Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado graphic designer who refused to create same-sex wedding websites
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • last year • 421 commentsBy: Brianna HerlihyRonn Blitzer (Fox News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Owner and founder of 303 Creative Lorie Smith and attorney Kristen Waggoner speaks out on the upcoming Supreme Court's free speech vs gay rights case on 'The Story.'
The Supreme Court held that a Colorado graphic designer who wants to make wedding websites does nothave to create them for same-sex marriages, in a landmark decision that pit the interests of LGBTQ non-discrimination against First Amendment freedom.
In a 6-3 decision issued Friday, the high court ruled in favor of artist Lorie Smith, who sued the state over its anti-discrimination law that prohibited businesses providing sales or other accommodations to the public from denying service based on a customer's sexual orientation.
Smith said the law infringed on her First Amendment rights by forcing her to promote messages that violate her deeply held faith.
The case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, drew national attention as it featured competing interests of the First Amendment right to free speech and non-discrimination against the LGBTQ community.
Lorie Smith, owner of 303 Creative at center of Supreme Court free-speech case.(ADF )
The law, known as the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), prohibits businesses providing sales or services to the publics from denying services to someone based on their identity. Supporters of CADA claim that the law is necessary to keep businesses from discriminating.
Smith has maintained throughout the case that she has no problem working with the LGBTQ community, just not for gay weddings.
303 Creative owner Lorie Smith said she faced threats after challenging the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.(Credit: Alliance Defending Freedom)
"I think it's important for people to understand that I love and welcome the opportunity to work with all people. My case has never been about choosing which client to work with, but about choosing the message that I'm being asked to promote," Smith told Fox News Digital in a March 2022 interview.
Smith has said that she faced threats throughout the duration of her case.
"I've had my home address put on social media, I have received many threats — death threats, threats of bodily harm," she said in December. "The security system on my home, my child's school has been on alert. I've lost business, my clients have been harassed and my website… people attempt to hack into it, almost regularly by the hour."
Lorie Smith of 303 Creative (Credit: Alliance Defending Freedom )
Despite this, Smith said she did not regret going to court.
"The right to speak freely is guaranteed to all of us, and that's been hard at times," she said. "While it has come at a cost, it's a right worth protecting."
This is the second time CADA has been at the center of a Supreme Court case. In 2018, bakery Masterpiece Cakeshop won a case where owner Jack Phillips refused to design and create cakes specifically for gay weddings.
That case did not rule on whether the law itself violated the First Amendment for free speech or religious reasons, as they held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had anti-religious bias in enforcing the law against Phillips.
.
Tags
Who is online
501 visitors
A victory for free speech!
This case was all about people being forced to support something they disagree with. The Court finally made it clear.
This was a case about people being forced to not discriminate against other people. Her "deeply held faith" goes no further than her own personal bigotry, or else she would have also refused service for anyone who had been previously divorced. There are many many other things that her religion forbids or considers a "sin", yet the only thing her faith finds an issue with is same sex marriage?
This is merely another example of someone trying (successfully) to use religion as an excuse to discriminate.
The people doing the name calling should look in the mirror
funny how often people without religion try to tell us how they "think" religious people should act.
Not only are they without it, they are always attacking it. This case was more about free speech than freedom of religion.
funny how often people without religion try to tell us how they "think" religious people should act.
I know, right? That’s a job for people with religion. It’s too bad they fail so miserably at practicing what they preach.
so ignore them instead of whining!
Speaking of total failure to practice what you preach …
you are not the topic.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
"I've had my home address put on social media, I have received many threats — death threats, threats of bodily harm," she said in December. "The security system on my home, my child's school has been on alert. I've lost business, my clients have been harassed and my website… people attempt to hack into it, almost regularly by the hour."
Do you support this kind of behavior by the party of tolerance and diversity. This case, and another pending one against Jack Phillips are nothing more than activist retribution against people who follow their faith. There is no discrimination if a customer has others sources to procure goods and services. Who are the real bigots here???
Since your question has absolutely nothing to do with anything in my comment, I have no idea why you would think I'd answer it allowing you to deflect from the subject at hand.
Yes, they should.
and whining
But do they?
Well.... the article says.....
So she'll do a website for a gay person. Just like she'll do wone for a divorced person.
But she won't do a website for a gay wedding, just like she won't do one celebrating a divorce.
We know full well they won't as it would involve seeing their own image staring back at them.
You are a good man. A rarity these days.
Why don't most christians try following their holy book, you know The BIBLE. She should be upset about a lot more things than same sex marriage. BTW do christians follow the New or the OLD Testament or do they just make it up as they go along?
It's the latter.
Why don't you stop worrying about what other people hold as their religion?
Do you know the woman? Are you prepared to say you know her well enough to know that this is the only thing she worries about? Don't you think people can worry about more than one thing at a time?
Feel free to conduct a survey. I won't speak for everyone. The case has nothing to do with either the Old or the New Testament.
Why don't you stop worrying about what other people hold as their religion?
If christians weren't trying to force their religion down my throat, I wouldn't have a problem with it. All paths are valid.
Do you know the woman? Are you prepared to say you know her well enough to know that this is the only thing she worries about? Don't you think people can worry about more than one thing at a time?
This was the only argument she brought before the Court. It seems that this is her priority.
Feel free to conduct a survey. I won't speak for everyone. The case has nothing to do with either the Old or the New Testament.
This case had everything to do with Christianity, in particular the New Testament. Didn't Christ say, "Love one another as I have loved you...?"
Is this NOT the NEW Covenant between God and man?
This lady didn't shove anything down your throat. No heed for hysterics.
Her priorities are set by her just as yours are set by you.
If you believe the case has something to with Christianity, that just goes to show you don't understand the case.
It is always hysterical when people demand that court decisions and others abide by some code that they themselves refuse to live by.
No. That is not the new covenant.
Can you cite when and where this is being done to YOU?
No.
That is being inconsistent, because she is effectively demonstrating she can somewhat justify (celebrate) using her creative imagination/talent with fornicating homosexuals but its a bridge too far to request that she take a fee for homosexuals who are legally bound to love and cherish each other.
Consider this: A non-married homosexual lives life in a variety of non-traditional values this owner would be required to acclimatize "ingesting" through her eyeballs and other ways of sharing (together) these values (images) for business purposes. But here she is inoculating her business from homosexuals who are near to "settling down" to a quiet life with more traditional values to her own and she finds this model offensive. What is she really saying?
I think she misses the mark by rationalizing God wants her to be "open" to fornicating homosexuals and their conversations, photos and drawing, while shutting the door on a relatively safe homosexual marriage-which by definition is sedate.
This would make a better case for this owner operating a PRIVATE business. Instead of a public business (with select customers). I agree the logic from a SCOTUS majority is inconsistent.
For starters, she has exposed herself as blind to the institutional problem of homosexuals living in sin OUTSIDE of marriage. This she has or plans to "celebrate."
That is, which is more damaging to the individual fornicating or choosing to live for a lifetime with one mate in a holy union?
Her priorities are backwards, and obviously no one noticed this or cared to point it out to her!
They have done it to me. Btw, these same Christians cry out for their own expression in the public sphere, while selectively condemning, stigmatizing, and displaying attitudes that mock, discount, diminish, outrage, and ultimately lead some ignorant, maladjusted, homophobic believers to attack, maim, injure, and kill (some parents even kill their own children) homosexual and Trans-persons.
Where are the republicans with their stance against this? In the cases above, CHARACTER is not judged - the IDENTITY of the person is enough to get him or her rejected.
Perhaps it isn't a problem for her to worry about. She has no control over whether or not homisexuals or heterosexuals live in sin.
Her priorities are her own and perhaps you shouldn't judge people you don't know
And maybe she never asked if any of her customers are fornicating because it has zero bearing on what she sells or they are buying from her.
Too much to consider that she missed out on one of the relevant/value points of a marriage proposition, eh? To limit/end fornication or sexual "fraud." In any case, if she is doing casual homosexual websites, her business is open to various arrays and venues of the homosexual lifestyle "in the wild" - a homosexual wedding is relatively safe, nevertheless!
she doesn't have anything to do with gay marriages and it certainly isn't part of what she sells.
she can easily create a website for a homosexual that doesn't have anything at all to do with marriage.
And neither should she, but here she is rendering high-court sanctioned judgement against soon to be legally married homosexual persons-because she can't cope with two people wholly in love wanting to make what is between them SPECIAL and PROPER for the duration of their lives! Instead she has stated she is open to these same two people living as they were in institutional fornication. This she can creatively celebrate!
Therein lies the inconsistency. She is creatively okay with fornicating homosexuals using her CREATIVE MIND to display their lives and actions across the world but balks at legally married homosexuals who are in a holy, wholesome, and settled marriage. Her priorities are wrong! There is no escaping this.
now you are just making stuff up.
I won't attempt to debate your fantasies.
you can declare her priorities are wrong but that is awfully bold considering you don't know what they are.
The majority of them probably do, but it is always so much easier for some to focus on the ones that are perceived as not doing so and then blame the whole for the transgressions the minority.
That's on you.
True enough, I decided wasting my time debating a fantasy isn't my cup of tea.
But she'll do a website for a divorced person's second, third, etc. wedding? Bible doesn't even have issues with same sex marriage. Note: I am not talking holy matrimony.
and she is well within her rights.
Possibly one of the most ignorant comments ever...
Second, a public accommodations law ensures equal dignity in the common market. Indeed, that is the law’s “fundamental object”: “to vindicate ‘the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments.’”
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States , 379 U. S. 241, 250 (1964) (quoting S. Rep.No. 872, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 16 (1964)).
This purpose does not depend on whether goods or services are otherwise available.
