Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down several rulings as they do at the end of June prior to their summer recess. The three rulings most discussed on social and mainstream media all involve new exclusions.
First, SCOTUS ruled 6-3 against President Joe Biden’s student loan debt relief program, saying it was unconstitutional. They deemed that though the 2003 HEROES Act allows the secretary of education to “waive or modify existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs” under the Education Act, those powers excluded forgiving student loan debts, in their opinion. President Biden has pledged to introduce a new executive order that’s different than what was struck down but in the same spirit of forgiving student debt.
Secondly, SCOTUS ruled against using race as a factor in college admissions in a case brought against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. In this case, it was decided by the same 6-3 majority as the student debt relief case, that identifying potentially underrepresented races through affirmative action college admissions is not fair to all races and, in their opinion, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. They did note that essays about how race has affected the student’s life were still permissible.
Lastly, in a case called Creative 303 LLC vs. Elenis, a web designer from Colorado named Lorie Smith was challenging a law in the state of Colorado about discriminating against LGBTQ+ customers. In the case, Smith was considering expanding her business to begin developing wedding websites but was preemptively concerned about having to develop sites for same-sex marriages, which she is against, despite the fact she does not yet provide this service. Regardless of the hypothetical nature, SCOTUS still agreed to hear the case, and by the same 6-3 margin as the other two, sided with the web designer stating “that ‘creative’ or ‘expressive’ businesses do not have to speak a message or create content they don’t believe in,” based on their religious beliefs under First Amendment protections. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor bluntly stated, “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”
Using the third case, let’s look at the economics of exclusion. I know personal and religious beliefs are hot-button issues, but there are some valid business points that need to be addressed with this decision.
The first thing to note is an immense amount of vagueness in the phrase “creative or expressive business.” Sure, it clearly covers web designers and therefore likely marketing companies and such. What about florists — are they creative businesses? Are cake decorators expressive businesses? And if so, what about pastry chefs who do not make cakes? Theaters are expressive and creative. Can they refuse service to LGBTQ+ patrons? What about a pizza place that can spell messages out in pepperoni? Event planners? DJs and bands that perform at weddings? Servers or bartenders that work at wedding venues? Caterers for wedding venues? Assisted-living communities that are asked for rainbow-colored birthday cakes for their LGBTQ+ residents? Who can say for sure if these are “expressive” businesses until several other cases come forward addressing these situations.
The next factor, and the biggest one, frankly, are the new demographics. According to a 2022 Gallup poll, over 7% of all adults self-identify as LGBTQ+. That percentage nearly triples when you get into the youngest generation of adults. 20.8% of Gen Z adults (those who were at least 18 years old in 2022, born between 1997 and 2003) identify as LGBTQ+. Meaning, 1 in 5 Gen Z adults identify with someone in this protected class.
Now factor in how many people are friends with those 7.1% of all adults who identify as LQBTQ+ or the 20.8% of Gen Z adults. To illustrate those numbers a bit more, let’s look at just one small fraction of the LGBTQ+ groups. According to a Pew Research Center study released just two weeks ago, though transgender people account for under 1% of adults, 44% of all adults surveyed say they personally know someone who identifies as transgender, with 27% having a friend who is transgender. That means for every transgender person, they potentially have up to 27 friends who are aware that they are transgender. Very few decisions a business will make will have a 20-fold impact.
This is why the economics of exclusion doesn’t pay off. You can believe whatever you want, but know the actions you take when it comes to personal beliefs have the potential to have consequences for your business. Sometimes, you will gain supporters who view the world the way you do, but it can go the other way as well. Choosing not to offer your business services to an entire group of people as well as those who support them is not a recommended business practice.
From a sheer numbers perspective and looking at the changing beliefs of our youngest generation, it’s clear that attitudes on sex and gender are changing. As Dan Rather said in one of his books, “Familiarity is a necessary ingredient for acceptance.” As more people meet more people who identify at LGBTQ+, the shift will continue towards acceptance, just as it did with civil rights in the 1960s and women’s rights four decades before that.
I know not all my members share my beliefs, and they don’t have to. I can still be a very effective chamber executive without agreeing on all social issues, just as they can be very successful in their pursuits without seeing every issue the way I do.
Inclusion is typically always the better business practice.
Cory King is executive director of the Bath-Brunswick Regional Chamber of Commerce.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
