Opinion | The Supreme Court’s wedding website ruling is gobsmacking

Ms. Katz was correct that Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and his five confederates have been pranked.

We could all laugh. But the joke is on us.

Michael D. Schattman, Lansdale, Pa.

During the days of apartheid in South Africa, the Dutch Reformed Church and its members were instrumental in supporting and spreading that authoritarian political culture and institutionalizing the segregation of Black people and the criminalization of gay people. “Originalist” justices and political leaders rationalize acts of discrimination by claiming religious freedom and free speech while ignoring the Founders’ fear of religious domination in civil society.

Those who think the religious beliefs of a minority should override the rights of the majority have cause for concern.

Kathy Viney, Silver Spring

Given the Supreme Court’s track record in the past year — including, most notably, the gutting of affirmative action and federal abortion protections — I shouldn’t have been surprised when, along ideological lines, it ruled in favor of a web designer who doesn’t want to provide services to same-sex couples. Yet I was.

But more than that, I was afraid for the futures of LGBTQ+ individuals, whose rights are seemingly undermined with each passing day. I fear that the day will arrive in which outward discrimination and oppression become permissible, so long as it is presented under the guise of religious freedom or free speech. The day when signs reading “Gays not served here” become a reality.

I would love more than anything else to fool myself into believing that the United States has realized its ideals of justice and equality for all. Yet the contrary is painfully evident when one of the greatest setbacks the LGBTQ+ community has encountered in recent memory occurred during Pride Month.

Ravin Bhatia, Brookline, Mass.

My brain is in pain after reading the details of the 303 Creative v. Elenis case. It’s gobsmacking to see a case that consists of nothing more than a “what if” riff reach the highest court in the land and for misrepresentation to be admissible (at the highest level, that is — the district court raised doubts about the legitimacy of the inquiry cited).

I hope the already-married straight man whose contact information Lorie Smith used for the “Stewart” in this case sues Ms. Smith for fraudulent misrepresentation.

Aimée La Fountain, Nutley, N.J.

The Supreme Court’s holding that gives merchants a right to refuse to serve customers in certain circumstances is more complicated than both sides of the dispute recognize. I wonder how people would react if the defendant was a talented Black gay person and the creator of a website and anti-gay white supremacists tried to hire him to create an anti-gay and anti-Black website.

Many rights are two-edge swords.