Supreme Court sides with web designer who refuses to do gay wedding sites...

Thank you for the correction, and for expanding the details of the case. It would be very interesting to know if in her other business whether or not she had gay clients.

Because this case refers to content, I do not see how this opens the door to indiscriminate discrimination. I’m not sure that fear is warranted in today’s culture where gays are mostly accepted.

 

Trying to wrap my head around the fact that the SCOTUS allowed a case that is essentially a request for an advisory opinion, when the appellant did not sustain any harm, to proceed forward. This could lead to a real mess for the legal system going forward and allow any/all parties to seek "guidance" before suffering any harm.

 

Great opinion piece in WAPO. It puts this entire thing in perspective.

“The complaint at the center of 303 Creative v. Elenis rests on a hypothetical. The case, taken up by the Supreme Court this term, culminated in a decision Friday that the state of Colorado cannot force a Christian web designer to create websites for same-sex weddings. Yet Colorado had never tried to force 303 Creative to design a website for someone’s same-sex wedding.

At the time the suit was filed, owner Lorie Smith wasn’t designing wedding websites for anyone. (A request made after the legal action was filed appears to have been some sort of a prank.)
Instead, Smith argued that she would like to expand her business into making wedding websites but didn’t feel safe doing so with the specter of Colorado’s civil rights law hanging over her head.

The court obliged her with a 6-3 decision divided along partisan lines.
On the legal merits, the decision is correct; it would be hard to square a different ruling with previous high court jurisprudence that has affirmed broad rights of individual expression, including protections against compelled speech. (See, for example, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, in which the court ruled that California could not force crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about how to obtain abortions.) Government attempts to compel speech need an overwhelming rationale, and the court ruled that Colorado’s law doesn’t provide a sufficient one.



Wait … Isn’t preventing discrimination against LGBTQ Americans a vital public purpose?
Yes, of course, ensuring that LGBTQ Americans can access the same goods and services as everyone is an important public purpose. At the same time, I hope we can all agree that the protection of free speech and religious liberty is also an essential purpose. Unfortunately, there are boundaries where these rights clash, and one has to at least partly give way.”

In my opinion, the outrage has been much ado about nothing.

 

I'm sure similar arguments were made in support of businesses that denied service to potential Black clients in the Jim Crow South.

 

I'm guessing that this ruling must not apply to gov agencies. Otherwise, there is a certain hypocrisy.

 

I think things were clearer when non-discrimination in public accommodation was first enacted. It seems to me that back then accommodation meant food and shelter. That is, in restaurants for nourishment and hotels, apartments, and houses for shelter. These are critical for survival, especially when traveling. Non-discrimination was essential.

Accommodation has grown to include any kind of product or service for sale to the general public. The thing is, people turn down work all the time in many fields. Violating conscience is not required. They turn it down just because they’re not interested.

 

Although this may be beside the point, that was then and against an entire race. It didn't involve speech, which is the point. Look, I think refusing to create a cake for a gay couple, especially on religious grounds (Jesus would not approve!), is absurd, but given our Constitution, I see it as their right.

 

I could not have stated it any better. It just goes to show you how far left the left has gone. They are now actively attempting to police which jobs a web-based business owner takes. That is clearly overreach in the extreme. Thank God we have a sane SCOTUS who understands the fundamentals of a free market.

 

If a web designer is participating in a gay marriage by selling them a website, isn't a gun manufacturer participating in a murder by selling the killer a gun?

 

Is there a uniform list of all Christian views that is published somewhere? Is there a set of laws somewhere that all Christians must follow? So for example, if they don’t follow one, they are out of the club and can’t discriminate on a belief for convenience? Might be helpful to know what is clear and historical doctrine and not just made up. So, then I can sue and under discovery pull in their entire lives and when they diverged from set standards?

 

Does the gun mani know the purchaser is a mass murderer? Most gun manufacturers sell to a distributor. I’m thinking it’s not a great question.

 

So your purpose in having such a list would be so you can sue people and judge their lives, a role normally left to God?

 

Ok, if it's bought at a gun shop and the purchaser talks non-stop about how much he hates his wife and kids and he shoots them dead, how about then?

 

Incorrect. If you want to discriminate on my life choices because of your beliefs, bring the receipts that you are living according to God’s rules. What are you afraid of?

 

Safe to say you’ve never gone into a gun shop to buy a gun.
This borders on absurd.

 

I am not afraid of anything from you. I just don’t grant you the authority to pass judgment on my life.

If I understand you correctly, if a Christian has failed at following God’s law at any point in their life, then they must abandon all conscience and moral principle and accept anything you do whether they agree or not.

I think this is really much ado about nothing. In 2023 you can find someone who will provide any service you want no matter how you live your life.

 

Thanks. I needed a good laugh today.

That reminds me, I wonder which wealthy Republican donor is lavishly entertaining which Supreme Court justice this weekend. I guess it doesn't matter, as long as they take turns to be fair to all.

 

Just to be clear, I am not directing anything to you directly.

You got my point.

The practical answer you supplied is a “separate but equal” argument. I reject that idea. Sorry.

 

I think if you said “some liberals” your post would be accurate.

 

Absolutely.
My bad.