“‘ Discrimination is not simply dollars and cents, hamburgers and movies; it is the humiliation, frustration, and embarrassment that a person must surely feel when he is told that he is unacceptable as a member of the public because of his [social identity]. It is equally the inability to explain to a child that regardless of education, civility, courtesy, and morality he will be denied the right to enjoy equal treatment. ’” 379 U. S., at 292 (Goldberg, J., concurring). When a young Jewish girl and her parents come across a business with a sign out front that says, “‘No dogs or Jews allowed,’”
3 the fact that another business might serve her family does not redress that “stigmatizing injury, ” Roberts , 468 U. S., at 625. Or, put another way, “the hardship Jackie Robinson suffered when on the road” with his base-ball team “was not an inability to find some hotel that would have him; it was the indignity of not being allowed to stay in the same hotel as his white teammates.” J. Oleske, The Evolution of Accommodation, 50 Harv. Civ. Rights-Civ. Lib.L. Rev. 99, 138 (2015).To illustrate, imagine
Page 37
Copy n’ paste is better than nothing.
Are you really cheapening the Justice's commentary by pointing out some trivial thing? The substance of her words is what is important.
thanks to the thumper SCOTUS, she can go on a religious bigot media tour and celebrate her 15 minutes of xtian nationalist fame. ...or will she be cast aside after her usefulness is fully rendered in the christo-fascist's movement towards an unamerican theocracy.
gee, I wonder what will happen the first time some thumpers bow their heads in prayer at a non-evangelical owned restaurant? will they get immediately 86'd for offending others that don't share their beliefs, or worse? discrimination based upon religious beliefs is a 2 way street and sounds like this could be a lot of fun.
when I was in sales, I didn't turn down any overt thumper wackos, I just played along and charged them a lot more....
there is no thumper SCOTUS.
get real.
And the bigots rejoice...Yea, we can legally discriminate...
Well, can go both ways morons.
she picked the wrong part of colorado to start thumping her bible...
If they could prove you did the company you worked for would be in a shitload of trouble. That is discrimination in a nutshell.
This is the utter hypocrisy that keeps me coming back. Just a priceless self own.
everybody else got a discount off list price, thumpers didn't.
another bible humper phonier than thou small c christian
Yes, it can. As it should.
Otherwise you'll have assholes going into Muslim owned cafes demanding a ham sandwich.
There is a difference in what is on a menu to what is offered only to certain people.
Shame you can't see that.
There is a difference between a product or service that violates ethics or religious beliefs and a similar product or service that doesn't.
Shame you won't see that.
they had faith in me and believed they were getting a great deal.
discrimination on my part would be not selling them the goods and services.
Your definition of discrimination seems peculiar....
And being proud of it and bragging about it on top of it! It is also what hypocrites do.
You're FOS, I'm sure people came into your place of business announcing they support Trump.
Some folks are clairvoyant!
Some folks are bullshitters
Who defines ethics? You? Christians?
That too.
LMAO, call me when they decide what ethics are.
I did in-home sales and it really wasn't hard to tell. there seemed to be a lot of pride in being a fucking moron, much like today ...
Apparently, ethics for some consists of thinking...Eww those people are icky. I won't deal with them...
Some are proud of their ignorance, damned proud. I don't know who coined the term, but I think it fits for the majority of MAGA/the former 'president's' supporters/enablers, which is agnorance.
just consider the source, supporters/enablers of the former 'president' talking about ethics
Um.....If it's inconceivably wrong, how do you know it's wrong? Or am I misreading this? Seems like it says you don't know how it is wrong but it just is.
What she has been granted by SCOTUS is not religious freedom, nor freedom of expression, it is legal discrimination. And in the process of denying homosexual marriage a place in her mind-she has blindly acknowledged that she can creatively make sites for fornicating homosexuals. That is a worthwhile endeavor for her to think (long and hard) about when she is deliberating on how to provide quality service. Homosexual marriages are worst to her mind, though she would have a damn hard time explaining why!
This case, as it is, is not a religious rights case, thus no one has a right to request a Muslim touch (sensate) pork or carry it on any list or menu.
This woman case argued freedom of expression. Her problem is she is open to doing websites for homosexuals that do not offend her religious convictions-in the case of homosexual marriage. She skipped over a significant fact: Homosexuals-not celebate-outside of marriage are fornicators.
She is either lying about the work she will do for fornicating homosexuals or she is entirely ignorant of what such web design entails-even when there is just text on the site (hardly a chance of that).
Answer this: Biblically speaking which is morally wrong: Homosexual fornication or homosexual marriage?
That shows how tolerant, kind, and inclusive you are toward those with whom you disagree. Well done!
OK. Sounds good to me. Am I missing something?
My guess is that this woman would probably argue that homosexual marriages are not valid, so they're still fornicators even after they get married, and she doesn't want to make a website celebrating that. Probably not how I would see it, but I'm not much of a fundamentalist.
If you're trying to make the point that she's being hypocritical because she's digging her heels in on one situation she believes to be sinful while ignoring other sins, the odds are certainly in your favor. I don't know that specifically, but it just seems incredibly difficult to make a living if you're avoiding all the things some people declare as sinful.
Biblically speaking, any sin separates a person from God, and all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.
Anything after that is human imposed.
You see my true problem with her request: She is not being truthful about her feelings toward homosexual 'expression.' Either you agree with what homosexuals 'do' or you do not agree; it is incredulous to me (and to the appellate and supreme court that 'answered' her case that at least in this regard she is questionable) that her brand of Christianity positively distinguishes between homosexuals as a class, but negatively defines same-sex marriage as an anathema.
As we both may know, fundamentalists Christians do not accept or 'navigate' homosexuality in any form, shape, or fashion. They reject homosexuality outright, period. So this appears to be a scheme on her part.
Let's drill down on this: Which of these two is this website owner considering sin in your opinion: Homosexual fornication or homosexual marriage?
Hopefully one of them finds out and sues your company into oblivion.
Instead of just seeking whatever the customer will part with?
Most in home sales are predatory and they have many reasons to over charge
different families for different reasons.
Please, don't be ridiculous.
Most people own cars and have no idea whether they got a good price or not.
Its called capitalism, let the buyer beware.
As we both know, fundamentalist Christians face an inherent and probably insurmountable challenge with consistency.
That said, it is not inconsistent to both show God's love to other people without necessarily endorsing every activity they undertake.
Almost surely both.
Thank you.
Now then, in your opinion is: Homosexual marriage-which by definition-takes the 'many' in homosexual relationships and limits it to "two" people swearing to love one another for life a worse status/classification than fornicatin' day in and night?
This is the foolishness on world-wide display of this woman's fundamentalist faith. So caught up in the rhetoric that homosexual marriage is an offense (to man) that she can't see that she has missed the value in marriage (for all) which drastically limits the quantity of that other 'sin'!
What she accomplished was important (to her group); win big from a conservative-led court decision against a minority class which she despises and sought to split. To what end remains to be discovered (next go around). This is the only point that makes sense about her actions.
Not relevant to her case.
What do you mean, please elaborate.
Her faith isn't relevant to this 1st Amendment ruling.
This is a ruling on the freedom on expression clause (and the first amendment includes freedom of religion clause as well). Since it is you who guided me over to the opinions of various courts, then you surely know that her religious belief is 'blended' all through the court opinions. But that is not why I mention this.
I am addressing the makeup (logic) of her complaint, which I won't rehash here (it is all above and below in my other comments). Her negative 'issue' with homosexual marriage (settled life) is inconsistent with her positive position with the single aspects of a homosexual lifestyle (of constant, repeat 'dating').
She won at (the) SCOTUS, but how it satiates her religious conscience is not clear. Unless, she does not plan to honor her words on the matter in the end.
Doesn't matter to her what you think, she has a SCOTUS ruling to back her up.
What do you have to support your legal argument?
my favorite thumper sale was to a couple that wanted me to join them in prayer to pray for a lower price. I refused and while laying an epic guilt trip on them, I packed up my sample cases and set them on their front porch to leave. the classic sales takeaway. they apologized before I could drive away and I ended up writing the contract without conceding any more of a discount. some people just needed to see a little melodrama before they spent the money. they weren't the only ones that had their xtianity thrown back in their faces by another alleged xtian to make the sale. I was howling on the inside...
Personally, I don't really worry about other people's behavior unless it impacts me or I think someone needs protecting. Neither of those criteria are met when consenting adults do whatever they get up to on their own time.
I have zero say on what is sin, which sins if any are worse than others, who is a bigger sinner than whom, or anything else. Unsurprisingly, God has not asked my opinion on the matter.
Forgive me for insisting that this is about her and her request from the state and federal system to allow her to discriminate against a subset of a protected class of individuals. Her bible, being no different than 99.99 other bibles she can pick up tells her practicing homosexuals are equal in the eyes of her 'books.' How she can select out married homosexuals for discrimination and "work with" the actions of other homosexuals is inconsistent.
In any case, thank you for playing along as I probe this. As you shift the focus onto your personal views, I feel you are ready to let this go:
HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!
HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!
Except that is NOT what the Court ruled.
Once AGAIN, she can no more discriminate against a protected class of citizens than you can.
What percentage of those complaining here, actually read the decision? A very small number it seems.
I don't know.
It might be more interesting to see who read it and misunderstood it.
Some folks here seem to think the Court said the woman can discriminate against homosexuals.
My personal views were in response to your asking "in your opinion". Sorry if I misunderstood what you were looking for.
I do think it's worthwhile to seek to understand how other people see things, even (or especially) if it's different than how we might see them. In her case, I can see how she comes by her stance in such a way that it's actually less hypocritical than a lot of things many people believe. That's giving her the benefit of the doubt, and I don't know if she deserves that or not.
As far as the court case goes, I can see positives and negatives on both sides and I can see how things don't have to digress very far for things to become very problematic no matter which way the court ruled.
Happy Independence Day to you, as well.
All I could think of is "Don't ask if you don't want to know".
Why do you persist in making inconsequential remarks to me?! What did the court rule from your understanding -exactly?
Is she allowed to discriminate? What class of people is she permitted to discriminate against?
I don't think correcting you is inconsequential.
You persist in deliberately saying stuff that simply isn't true.
That the woman doesn't have to make websites for homosexual weddings.
You said you read it--just go on ahead and point out the part the Court said she could discriminate against homosexuals or anyone for that matter.
