DC—June 30, 2023—Today, the religious equality organization American Atheists condemned the Supreme Court's 6—3 ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, allowing a designer to discriminate against same-sex couples in the creation and sale of wedding websites.

"This disastrous decision puts business owners' religious beliefs above the basic human dignity of LGBTQ people and other vulnerable groups," said Geoffrey T. Blackwell, Litigation Counsel for American Atheists.

"Fifty years ago, the Court rejected the argument that the free speech rights of bigots trump nondiscrimination laws," added Blackwell, referencing the 1976 case, Runyon v. McCrary, which upheld civil rights laws prohibiting racial discrimination. "Protections against racial, religious, and gender discrimination are all at grave risk after today's decision. This corrupt Court is dismantling decades of hard-won advances."

The plaintiff in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, Lorie Smith from Colorado, is a would-be wedding website designer from Colorado. She claimed she would face punishment for her opposition to gay marriage because the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act requires that her business, a public accommodation, provide the same services to all people and treat all couples with the same level of dignity and respect.

American Atheists joined the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Center for Inquiry, and the American Humanist Association in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court. The organizations pointed out that the plaintiff had never actually designed wedding websites nor been subject to sanctions under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, and therefore did not have standing to sue.

On Thursday, June 29, Melissa Gira Grant at the New Republic reported that this lawsuit is even more problematic. Smith claimed that a same-sex couple, "Stewart" and "Mike," had requested her services via an inquiry form. Yet as Grant found, the "Stewart" in question said he never submitted the inquiry form and was married to a woman at the time. "Somebody's using false information in a Supreme Court filing document," he told her.

"The 303 Creative case is built off a pack of lies. It was manufactured by the Religious Right for the express purpose of allowing widespread discrimination against LGBTQ people," said Nick Fish, president of American Atheists. "This out-of-control Supreme Court has once again ignored the facts of a case and decades of precedent to do the bidding of its white Christian nationalist backers."

In last year's Kennedy v. Bremerton decision, the six religious extremist Justices similarly disregarded the facts of the case in order to arrive at their preferred conclusion. The majority opinion claimed that the plaintiff Kennedy, a Washington State football coach, had engaged in a "quiet, personal prayer." In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor included pictures of Kennedy preaching to students following a game.

"The six conservative Justices keep showing that they're less interested in upholding the law than acting as Christian nationalist politicians," added Fish. "The Supreme Court is fundamentally broken. The only way to fix this problem is to reform and expand the Court."

From a press release by Congressman Jesús "Chuy" García

WASHINGTON, DC — Congressman Jesús "Chuy" García (IL-04), member of the Congressional Equality Caucus, issued the following statement condemning the Supreme Court's ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.

"Our LGBTQ+ siblings are under attack from extreme activists and lawmakers who are pushing an agenda of hate. Today's ruling by the Supreme Court only emboldens their cause.

"This decision licenses discrimination against a protected class. Along with the decision itself, the origins of this case compounds its cruelty. This ruling was based on an invented scenario of a web designer denying service to same-sex couples. The Court jumped at the chance to use this scenario to issue yet another decision that takes away peoples' rights. It creates a dangerous precedent that could be used to roll back far more rights and protections from the LGBTQI+ community and other groups.

"LGBTQI+ people have a right to live their authentic self, free from hate, discrimination, and violence, and we must continue our fight to make that right a reality."

In August of last year Congressman García joined 130 Members of Congress filing an amicus brief to defend nondiscrimination laws in the case. On Dec. 5, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the case.

From a press release by the AFL-CIO

Statement from AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler on the Supreme Court's ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis:

Today's ruling by the Supreme Court is a disgrace. In the name of "free expression," a radical majority has effectively decimated the nation's anti-discrimination laws. The achievements of decades of struggle on our streets—true exercises of First Amendment rights—have been decimated by a radical conservative majority on the Supreme Court that today gave businesses a road map for how to evade anti-discrimination laws.

Just as the court used freedom of contract to strike down protective labor laws a century ago, today's court is using the First Amendment to strip LGBTQ+ people and the most vulnerable citizens in our society of protection. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes in dissent: "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."

This is a sad day for the court, but the struggle for justice that led to the passage of our anti-discrimination laws will continue. Unions are one of the best tools we have to fight back against discrimination, and we remain committed to expanding access to collective bargaining so that all working people can benefit from equal protection. Even as this court seems bent on obliterating our fundamental freedoms and hard-won progress, working people will not go backward.

