Charlie Craig and David Mullins didn’t expect to be the new face of the LGBT rights movement, but that responsibility will be thrust upon them in a matter of weeks as the U.S. Supreme Court hears their case over being denied a wedding cake in Colorado at Masterpiece Cakeshop.
The two are key figures in the case challenging Colorado’s non-discrimination law, which bars discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to make a wedding cake for the Denver-based couple on the basis that it would violate his religious beliefs as a Christian.
In an exclusive interview with the Washington Blade, Craig, 37, and Mullins, 33, said they’ve been anticipating the oral arguments in the case — set for Dec. 5 — with intense emotions.
Mullins said he’s been filled with “trepidation and excitement” since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the lawsuit in June.
“I will definitely say I don’t think anyone in the country is prepared to hear that a case they are party to is going to be argued before the Supreme Court,” Mullins said. “That was definitely a hard thing for us to wrap our minds around.”
The day of oral arguments for the court on Dec. 5 is actually the anniversary for the first date of the couple seven years ago. (Recognizing the occasion, Craig said “maybe it’s good luck.”)
Craig said the two met through a mutual best friend and were friends for a good year before dating. At a time when same-sex marriage was legal in limited places and not in their home state of Colorado, the two nonetheless decided to marry.
Although many couples arrange dramatic engagement proposals, Mullins said the couple had a “cute story” that wasn’t very dramatic.
“In all reality, we were just lying on the couch together one Sunday morning,” Mullins said. “I think it was Charlie who turned me. He was like, ‘You know. I really would marry you.’ And I thought about it and I was like, ‘I would marry you, too.’ And we sort of sat there for a minute and we were like, ‘So should we get married? And we decided to get married.’ It was a very natural, casual moment, which was really kind of how our relationship was.”
Craig added he later discovered Mullins had been socking away money to buy wedding rings. (The two have a pair of three-diamond rings. Craig’s is made of white gold, but Mullins’s is comprised of cobalt because he’s allergic to silver and gold.)
Because same-sex marriage wasn’t yet legal in Colorado, the couple decided to marry in Provincetown, Mass. The Bay State, first in the country with marriage equality, legalized same-sex marriage as a result of a court order by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2003.
The two planned to have 30 friends and family members fly up to Massachusetts for the ceremony, and have a hometown reception in Colorado. But then there was the matter of the wedding cake.
Craig said the host for the Denver reception party used Masterpiece Cakeshop for earlier clients and recommended the bakery based on its service and close proximity.
“We looked up the website and were like, yeah, OK, they look like something that we would want,” Craig said.
On the fateful day, July 19, 2012, Mullins and Craig proceeded to Masterpiece Cakeshop and brought along Craig’s mother. Because she doesn’t live in Denver and was in town for a conference that day, the wedding cake purchase would be her only opportunity to take part in the planning.
Mullins said the three went in “really excited” and Craig came in with a binder of ideas, but “it all went wrong immediately” after they sat down with Phillips.
“He immediately asked us who the cake was for and we said it was for us, and he told us he would not make a cake for a same-sex wedding,” Mullins said. “And what followed was a horrible pregnant pause. We were just mortified and embarrassed and quickly we just got up and we left.”
When the couple entered the parking lot, Mullins said they became emotional and broke down in tears — a moment they said was all the more “painful and profoundly embarrassing” because Craig’s mother was present.
The couple said they had no idea Phillips sought to operate his business consistent with this Christian beliefs, nor that he had a policy of refusing wedding cakes to same-sex couples.
Craig and Mullins quickly found relief from the LGBT community and supporters after a Facebook post, which quickly went viral worldwide in a couple days.
As a result of the Facebook post, a friend informed the couple that Phillips’ actions were a violation of state law in Colorado — something Mullins said the couple wasn’t aware of previously.
“We actually were unaware that there was a law in Colorado against what happened,” Mullins said. “It actually took a relative of Charlie’s looking something up and connecting us the next day to actually tell us there was an anti-discrimination statute in Colorado that covered public accommodations discrimination.”