I am not really sure you can do that--based on evidence before us.
It’s pretty simple, a web designer has a First Amendment right to refuse to create websites for same-sex weddings.
Regarding her situation , Jack.
Ah. I see.
OK, well... My guess is that she believes homosexual sex is sinful, just like adultery or any other extramarital sex. I'm guessing she believes that homosexual marriages aren't really marriages in God's eyes, so they don't do anything to legitimize the sexual activity involved. Those would be views consistent with many fundamentalist Christians.
She probably doesn't make websites celebrating adultery or other types of fornication, so she doesn't see this particular refusal as inconsistent with that pattern.
From a precedent standpoint, I wonder what (if anything) this changes for other small businesses. For example, if someone owns a beach house, can they now refuse to rent to gay couples because they'll be violating religious views? For that matter can they refuse to rent to unmarried hetero couples? I'm not sure where the line is now.
No.
None.
You have been told this repeatedly in posts 1.2.54, 2.2.61, 2.2.74, 2.2.76, 2.2.93, 2.2.98, 2.3.65, 2.4.4, and 8.2.8.
I'll save you some time here and let you know the answer will always be the same no matter how many times you repeat the question.
Asked previously.
Answered previously.
Do you need me to recite what posts?
Is this more imagination, or did the lady say something that led you to this particular conclusion that seemingly no one else has come to?
How did she split anyone?
Just so you know Lester Maddox, former governor of Georgia (D), "came by his stance": Not to allow blacks to enter his restaurant using the spill about personal property and liberty and invoking Freedom of Association . (It is not a first amendment right but courts recognize this right as fundamental) Maddox stated that a man ought to have the right to have a (public) business for which he could associate with those whom he chooses and leave out those whom he does not choose to associate . (Paraphrased.)
Maddox lost his case. And abruptly shut down his business. A federal judge decision stated he had violated the Civil Rights Act of 1965 which desegregated public businesses:
Now that this web designer has this ruling from the conservative SCOTUS majority it may not take long before some dedicated and persistent group applies to the high court to end an accommodation to some other use of a public setting. This is what Justice Sotomayor was articulating deep inside her dissent. Watch this space.
Racism and bigotry have always and on occasions cloaked themselves in personal liberty.
Which does not mean they would prevail.
The woman did nothing wrong. She went to the courts to resolve an issue.
Her rights are just as important.
Wasn’t Lester a Dem and Jimmie Carter’s Dep Gov?
Yes, but Democrats had such control that they did not run together.
Bringing Maddox up had no real point. Different case, different arguments, different times.
Here the 10th Appellate Court states its CONCLUSION:
NOTE : The 10th Appellate Court affirms the district courts decision against this web designer using the terminology of "Discrimination" against homosexual wedding/wedded couples.
NOTE : Comparing the two courts (above) it is correct to observe that both courts come to two distinct and different affirming and reversing solutions. However, what is 'threaded' throughout both conclusions is a firm and strong understanding that DISCRIMINATION is what this speech being applied for (and granted by the Supreme Court majority) is.
Come back, if you got something else.
This is from the 10th Appellate Court (Dissent) :
Then clearly Ms. Smith is LYING . As any person will indicate the Bible wholly treats homosexuality (which cannot be separated from the sex) as immoral—certainly for fundamentalist Christians the "person" is immoral.
So it remains to be seen what type of site Ms. Smith thinks a homosexual would like her; it must not 'hint' of anything sexual or romantic.
As to where this win for Ms. Smith under the first amendment it could lead to challenges to Colorado hiring practices (she clearly won't hire married homosexuals, for example) and a challenge of a (public) freedom of association 'test' in court. Effectively, the Supreme Court has opened this protected class to less protection potentially all around.
What does/is "Dep"?
Maybe it is related to 'loot' opinions?
I am sure you are astute enough to know that other court's opinions were rendered moot with the SCOTUS ruling.
Citing an old ruling serves no purpose here.
BTW, was the 10th Court's decision one of the "loot" opinions?
The POINT of the comment is not the SUPREME COURT's conclusion per se; it is what BOTH COURTS acknowledged is being allowed: Discrimination against homosexual married couples. But evidently, you are ASTUTE enough to "duck and cover" rather than submit to the point of discussion:
Well Texan, I did do that-based on the evidence and extrapolation of two court opinions 1.2.72!
As to the rest of your distraction; if you can't process what I mean by using the word "loot" I can't help you. Take it up by committee.
Actually, you didn't.
But it was one hell of a try!
Well... to my knowledge.. there is no Constitutional protection of "freedom of association". There is one on religious liberty. So it doesn't seem inconsistent to me that the court would view a religious liberty case differently than something not in the Constitution.
Racism and bigotry are forms of personal liberty, whether we like them or not.
That's a (best) compliment coming from you!
That's absolutely not the case.
Both Old and New Testaments are replete with people who engaged in immoral activity and were still loved by God.
Unconditional love for our neighbor regardless of whatever we believe their sins may or may not be is exactly how Christians are supposed to behave.
Freedom of association has been and continues to be a fundamental right; despite lacking constitutional protections, thus the SCOTUS has actually ruled on it in cases of private businesses like the Boy Scouts (a Non-profit association) for example.
The 'concern' is now that a conservative majority court has offered freedom of speech discrimination privileges to a public business, can freedom of association (a fundamental right courts recognize) discrimination for public businesses be far off?
Racism and bigotry are fought against in public spaces even thought they are they are the 'flip-side' of personal liberty. Which, is why Lester Maddox had to shut down his public business if he was not willing to not discriminate against a protected class: Black citizens of this country. That is, there is ACCEPTABLE PERSONAL LIBERTIES and UNACCEPTABLE PERSONAL LIBERTIES.
The issue here is not the love of God aspect to this (or else Ms. Smith could rationalize "loving" and allowing for homosexual marriage trusting in God's love for those married homosexuals)!
As for "unconditional love" we have demonstrable evident in this legal case that Ms. Smith is not issuing any such thing when she legally has INSISTED she will not work with homosexual married couples and it is debatable just how far her "love" will extend for single homosexuals and their activities.
She didn't, though. She simply said she wouldn't make a website for their wedding.
Ostensibly, if they own a dry cleaner or an accounting firm or an insurance agency, she would produce a website for that.
Well, the topic of discussion is the homosexual marriage-couple weddings. So I am doing my best to stick to the theme.
figured what a loot opinion is yet?
I am 64 years old and have never even once before heard that term.
No one else I asked knows either
maybe just speaking plainly instead of these cryptic terms only you use might get your points across better.
SORRY! Can't help you understand the word, "loot."
SORRY. Can't help it. You know, freedom, liberty, and (no) feelings about it. /s
I know YOU can't.
But since YOU are the one to coin the phrase "loot' opinion, you would at LEAST have an inkling of what you were attempting to convey.
As it is, the statement made no sense.
I gave you a chance to explain, but as usual, you deflected.
Have a nice life.
[Deleted]
No, it's a victory for bigots.
ridiculous nonsense
What do you think bigots won?
No, the intolerant bigots lost. They targeted her because of her faith.
Who was the so-called defendant in this case? If you know then you should be able to easily prove who TARGETED this web designer. Please proceed. . . .
Kind of pointless to attempt to relitigate the case again, especially by people with no standing.
Just as I thought: You will take the 'loot' opinion and run with it. Well, it remains to be seen if the so-named defendant will seek an explanation through the Justice Department of how this case used his good name to render a landmark decision in a case not 'fit' to be heard in even lower courts!
I hope the "defendant" does pursue this one.
The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
What? How so? Take whatever space you need to be clear and less obscure. Name the defendant harmed and having standing. If this "Act" state how so.
Ms. Smith worried that when she expanded her business, Colorado would use the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to compel her to create websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse. She filed this lawsuit to clarify her rights by seeking an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create websites gay celebrating marriages.
The 10th Appellate Court found that Smith had standing:
The state of Colorado for forcing her to violate the tenants of her faith through their unconstitutional anti-discrimination laws that discriminate against people of faith, she launched a preemptive strike instead of waiting for the intolerant bigots to sue her or fine her through the biased intolerant Colorado legal system.
Once a SCOTUS decision is rendered, it is final and cannot be appealed or relitigated. As the highest court in the land, who would they appeal to anyway?
I know, the whole premise is silliness personified.
It's rare but it does happen, Doc.
It's extremely rare for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn one of its own decisions . Of the more than 25,500 decisions handed down by the Supreme Court since its creation in 1789, it has only reversed course 146 times, less than one-half of one percent.. Oct 11, 2022.
I believe the overturning of Roe vs Wade would qualify.
Here is a list of eight major decisions they overturned.
Of course, you would not take the courtesy to extend a link. I don't know why I bother wasting good quality time with some conservatives BS games. I will look it up and read for myself (as I suppose you have done. . . unless someBODY told you about it.) Back later.
Excellent, even though he did answer your questions.
Did you even read the Court’s decisions?
Perhaps, probably.
But he has grossly misinterpreted it.
I doubt it at 70 pages.
Whatever
Whew! Just read both the appellate and SCOTUS cases throughout. Once again, thank you for taking the time to be helpful in your own way. It caused me to stop 'down' for a spell to read (I have been busily detracted in the real world even on a Sunday before the 4th of July).
You are correct, the appellate court considered CADA as "harmful" to this pre-challenge case by the web designer and so she fulfilled the requirements to present her case to the appellate court and. . .SCOTUS accepted the finding of standing by the Appellate court.
That said, I read both 'sides' and 'all-sides' in the end I must confess I agree with Justice Sotomayor's dissent because she thinks alone the lines that I do and "expressed" above that one can stipulate in writing on in a disclaimer that the views expressed are not the views of the designer. And through use of other such phrases, even going so far as to put "spiritual verses" in the design of the space. Clients being free to not accept the creative work—after completion accordingly.
Again, Drinker of the Wry, good job on pulling me 'up' from a momentary spiral I was on on Saturday. I will well consider what you 'sparked' in my thinking throughout the rest of this article's discussions.
