Caterers, Gay Marriage, And The Right To Refuse Service

In 2023, the US Supreme Court ruled in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis that businesses can refuse services to gay and transgender people in some instances. This landmark decision has opened the door for broad discrimination against a protected class, rolling back hard-won freedoms. While the Supreme Court's ruling was a blow to LGBTQ+ rights, it is important to note that it does not provide a blanket right for businesses to discriminate. The specific circumstances and nature of the services being offered will likely play a role in future decisions.

The issue of businesses denying services to same-sex couples is not new. In the past, there have been instances of bakeries, wedding photographers, and other vendors refusing to serve gay couples, citing religious beliefs as the reason for their refusal. These actions have sparked debates about the balance between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws, with some states introducing legislation to protect businesses that deny services to same-sex weddings.

The ability of businesses to refuse services to gay couples is a complex and evolving legal issue, with ongoing efforts to protect the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals.

Religious freedom vs. discrimination

The question of whether wedding caterers can deny service to gay marriages is a highly contested issue that brings the concepts of religious freedom and discrimination into conflict. On the one hand, religious freedom is a fundamental right that allows individuals and businesses to practice their faith without interference from the government. On the other hand, discrimination against individuals based on their sexual orientation is unlawful and goes against the principles of equality and fairness.

In the United States, the legal landscape surrounding this issue has been complex and evolving. In 2015, the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, recognizing it as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. This marked a significant step forward for LGBTQ+ rights and equality. However, in recent years, there have been instances where businesses have refused to provide services for same-sex weddings, citing religious beliefs and freedom of speech as justifications for their actions.

One notable example is the 2023 Supreme Court case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, where the court ruled in favor of a graphic designer who refused to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. The court's decision was based on the First Amendment right to free speech, stating that the designer's work was an "expressive design" and that she could not be compelled to express a view that she opposed. This ruling set a precedent that emboldened other businesses to refuse services to LGBTQ+ individuals, including caterers, florists, and photographers.

In contrast, some states have introduced legislation to protect the LGBTQ+ community from discrimination in accessing wedding services. For instance, the Respect for Marriage Act, passed in 2022, ensures that all legal marriages, including same-sex marriages, are recognized across state lines. While this legislation does include religious exemptions for houses of worship and religious nonprofits, it also highlights the tension between religious freedom and discrimination.

The debate surrounding religious freedom and discrimination in the context of wedding services for same-sex couples is complex and multifaceted. While individuals and businesses should have the right to practice their religious beliefs, discrimination against a protected class, such as the LGBTQ+ community, is unlawful and goes against the principles of equality. Striking a balance between these two rights is challenging, and it is a continuous dialogue that involves legal, social, and ethical considerations.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create an inclusive society where individuals are free to practice their religious beliefs while also ensuring that all citizens are treated equally and have access to the same rights and services, regardless of their sexual orientation.

The financial and emotional cost of discrimination

Discrimination against the LGBTQI+ community comes at a high cost, both financial and emotional.

Financial Costs

Businesses that discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. This is especially true when competitors treat their LGBTQI+ employees and customers fairly and equally. Discrimination negatively impacts a business's economic performance in several ways:

• Recruitment: Businesses that hire based on job-irrelevant characteristics like sexual orientation and gender identity are left with a substandard workforce that diminishes their ability to generate healthy profits.
• Retention: Discrimination forces qualified LGBTQI+ employees out of their jobs and into the ranks of the unemployed. This introduces numerous turnover-related costs, as employers must then find, hire, and retrain employees to replace those who have left. According to a recent study, replacing a departing employee costs somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 for an hourly worker, and between $75,000 and $211,000 for an executive making $100,000 a year.
• Job Performance and Productivity: Discrimination and hostility in the workplace prevent employees from performing their core functions and introduce unnecessary costs by increasing absenteeism, lowering productivity, and fostering a less motivated, less entrepreneurial, and less committed workforce.
• Marketing to Consumers: When companies allow unfairness to go unchecked in the workplace, consumers increasingly react by choosing to do business elsewhere. This is especially true of LGBTQI+ consumers who are particularly responsive to corporate social responsibility. Companies cannot afford to lose this market, which wields a cumulative spending power of nearly $1 trillion.
• Litigation: Allowing discrimination against LGBTQI+ employees exposes businesses to potentially costly lawsuits, even in states that have not outlawed LGBTQI+ discrimination. In 2010, the top 10 private plaintiff employment discrimination lawsuits cost firms more than $346 million.

Emotional Costs

Discrimination has a profound impact on the mental health of those who experience it. Research shows that discrimination is linked to mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Experiencing discrimination can result in a state of heightened vigilance and changes in behavior, triggering stress responses. Discrimination-related stress can lead to:

• Changes in Behavior: To cope with discrimination, individuals may feel the need to take care about what they say and how they say it, or to avoid certain situations altogether. For example, Hispanic and Black adults are most likely to say they feel a need to take care with their appearance to get good service or avoid harassment.
• Increased Stress Levels: Discrimination is associated with higher reported stress levels. Adults who experience discrimination have higher average stress levels than those who do not. This is true across racial groups and the LGBTQI+ community.
• Poorer Reported Health: Experiencing discrimination is associated with poorer reported health. Almost half of adults who did not report experiencing discrimination (45%) reported excellent or very good health, compared to 31% of those who did experience discrimination.