Another Colorado shop, Lora’s Donuts & Bakery Shop, offered to provide the wedding cake the couple ultimately used for their celebration. The cake had rainbow layering to represent solidarity with the LGBT community.
But there still was the matter of the discrimination. Mullins said the couple spoke with the LGBT legal group Lambda Legal about their rights under state law, then the American Civil Liberties Union — which represents them in the case — helped them further and filed a complaint on their behalf in 2013.
“Eventually, someone at the ACLU found us and we spoke to them, and we decided to move forward with the complaint,” Mullins said. “They sort of helped us file the paperwork a little bit, and then after that and much discussion on their part, they decided to take up the case.”
Prior to the complaint, the couple hadn’t had significant experience in LGBT advocacy. Craig, an alumnus of University of Wyoming in Laramie, said 15 years ago he was a board member of a student LGBT group that sought to raise awareness for the Matthew Shepard Foundation and HIV testing, and Mullins said he couldn’t recall any instance of prior LGBT work.
“This was kind of my awakening,” Mullins said.
James Esseks, director of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Project, said by filing a complaint, the couple took the lead in the fight to ensure equal rights for LGBT people.
“No one should ever have to experience the kind of pain and humiliation that Charlie and Dave were put through,” Esseks said. “They’ve shown real courage to stand up for the rights of all of us and we’re proud to stand with them as they take this fight to the Supreme Court. We all deserve the freedom to go out in public without being turned away because of who we are.”
At the state level, the couple had success many times over. In December 2013, an administrative judge ruled the bakery had illegally discriminated against the couple — a decision affirmed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Masterpiece Cakeshop wasn’t penalized with monetary damages, but required to take remedial measures to comply with the law, institute comprehensive staff training and issue quarterly compliance reports for two years on these corrections in addition to documenting all patrons denied service at the bakery.
Mullins said the litigation “is not about whether or not there’s somewhere else we could get a cake” when asked why the couple is insistent Masterpiece Cakeshop be required to serve wedding cakes to same-sex couples.
“Our case is about basic access to public accommodations,” Mullins added. “We were not turned away from Masterpiece Cakeshop because of any design we asked for, we were turned away because we’re a gay couple, and we pursued this because we didn’t want another couple to go through what we had gone through.”
Mullins said if Masterpiece Cakeshop followed state law “we would have received the same service that any other person would have received, we would have been treated with respect.”
As litigation proceeded, Craig said the couple discovered Masterpiece Cakeshop turned away four or five same-sex couples before them. Although court documents say Phillips had offered the couple any ready-made product in the store in lieu of a wedding cake, Craig said one of these couples had sought cupcakes and were denied service.
In 2015, a three-judge panel on the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commission. Later, the Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear the case upon appeal from Masterpiece Cakeshop.
That seemed like the end of the road for Masterpiece Cakeshop, But in a last ditch effort, the bakery, represented by the anti-LGBT legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, citing issues of freedom of religion and expression.
To the surprise of just about everyone, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to accept the petition in June. (The petition had remained pending before the Supreme Court for some time and was taken up shortly after confirmation to the bench of U.S. Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.)
Why did the Supreme Court agree to take up the case? After consistent rulings at the state level in favor of the couple, could justices have in mind overturning those decisions in favor of allowing anti-LGBT discrimination?
The answer, Mullins said, is completely in the minds of the Supreme Court justices and no one else — at least until justices render their decision in the case.
“Obviously there have been numerous public accommodations cases that have happened in numerous states, and in my wholly un-legal opinion, I think that maybe the reason they took our case was because there was no disagreement over the facts of how anything went down,” Mullins said. “It’s also possible that they just felt it was time to take up one and ours was the one that was on their desk when they made that decision.”
Mullins and Craig — with Craig’s mother in tow — plan to travel to D.C. to witness the oral arguments firsthand at the Supreme Court on Dec. 5. Mullins expressed excitement about seeing “Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s neckpiece” while hearing the case.
The couple has a busy schedule planned for the time they’re in D.C., which includes three speeches at different rallies. That’s consistent with the nearly 150 media interviews in which the couple has participated, ranging from the LGBT press to the New York Times.
