The Supreme Court of the United States today denied an appeal from a New Mexico photographer who would like to have the constitutional right to refuse to do business with customers who offend her personal beliefs, ScotusBlog reports.

The case, known as Elane Photography v Willock, No. 13-585, had become famous, the blog reports, because it was the first such case to reach the Court: it tests whether homosexuals, for whom legal equality has now been affirmed, can be turned away as customers of ordinary businesses that are open to the public. From Scotus Blog:
A number of state legislatures are passing or at least considering new legislation to give businesses the right to refuse to deal with customers based on religious objections to the customers’ character or lifestyle. For example, such a bill was recently passed in Arizona, but was blocked by a high-profile veto by the governor.
In the current case, a lesbian couple approached a wedding photographer and asked her to photograph their commitment ceremony. (The request was made before same-sex marriage was legal in New Mexico.) The photographer refused, because she didn’t want to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. But the couple sued her based on a New Mexico law that prohibits businesses that provide services to the public from discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation.
The New Mexico Supreme Court agreed with the couple, and the photographer appealed to the US Supreme Court, which denied the appeal today.
The case sounds like one based on freedom of religion (the free exercise clause), but it is in fact framed on the basis of free speech. Photography, being a creative endeavor involving artistic expression, should give the photographer the right to control that expression, the photographer argued in this case.
The problem, though, is that New Mexico law holds that businesses that sell things to the public, even if their services involve creative expression, cannot discriminate against customers on the basis of their sexual orientation.
That’s where this story ends: Businesses in New Mexico that are considered “places of public accommodation”—that is, businesses that sell goods or services to paying customers—can’t refuse to provide those services to customers on the basis of their sexual orientation. It’s a good thing, too. If the photographer had prevailed in the Supreme Court, could businesses claim that baking a cake is a creative endeavor? Printing invitations in colorful fonts? What would be next?
What does this have to do with schools?
Not much, I admit. Schools are much closer to the public than businesses, which are known as places of “public accommodation.” Schools actually get money from public coffers.
However, the famous Citizens United decision has changed the rights “corporations” have. Private schools are corporations, and charter schools are often run by corporations. Private schools don’t get money from public funds, except in several states that have voucher programs, but charter schools do.
The line could blur at some point, making it not only profitable for school corporations to refuse to provide an education to certain students on the basis of the opinions of the corporation’s shareholders, but also legal. For now, this will not change, but state laws popping up could bring a challenge soon that is reviewed by the Supreme Court.