New SCOTUS case, web designer refuses gay couple

Right; at one time there were only 12 Christians, as I understand it; but it makes it harder to scrutinize and evaluate.

 

The issue isn't homosexuality, the issue is discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination.

There is NO 'right' to override discrimination.

None.

You haven't refuted my rebuttal, you just repeated that which I have successfully rebutted, unless you can offer a more compelling argument, and repeating the same argument doesn't cut it.

I repeat:

There is no freedom of association in torts or crimes.

You are not 'free' to commit a crime or a tort. You could be indicted for a crime, you could be sued by the state for a tort. Trump was sued for discrimination against blacks.

Discrimination against gays is a tort and unconstitutional in these states:

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, District of Columbia,

It could be held as unconstitutional in any state, depending on how the courts rule, given the 9th amendment.

If they rule it is, then the liberals on the court will dissent, as I concur with them, that discrimination against gays is discrimination, and that they
are protected by the 9th amendment.

There is no religious right to discriminate against anyone.

Moreover, nowhere in the Bible does it say that serving a product or service to whom they view as sinners is a sin against God. It says God views homosexuality is an abomination, but it doesn't say selling a product to a homosexual is an abomination, and the latter would be to inject one's bias into the Bible that isn't there.

The bible has all sorts of hideous acts, such a stoning prostitutes. If you vote for a politician who refuses to make a law that prostitutes are to be stoned, are you acting against God? According to the logic the persons who are claiming religion to discriminate against gays, they are against God if they don't vote for legislation to stone prostitutes, and the only ones who are exempt are those without sin, (cast the first stone) and surely someone will come out and say they are without sin (such as Donald Trump). Do you see the fallacy in all of this?

did not Christ walk with sinners? Would he not walk with a gay person? Would he not walk with a prostitute?

Why is selling a product or service to a gay person any different?

In my view, these so called 'religious' people are using their religion to justify their bigotry and should be sued.

If they are making this up, and I say they are, anyone could say any tort or crime is against their religion, and are we then, supposed to allow it?

What if someone says their religion says they must give blood sacrifice, kill a child to appease their God "Kal" (or whatever) in their pagan religion, are we then supposed to allow them to murder?

Do you see the problem here?

This court, this conservative court, is not a just court. They've already made major errors with Citizen United and Dobbs.

 

It's not discrimination to not put an obviously unattractive person in a fashion commercial ('unattractive' is the wrong word, not photogenic is better)just as it it not discrimination to hire a vocal actor for a radio commercial who has a shrill voice, the job has physical requirements.

No one is making such a suggestion.

IF one is designing cakes, they are creating things, UNLESS, the 'design' is designed by the customer, and all the maker has to do is fulfill the request.

But, if the customer wanted something 'original' something 'new' that 'promotes the 'gay lifestyle', now he or she has a point.

However, a wedding photographer doesn't really 'design' anything, he or she takes photographs, but they have to be good. It's borderline. He might design the wedding album, not it's not like painting or drawing something.

But if a shoe store refuses to sell shoes to a gay person, that's discrimination.

I wouldn't accuse a Catholic minister of discrimination from refusing to marry a gay couple, but a 'officiant' ordained by some $25 mail order course who only is in it for the money, if that officiant refused a gay couple, I would.

As a wedding photographer, myself, I could think of no reason to refuse a gay couple. However, a wedding photographer, who has photographed primarily male female couples, the photographer whose reflexes are trained for tuxes (pants) and gowns, he or she could require a dress code, such as requiring 'someone' (doesn't matter who) to wear male looking attire (pants), and someone to wear a dress or gown. Dress codes are not discrimination. I was a wedding photographer for years, and though I never actually made that requirement, I was contemplating it because my (posing) reflexes are geared towards male/female attire/relationships, so I was thinking of requiring a dress code for role playing, to make my job more in accordance with my experience. However, since very few gay weddings came my way, I didn't see the point. Out of some 400 weddings I photographed over the years, only four were gay, and the three lesbian couples did, in fact, go with male/female role playing and I didn't even ask for it.

 

those who commit crimes and torts are not protected by the first amendment, AFAIK and (IANAL).

Nazis commit hate crimes and torts, discriminations, against certain groups.

Surely, you would be right in turning them down .

But, gay people? People who are decent in every way?

 

THere is a difference between creating an original work of art as 'work for hire' and performing a functional service, which requires no creativity.

I don't think any creative person can be compelled to create anything he or she asserts is 'not within' him or her.

I have some artistic talents, and one of them is music.

If someone wanted me to compose a punk rock song for their wedding, I would turn them down.

Not because I'm discriminating, because it is 'not in me', my specialty is jazz and latin. People are allowed to specialize in turn down work outside of their speciality. You cannot compel art, it's organic, it would be like telling a flower to turn green when it's inherently yellow. Now some artists have a wider scope in their talents, so, it's not cut and dry, here.

But for everything else, where there is no real creativity to speak of ( some is borderline, like photography) then I would assert 'discrimination'.