“I think it’s important for people to see us just for the fact of we’re standing up for ourselves,” Craig said. “We experienced discrimination and experienced what it means to follow it through this far.”
During the arguments, the ACLU will represent the couple, another attorney will represent the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in defense of the non-discrimination and Alliance Defending Freedom will make Masterpiece Cakeshop’s arguments.
But another lawyer from the U.S. Justice Department under U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions may also take part: U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco. Francisco sought time to speak before the Supreme Court after the Justice Department filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop.
Mullins said the participation of the Trump administration in the litigation is “definitely notable,” but ultimately the Supreme Court will be making the decision in the case.
“In the end, the Supreme Court is nine justices and nine votes and they will make their decisions, and so, in the end, the buck stops with them,” Mullins said.
Contrary to the experiences of many plaintiffs in LGBT rights cases, Mullins said the couple hasn’t faced significant backlash since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
“If anything, I feel like it made the story larger and it helped reach some people and changed some minds, of people who weren’t as aware of the story beforehand,” Mullins said.
The Supreme Court ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop will likely be issued next year and could be a milestone for the LGBT rights movement.
Craig, however, said the impact is difficult to determine because the ruling could affect just Colorado law or similar statutes nationwide.
“In the smallest sense they can validate what Colorado has already said, that he violated anti-discrimination laws here, and that would set a precedent for Colorado,” Craig said. “It could also set a precedent for the other 20 states that have the same public accommodations laws, or it could be as big as they’re sending a message to the whole nation that discriminating against gay people is wrong.”
In the event of a loss before the Supreme Court, Mullins said the decision would have deleterious consequences not just for LGBT people, but other marginalized groups.
“If the Supreme Court found that a business owner could refuse to serve someone based on their strongly held religious beliefs, could a hotel owner refuse to rent a room to an interracial couple because his faith believed the races were not meant to mix, or could a business owner refuse to hire a single mother because his faith believed that mothers should be married?” Mullins said. “A loss at the Supreme Court could open the door to many forms of discrimination that have long been considered wrong in our society, and not just ones that involve LGBT people.”
Win or lose, Craig said the lawsuit will be worth the effort because it means not just standing up for the thousands of people who’ve told the couple about their own discrimination stories as the litigation proceeded.
“I feel like of course we’re standing up for ourselves, but the important thing is and what the Supreme Court decision is going to decide, is we’re standing up for these thousands of other people who are discriminated against all the time, and that’s really what keeps us going,” Craig said.
Featured Local Savings
Honoring the legacy of New Orleans’ 1973 UpStairs Lounge fire
Why the arson attack that killed 32 gay men still resonates 50 years later
On June 23 of last year, I held the microphone as a gay man in the New Orleans City Council Chamber and related a lost piece of queer history to the seven council members. I told this story to disabuse all New Orleanians of the notion that silence and accommodation, in the face of institutional and official failures, are a path to healing.
The story I related to them began on a typical Sunday night at a second-story bar on the fringe of New Orleans’ French Quarter in 1973, where working-class men would gather around a white baby grand piano and belt out the lyrics to a song that was the anthem of their hidden community, “United We Stand” by the Brotherhood of Man.
“United we stand,” the men would sing together, “divided we fall” — the words epitomizing the ethos of their beloved UpStairs Lounge bar, an egalitarian free space that served as a forerunner to today’s queer safe havens.
Around that piano in the 1970s Deep South, gays and lesbians, white and Black queens, Christians and non-Christians, and even early gender minorities could cast aside the racism, sexism, and homophobia of the times to find acceptance and companionship for a moment.
For regulars, the UpStairs Lounge was a miracle, a small pocket of acceptance in a broader world where their very identities were illegal.
On the Sunday night of June 24, 1973, their voices were silenced in a murderous act of arson that claimed 32 lives and still stands as the deadliest fire in New Orleans history — and the worst mass killing of gays in 20th century America.