From a press release by the Illinois Department of Human Rights

Statement from IDHR Director Jim Bennett on U.S. Supreme Court Decision Regarding LGBTQ+ Protections

Chicago—Today, IDHR (Illinois Department of Human Rights) Director Jim Bennett released the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to allow businesses to refuse to serve customers based on their protected characteristics, such as sexual orientation.

"When a business is open to the public, it should be open to all.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that betrays our nation's values, undermines decades of settled case law that protects our marketplace from discrimination, and permits certain businesses to discriminate against historically marginalized groups simply because of who they are.

Our antidiscrimination laws, including the Illinois Human Rights Act, exist to protect the rights of vulnerable communities. Before these protections were codified into law, businesses like banks, hotels, restaurants, and bars, posted signs and publicly refused to serve people who were not white, straight, male, able-bodied, or neurotypical. The court had an opportunity to strengthen anti-discrimination laws, but instead, it chose to harm LGBTQ people by relegating them to second-class status. They deserve far better from our nation's highest court.

The Illinois Department of Human Rights calls on each of us to ensure freedom and inclusion for everyone in the marketplace. We must not allow this regressive ruling to be used to instill fear. The Illinois Human Rights Act provides comprehensive protections against discrimination in public accommodations, as well as employment, housing, financial credit, and sexual harassment in education. If you believe you have experienced discrimination, you can file a charge by calling 312-814-4320 or 866-740-3953 (TTY) or emailing IDHR.Intake@illinois.gov .

To learn more, visit dhr.illinois.gov .

From a press release by the Democratic National Committee

Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison and DNC LGBTQ+ Caucus Chair Earl Fowlkes released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis:

"Today, on the last day of Pride month, the conservative Supreme Court issued yet another radical and out of touch opinion that chips away at civil rights laws that protect all Americans, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and religion, from discrimination in public accommodations.

"Open to the public means open to the public. That includes everyone, including the LGBTQ+ community. While we are deeply concerned that this decision could invite further discrimination against LGBTQ+ Americans and pave the way for further eroding of civil rights law, we applaud President Biden for doubling down on his commitment to work with states and federal law enforcement to protect LGBTQ+ Americans.

"The Supreme Court's decision comes as anti-LGBTQ+ groups have set their sights on rolling back LGBTQ+ rights in states across the country. This year alone, anti-freedom MAGA Republicans have introduced hundreds of bills with the sole purpose of rolling back the clock on LGBTQ+ rights in our country. But Democrats will not sit back quietly as these groups continue to wage war on the freedoms for LGBTQ+ Americans. An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. We will continue standing shoulder to shoulder with the LGBTQ+ community as we fight for legislation like the Equality Act, which would enshrine civil rights and public accommodations protections for LGBTQ+ Americans in federal law.

From a press release by State Rep. Kelly Cassidy

CHICAGO - This week, the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions that fly in the face of the idea of a free and equal society. Yesterday, in two decisions (SFFA v. UNC and SFFA v. Harvard), the court held that schools may not consider race as a factor in admissions, leaving in place factors like legacy admissions or donor status in a decision that could set back efforts at equity and inclusion not just in college admissions, but throughout our society. Today's decision in 303 Creative represents yet another rollback of long acknowledged rights by permitting a business to effectively post a sign excluding anyone from being served if the product or service provided involves expression. "Once again, the court is ignoring years of precedent and settled law to roll back rights," said Representative Kelly Cassidy, "If a business can make an argument that their product is expression, they can argue their right to limit access to any product or service. This reads like an engraved invitation to expand the definition of expression. I love to cook and find it an expression of my creativity. Does that mean if I was a restaurateur I could refuse to serve my food to someone based on my bias against who

they are?" "Today's Supreme Court decision is a deep disappointment for those of us who have felt the love and affirmation of this Pride Month," Cassidy added. "The Court's majority adds to the attacks we have seen across the country on members of the LGBTQ+ community - this time suggesting that discrimination against our community can be justified." Cassidy noted that the impact on Illinois' law protecting against discrimination in public accomodations is still being analyzed. The Dobbs Working Group will be reviewing the impact carefully in the event there is a need for state action to protect the rights of any groups subject to discrimination in our state. The Working Group is committed to ensuring that the guarantees contained in the Illinois Human Rights Act are fully recognized.