Supreme Court Seems Ready to Back Web Designer Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage
The justices are expected to settle a question left open in 2018: how to reconcile claims of religious liberty with laws barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Supreme Court Seems Ready to Back Web Designer Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage (Article)
- Thread starter Morrison71
- Start date
Alito seems genuinely dumb in his attempts to justify bigotry.
The basic rights of people in a SS marriage relationship, most assuredly ARE.
Bullshit. The whole case is literally about refusing service to gay couples.
Time to establish a new BBB, the Bigoted Businesses Bureau.
At a basic level: where’s Ms. Smith’s standing in this suit? She hasn’t begun the business but wants the court’s permission to refuse future hypothetical business from gay couples?
No question which way this court will rule. It’s already been decided.
No question which way this court will rule. It’s already been decided.
I would blown away if the court rules against her. Gorsuch has already signaled that he is highly interested in accepting her arguments. Alito is making light of the situation. We all know Thomas will screw over the gays. If it comes down to Amy and Kav, that's not looking good for gay rights.
Agreed, and while this is for private sector, we already had a well known case where someone in the pubic sector refused services to gay couples.
Supreme Court rejects appeal from county clerk who wouldn't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
Two of the conservative justices, however, said the 2015 ruling making same-sex marriage the law of the land amounted to a "cavalier treatment of religion."
www.nbcnews.com
This likely will further empower folks to see if they can relitigate decisions that they don't like with a new angle on refusing service and a new more right court (that doesn't represent the population).
I can definitely understand why someone would find this upsetting and wrong, but even if this lady is forced to accept this work from same sex couples, why would same sex couples want to work with her? Isn't there other much more accepting people that they would rather design their website?
Justice Barrett said that the line-drawing questions in the case were difficult...
No, they aren't. If this business can refuse to serve gay couples, ANY business could make the same case. If she can refuse to design their website, why can't a venue refuse to offer them services? Why can't a restaurant refuse to host their celebration? And why can't they be "religiously" opposed to providing services for interracial couples?
No, they aren't. If this business can refuse to serve gay couples, ANY business could make the same case. If she can refuse to design their website, why can't a venue refuse to offer them services? Why can't a restaurant refuse to host their celebration? And why can't they be "religiously" opposed to providing services for interracial couples?
It's a can of worms conservatives are eager to open.
Will the new Senate DEMAND an ethics program from the SCOTUS, AND give them a time time to finish it. This is needed now and it should be a strong one if the SCOTUS wants any credibility.
Just finished season 1 of League of Their Own. My brother is gay, and I have felt like I have been pretty keen to the societal bullshit around LGBTQ. But that show did a really good job of underscoring just how fuçked society can be re: LGBTQ. We’re watching our horseshit fake-ass puritanical wannabeism fight for, well, whatever. I really believe it to be rooted in sadfück (white) Christian supremacy weirdness, but nobody will really delve into that shit.
If it were denying service to a gay person strictly, I would agree, but it's about service to a gay marriage, and people can decline having to serve that. Again, nothing to do with two people getting married
<rolling eyes gif> If they serve a M/F marriage but refuse to serve a M/M or F/F marriage it IS about them being gay. They are denying service to people because they're gay.
Last edited:
Same reason same sex couples kept going back to the baker. To troll them, to force their beliefs on him.
It sounds like she's already in business as a graphic designer but hasn't done any wedding related stuff simply because she's afraid of running afoul of the Colorado law against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
So she sued in advance so that she can basically go out there and offer this service to heterosexual couples.
If we truly enjoy freedom of association, then a restaurant could refuse service to anyone they wanted to.
Freedom of association isn't the freedom to force your association onto others. It requires mutual consent, doesn't it?
actually, the distinction that the case is "about", which you may or may not believe to be a valid one, is whether the ordinary proscriptions of public accommodations laws can be applied to public accommodations whose businesses fundamentally entail "speech" activities, given the first amendment. (You can also have your own views about whether a business activity does or doesn't involve speech.)
Going to a person who doesn't want to work with you and trying to use the law to force him to do so is.
It's not like there was not any other bakers in the area who were willing to do the work.
I don't understand why anyone would want to try to make people go against their morals when reasonable alternatives exist.
Apply this argument to black people in the 50s. "Just go to another hotel if you don't like the Whites Only sign."
Holy fvck...so Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus because she was a troll? This might be the stupidest thing you've ever posted.
Not necessarily. The content of the site is promoting same sex couples. The person requesting it could be straight and they would probably still refuse. Thus they are discriminating based on content promotion not necessarily the orientation of the customer.
Also, do we know if they have any clients that are gay but the website they provide service for is say something as simple as a restaurant.
No one is asking him/her to "become gay".
OR, even "recognize" a gay marriage. Others are free to assert it's not a "real" marriage, if they want to.
Correct, inasmuch as it's styled as a free speech case, a very simple example could be, could you force a political sign designer/producer who usually designs for D's to design such signs for R's.
But beyond all that, I just can't believe that we don't have a separate live thread on today's Polansky v Executive Health Resources case. Let me tell you -- this argument does not seem to be going well for the relator-appellant!
Same question as above. She doesn't like black people. Can she refuse service claiming that it would promote black people?
the speech connection in your hypo is rather attenuated. "Doesn't like" obviously doesn't have anything to do with speech. The better, or at least more analogous, example might be, say, would you make me a BLM cake or website.
More accurately: the Alliance Defending Freedom legal advocacy group was looking for a case that would get the attention of the SC to continue to chip away at LGBTQ rights to goods and services. All under the guise of “religious freedom”. Ms. Smith is simply a pawn in all this.
While I'd say that Ms. Smith is more appropriately styled as a "willing pawn", this is the reality. The biggest problem (on both sides of the political spectrum) is how advocacy groups have come to monopolize the Scotus docket, compared to the past where you tended to more often have real, living, breathing client whose interests were actually being affected by the subject of the litigation.
If you have to create a message in support of A gay marriage you are implicitly supporting the idea.
The cake baker thing no one has ever been clear as to if they wanted a blank cake or if they wanted a cake with messages and symbols such as 2 men standing together.
I think he should be legally required to make a blank cake to flavor and size specifications because flavor and size arn't speech. Any decorations however are.
I don’t disagree with this - I’d go along with calling Ms. Smith a willing pawn.
By simply granting cert, the SC has made clear where it will rule on this case.
The willing pawn thing goes pretty far back though.
Roe was a willing pawn.
Though it didn't go to the SCOTUS if I remember right Scopes was a willing pawn.
Wasn't there also a civil rights case where the person doing it was a willing pawn and arranged in advance to break some segregation law. I feel like there was but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
I think you're more right than wrong. The reason for that is that Masterpiece and Fulton have already sort of sent the message that the regulators have to tread very carefully on a 'facts and circumstances' basis when it comes to enforcing public accommodations and other public benefits laws where religious objections may be implicated. As such, there's not 'really' a need for this case to be heard, other than a desire to try to establish a more categorical rule.
The problem (if that's the right word) is that putting together a categorical rule that is premised on free speech considerations rather than free exercise considerations could open up a real can of worms when it comes to defining what types of businesses actually involve "speech activity".