I stand corrected. My apologies to all and my thanks for setting me straight my friend.
No worries, Doc....I also learned something when I didn't see Dred Scott as one of the major cases that was overturned by SCOTUS. Looking it up it was the 14th Amendment that did the Dred Scott decision in.
Now if they would overturn the Marshall Trilogy I'd be a happy camper.
After reading the 10th Appellate Court well-written decision, I agree with your review of this.
To be clear, the appellate court shared and understood her dilemma, but still dissented in the majority to give CADA the win. But then, it was off to the Supreme Court and state and appellate decisions both were reversed by its conservative majority.
She ought to have lost this case, George. But, and its a big but, owing to the conservative majority who honored her freedom to render bigoted speech (which all the lower and upper courts acknowledged she is seeking permission to 'utter') she is able to partially take down a protected class' protection under state law by placing a communication of her established bigotry against homosexual marriage and homosexual married couples.
This court is doing the very things some conservatives accused the so-named, "liberal court" (because it helped minority people out of the stinking 'hole' of life they were stuck in) of doing; this court is reversing itself (and by its actions-its own past justices). It is a crying shame that this court can be so damn self-righteously hard-hearted as to deny and rebuke their own past justices for their decisions on the record.
Expect more of this going forward, as conservative think-tanks bring up for "review" (correction) many more of the past opinions of their former justices of the high court!
Well, you spoke to fast! Because I did read it and more besides (including the 10 Appellate Court's decision at 103 pages by itself.
(I forgive your lack of faith in me on this one occasion.)
Here is a hint, the intolerant homosexual communities rights don’t trump hers.
You have piqued my curiosity. No one I know who I asked has any idea what that means, and Google couldn't help either.
What DOES it mean? I am sure I am going to be fascinated by the story.
Okay, my first reaction was that this contradicts the same-sex wedding cake rulings but it does not.
Ultimately, a business has the right to decide which products or services it offers. So a baker (the prior case) does not have to offer satanic themed cakes or same-sex cakes or anything else that they choose to not offer for whatever reason. But the baker must apply the product/service limitation to everyone and not discriminate based on the race, gender, orientation, color, religion, marital status, national origin, ancestry, etc. of the customer.
Similarly, as long as the graphic designer does not create same-sex wedding websites consistently (regardless of the customer) then she apparently is within the law.
This is akin to the custom t-shirt shop years ago that only offered LGBTQ+ products. It is their right to limit their products and services but they cannot discriminate against their customers.
Yup.
I said it differently. To me it is more about not forcing people to approve of something they don't.
Tell me how this isn't discriminatory? I'd agree if she didn't do wedding sites - she can't then discriminate against same-sex marriages. I should get back into web design and discriminate against all Christians? It's a dumb business plan if you ask me. I hope she goes out of business.
it's a thumper marketing ploy designed to attract the most gullible clients...
Wow! What an intolerant and childish reaction. Name calling, demonizing, and bad wishes for people who don't share your "values" [Deleted]
Or maybe to repel angry activist assholes.
So as a developer, you believe the state can compel you to design websites depicting happy nazis? That’s your preferred outcome? People lose all freedom to express themselves when they go into business.
I admit I'm intolerant of bigots, racists and misogynists. It isn't a secret.
If ones 'values' are predicated on denying rights and services to others then fuck them, they deserve to go out of business imo. Again it's a dumb business plan. Businesses should have be religions and political neutral by law, but we have a fucked up judiciary that says they can. When that blows up some bigots' face sometime don't whine to me.
As a business person why would I turn down money? It's not my website.
People don't, but business should NOT be people. DeSantis is punishing Disney for their freedom of expression and you cheered.
Slippery slope. Now it becomes a matter of whose rights get priority.
It's of course your right to help Nazis for money. Many a person has justified despicable behavior with that rationale. But not everyone thinks money washes away all responsibility. You honestly can't see why some people's sensibilities would be offended by promoting Nazis or similar groups/ideas. You believe a state can force the children of Holocaust victims to help Nazis?
but business should NOT be people.
This is one person, with a unique voice who completes each project herself. It's not a billion dollar multi national corporation that relies on sweat shops. Its no different than forcing an artist to create art they disagree with. It's in no way consistent with the freedom of expression.
Really? You just admitted you'd happily work for Nazis for a few bucks. I guess your intolerance is cheaply sold.
Creating a website is not a despicable behavior.
Why would that be on me? The creation of a website doesn't promote anything. How would I know if it gets hosting or how and where it gets used? Any acts promoting violence already cover me under the law so I don't have to worry about that. I could also as a person, put out my own opinion statements denouncing Nazi's, the website and the people that I just took their money from.
So?
I don't see the legal distinction here on the subject at hand. If you want to talk about the shitty things billion dollar milti national corporations do we can talk about that in another article.
Art is an expression. Simply adding code to a box is not.
Using you skills to create a website to promote Nazis is pretty clearly despicable. Is there anything you wouldn't create a website to promote for a few bucks?
Why would that be on me? The creation of a website doesn't promote anything.
Websites do, in fact, promote things. IF you spend your time designing a website to celebrate Nazis, you are, in fact promoting Nazis.
I don't see the legal distinction here on the subject at hand
Read the decision. It's the state forcing a single person to use their talents to create something against their wishes. Not a company with 10,000 employees so the job can be assigned to someone willing to do it.
Art is an expression. Simply adding code to a box is not.
Both sides in this case agree that creating an individualized website is, in fact, expression. It would overturn decades of First Amendment precedent to claim otherwise. You should read the case as not even the state was making these claims.
So using one's imagination isn't an expression and creativity?
Equating a same sex couple seeking a wedding website with Nazis seeking to spread hate is despicable...
She is not refusing to serve a customer based on race, etc.; she is simply limiting her products and services. That is necessarily a right for any business. Same with a custom Islam store, for example, that creates custom artifacts but only for Islam. As long as they serve all customers the same way, they are okay.
Do you think it wrong for the LGBTQ+ custom T-shirt shop I mentioned to refuse to create a pro-straight custom shirt?
This story has NOTHING to do with wedding cakes. Do get into the now.....................
The article is not about Nazi either, but It is reminiscent of Jim Crow Laws and the Nazi discriminating against the Jews...
yeah but that happens when you want forced labor from some folks.
unintended consequences is a hallmark of liberalism today.
Nice edit
wow that there is quite the s. t. r. e. t. c. h. !
oh looks like you have graduated from the Biden College of "how to show respect and support for our beloved institutions when they don't rule as I like" with honors!
so, how many liberals does Soros own now?
That lying hypocrite coney-barrett as well
We don't sell our souls to the highest bidder.
Not true. That would be your hero, the former 'president'.
[deleted]
So we're differentiating between an LLC and a sole proprietor?
So you really are pretty tolerant of bigots, racists and misogynists... when it's convenient.
Not convenient, profitable. That dirty capitalism rearing it's ugly head again....
Bingo!
And profitable.
Nope, you are wrong, as usual. You project, as usual.
Why would TiG do that? It quite obviously is discriminatory but that's not the point of the case. The case is about whether an individual can discriminate, legally, in certain cases. That leads us to the even larger issue of whether or not an individual can hold personally held beliefs and values they can act on or whether the state can compel, if not beliefs and values, then at least behavior, which negates personal beliefs and values through forced compliance.
Of course, this subject isn't as simple as I just made it sound. For instance, an Asian person may have the sincerely held beliefs and values that leads them to discriminate against black people simply because they are black. Should that be indulged? To my mind, how we arrive at an answer is more important than the actual answer itself. Should such a question be decided by simple majority rule or should it be based on reason, logic and evidence, regardless of what the majority thinks? The difference between the approaches decides whether we are a republic or a direct democracy.
But if none of that sways you, consider this. The losers in this case are upset because they see this as a case of an individual forcing their morality, beliefs and views on others. Yet, had they won this case, that is exactly what they would have been doing themselves. Not only does the losing side seem to not understand this, they don't appear to understand the difference between what they attempted to do and what the individual in this case actually did. The individual in this case succeeded in establishing her personal autonomy over herself in this issue. The state failed in its attempt to remove that autonomy. Do you see the difference? She was not trying to compel anyone to do something they did not want to do while the state was trying to do exactly that.
If the Asian person owns a business that refuses to serve black people as customers then that is flat out wrong (and illegal). If, however, an Asian person owns a business dealing in Asian arts and crafts, it is not discrimination (in the operative sense within this context) to refuse to offer African arts and crafts (or Indian or Iranian or ...) as long as that refusal applies to all customers.
Ultimately a business has the right (necessarily) to choose the products / services it offers. It does not, however, have the right to refuse a customer based on that customer's race, gender, identity, culture, etc.
And to another of your points, if the Asian person refuses to offer African arts and crafts due to a deep bigotry of African-native people, that is not illegal. It is wrong to be a bigot, but as long as the business serves every human being as a customer regardless of the protected demographics, the business is operating in a fair and legal manner.
Also, for those who do not seem to understand the implications (you understand so I am not referring to you), imagine what would happen to our pseudo-free market if the state were to impose egalitarian rules (explicitly in contrast to health & safety rules) on what products and services private sector businesses must offer.
Yes. I know. I wasn't speaking of specifics but, rather, the meta of it all. The layer above what you are speaking of here.
Not the point I was addressing. That is, I didn't address why or how an Asian's attitudes towards black people may be wrong or why. I intentionally ignored such considerations in favor of what I see as the larger, more important issue. The a priori conditions necessary to address the issue in a fair and rational manner seems more important to me as what follows from them determines the rest.
For myself, I did not see this as a case of whether or not an individual violated law. Rather, I saw it as a case determining how much an individual retains autonomy in the face of the rest of the society in which they live. Or, put another way, this case wasn't about her, specifically. It was about deciding to what extent society could compel an individual to act against their conscience.
But even that doesn't quite get us to the real question concerning this case. It doesn't actually address the a priori conditions from which we make such determinations. If those conditions are erroneous then, as I'm sure you're well aware of as a programmer, garbage in, garbage out.
