Preston Xanthopoulos: Claiming bias in court decisions we don't like has consequences
The Supreme Court is back in session and under a very fine-tuned microscope. In the wake of the Dobbs decision, overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the issue of abortion back to the states, many are concerned about what decisions may come out of what is now a “conservative” court and prejudging whatever rulings they may hand down as having an inherent bias. The attack on the “legitimacy” of the court in the wake of the Dobbs decision is dangerous. Just because you don’t like a ruling it in no way means it was legally or donstitutionally wrong.
Why is it when the Supreme Court rules from a liberal perspective, liberals think the court is independent, but when a “conservative” court rules “conservatively," it’s bias? Same in the converse. When a “liberal” court rules in a “liberal” manner, it’s an “activist court!” Yet, a conservative court ruling conservatively, it’s being constitutional?
I’m not saying bias doesn’t ever come into play. I’m saying that is neither automatically or always the reason for the outcome and predisposing that it is discredits the court and endangers not only its reputation, but our democracy. We should all consider that our opinions of the court’s decisions, are almost always based on our own personal beliefs and biases.
This term, the Supreme Court will be hearing some very controversial cases. There’s one specific case that I have my eye on, and before we allow our political bias to get in our way, we should consider the consequences of this one.
The case is a Colorado-based web designer wants to expand her business to create websites for weddings. However, she is an evangelical Christian and does not want to offer her services to same-sex weddings. This goes against Colorado's anti-discrimination law, so she sued the state saying the law goes against her constitutional rights to free speech and religion. I think she’s right. Two lower courts disagree with me, and the Supreme Court will now hear the case.
I disagree with her not wanting to provide services for a same-sex wedding. I wish I had a skill that would benefit a couple on their wedding day. I love weddings and want an excuse to participate in a couples celebration. But, unfortunately, unless the couple needs a press release or wants to serve my Grammy Harris’ famous haddock chowder, I have nothing to offer for the big day. (If you want to serve Grammy’s chowder, I don’t care who you're marrying, just be prepared to have the chowder steal the show.)
It is, however, my choice whose wedding I want to participate in. That’s the word that I think matters here, “participate.” Colorado's anti-discrimination law simply goes too far. I agree, you can't refuse someone service at a restaurant because they are gay, or black, or transgender, or of a different religion. However, serving a meal in a restaurant isn’t “participating” in something you may disagree with. Telling someone they have to make a website celebrating a same-sex wedding, when that person is religiously opposed to it, is making that person “participate” in something they do not agree with. It is making that person use his or her voice to advocate for something they oppose.
In a dissenting opinion on one of the appeals the web designer, Lorie Smith, brought, the judge wrote, “[t]he Constitution protects Ms. Smith from the government telling her what to say ...” Of course it does. Colorado’s law and appeals courts say the government of Colorado can legally require Smith, through custom-made websites, to say things she doesn't want to. How far could that go?
In my work, clients hire me to advocate for legislation in Concord. I use my voice and my words in doing so. Under the current interpretation of the Colorado law, if it were in place in New Hampshire, that would mean I would be required to take on clients whose efforts I may not support. If a religious organization wanted me to advocate against gay adoption on religious grounds, and I refused to do so, because I disagree with them, under Colorado law, aren’t I discriminating against a religion? The reverse: Can a pro-gay adoption organization hire me to advocate for their issue, if I am opposed to it?
What about lawyers? Can Lorie Smith contact a gay, married attorney, who supports Colorado’s law, and he be required to argue her case before the Supreme Court? Wouldn’t turning her down be discriminating against her religious beliefs?
Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, or Smith's decision not to want to participate in same-sex weddings, no one should support requiring someone to say something they fundamentally oppose — that is whether it is because of religion or any other reason for a belief.
I suspect, whatever the ruling of the Supreme Court on this case or any another, many will be calling foul. An open mind, to consider all aspects of a case, is what we expect legally and constitutionally from the High Court. That open mind we should also expect from ourselves, when we consider the validity of the court’s decisions. Let us remember, we all want to preserve the sanctity of our judicial system, because without it, where are we left?
Alicia Preston Xanthopoulos is a political consultant and member of the media. She’s a native of Hampton Beach where she lives with her family and three poodles. Write to her at PrestonPerspective@gmail.com.
This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Preston Xanthopoulos: Claiming bias in decisions discredits our courts
