Thread by @ZackFord

On Monday, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case called #303Creative, an effort by @ADFLegal to overturn laws protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination.

I have a very important rule of thumb for you as you hear any of the discourse around this case... 🧵

Every single time you hear an argument in #303Creative being made about same-sex couples or same-sex marriage, substitute the words "interracial couples" or "interracial marriage" in your brain before you process how it makes you feel. Make sure your reactions correspond. 2/13

The Colorado nondiscrimination law being challenged in #303Creative doesn't say that race and color get Level 5 protection but sexual orientation only gets Level 3 protection.

They are listed right next to each other as getting the exact same protection under the law. 3/13

But you're going to hear a TON about "free speech" and "websites are a creative product" and all that kind of stuff, and you need to apply the litmus test to how you would feel if it was said about other groups. Let me give you a couple of examples from ADF's brief. 4/13

Lorie Smith (#303Creative) says she's willing to make websites for LGBTQ people, but when it comes to wedding websites, she's only willing to make them for different-sex couples. She claims this distinction is about the "message," not their identity. 5/13

Plug it in. Imagine someone saying they're willing to serve customers both Black and white, but they aren't willing to create websites for interracial couples because of the "message" it sends, which she doesn't agree with. How does it feel?

Not great, right? #303Creative 6/13

In fact, Smith explicitly says "Creed" (another protected class in Colorado's law), so you can also imagine someone saying that they serve Jews, but they could never serve a couple getting an interfaith marriage because they don't agree with the "message" of that union. 7/13

Another example: Smith wants to post a statement saying that making a website for a same-sex wedding would "compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God’s true story of marriage – the very story He is calling me to promote." 8/13

Here again, it's not hard to imagine a Christian invocation against interracial marriage. A classic example comes from Judge Leon Bazile's original 1959 ruling against Mildred and Richard Loving, claiming God spread out the races so they wouldn't mix. 9/13

We can expect ADF to cite Justice Kennedy's words in Obergefell that the belief marriage is only between a man and woman is a view "held in good faith by reasonable and sincere people," but here too, imagine saying that about interracial marriage. Still sound "reasonable"? 10/13

The reality is that if you sell a product, you have to sell that product without discriminating based on the identity of the customer. And if you sell wedding websites (or whatever!), you have to then sell them equally to same-sex, interracial, and interfaith couples. 11/13

ADF will try to convince you that a "same-sex wedding" is a *different thing* than a "wedding" that isn't just differentiated by the identity of the couple. If you wouldn't accept such a conclusion about an interracial couple, you shouldn't about a same-sex couple. 12/13

As I wrote at @AFJustice, #303Creative is an incredibly dangerous case — one that endangers not only LGBTQ protections, but ALL nondiscrimination protections for all protected groups. Don't fall for the "free speech" bait. Stand for equality. 13/13 afj.org/article/this-s…