That being said, this case wasn't about whether this individual should or shouldn't provide her services. It was about whether society can compel an individual to behavior that violates their conscience and to what extent. In order to answer that question we need to understand what a priori conditions that society thinks applies. It was to that I was referring to in my post.
Society makes laws that, ideally, are best for the whole. It really does not matter if the laws run in contrast to someone's personal views (and conscience). What matters are laws that are fair and practical for all the members of the society.
To emphasize, lets take a fictional neo-Nazi who hates Jews and all dark-skinned people. If this neo-Nazi has a shop where he produces Nazi paraphernalia, he has a right to offer same. But if a Jew or dark-skinned person, or whatever wants to buy from his product line, he cannot discriminate; he cannot refuse to sell to them based on his bigotry (religious or otherwise).
I say that society should not care how much this sale conflicts with his neo-Nazi convictions and conscience. We should care that business be allowed to offer their desired products and services and that customers be allowed to purchase same regardless of their personal attributes of race, gender, etc.
No, thank you for being crystal clear about what some conservatives [Deleted stand for, Greg!]
This case is ripe for a lawsuit any way you look at it.
Are Nazis a protected class in this country, Sean? Beyond appearances, please tell me how it is reasonable to insulate one's business from: Homosexual weddings while being open to doing business with single homosexuals.
Did I say they were?
The government, thankfully, can't force people to create things against their will. That's what is this case is. Compelled speech.
Do you think government should be able to force you to create something with a message that opposes gay marriage? What about a someone who is very pro-choice. You think the government should force them to create something that promotes a pro-life message?
Why do you need to compel people to create things against their will?
Far too many, especially now that junior has taken over!
If she refused to sell what she normally offered only because the prospective customer is gay, she would be breaking the law.
We should want businesses to be free to determine their offerings (i.e. to create their own business models) and likewise we should want businesses to sell their defined offerings to anyone who wants them regardless of the customer’s race, gender, etc.
Homosexuals are a protected class in this country, because people harass, beat, torture, and kill them for their identity. This woman is making a false distinction that should have no legal protection as someone in an unprotected class (because of protections afforded her inherently as a heterosexual individual).
No one is forcing her to creatively service homosexuals, period. She stated in this article of her own volition that she 'works' with the LGBTQ community. Thus, what 'expression' she will encounter from homosexuals in general she will encounter less of from married homosexuals.
She is full of sugar,honey, iced, tea to suggest that homosexual marriage will move her conscience more deeply than 'association' with any single "expressive" homosexual individual.
This is nothing more than the 'Right's' exploitation of the people by a stupid and apparently inept set of conservatives SCOTUS judges and doing so my having the public look over >here< instead of at what is really happening. That is, this is the use of raw judicial power to make something conservative happen for its own sake!
Finally, the SCOTUS is SUPPOSED to be above specious thinking and able to critically render its opinions. This (conservative majority) court is not that.
It is tantamount to Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declaring (1857)
"Blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."
By this court's action (opinion) it is okay to treat marriage as a form of EXPRESSION by conservative definition—without even requesting a religious freedom exemption. Because this court has ruled that homosexual marriage is not meant to be equal to heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the law. Even when homosexual marriage IS LEGAL!
Moreover, apparently, one can now go to the SCOTUS and 'split' a protected class of homosexuals against themselves. Wonder what King Solomon would have thought of that type of judgement:
Why did SCOTUS allow this 'baby' to be split and drive needless division between homosexuals in a court of law?
This court has accepted that this woman's message is she can 'express' and serve homosexuals and associate her business with this protected class, but has decided to message that legally married homosexuals, I repeat, a legal couple wedding is beyond her ability to withstand as a pubic 'offering.'
She is being allowed to split a protected class (LGBTQ) apart and treat it unequally in her business because of her "message" or belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. THAT message is not what U.S. law states.
The conservative SCOTUS court is being ridiculously conservative!
In short, she has the right to create the business model of her choosing but it is illegal for her to turn down a prospective customer based merely on race, etc.
Yet that is what she is doing...
But it is not what she is doing. She will create a male-female wedding website for a customer and will not refuse to do so just because the customer is gay.
With laws we need to consider the big picture. We cannot get into the practice of having the state determine a business model. I have offered what I thought was a critically obvious example of the problem when I posited the LGBTQ+ shirt shop. Do we want the state to tell them they must offer anti-LGBTQ+ offerings and not just their pro-LGBTQ+ offerings? That their brand be associated with "God Hates Fags" because by law they were forced to create that shirt?
I would expect you and everyone else to shout a resounding NO! Of course we do not want the state to do that. Of course we want every business to have the right to create its own business model (and that includes its offerings) and then live or die in the marketplace based on their decisions.
But we do NOT want businesses to deny prospective customers based merely on race, gender, etc.
So: business in control of their business model (and thus offerings) should be a resounding YES!
Business able to pick and choose who they will allow to be customers based on race, gender, orientation, etc. should be a resounding NO!
And here is why. This protected class is being split by law under a first amendment freedom of expression clause. But, this business owner is open to creative expression for homosexuals-just not married or homosexuals seeking marriage. This is BS.
The class just got its first 'chip' taken out of it for no other reason than conservative justices (who should have known better than to take the case any way because it had no proper standing- turns out the 'harmed' individual was not who he was supposed/expected to be) are choosing to not judge this case without partisan bias.
Another thing, if asked for her opinion on a homosexual wedding website she could have simply say that is not her business' offering or area of expertise at this time; but to offer heterosexual 'experts' time and talent for their wedding expression, and potentially every other form of one-man/one-woman marriage websites is the definition of institutional and systemic bigotry, plain and simple, now sanctioned by the high court!
BTW, this begs the question. Since she is constitutionally allowed to EXPRESSION/SPEECH to AVOID homosexual weddings; she ought to be able to go a step further and not employ MARRIED HOMOSEXUALS using the same logic based on marriage .
Though this ruling does not mention marriage, it is clear that a same-sex married couple must be employed somewhere and potentially working under a conservative boss/manager/CEO.
So she can not serve people that have the same legal right as everyone else.
Your business model excludes legally entitled people.
No where the same as not selling a certain item.
Not buying any of it and as we will never agree with one another I am leaving this.
CB, I want you to seriously consider this question.
I have posited an LGBTQ+ shirt shop which creates custom pro-LGBTQ+ shirts and sells pro-LGBTQ+ paraphernalia. They have a brand name that they are developing in the market and want to continue to grow their business.
Their business model is pro-LGBTQ+. That is what they do. That is their mission and their offerings reflect their mission. They do not sell pro-Straight items and especially do not allow their brand to be associated with anti-LGBTQ+ items.
A customer asks them (that means their brand, their reputation, their market image, etc.) to create a custom shirt that reads "God Hates Fags".
Should they be required to do that?
A different customer, who is an overtly straight bigot, wants to buy one of their shirts off the rack. Can they refuse to sell to the bigot?
These are the two very distinct issues at play here.
No matter what anyone says she did all of this solely for bigoted purpose.
I have no idea where you are getting this. She must serve everyone (i.e. cannot refuse service based on the customer's demos).
Ok
I think she is a bigot. I have stated that.
If, by chance, you think I am arguing that she is not a bigot then we are totally NOT communicating.
I will continue if you won't get mad at me.
I would rather stop and keep a friend. Haha
Incidentally, I keep pointing out that the conservative court put its 'take' on this opinion, because it desired too. It did not have to look at it from this 'vantage' point. That is, there are other vantage points as well. But, that is what happens when a court wants to advantage/disadvantage a group.
It places emphasis where it chooses and the rest of us have to deal with it.
I say, ready the (counter) lawsuits.
so the ruling already answered your question about her being able to fire a person because they are gay, and can not discriminate in her hiring practices.
there is always someone mad about a SCOTUS ruling.
Our friendship will not be affected by mere disagreement Ender.
My take. This woman put forth a business model that explicitly excludes legally entitled others just because she doesn't like them. If anyone buys the religious aspect we are worse off than I thought. No way she is some devout nun or anything. Plus Imo it does nothing but give religion an exemption to law. They basically get to break the law and use religion as a cover.
It is basically legal discrimination.
Thanks.
I don't know. Most people usually get mad at me some time or another.
And apparently, I can be a little snippy. Haha
Incorrect, in my view. Those actions were already illegal, regardless of the status of the individual upon which such actions are taken. Even if we are speaking of a serial rapist and killer of children, these actions would be illegal. Homosexuals and, by extension, other deviant behaviors, were made a "protected class" not for the purpose of protecting any individual but, rather, to force the acceptance of a particular ideology.
Stating the same thing in a different way, LGTBQ "protections" weren't established for the protection of individuals but, rather, the de facto and forced implementation of a particular ideology. And that ideology isn't particular to the LGTBQ cause. It is actually directed towards the elimination of Western values.
Lastly, your treatment of 1 Kings 3 shows you have no idea what it was referring to.
I agreed. All she had to do was give them a "shitty-deal" set of proposal websites and feign indifference to a homosexual couple's dissatisfaction and CERTAINLY the couple/s would move on to the next site. No! She had to advertise her distaste by putting herself in the spotlight of the marketplace in a high court case. WHY?
It did (her) more harm than good. And, it exposed SCOTUS' conservative bias by ignoring liberal justices who explained that the case was not right for taken due to questionable standing-even when the court learns of it!
Actually, she and her lawyer should be suited by the man whose name they used (abused) in their court document. And somebody should really explain how this got through the court system (of truth-telling) all the way to the high court without anybody hearing from the man in the case. That is, where was his lawyer as he would have needed to defend his side through state court.
Excellent point! I think Disney has a lawsuit already on a Florida state court docket.
There is a big difference between married homosexual couples and Nazi's who are famously known for atrocities, hatred, bigotry, and criminally murderous activities. No one can even-minded make the comparison work. . .or stick!
That said, of course, Nazis still exist and operate in plain site as somebody is putting their websites together, likely Nazis themselves. So the point you are TRYING to make is moot.