As 13 fire companies struggled to douse the inferno, police refused to question the chief suspect, even though gay witnesses identified and brought the soot-covered man to officers idly standing by. This suspect, an internally conflicted gay-for-pay sex worker named Rodger Dale Nunez, had been ejected from the UpStairs Lounge screaming the word “burn” minutes before, but New Orleans police rebuffed the testimony of fire survivors on the street and allowed Nunez to disappear.
As the fire raged, police denigrated the deceased to reporters on the street: “Some thieves hung out there, and you know this was a queer bar.”
For days afterward, the carnage met with official silence. With no local gay political leaders willing to step forward, national Gay Liberation-era figures like Rev. Troy Perry of the Metropolitan Community Church flew in to “help our bereaved brothers and sisters” — and shatter officialdom’s code of silence.
Perry broke local taboos by holding a press conference as an openly gay man. “It’s high time that you people, in New Orleans, Louisiana, got the message and joined the rest of the Union,” Perry said.
Two days later, on June 26, 1973, as families hesitated to step forward to identify their kin in the morgue, UpStairs Lounge owner Phil Esteve stood in his badly charred bar, the air still foul with death. He rebuffed attempts by Perry to turn the fire into a call for visibility and progress for homosexuals.
“This fire had very little to do with the gay movement or with anything gay,” Esteve told a reporter from The Philadelphia Inquirer. “I do not want my bar or this tragedy to be used to further any of their causes.”
Conspicuously, no photos of Esteve appeared in coverage of the UpStairs Lounge fire or its aftermath — and the bar owner also remained silent as he witnessed police looting the ashes of his business.
“Phil said the cash register, juke box, cigarette machine and some wallets had money removed,” recounted Esteve’s friend Bob McAnear, a former U.S. Customs officer. “Phil wouldn’t report it because, if he did, police would never allow him to operate a bar in New Orleans again.”
The next day, gay bar owners, incensed at declining gay bar traffic amid an atmosphere of anxiety, confronted Perry at a clandestine meeting. “How dare you hold your damn news conferences!” one business owner shouted.
Ignoring calls for gay self-censorship, Perry held a 250-person memorial for the fire victims the following Sunday, July 1, culminating in mourners defiantly marching out the front door of a French Quarter church into waiting news cameras. “Reverend Troy Perry awoke several sleeping giants, me being one of them,” recalled Charlene Schneider, a lesbian activist who walked out of that front door with Perry.
Esteve doubted the UpStairs Lounge story’s capacity to rouse gay political fervor. As the coroner buried four of his former patrons anonymously on the edge of town, Esteve quietly collected at least $25,000 in fire insurance proceeds. Less than a year later, he used the money to open another gay bar called the Post Office, where patrons of the UpStairs Lounge — some with visible burn scars — gathered but were discouraged from singing “United We Stand.”
New Orleans cops neglected to question the chief arson suspect and closed the investigation without answers in late August 1973. Gay elites in the city’s power structure began gaslighting the mourners who marched with Perry into the news cameras, casting suspicion on their memories and re-characterizing their moment of liberation as a stunt.
When a local gay journalist asked in April 1977, “Where are the gay activists in New Orleans?,” Esteve responded that there were none, because none were needed. “We don’t feel we’re discriminated against,” Esteve said. “New Orleans gays are different from gays anywhere else… Perhaps there is some correlation between the amount of gay activism in other cities and the degree of police harassment.”
An attitude of nihilism and disavowal descended upon the memory of the UpStairs Lounge victims, goaded by Esteve and fellow gay entrepreneurs who earned their keep via gay patrons drowning their sorrows each night instead of protesting the injustices that kept them drinking.
Into the 1980s, the story of the UpStairs Lounge all but vanished from conversation — with the exception of a few sanctuaries for gay political debate such as the local lesbian bar Charlene’s, run by the activist Charlene Schneider.
By 1988, the 15th anniversary of the fire, the UpStairs Lounge narrative comprised little more than a call for better fire codes and indoor sprinklers. UpStairs Lounge survivor Stewart Butler summed it up: “A tragedy that, as far as I know, no good came of.”
