Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will release its opinion in the case...
Billy Binion@billybinion
43 views
Sep 19, 2025
~2 min read
Advertisement
1
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will release its opinion in the case concerning the designer who doesn’t want to make websites for gay weddings. She will almost surely win.
She should. And everyone—including gay folks—should want her to prevail. A thread.
She should. And everyone—including gay folks—should want her to prevail. A thread.
2
The answer to the first question in front of SCOTUS—Is creating a custom website a form of expression?—seems fairly obvious. Of course it is.
If a liberal designer were asked to create a site about the “thin blue line,” then she should have the right to say no. Same concept. /2
If a liberal designer were asked to create a site about the “thin blue line,” then she should have the right to say no. Same concept. /2
3
The appeals court *agreed* it’s speech. It ruled against her anyway.
That’s not because the designer, Lorie Smith, has a monopoly on web design. She doesn’t. They ruled she has a monopoly on…herself. It’s an argument I’d expect to see from the Onion, and it deserves to lose. /3
That’s not because the designer, Lorie Smith, has a monopoly on web design. She doesn’t. They ruled she has a monopoly on…herself. It’s an argument I’d expect to see from the Onion, and it deserves to lose. /3
4
But what about racial discrimination? If she wins, I expect to see some say that we’re going back to Jim Crow. We won’t.
There’s an enormous difference between categorically denying service to someone based on race/identity, and declining to convey a *specific message.* /4
There’s an enormous difference between categorically denying service to someone based on race/identity, and declining to convey a *specific message.* /4
5
Smith has been clear that she will still serve gay customers, should they want something other than a wedding website.
It’s offensive to compare that to what Black Americans experienced during Jim Crow—some of whom are still alive. It’s not on the same planet. /5
It’s offensive to compare that to what Black Americans experienced during Jim Crow—some of whom are still alive. It’s not on the same planet. /5
6
So why should gay people celebrate a win for Smith, even though she won’t make sites for gay weddings?
Because it’s the same pillar of American society—free expression—that paved the way for gay rights in the first place. You cannot apply that principle selectively. /6
Because it’s the same pillar of American society—free expression—that paved the way for gay rights in the first place. You cannot apply that principle selectively. /6
7
There would be no gay marriage—and no gay weddings for which to make websites—without the First Amendment.
That gay people succeeded doesn’t mean they now get to weaponize the law against their adversaries. The entire point is that differing viewpoints can coexist. /7
That gay people succeeded doesn’t mean they now get to weaponize the law against their adversaries. The entire point is that differing viewpoints can coexist. /7
8
On a more personal note, I’ve never understood why anyone would want to use the monopoly on force & power to coerce people into…accepting their money.
I wouldn’t want to give my money to someone who doesn’t support me. If you think someone is a bigot, go pay someone else. /8
I wouldn’t want to give my money to someone who doesn’t support me. If you think someone is a bigot, go pay someone else. /8
9
I’ve never been one for nationalism. But if anything about the U.S. makes me verklempt, it’s the First Amendment. It’s brilliant.
The freedom to say what you want necessarily means that some people will use that freedom in ways you disagree. That’s a feature, not a bug. /end
The freedom to say what you want necessarily means that some people will use that freedom in ways you disagree. That’s a feature, not a bug. /end