Justice KBJ Makes Bizarre Allegory About “It’s A Wonderful Life” During 1st Amendment & LGBTQ Case

The Supreme Court of the United States is currently hearing oral arguments on the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. The question is whether a web designer can refuse to design a website for a same-sex wedding, which is incredibly similar to the case involving Colorado bakery owner Jack Phillips who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Ultimately, the legal issue here is “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the first Amendment.”

A Colorado website designer is challenging a state law that prevents businesses that are open to the public from discriminating against LGBTQ individuals who seek to be customers. Web designer Lorie Smith says that being subjected to the law violates her 1st amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, whereas Colorado’s solicitor general argues that exempting Smith from the law would “upend anti discrimination law – and other laws too.”

Lorie Smith, a devout christian who firmly believes in marriage “only between one man and one woman,” wants to expand her web design business to include wedding websites, but intends to post a notice that this will exclude wedding websites for same-sex weddings as it would require her to create messages that are contrary to her deeply held religious beliefs. It’s not the LGBTQ individuals as customers that she wants to avoid, rather it’s the messaging surrounding LGBTQ weddings which violates her religious beliefs. According to ScotusBlog,

“Smith explains that she decides whether to take on a commission based on the message that the work will convey, rather than the person requesting it. This means, she says, that she would “happily” design graphics for an LGBTQ customer who runs an animal shelter. But she will not take on commissions that would be inconsistent with her Christian beliefs – including, she says, by promoting same-sex marriage – because a custom wedding website would “express approval of the couple’s marriage.””

During the course of discussion, newly confirmed radical leftist Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson makes a rather interesting allegory to the Christmas movie favorite “It’s A Wonderful Life.” She gives a hypothetical scenario in which she’s a professional photographer doing a photoshoot with an “It’s A Wonderful Life” theme where she restricts the shoot to families who are consistent with the racial makeup of the movie, which is entirely white except for Annie the maid. Mind you, the racial breakdown of the movie’s cast isn’t at issue here and can be discussed at a different time. Rather, KBJ is hypothetically excluding all non-white customers from her hypothetical photoshoot saying she’d certainly include them in other hypothetical photoshoots with other hypothetical themes, just not that one because she wants to be consistent with the movie. And she likens this to the argument by the web designer.

To be honest, I’m a little confused by this hypothetical because I entirely agree with it. Hear me out. If you’re trying to be authentic to “It’s A Wonderful Life,” then you’ll restrict the availability of the photoshoot product to white families. Might seem like discrimination, but also it’s creative license, which is a 1st amendment issue. But let’s flip the script and say I run a public photography business, like in KBJ;’s hypothetical scenario, but I’m doing a “Wakanda Forever” themed photoshoot. Because I want to be authentic and consistent with the movie, which had only two white male actors (Andy Serkis and Martin Freeman), I’d restrict the availability of this particular photoshoot product to only black families. That actually makes perfect sense! If I’m doing a “Memoirs Of A Geisha” themed photoshoot and trying to be as authentic and consistent with the movie as possible, it seems reasonable to restrict the availability of this photoshoot product to only Asian customers. So exactly what point is she trying to make? Because I either don’t understand the point she’s trying to make or she doesn’t realize the point she’s actually making.

Now consider this. If a public photography business (like in KBJ’s hypothetical) refused to do a photoshoot of a white family in a “Wakanda Forever” or “Memoirs Of A Geisha” themed photoshoot because they believed it was blatant cultural appropriation and felt it went against their beliefs (the religion of wokeism), then could that white family take them to court and force them to do the photoshoot even though it directly contradicted their beliefs about cultural appropriation? I highly doubt that would ever happen. Because society is allowed, and even encouraged, to discriminate only in certain directions. Do you know how many people currently discriminate against certain racial or political demographics in their businesses? It’s actually shocking. Just food for thought.