Finally, in 1991, at Stewart Butler and Charlene Schneider’s nudging, the UpStairs Lounge story became aligned with the crusade of liberated gays and lesbians seeking equal rights in Louisiana. The halls of power responded with intermittent progress. The New Orleans City Council, horrified by the story but not yet ready to take its look in the mirror, enacted an anti-discrimination ordinance protecting gays and lesbians in housing, employment, and public accommodations that Dec. 12 — more than 18 years after the fire.
“I believe the fire was the catalyst for the anger to bring us all to the table,” Schneider told The Times-Picayune, a tacit rebuke to Esteve’s strategy of silent accommodation. Even Esteve seemed to change his stance with time, granting a full interview with the first UpStairs Lounge scholar Johnny Townsend sometime around 1989.
Most of the figures in this historic tale are now deceased. What’s left is an enduring story that refused to go gently. The story now echoes around the world — a musical about the UpStairs Lounge fire recently played in Tokyo, translating the gay underworld of the 1973 French Quarter for Japanese audiences.
When I finished my presentation to the City Council last June, I looked up to see the seven council members in tears. Unanimously, they approved a resolution acknowledging the historic failures of city leaders in the wake of the UpStairs Lounge fire.
Council members personally apologized to UpStairs Lounge families and survivors seated in the chamber in a symbolic act that, though it could not bring back those who died, still mattered greatly to those whose pain had been denied, leaving them to grieve alone. At long last, official silence and indifference gave way to heartfelt words of healing.
The way Americans remember the past is an active, ongoing process. Our collective memory is malleable, but it matters because it speaks volumes about our maturity as a people, how we acknowledge the past’s influence in our lives, and how it shapes the examples we set for our youth. Do we grapple with difficult truths, or do we duck accountability by defaulting to nostalgia and bluster? Or worse, do we simply ignore the past until it fades into a black hole of ignorance and indifference?
I believe that a factual retelling of the UpStairs Lounge tragedy — and how, 50 years onward, it became known internationally — resonates beyond our current divides. It reminds queer and non-queer Americans that ignoring the past holds back the present, and that silence is no cure for what ails a participatory nation.
Silence isolates. Silence gaslights and shrouds. It preserves the power structures that scapegoat the disempowered.
Solidarity, on the other hand, unites. Solidarity illuminates a path forward together. Above all, solidarity transforms the downtrodden into a resounding chorus of citizens — in the spirit of voices who once gathered ‘round a white baby grand piano and sang, joyfully and loudly, “United We Stand.”
Robert W. Fieseler is a New Orleans-based journalist and the author of “Tinderbox: the Untold Story of the Up Stairs Lounge Fire and the Rise of Gay Liberation.”
New Supreme Court term includes critical LGBTQ case with ‘terrifying’ consequences
Business owner seeks to decline services for same-sex weddings
The U.S. Supreme Court, after a decision overturning Roe v. Wade that still leaves many reeling, is starting a new term with justices slated to revisit the issue of LGBTQ rights.
In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the court will return to the issue of whether or not providers of custom-made goods can refuse service to LGBTQ customers on First Amendment grounds. In this case, the business owner is Lorie Smith, a website designer in Colorado who wants to opt out of providing her graphic design services for same-sex weddings despite the civil rights law in her state.
Jennifer Pizer, acting chief legal officer of Lambda Legal, said in an interview with the Blade, “it’s not too much to say an immeasurably huge amount is at stake” for LGBTQ people depending on the outcome of the case.
“This contrived idea that making custom goods, or offering a custom service, somehow tacitly conveys an endorsement of the person — if that were to be accepted, that would be a profound change in the law,” Pizer said. “And the stakes are very high because there are no practical, obvious, principled ways to limit that kind of an exception, and if the law isn’t clear in this regard, then the people who are at risk of experiencing discrimination have no security, no effective protection by having a non-discrimination laws, because at any moment, as one makes their way through the commercial marketplace, you don’t know whether a particular business person is going to refuse to serve you.”
The upcoming arguments and decision in the 303 Creative case mark a return to LGBTQ rights for the Supreme Court, which had no lawsuit to directly address the issue in its previous term, although many argued the Dobbs decision put LGBTQ rights in peril and threatened access to abortion for LGBTQ people.