The role of the state in defining marriage

The federal government and state governments both play a role in policymaking regarding marriage. The federal government has the power to regulate and define marriage through laws and policies, such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was passed in 1996 and defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman. This law was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The federal government also provides benefits and protections to married couples, such as allowing married couples to file joint tax returns, receive social security benefits, and have access to certain healthcare and immigration benefits.

While the federal government has the power to define marriage, state governments also have the authority to pass their own laws regarding marriage, as long as they don't conflict with federal law or violate the Constitution. This means that states can have different requirements and regulations for getting married, such as age restrictions or waiting periods. States also have the power to regulate other aspects of marriage, such as divorce, property division, and child custody. These laws can vary from state to state, leading to differences in how marriages are dissolved and assets are divided.

In the context of gay marriage, the role of the state in defining marriage has been a subject of debate and legal challenges. For example, in the case of United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court held that the "definition and regulation of marriage" is within the "authority and realm of the separate states," and that a federal definition of marriage that creates "two contradictory marriage regimes within the same state" must fall. This decision respected the principles of federalism and the exclusive authority of states to define and defend marriage.

However, the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 required all states to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, leaving Section 2 of DOMA as superseded and unenforceable. This ruling affirmed the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry and required states to recognize these marriages, regardless of their own definitions of marriage.

In conclusion, the role of the state in defining marriage is complex and involves a balance between federal and state powers. While the federal government sets the overall framework for marriage laws, state governments have the authority to pass their own laws and regulations within that framework. The dynamic between federal and state governments ensures that marriage laws are responsive to the needs and values of local communities while also providing nationwide consistency and protection of rights.

The impact of legal same-sex marriage on mental and physical health

Same-sex marriage legalization (SSML) is an anti-discrimination policy that removes institutional discrimination against sexual minorities by providing them with marriage equality. Research has shown that SSML has had a positive impact on the mental and physical health of sexual minorities.

Impact on mental health

Studies have found that SSML significantly improved the mental health of sexual minorities and substantially reduced the sexual orientation gap in mental health. This is likely due to a combination of factors, including increased social acceptance, reduced stigma, and improved societal attitudes towards sexual minorities. SSML has also been found to stabilize same-sex relationships and enlarge the choice set of partnership forms, which may further contribute to the mental health gains of sexual minorities.

Impact on physical health

SSML has also been found to have a positive impact on the physical health of sexual minorities. Research suggests that SSML is associated with reduced psychological distress and improved self-reported health among sexual minorities. Additionally, SSML provides access to a range of tangible benefits and social opportunities that can positively impact physical health, such as financial and legal benefits, social support, and improved access to healthcare.

Impact on specific groups

Some research suggests that the impact of SSML may differ for certain groups within the sexual minority community. For example, studies have found that SMW (sexual minority women) may experience unique interpersonal impacts of SSML, such as increased safety for sexual identity disclosure and visibility, and greater legal protections in relation to partners and children. Additionally, SMW may be more likely than SMM (sexual minority men) to report positive perceptions of SSML, possibly due to a higher likelihood of having children and a greater focus on parental protections. However, SMW may also experience higher levels of distress when their relationships are not treated equally to heterosexual relationships. More research is needed to understand the specific impacts of SSML on different groups within the sexual minority community, including those with varying sexual identities, gender identities, and racial/ethnic backgrounds.

The economic benefits of legalising same-sex marriage

In 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. However, the question of whether businesses can deny services to same-sex weddings remains contentious. While some US states have introduced bills to allow businesses to refuse services, the American Civil Liberties Union maintains that such legislation constitutes discrimination and represents a step backward for LGBT rights.

The legalisation of same-sex marriage has been shown to have economic benefits, both in the short and long term. Firstly, same-sex weddings provide an economic boost to states, as couples spend money on their ceremonies and celebrations, which, in turn, generates tax revenue and supports local jobs. For example, in the year following the 2015 Supreme Court decision, it was estimated that same-sex weddings contributed $1.58 billion to state and local economies, resulting in $102 million in tax revenue and supporting up to 18,900 jobs.

Additionally, there are longer-term economic benefits associated with marriage in general. Nobel Laureate economist Gary Becker outlined that married couples tend to have greater economic productivity by pooling their resources, such as time and money. This can lead to increased savings, homeownership, and financial stability, particularly for same-sex couples who may have higher expenses when starting a family through adoption or assisted reproductive technology.

Furthermore, research has found that members of the LGBTQ+ community experience improved mental health outcomes when they are able to legally marry. This can have broader economic implications, as better mental health can lead to increased productivity and reduced healthcare costs.

In summary, the legalisation of same-sex marriage has been shown to have positive economic consequences, benefiting both individual couples and society as a whole.

Frequently asked questions