Ryan Wells was at the gym Friday when the family text thread on his phone lit up with the news: the Supreme Court had issued a decision finding a wedding website designer can deny service to same-sex couples.
Wells, 40, is in the midst of planning his own wedding to Dustin DuBois. The couple, who are raising 8-year-old twins, haven’t encountered any discrimination as they plan their October nuptials.
“But we live in Chicago,” Wells said. “My heart goes out to people who live in other parts of the country who don’t have as many options.”
DuBois, 33, who works as a web designer, said “as creatives, we provide a service to the public. It is irrespective of who we are serving.”
The couple were among several people across Illinois who denounced Friday’s ruling, which sided with a Colorado website designer on free speech grounds. The designer, Lorie Smith, objected to serving same-sex couples based on her Christian religion.
Reactions rang out from the governor’s office, Chicago mayor’s office, state representatives and LGBTQ community members, though it is not immediately clear how the court’s 6-3 decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis could affect antidiscrimination protections in place in Illinois.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker said the court’s decision allows LGBTQ discrimination “to pervade under the guise of free speech.”
“LGBTQ Americans deserve the same protections and rights as everyone else,” Pritzker said in a news release. “Make no mistake: in Illinois, I promise that we will continue to fight to ensure you are respected and safe no matter who you love.”
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said in a news release the ruling “not only violates principles of equality but opens the door to an extremely dangerous precedent.” He called on institutional leaders and stakeholders to continue to protect these rights in Chicago.
Local policymakers are not certain how the Supreme Court’s decision might affect state protections.
State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat and the only openly lesbian member of the General Assembly, called the ruling “very chilling.” Cassidy is chair of the working group to address attacks on rights by the Supreme Court, which she said will need more time to determine whether the government needs to make changes to Illinois’ human rights act.
“At the end of the day, the most important takeaway for the people of Illinois is that here in Illinois we have made a strong commitment to protect everyone’s rights and to ensure that discrimination in all forms is condemned,” Cassidy said. “That doesn’t change with this Supreme Court decision.”
Jim Bennett, director of the Illinois Department of Human Rights, said the Illinois Human Rights Act and other antidiscrimination laws in the state exist to protect “the rights of vulnerable communities.” He encouraged people to file a complaint with his office if they feel they are being discriminated against.
“The court had an opportunity to strengthen anti-discrimination laws, but instead, it chose to harm LGBTQ people,” Bennett said in a news release. “They deserve far better from our nation’s highest court.”
Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle said in a news release that the Supreme Court decision “will not affect Cook County’s commitment to ensuring that our residents are protected under our local laws.”
Both Cook County and the City of Chicago have human rights ordinances that protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation when it comes to public accommodations from businesses.
Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based national nonprofit law firm, praised the Supreme Court decision and wrote in a news release that the ruling reinforces past court wins by their group to protect people’s religious beliefs.
The strong reactions to the ruling also came with assurances that the court’s opinion could be limited.
Steven J. Heyman, a professor of law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, told the Tribune that the court issued a narrow opinion, with the future of who — florists, photographers, bakers — can deny services to members of the LGBTQ community up in the air.
“The biggest question coming out of this case is what falls into the category of ‘expressive services,’” Heyman said. “If that category gets interpreted very broadly, it could punch a big hole in civil rights laws. And on the other hand, if it’s interpreted pretty narrowly, maybe only applying to people who are really telling the couple’s story, it might have very limited application.”
The Supreme Court ruled on a similar case — Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission — in 2018. In that case, a baker did not want to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple; the court ruled in his favor. Heyman said today’s ruling is different because the court disregarded the baker’s argument regarding expressive services and instead ruled in his favor based on a violation of his First Amendment religious rights by the commission.
Brian Johnson, CEO of Equality Illinois, a statewide LGBTQ rights organization, said that while the court’s decision is limited, it makes LGBTQ people feel like they are being relegated to a second class status.
“The symbolic and practical impact is pretty massive and heartbreaking,” Johnson said. “We are going to see a ton of bad actors try to use this decision to discriminate with full force.”