Finally, if on the chance that a Nazi would "lower" itself to ask a child of the Holocaust to create its hate speech; if they did not take no for an answer - just give them a project so full of Jewish perspective that they walk away. (But first, the Nazis would have to lower themselves and that would show a sign of desperation, wouldn't it?)
SCOTUS does not issue opinions in a vacuum. Its rulings ripple across the entirety of the country and statutorily laws, plural. Besides, there is a question being remarked on now as to how this case landed at the high court when their was no harm done to her business, and the name "defendant" did not every exist!
Thus, WHY DID SCOTUS TAKE THE CASE?
(As usual, feel free not to respond to this comment. It's perfectly okay with me if you don't. Mm hmm.)
This woman and her lawyer potentially lied to get in court as there is a named male defendant in the court documents who states he never asked her for any such services, is not gay, and has been married for over ten years (to one woman). Ideally, he would be someone she could serve.
So there is that!
As to the case, this owner asked SCOTUS to allow her to look at a protected class of citizens she could not discriminate against under law and PULL OUT a sub-class: married homosexuals and exclude them from her creative use of talents. That is simply legally wrong.
In the inverse, it is no different if a homosexual owner offers services to a heterosexual man, woman, or child but then singles out married couples as somehow offense to his company's creative 'flow.'
This is bigotry and its (once again) being INSTITUTIONALIZED systematically in law. Watch for more 'fallout' from this.
To allow this owner to use her creative 'flow' with some single homosexuals while flat out shutting down expression with other homosexuals is to literally make wedded/married homosexuals SECOND CLASS CITIZENS in their own class.
(As usual, feel free not to respond to this comment. It's perfectly okay with me if you don't. Mm hmm.)
Not in this case. It is not good for society that this business owner will cater to a 'split' class of homosexual citizens. SCOTUS has given sanction for her to pick and choose which homosexuals her company will serve within a protected class. What happens when her religious convictions manifest as not being able to serve any homosexuals, . . .say based upon some future 'revelation' she gleans for creative self?
With no expenditure of creativity from her: What happens when a single and fornicating homosexual 'taunts,' insults, or to put it nicely "challenges" her sensitivities with images needing displayed from a same-sex wedding in a planned project, eh?
What should happen under the "protection" she just garnered from SCOTUS? I don't know if the court commented on this type of issue in its majority/minority opinions.
SCOTUS took the case, SCOTUS ruled on the case, case is now closed until someone else files lawsuits and either appeals because they don't like what they get from one court or the people named in the suit appeals if they lose.
Everything else is just so much fluff.
What is wrong is your interpretation of the Court's ruling.
Seriously think about @2.2.55
Look at the big picture.
It most certainly has not done any such thing.
Why would anyone think that after reading the Court's ruling?????
The first situation happens routinely in the marketplace. A company can be "expressive" as a niche market. Within this type of market specialty items are created for sale.
"God Hates Fags" is certainly classified as hate speech. No company is required by law to participate in hate speech. Thus, such speech is not "pro-Straight" or even positive speech.
The owner of the website business has not been asked to promote any hate speech or negativity speech. Indeed, as of yet she has not been asked to do a homosexual wedding site, but I digress.
No! The LGBTQ+ site doesn't have honor a request to expend its services for hate speech: "God Hates Fags."
If a bigoted person wants to POSITIVELY SPEND to buy LGBTQ+ merchandise off the shelf, do not refuse him/her. Sell it. It's good business!
Note: If you meant that a straight bigot wants to come in to the LGBTQ+ store and buy a "God Hates Fags" product; I have already shared that the store is not obligated to carry hate speech products. Conversely, the store would be wise not to create/stock "God Hates Straights" products either.
Okay, what does the ruling say? Or do you reserve to yourself the right to not 'service' repeating it?
And the LGBTQ+ site should not have to honor a request to produce a custom shirt glorifying "Marriage: One man, One Woman" either.
Well Texan, from the early days of my youth in this country and on this earth, somebody has continuously been 'mad' and acting negatively about the collective "me" simply for being. I think I have experiences and background to be passionate about those persons, groups, or organizations who are trying to rehash and reopen old political wounds that will divide up and coming generations of homosexuals who will be affected by laws which favor homosexual instability and inability to blend in with the society they are born into as life-long and paying (into the upkeep of the systems) members. Systems which in some ways take their money and oppresses homosexuals with it!
I had really hoped you had bothered to do some research on your own, but I will tell you what the ruling said.
The Court said that the First Amendment protected the designer, Lorie Smith, from being compelled to express views she opposed.
She doesn't offer websites for same-sex marriages and will not be forced to do so in the future.
I really shouldn't have to tell you what an article says, and nothing is stopping you from doing a modicum of research for your very own self.
I am sorry some people were mean to you.
I am not really interested in a litany of victimhood doings.
This case is even worse that that! In that she did not come at the court from a freedom of religion angle. She challenged same-sex couples under a claim of freedom of speech (expression). That is, a secularist could make the same claim and she might even be one. Not sure if the article described how she describes herself in this regard.
This is even more insidious. Because she used a different 'key' to unlock a conservative-leaning court's biases. And it worked.
Can you imagine that this was not conceived and 'tested' in some 'backroom setting' and think-tank before it became public at the Court level? It has all the hallmarks of a concerted effort, except that we were not supposed to notice that she and her lawyer have suffered no harm which would give her proper standing before the Supreme Court (following its own standard of operations).
Let me dismiss your lack of analysis and acceptance of my use of I Kings 3 to illustrate a larger point of judges not allowing schemers to come before a court with the intentions of splitting a protected class from itself. That is a form of segregation and for what cause. This woman uses her "creative processes" to help as you put it "deviants" and their deviant behaviors, but then she claims to be too "refined" to help these same homosexuals doing the same things (to a lesser degree) once they get married together?
Married homosexuals: Lesser degree of 'fooling around,' more stable-more "coupled" for life.
And, you have the gall to suggest that imitation of marriage by homosexuals of their heterosexual friends and families will cause the "elimination of Western values"? Begs the question of just what those western values are. It would appear to me that you consider marriage as only good for one entire segment of western society and those others can just go "fuck" behind a bush, hedge, bathroom stall, or any other such environments, because they won't be seen and respected for doing so by 'civilized' society.
One tin soldier rides away.
Do not patronize me, conservative. The damage is real and it is lasting. Once more as a conservative you all allow us to peep the selfishness, the hardness, and the spite that you all hold for your fellow human beings who simply want to live innocently beside those who demonize everything they are, everyday, and in every way.
You are not being asked to deal with my victimhood, I have endured. I even took on myself the religious values of conservatism only to watch conservatives spit out their faith in order to 'win' political battles that devalue the souls of other people by waging ceaseless cultural wars against people who simply want to be as you are. . . people. Racism and bigotry kills otherwise innocent people. And that should matter to conservatives as much and as often as it matters to me!
I got it--conservatives bad. It is virtually the same argument no matter the topic.
Seems like it to me. Part two of the same argument.
Great song!
She most certainly did.
When did she tell you that?
Liked the movie 'The Legend Of Billy Jack" it was the theme song for as well.
She went to court and got 'permission' to legally discriminate against homosexual weddings/planning on the internet. That is fundamentally correct. She went court shopping and found SCOTUS ready and willing to please.
I get all that Tig is saying about the freedom to model one's business to one's own satisfaction.
What is sticking in my craw (what I find offensive) is this designer chooses to be inconsistent to not serve homosexuals seeking marriage (to settle down), but willing to serve single homosexuals creatively. Technically, its the same or similar set of circumstances and some would say it's a better 'deal' to serve any routine wedding parties.
Somebody, group, or organization likely put her up to this and funded it. As it has all the hallmarks of activism. Even Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg stated on STATE OF THE UNION with Jake Tapper that this appears to be a "solution" looking for a problem, or words to this effect.
She can no more discriminate against people than you can.
Yep, SCOTUS ruled in her favor and it's a done deal like it or not. and said "protected" individuals and others on the liberal left are just having a hard time stomaching it because it did not go the way they wanted.
that's it in a nutshell.
You state this to say what that is relevant to this discussion? Case in point: I never brought a case against her or any other conservative. She has brought a case which made it to the Supreme Court and won a right to legally discriminate against a protected class over something they never asked her for, in fact. (In the process making the Supreme Court look like a collection of conservative clowns assenting to a case they should not have heard for a lack of standing!
Let's test this point you're agreeing with another commenter about: There are articles written that question how this case landed on the docket of the high court as the court traditionally takes cases that have standing (a harmed party) and all the facts worked out in the lower court system: Who is the defendant in this case?
You keep inventing things and attempting to argue them.
As has been pointed out now multiple times to you, she can no more discriminate against someone than you can.
I thought you said you were ready for a factual discussion now?
The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
Agreed.
Yep, just another let's paint all conservatives with the same wide brush scenario.
It is like it is being played on an endless loop.
Same old shit, different day.
Yep.
"I thought you said you were ready for a factual discussion now?"
Only if it goes entirely his way.
Don't like the 'scenery' change the 'red' party-line otherwise it is what it is.
Can't sell what you give away
I think that the line has been drawn incorrectly.
If the purpose of the company is to create websites for weddings, then irrespective of the type of wedding, it would seem that they would be obligated to create a website for it. Because it is the company (the DBA) that does business, not the individuals of whom the company is comprised.
If a realtor offers houses, but doesn't offer them to any queer people because they feel that would be promoting a lifestyle that their religion does not espouse, it seems that the realtor would be discriminating against a specifically protected class.
Of course, this whole issue goes against my instincts as a libertarian which say to design or not for whom you choose or not. At the same time there seems to be a rising tolerance of mean-spiritedness that is increasingly open about not doing things for people for reasons that can be construed as bigotry. With this decision, the court seems to be saying that this mean-spiritedness is OK as long as it can somehow be construed as "religious" in nature.
The purpose of the business must be to create websites for heterosexual weddings. As long as that is her product line she will be fine (and fair) if she treats all customers equally regardless of race, gender, orientation, etc. And it is okay if someone limits their product line (for everyone) based on their own religious, ideological, etc. views.
