Letter: Are accommodations laws still needed?

On Dec. 5, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis (state of Colorado). The owner of 303 Creative, Lorie Smith, asserted that forcing her to create custom websites for same-sex weddings would constitute "compelled speech," a violation of the First Amendment. The state of Colorado defended its public accommodation laws, which include sexual orientation and transgender status. They argued that this case is about discrimination in a public accommodation. This case is the latest in a long line of litigations that have pitted private businesses against state and federal public accommodation laws.

In 2022, I wonder if the federal and state public accommodation laws are necessary. When Title II (the Public Accommodations Act) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, actual Jim Crow laws existed and overt discrimination in businesses and other public accommodations was the norm and accepted or tolerated in many communities. In small and medium-sized towns, Black citizens would have had few or no alternatives to businesses that refused to serve Black customers. 58 years ago, these laws were necessary.

If these laws were to be repealed today, it's likely that some businesses would exercise their ability to discriminate on any or all of the categories covered by the laws. They could even display offensive signs declaring their bigotry. Let them do it. The public retribution would be swift (imagine the storm on social media) and economically painful. Besides losing the customers that they no longer want to serve, these businesses would also lose a significant portion of the customers they prefer, creating vacuums in those markets and opportunities for entrepreneurs to create alternatives to fill those vacuums. I would prefer the immediate repudiation of the marketplace to the protracted and narrow opinions of the courts.

Randy Harris

Campton Hills