City officials this week reiterated that proprietors of places open to the public in Philadelphia cannot turn away LGBT individuals despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling favorable to a Colorado baker who refused to sell a cake to a same-sex couple for their wedding reception.
In a 7-2 opinion, the high court said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission didn’t give Denver-area baker Jack Phillips a fair hearing in 2014 when ordering him to bake cakes for same-sex weddings.
The justices didn’t strike down Colorado’s antidiscrimination law, which bans anti-LGBT bias in public accommodations. But they said CCRC commissioners exhibited “animus” towards Phillips’ religious beliefs, thus violating his constitutional rights. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.
This week, Rue Landau, executive director of the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, said the Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t alter the city’s commitment to LGBT equality.
“Let me be clear, today’s Supreme Court ruling does not change the way businesses must operate in Philadelphia,” Landau said. “Places open to the public cannot turn away anyone because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, religion, disability or any other protected category.”
Amber Hikes, executive director of the Office of LGBT Affairs, also emphasized the city’s commitment to LGBT equality.
“The Office of LGBT Affairs and the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations will continue to fight to protect the rights and liberties of all Philadelphians, because no one should ever be refused service because of who they are or who they love,” Hikes said in a statement.
John W. Dawe, interim executive director of Equality PA, expressed mixed feelings about the Supreme Court ruling.
“I think the court could have used its position to strengthen protections for LGBT Americans in every state,” Dawe told PGN. “We’re pleased that the court didn’t strike down Colorado’s nondiscrimination law. But we still believe no one should be discriminated against and the baker in this case did just that. The court has left the door open for a future ruling on LGBTQ fairness.”
Leonore Carpenter, a law professor at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law, said the SCOTUS ruling has a “useful” component.
“The ruling doesn’t resolve much,” Carpenter told PGN. “But it does give kind of a blueprint of how [government] officials should act in these situations. And that’s useful. You can’t denigrate someone’s religious beliefs in the process of making an antibias ruling.”
Sara Rose, staff attorney at the ACLU of PA, said there’s a positive outcome to the case.
“The positive outcome of the case is that the court expressly recognized that states can seek to prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT individuals,” Rose told PGN. “It’s important that supporters of LGBT rights convey the message that this decision doesn’t give businesses a license to discriminate.”
Randall L. Wenger serves as chief counsel at Independence Law Center, a conservative civil-rights law center based in Harrisburg. He filed an amicus brief in the case, and said he’s “pleased” with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“We’re all in this together,” Wenger told PGN. “And we all should be concerned when anyone’s rights are violated, including religious rights. And for that reason, I’m pleased with the outcome of this case.”
But Justin F. Robinette, a local civil-rights attorney, called the ruling a “defeat” for the LGBT community.
“The way the other side is going to use this ruling is troublesome,” said Robinette. “The court seems to be telling LGBTQ people and their allies to tone things down. But will the discriminators tone things down? I don’t think so. This will embolden discriminators to mistreat us even more. And they’ll cite this ruling when fighting efforts for a national Fairness Act that isn’t riddled with religions exemptions. I think this is a defeat for our community that should be recognized as such. It’s a mistake to put a happy face on it and lull people into complacency.”
Angela Giampolo, a local civil-rights attorney and PGN columnist, echoed Robinette’s concerns.
“The case presents a serious risk of undermining civil-rights law in the name of religious freedom, given that it invites further lawsuits for courts to consider. And those cases will be interpreted by federal courts that [President] Trump is making significantly more conservative through his appointments,” Giampolo said.
“This is also concerning because the majority of non-lawyers will not read each justice’s opinion to learn the true, nuanced holding of this particular case and the facts. As such, anti-LGBT advocates everywhere will be emboldened — whether rightfully so or not — and think they won the sweeping ‘license to discriminate,’ further dividing us as a country,” she added.
The ruling comes just ahead of the 30th anniversary of Pride.
“Pride parades used to be marches and demonstrations,” Giampolo said. “So what better time for us to become emboldened to protect our liberties than right now as we enter our Pride weekend?”