She would get into trouble if she refused a customer based on the customer's qualities. Not because she refused to make a product that she does not offer but because of the customer. Thus if she refused to create a wedding website (one that fits her product line) simply because the customer is gay, she is discriminating.
Here you move to an example that truly would be discrimination. The realtor in this case is discriminating based on characteristics of the customer.
To me this is very easily handled. A business has the right to offer a limited set of products and services. If a business wants to sell only LGBTQ+ custom products then that is well within their choice ... rightly so. If they then refuse to create a pro-heterosexual custom t-shirt, that is entirely consistent with their defined product line.
If, however, they refuse to sell one of their products because the customer is straight, they are engaging in discrimination.
In short, whatever (necessarily limited) products/services you offer, you must offer equally to everyone regardless of the customer's race, gender, etc.
One more thing, she is a bigot by definition. But that is not, in itself, illegal.
Setting up a business with the intention of only serving some of the population is a lot different than what is in a product line.
No one can ask a business to offer something they don't sell yet these people are offering a product that everyone could use but they are using religion as an excuse not to serve certain people the same product they sell to others.
She set up a business intending and agreeing to serve all the population. That she intended to serve gay customers was agreed to by all parties. You've been bamboozled by bad media if you think otherwise.
The issue is whether she can be compelled to perform any service anyone wants.
Keep thinking that. Last I saw, she had one service available.
Keep thinking that
Yes, I will continue to agree with what all parties to the case stipulated to and not engage in pushing conspiracy theories.
What are you even talking about? What parties made stipulations?
hat are you even talking about? W
The actual Court decision.
hat parties made stipulations?
The state of Colorado and Smith.
Where is her website? I want to see what she offers.
If it matters to you, I suggest you locate it.
Would you then make it illegal for a Catholic Supply business to offer only Catholic artifacts?
And back to my first example, would you make it illegal for an LGBTQ+ custom shirt shop to limit their product line as such? Should they be forced to create a pro-straight custom shirt?
I think you are objecting to the bigotry (rightly so). I am focused on what is legal (and practical). Custom shirts are something that everyone could use ... should the LGBTQ+ custom shirt shop be allowed to limit their product line per their desires or should the state legally force them to offer any custom shirt a customer desires?
Site can't be reached. Convenient.
What does that even mean.
Here is an example of a Catholic supply store:
If that example does not make sense then go to the next one I used: the LGBTQ+ custom shirt shop.
A custom graphics designer doesnt have a product line, they have a skill.
She cant say "I dont have a product that applies to gay marriages", since she is perfectly capable of creating one.
Is it illegal for an artist to limit their products?
Should a religious artist (one whose themes are consistently religious) be forced to create an anti-religious work of art?
She can certainly state that her business deals exclusively with heterosexual weddings.
An LGBTQ+ custom shirt shop is perfectly capable of producing an anti-gay shirt for a customer; should they be compelled by law to do so?
So a Catholic suppy store offers merchasndise. I still fail to see what that has to do with anything.
You are basically comparing what some would consider hate speech. A more apt example would be this shirt shop sells shirts they printed that says John + Katy 1923. Yet is the same shop decided I cannot print and sell the same shirt only because it says Glenn + Steve 1923.
As a graphic designer, there are many advantages to selling digital products online. You can earn passive income, work remotely, and set your own hours working on your digital business.
Plus, everyone uses digital products today—from templates, fonts, graphics, photos, printables, to almost anything else you can imagine. Developing digital products requires a lot of patience and creative thinking, but the results are well worth it
Should we make it illegal for an LGBTQ+ custom shirt shop to refuse to create an anti-gay custom shirt?
If a customer orders a custom “God Hates Fags” shirt, should the state compel them by law to make it?
A question he keeps asking and all of you are avoiding like the plague has been put before you.
Should a LGBTQ+ custom shirt shop be allowed to limit their product line per their desires or should the state legally force them to offer any custom shirt a customer desires?
Or a similar question:
Should a Jewish t-shirt shop have to produce shirts glorifying Nazis?
none of that contradicts what i said
if you go into a graphics designers office and say "i want you to design some stationary for me with a NASA theme" do you think they are going to tell you that they cant do that because NASA themes are not in their product line?
I replied to your assertion that graphic designers don't have a product line.
If the shop only sells certain merchandise, the question is moot.
Okay. So now apply that to a graphic designer whose 'shop' only sells websites for weddings with a male groom and a female bride.
well, her shop doesn't sell websites or designs for websites for gay marriages.
I am a little surprised you agree with this decisions but "attaboy"!
You are basically saying people can sell 'straight' merchandise.
I don't think it works like that.
It does work that way.
And another shop could sell only LGBTQ+ offerings.
Imagine the government (by law) telling an LGBTQ+ shop that they MUST also include straight offerings.
It is discrimination. A shop that sells only certain items is exactly that. A shop that only sells to straight people is selling to everyone except a select few.
she said she will do business with gays.
Is it unjust and prejudicial for a shop to offer exclusively female products?
Is it unjust and prejudicial for the example LGBTQ+ shirt shop to offer only LGBTQ+ items?
It is unjust and prejudicial to turn down a customer based on the customer's race, gender, etc. So the key is to be willing to sell what you offer to any customer.
Why would it be unjust being a specialty shop. The items are still available to anyone that wants to purchase them.
What I stated to be unjust was a shop (any shop) denying a customer based on the customer's race, gender, etc.
The whole point is that it is NOT unjust IF the offerings (no matter how they are limited) are available to anyone who wants to purchase them.
You are actually defending, why can't a business model only serve one race...
A business model can serve only one race (in effect). Consider a business model that specializes in what was at one time called 'Afro-American' hair styles. If a Caucasian wanted a 'fro, they could not turn them away due to race, etc. But the Caucasian customer also cannot demand that they give him/her a cut that would only be applicable to naturally straight hair.
That would be like arguing religion is cultural.
I am not following your reasoning here.
To me what you are describing are niche needs or offerings. Of course there are going to be shops that cater to certain needs.
Would I trust a White shop for Black hair or versus. I am sure they would give it a go...Haha
It is still different than offering a service to all legal people except these...
I have been giving examples of businesses with very limited business models that will cater to only a select demographic.
Either we allow businesses to create their own business models and define their offerings and then live or die based on the market, or we impose government on them to make them conform their business model to specific demographic standards.
The former is how business has always operated in the USA. The latter would, IMO, be oppressive, authoritarian forced egalitarianism.
No one was ever stopped or no one ever tried to stop business and or business models.
They can do as they please within the law. Not one person has been against that.
Hobby Lobby is a good example. They can sell their wares, be closed on Sunday, whatever. Yet they do not stop gay people from shopping at their stores or buying the products.
This explicitly states we will offer a service yet only to certain people.
Saying legal adults have equal rights is in no way oppressive.
Then the graphic designer has the right to define her business model as she sees fit. She has chosen to build websites for conventional weddings. She will work with any customer regardless of race, gender, orientation, etc. to build a conventional wedding website.
So just like Hobby Lobby does not turn away gay customers, this graphic designer does not turn away gay customers.
Again, she isn't stopping gay customers from purchasing from her.
?? ....
Yes they do if they are the subject. That service is denied.
You are saying someone can come along and cater to only one race and everyone else will be denied.
Saying some business may cater to a certain demographic is still not in the same ballpark and denying a legal citizen the same service they offered to everyone else.
All this did was give religious exemption to law.
I will never be for that.
there is the point. she doesn't offer the service to everyone and never has
I have written, explicitly, that a business can define its own business model and that model can be designed to cater to a tiny portion of the population.
There is no denial. It is a targeted market. If anyone wants to buy from the business they can do so, they just cannot demand that the business change its model (and thus change its offerings).
Hobby Lobby (your example) is a Christian organization; they have a business model that, in part, offers items that are not offensive to Christians. You cannot find anything in Hobby Lobby that praises Satan, Allah, etc. You will not find anything in Hobby Lobby that is pro-atheism. Nor will you find anything in Hobby Lobby (I believe this is true) that promotes homosexuality. They have a targeted market just like the website designer has a targeted market.
And like the website designer, they will not refuse as a customer those who are not Christian or are not straight.
Nonsense. You are making things up. The result would have been the same If she was an atheist.
Seems to me she does offer the service to anyone. If a homosexual wants her to build a conventional bride+groom website for a conventional wedding (e.g. for the wedding of a sister or brother), she will not turn the customer away simply because he/she is homosexual.
If she did refuse the customer based on the customer's race, gender, etc. then she would be breaking anti-discrimination laws.
You are conflating a targeted audience with an explicit rejection of a targeted audience.
So I am done.
Why would an atheist care about gay weddings...
A targeted marked is, by definition, not catering to the portion of the market that is outside of the target.
It is not explicitly excluding one either.
And sorry. Told you I get snippy. Haha
I actually did enjoy the conversation. I understand where you are coming from.
We just won't see eye to eye on it.
Hobby Lobby explicitly excludes the pro-atheist market (as an example). They will not sell pro-atheist products and offer no pro-atheist services.
And that is okay. It is their right to define their business model as they see fit.
But what they cannot do is deny an atheist from purchasing what they offer.
... similarly ...
The graphics designer explicitly excludes the unconventional wedding market. She will not develop and sell websites that are not for conventional weddings.
And that is also okay. It is her right to define her business model as she sees fit.
But what she cannot do is deny a homosexual from commissioning a conventional wedding website.
But she can stop them from commissioning one of their own...
I would say conventional wedding themes seems like just a construct. The law of the land is the law of the land, unless it is against your religion.
? She can? How?
Did you mean to type 'cannot'?
A gay couple could buy and use the service for others just not one of their own...
Yes! Gay wedding websites is not an offering of this business. Just like pro-atheist framed prints is not an offering of Hobby Lobby.
So you are saying it would be ok to say this business does not serve the black community.
We are religious after all and want to keep to our own. But you can spend money here on someone else if you want...
It is okay for a business to cater to a specific limited market.