And yet, the 303 Creative case is similar to other cases the Supreme Court has previously heard on the providers of services seeking the right to deny services based on First Amendment grounds, such as Masterpiece Cakeshop and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In both of those cases, however, the court issued narrow rulings on the facts of litigation, declining to issue sweeping rulings either upholding non-discrimination principles or First Amendment exemptions.
Pizer, who signed one of the friend-of-the-court briefs in opposition to 303 Creative, said the case is “similar in the goals” of the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation on the basis they both seek exemptions to the same non-discrimination law that governs their business, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA, and seek “to further the social and political argument that they should be free to refuse same-sex couples or LGBTQ people in particular.”
“So there’s the legal goal, and it connects to the social and political goals and in that sense, it’s the same as Masterpiece,” Pizer said. “And so there are multiple problems with it again, as a legal matter, but also as a social matter, because as with the religion argument, it flows from the idea that having something to do with us is endorsing us.”
One difference: the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation stemmed from an act of refusal of service after owner, Jack Phillips, declined to make a custom-made wedding cake for a same-sex couple for their upcoming wedding. No act of discrimination in the past, however, is present in the 303 Creative case. The owner seeks to put on her website a disclaimer she won’t provide services for same-sex weddings, signaling an intent to discriminate against same-sex couples rather than having done so.
As such, expect issues of standing — whether or not either party is personally aggrieved and able bring to a lawsuit — to be hashed out in arguments as well as whether the litigation is ripe for review as justices consider the case. It’s not hard to see U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has sought to lead the court to reach less sweeping decisions (sometimes successfully, and sometimes in the Dobbs case not successfully) to push for a decision along these lines.
Another key difference: The 303 Creative case hinges on the argument of freedom of speech as opposed to the two-fold argument of freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise in the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation. Although 303 Creative requested in its petition to the Supreme Court review of both issues of speech and religion, justices elected only to take up the issue of free speech in granting a writ of certiorari (or agreement to take up a case). Justices also declined to accept another question in the petition request of review of the 1990 precedent in Smith v. Employment Division, which concluded states can enforce neutral generally applicable laws on citizens with religious objections without violating the First Amendment.
Representing 303 Creative in the lawsuit is Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that has sought to undermine civil rights laws for LGBTQ people with litigation seeking exemptions based on the First Amendment, such as the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, wrote in a Sept. 12 legal brief signed by her and other attorneys that a decision in favor of 303 Creative boils down to a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment.
“Colorado and the United States still contend that CADA only regulates sales transactions,” the brief says. “But their cases do not apply because they involve non-expressive activities: selling BBQ, firing employees, restricting school attendance, limiting club memberships, and providing room access. Colorado’s own cases agree that the government may not use public-accommodation laws to affect a commercial actor’s speech.”
Pizer, however, pushed back strongly on the idea a decision in favor of 303 Creative would be as focused as Alliance Defending Freedom purports it would be, arguing it could open the door to widespread discrimination against LGBTQ people.
“One way to put it is art tends to be in the eye of the beholder,” Pizer said. “Is something of a craft, or is it art? I feel like I’m channeling Lily Tomlin. Remember ‘soup and art’? We have had an understanding that whether something is beautiful or not is not the determining factor about whether something is protected as artistic expression. There’s a legal test that recognizes if this is speech, whose speech is it, whose message is it? Would anyone who was hearing the speech or seeing the message understand it to be the message of the customer or of the merchants or craftsmen or business person?”
Despite the implications in the case for LGBTQ rights, 303 Creative may have supporters among LGBTQ people who consider themselves proponents of free speech.
One joint friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court, written by Dale Carpenter, a law professor at Southern Methodist University who’s written in favor of LGBTQ rights, and Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment legal scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles, argues the case is an opportunity to affirm the First Amendment applies to goods and services that are uniquely expressive.
