ATLANTA — On the final day of its current term, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Christian web designer who refused to create a website for a same-sex couple. Though it was an argument surrounding free speech, members of Georgia's LGBTQ+ community said it impacts gay rights.
In a 6-3 vote, the majority of justices based their decision on the interpretation of the First Amendment, saying freedom of expression extends to all content created which allows the creator to decline services to anyone.
“It’s hard, this is difficult as a gay man,” said Tucker resident Robin Biro.
Biro is among the many in the LGBTQ+ community reacting to the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of a Denver web designer, who declined service to a gay couple wanting a wedding website, citing her Christian beliefs and her right to deny business.
“One of the difficult things about being openly gay is that every ruling that comes out has the potential to affect your life, day-to-day life, your ability to do business,” added Biro, who worries the decision opens up the possibility of being discriminated against based on his sexual orientation.
Emory University law professor Alexander Volokh said the ruling is all about free speech.
“In America, you have the right not to say things you don’t want to say," Volokh said. "That is a fundamental free-speech First Amendment issue."
Volokh said he’s not surprised by the court’s vote because it is consistent with the current free speech laws.
“One constant in our free speech jurist prudence is you cannot be forced to say things that you don’t agree with," he said. "It’s legal to be racist; It’s legal to be anti-gay; It’s legal to say all those things."
The law professor explained that people typically understand free speech as the liberty to say what one believes. This case highlights the opposite - that one can't be forced to say anything either.
"If the government said 'we want you to make a movie in favor of gay marriage,' to a person who’s against gay marriage, they have a First Amendment right to say 'No, you can’t force me to say that,” Volokh explained.
With the Supreme Court being the final stop for the law’s interpretation, many like Biro worry about the potential fallout and how this new precedent can be applied.
“Of course, the courts will tell us that this decision only applies to this one business, so now, that lends the slippery slope of who all calls themselves an artist," Biro said. "Now is the man who cuts your yard a law mowing artist? Is the person who cuts your hair now a hair-cutting artist? Is the person who changes your oil an artist?"
Biro is ultimately concerned about the answers to those questions.
The ruling can hint at some answers -- unless the Supreme Court itself changes it.