Yes, that is correct for Hobby Lobby. And they are okay if you buy something religious for yourself (as an atheist).
You probably should have stopped when you said you were done.....
I got my point across.
If others refuse to see it, not my problem.
Actually it is a lot of people's problems but I guess that is beside the point...
Yes, she does business with homosexuals - but has received speech acceptance to not do business for married homosexuals.
You are misinterpreting the ruling still.
Did you mean to write "court decision" instead?
Why would an atheist care about gay weddings...
Nice evasion.
First. why would that matter? Second, of course some atheists object to legalized gay marriage. Atheists aren't clones and are, in fact, capable of independent thought that isn't dictated by their non-belief in a God. .
The point remains. If she was an atheist, the result would have been the exact same. Everything is not, in fact, about religion.
Her case is silly. She can't see herself working with married homosexuals, but she can make sites for single and/or fornicating homosexuals? That's a form of strict discrimination. SCOTUS is wrong to let her claim freedom of expression. How would she square what she ingests from single, fornicating homosexuals as more "wholesome" that what she will encounter from married homosexuals makes no damn sense. And all any single or fornicating homosexuals have to do is confront her with the stories, images, and photos to prove how absurd her stance is.
SCOTUS certainly didn't think so.
She says that she does sites for heterosexual weddings. That is what she offers. If a homosexual wants to buy what she offers, she must treat the individual as any customer. But she is not required to create a website that she has stated she will not do (for anyone).
It does not matter how silly her bigotry; bigotry is wrong but it is not illegal.
She builds heterosexual wedding websites; that is her offering. Customers can buy from her or not. If a customer wants to buy a standard offering, she cannot refuse selling same to the customer based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. She can, however, refuse to produce something that she does not offer in her business.
Websites is her 'work' for this case. In which case she will do sites for homosexuals too! That is what she offers (homosexuals). Just not so for married homosexuals. Let see if we can agree on this point for now. Right or wrong?
Wrong.
She can not discriminate against married homosexuals any more than she can discriminate against blacks, browns, whites, or Asians.
Then 'shirts' is the work of the LGBTQ+ shirt shop.
If we are going to generalize for the graphics designer to force her to expand her offerings then we must also force the LGBTQ+ shirt shop similarly. Thus the LGBTQ+ shirt shop cannot limit their offerings to strictly pro-LGBTQ+ items.
The rules have to apply for all. We cannot just select those whose motivations are bigotry and force inclusive rules; the rules would apply to everyone so consider the effect writ large.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”
Ah, if you could only relive those days!
Sorry John. There are no more legitimate causes for your side.
I remember minorities not allowed in white banks, movie theaters, restaurants and stores. Those were brutal wretched times.
Will you reverse The Civil Rights Act of 64?
no one is talking about reversing the Civil Rights Act.
[deleted]
That is a CLASSIC example of a strawman argument.
Typically weak, though.
I guess Texans never heard of Jim Crow!
Were you not taught about segregation?
Did you not learn it was legal before '64?
That is one really shitty guess.
Of course!
I did!
I also learned who was responsible for Jim Crow policies and laws.
Have you yet?
So you want to dismiss the Constitution and have discrimination to make up for the past?
Eventually those Woolworth lunch counters became legally required to serve blacks.
Why was that any different than requiring cake makers or graphics designers to fulfill orders from LGBTQ ?
It involves speech John. You can't force people to say things they don't want to say. We do seem to be getting there, though. Maybe another term for Comrade Biden will do it!
yes it is different. Read the Court's opininions on the two and you will be able to tell.
The Woolworths lunch counters were saying something too.
Why bring up the history of the civil rights movement?
Is there supposed to be a connection?
Lunch counters aren't people, JR, they don't speak.
I still prefer some bush as well.
I doubt the Universe cares what happens to humans one iota, let alone that it has a moral philosophy.
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”
Only if just people push it that way. And to some on here, fascism is moral
Key document may be fake in LGBTQ+ rights case before US supreme court
This could throw a wrench into the SCOTUS ruling.
Doubtful. Not sure that it matters if the letter is real or not. They ruled that she doesn't have to do what she doesn't believe in. That is the whole crux of the case.
Probably not as the court has already decided in her favor.
Another win for freedom. The court holds the first amendment means what it says and the left couldn’t be more pissed.
The term nazi has been used inappropriately 14 times ... get a grip y'all.
Your count is WAY off.
Since it is misused MOST of the time here, the number is at LEAST a few dozen or more!
And when that happens, I start thinking of tomorrow:
How about someone prove that God even exists before we start making laws based on...he/him/her/she/it?
Imagine thinking the outcome has something to with religion.
Imagine thinking that it does not.
You should read the case.
the result would have been the same if she was an atheist.
Well, then their argument would go to shit.
I would really like to. Unfortunately I am using my phone and the pdfs of the case and the decision are scanned documents, not scalable to the phone format. In short, it gives me a headache to read them.
From what I had heard about the case it seemed to be a religious freedom argument more than a freedom of speech case. To be honest, I hadn't paid that much attention to it.
As I told TiG earlier, my gut says to let people alone to do as they please. The problem arises when too many people start to consider not providing services to a particular group of people. Where does this freedom of speech become entrenched discrimination?
The religious freedom (1st amendment) argument seems weaker (to me) than the argument that a business has the right to determine its own business model and that includes determining that which it will offer for sale.
Business offerings need not apply to everyone. Indeed, it seems nutty (to me) that we would even think of forcing businesses to ensure their offerings are universally applicable to all people. If a store wants to 'discriminate' against 50% of the population by exclusively offering female products, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. But if that store refuses to sell one of its offering to a male simply (gratuitously) because he is male, then we have a problem. And this reasoning applies into more and more nuanced business offerings. If we follow the principle we can end up with something very nuanced (e.g. a website developer who exclusively builds male-female wedding websites but who will sell their offering to any customer regardless of race, gender, orientation, etc.).
I could not make an argument that a mom-pop Italian deli legally must also offer Kosher items so as to not discriminate against Jews. I could (depending on the locale) argue that it would probably be a good business decision to include that market, but that is about as far as it goes. However, that Italian deli cannot turn away a Jewish customer who wants to buy a standard ham and cheese panini from the menu simply because the customer is Jewish.
Thank you for responding.
I understand the distinction and how it is being applied. I also understand that there are many people out there who will, unfortunately, and purposely or not, misinterpret or misrepresent this decision.
Without a doubt.
People will misinterpret this decision as a freedom to be a bigot yet in reality this decision benefits non-bigots too. It is unfortunate that the petitioner here is (very likely) motivated by bigotry thus the misinterpretation of the ruling.
Speaking of mischarecterization, this is from a fox news page
What is comical is when the lawsuit was first filed, she was not even in business yet. Wanted an opening.
So it's bogus. I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
And the ''request'' seems to be bogus as well since the person that supposedly sent it denies that it was him. So, at this point it looks like SCOTUS made a decision on an event that never happened.
This is all funded and pushed by that "alliance defending freedom' group.
How did this happen to get all the way through the Supreme Court with a win for this developer (on a possible lie)? There are some tangible questions here which the court system should look into immediately. The Supreme Court appears to have suffered a new low with this one. Talk about an ACTIVIST COURT!
Thus, it appears there was no aggrieved party and the Court is found wanting over its own rules of intake of cases. This is dirty politics and its coming out of the Supreme Court. ADF (Alliance Defending Freedom) is probably funded by some billionaire conservative or other organization, running cases up to the conservative court all to happy to intake and express raw power to effectuate conservative control and take down liberal opinions from past courts. I do not trust the SUPREME COURTS OPINIONS when delivered without honor and integrity. The court has failed to abide by its own set of rules and policies.
And these hateful people were allowed to file a case in federal court against a protected class. That is like a wolf allowed to complain the chicken coop is locked when it is on the prowl for poultry! And a judge agrees and orders the coop door left partially ajar!
This is an outrage!
I have said it before, some conservatives who do this kind of devious shit are not to be trusted because they are NO DAMN GOOD! Now we see the conservative court for what it is.
Why are you making stuff up?
Let's discuss facts--real facts.
Were you equally outraged when dress designers refused to design for Melania Trump?
I'll bet against it.
It was a Trump, so everything is cool with it.
Fluff.
You are just mad because they didn't render the decision YOU wanted.
And what the hell was devious about it?
It was no secret. And I bet the woman would abide by the Court's decision no matter what it was.
Didn’t Colorado stipulate to the court that they would prosecute Smith if she refused to design a web site celebrating a gay marriage?
Why didn’t the dissenting opinion include yours?
I bet because the liberal Justices knew it was not relevant.
Okay, I am somewhat caught up now (thanks to a non-verbal "assist" by Drinker of the Wry); what would you like to discuss factually?
Apparently, "pre-enforcement challenges" when accepted by a court are rendered as ripe if they 'answer' the (3) criteria for standing questions :
I had no opinion about the vanity of dresses for a woman who has quite enough dresses I am sure her husband is capable of giving her. (Though, Chris Christie is reported as saying, and I quote: "Donald Trump is the cheapest SOB I have ever met!" So maybe the added cost to find a designer to take the exceptional step to work for her after the "boycott" could be telling. But, that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
This is an outrage because it involves a protected class that is being split by law and part of the class will be intensely stigmatized and harmed by this high court decision.
I have been doing so already and am ecstatic you decided to join in.
It started with a writ of Certiorari filed in Sept 2021.
What is the possible lie?
What are they?
You're free to because of the 1st Amendment.
It seems out of the 7000 plus cases SCOTUS is requested to review per year this is one of the 100/150 they thought was important.
Apparently.
Weird, apparently making a website for a gay couple = taking part in a ' gay wedding'.. I wonder, does that mean a gun store manager is responsible for murder if a gun they sell is used in a mass shooting?
No need to wonder at all.
Of course the manager wouldn't be responsible for what some idiot does with a legally purchased gun.
Gee, do you think GM is responsible for what a driver does in one of their cars, too?
That IS very weird.
Where is that occurring?