“Distinguishing expressive from non-expressive products in some contexts might be hard, but the Tenth Circuit agreed that Smith’s product does not present a hard case,” the brief says. “Yet that court (and Colorado) declined to recognize any exemption for products constituting speech. The Tenth Circuit has effectively recognized a state interest in subjecting the creation of speech itself to antidiscrimination laws.”
Oral arguments in the case aren’t yet set, but may be announced soon. Set to defend the state of Colorado and enforcement of its non-discrimination law in the case is Colorado Solicitor General Eric Reuel Olson. Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would grant the request to the U.S. solicitor general to present arguments before the justices on behalf of the Biden administration.
With a 6-3 conservative majority on the court that has recently scrapped the super-precedent guaranteeing the right to abortion, supporters of LGBTQ rights may think the outcome of the case is all but lost, especially amid widespread fears same-sex marriage would be next on the chopping block. After the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 303 Creative in the lawsuit, the simple action by the Supreme Court to grant review in the lawsuit suggests they are primed to issue a reversal and rule in favor of the company.
Pizer, acknowledging the call to action issued by LGBTQ groups in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, conceded the current Supreme Court issuing the ruling in this case is “a terrifying prospect,” but cautioned the issue isn’t so much the makeup of the court but whether or not justices will continue down the path of abolishing case law.
“I think the question that we’re facing with respect to all of the cases or at least many of the cases that are in front of the court right now, is whether this court is going to continue on this radical sort of wrecking ball to the edifice of settled law and seemingly a goal of setting up whole new structures of what our basic legal principles are going to be. Are we going to have another term of that?” Pizer said. “And if so, that’s terrifying.”
Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman, named president of Human Rights Campaign
Progressive activist a veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund
Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman and veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, is to become the next president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s leading LGBTQ group announced on Tuesday.
Robinson is set to become the ninth president of the Human Rights Campaign after having served as executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund and more than 12 years of experience as a leader in the progressive movement. She’ll be the first Black, queer woman to serve in that role.
“I’m honored and ready to lead HRC — and our more than three million member-advocates — as we continue working to achieve equality and liberation for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer people,” Robinson said. “This is a pivotal moment in our movement for equality for LGBTQ+ people. We, particularly our trans and BIPOC communities, are quite literally in the fight for our lives and facing unprecedented threats that seek to destroy us.”
The next Human Rights Campaign president is named as Democrats are performing well in polls in the mid-term elections after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving an opening for the LGBTQ group to play a key role amid fears LGBTQ rights are next on the chopping block.
“The overturning of Roe v. Wade reminds us we are just one Supreme Court decision away from losing fundamental freedoms including the freedom to marry, voting rights, and privacy,” Robinson said. “We are facing a generational opportunity to rise to these challenges and create real, sustainable change. I believe that working together this change is possible right now. This next chapter of the Human Rights Campaign is about getting to freedom and liberation without any exceptions — and today I am making a promise and commitment to carry this work forward.”
The Human Rights Campaign announces its next president after a nearly year-long search process after the board of directors terminated its former president Alphonso David when he was ensnared in the sexual misconduct scandal that led former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign. David has denied wrongdoing and filed a lawsuit against the LGBTQ group alleging racial discrimination.
Bomb threat shuts down Takoma Park holiday drag show
City inspection codes: How easy is it to fail?
Actor finds fulfillment raising money for queer non-profits
‘Maestro’ captures passionate essence of queer musical giant
Anti-LGBTQ provisions removed from NDAA
Bomb threat shuts down Takoma Park holiday drag show
Endocrine Society corrects misinformation about gender affirming care at GOP debate
Meet the ‘CEO of Everything Gay’ who just bought the Abbey
Ugandan Constitutional Court to consider challenge to Anti-Homosexuality Act
Fourth GOP presidential debate sees return of transphobia, anti-LGBTQ animus
Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast
Maryland2 days ago
Bomb threat shuts down Takoma Park holiday drag show
Politics3 days ago
Endocrine Society corrects misinformation about gender affirming care at GOP debate
a&e features3 days ago
Meet the ‘CEO of Everything Gay’ who just bought the Abbey
Africa4 days ago
Ugandan Constitutional Court to consider challenge to Anti-Homosexuality Act