There's been a range of reactions and some uncertainty in Massachusetts about the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Friday that allows a Colorado web designer to refuse to work with same-sex couples, despite a provision in that state's law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Lawyers and leaders in Massachusetts LGBTQ+ organizations say the high court took a step in a worrisome direction even though the decision may have a limited impact. But a legal advocate for conservative causes called the ruling a "win for all Americans" that could be useful in protecting religious beliefs around other issues.
"This is a really highly fact-specific decision that authorizes a very narrow exception to a website developer who provides custom services," said Janson Wu, executive director for GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, based in Boston.
"The decision was really rested on the fact that the business in this case vetted and endorsed each client, met with each couple, discussed their unique stories, created original artwork, designed specific text," Wu explained. "They provided tailored and unique services to each client, and that was the basis for the court's ruling today in favor of the business. But that's not the case for the vast majority of businesses."
The Supreme Court ruling will not permit businesses to deny most services to LGBTQ+ people, Wu said.
But Grace Moreno, executive director of the Massachusetts LGBT Chamber of Commerce, said Friday's decision raised an alarm about the justices' intentions.
"We are not being protected," Moreno said. "We are not being looked at as other citizens. And that's scary. Maybe this was the way that [the Supreme Court] dipped the toe in the water about what they can and can't do around the LGBTQ community. And that scares me about what's next ... what other things are they going to decide upon that may have a bigger impact, whether that's marriage, whether that same-sex adoption, whatever it may be?"
For others, Friday's ruling is being hailed as a victory for free speech.
"We think it's a win for all Americans because no one should be forced to express a message that they don't agree with," said Sam Whiting, a staff attorney at the Massachusetts Family Institute. "The decision protects atheists as much as it does Christians. It protects liberals as much as it does conservatives. The bottom line is the people in power, whoever that may be at the time, shouldn't be able to co-opt your voice to speak their message."
The ruling could be helpful, Whiting said, in providing some protection and some clarity.
"Often ... it has to do with religious people who are being forced to speak a message about gender identity or LGBT issues that they don't believe," he said. "So, we believe that this case will be a great line of defense for those people to make sure that they don't have to violate their conscience."
Gary Daffin sees the ruling very differently. Daffin is co-chair of the Massachusetts LGBT Political Caucus and is on the board of Boston Pride for the People.
"The real issue is that a person walks into a business, and they're told that, 'Oh, I'm sorry, we don't serve people like you,'" Daffin said. "That's why we create anti-discrimination laws, because we want people to have the full experience of being an American citizen to have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. And I don't understand why the court can't see that what they're doing is taking away the dignity of individual people."
For Daffin, the decision is not reflective of the progress that's been made on LGBTQ+ rights.
"The court is just way behind public opinion," he said. "And it's baffling to me why it tries so hard to bring us back to a period that the that, in some ways, is long gone."