 

I've explained that "discrimination" without more is not against the law. You don't just say "discrimination" and win.

Go try to join the military if you are over 27. They will discriminate against you because of your age. Government discrimination, based on an immutable characteristic: age. Outrageous!

Now sue them for age discrimination. Wait for that big payout.

 

All the "they're a private company, they can't violate your rights" Twitter people suddenly have amnesia.

 

Except for the right of free association.

You're a legend in your own mind - you rebutted nothing -

Nonsense.

Nonsense.
You're arguing a blanket rule that nobody can ever refuse service to any "victim group". You're just playing word games, Not seriously considering the actual situation.

 

Nope, sorry.

 

That's not a rebuttal. That's just covering your ears and saying, "Not listening!"

 

This whole thing seems to be missing out on the key point that the service provider, a web site designer in this case, is not refusing to engage a gay person for services. As noted multiple times, the service provider would have willingly have made a web site for business or a fan club or whatever else for a gay person. They are specifically refusing to do a same sex wedding site. Only in refusing a gay person service at all, no matter what it was would be discrimination against the gay person themselves. Refusal to do a specific product or a specific theme that was not already offered or already created is not against the gay person, especially since the creator would refuse the service to a heterosexual who asked for it as well.

Further, show me one law that dictates what a person's religious beliefs can or cannot be. There are laws which can prevent a religious belief from being acted upon, such as stoning sinners. But there can be no claim that one cannot have a given religious belief. The most that can be done is to show where the person in question does not consistently adhere to that specific tenet claimed, and then say it doesn't apply since it not a closely held belief.

 

Where we may be diverging here is on the questions of whether the refusal of this designer to create websites for gay weddings "hurts" gay people (maybe it does, in its effect), and second, whether "the law protects everyone from all discrimination." Clearly it does not, which is why there are no dwarves or double amputees or blind people working as firemen or airline pilots, or very few.

I can't see how this is close to the same thing as a blanket refusal to sell food to minorities, though one could say that "by your logic, blacks who don't get served at McDonald's can just go over to Burger King. No harm done." I do get that.

But gays aren't being refused services because they are gay. Literally no one of any color or orientation can get a website designed by this woman that celebrates a gay wedding. Who other than the couple might that be? The asexual or heterosexual wedding planner for one, the bride's mother for two.

To say "it's wrong because it's discriminatory" doesn't answer the legal question. If that ended the discussion, you'd have blind amputees driving fire trucks.

 

The state of Colorado disagrees with you. They argued at the Supreme Court that the website designer had the right to refuse the gay couple if they advertised ahead of time that they don't do websites for gay weddings.

 

Do you have a source for this? I believe you, I just want to review it.

 

The liberals here are stubbornly stuck on this word "discrimination" as though it means "evil" or something and ends debate. But it's about selectivity. Sometimes it's illegal, of course, but not always.

Boyd is 38 years old and has years of commercial driving experience from prior jobs as a long-haul truck driver. He wants to try something different and applies for a job as a passenger bus driver at the Acme Bus Company. Although well qualified, Acme Bus Company rejects Boyd’s job application on the basis of his age. Acme Bus Company tells Boyd that it only accepts job applications from those aged 35 years and younger due to passenger safety considerations. Acme Bus Company’s passenger safety concerns are based on sound statistical data.

It's straight up age discrimination, but it's legal. See Hodgson v. Greyhound.

The discrimination here, I'd say, is even less apparent, because, for the 10th time, the plaintiff does not blanketly refuse to serve "gay people."

The guy in the Greyhound case was shut out of employment at Greyhound, completely. And he lost.

 

I need to correct an error of mine above. The text of federal Title VII does not cover "sexual orientation," not textually, but ...

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 6-3 decision affirming that the prohibition on sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Interestingly, the opinion was written by Justice Gorsuch, one of the conservative members of the Court. He was joined by conservative Chief Justice Roberts.

 

delete

 

Gorsuch was giving a hypothetical about someone who writes press releases.

Gorsuch: So I will write a press release for many faiths and many belief systems, but they have to be consistent with mine, and I won't do it if it offends my religious faith. Good to go?

Colorado: So long as you sell that to everybody (tells all of his customers of this policy)

Gorsuch: Okay, alright. What's different about this case? ... We have an individual who says she will sell and does sell to everyone, all manner of websites, but she won't sell a website that requires her to express a view about marriage that she finds offensive to her religious beliefs. What's the difference between the two cases? I'm struggling to understand.

...

Colorado: The difference is is that that distinction.. [stammers] ... the company has chosen to say they would provide wedding websites, generally, and they will not provide...

Gorsuch: [cuts him off] All manner of websites just not one that celebrates/requires her to write something, words on a page, customizable, all the stuff you stipulated to that celebrate a particular thing that she finds offends her religious beliefs. I'm still looking for the distinction between the two cases. One you say is okay the other one not okay.

Colorado: Because the company, unlike our first example of the speechwriter, the company here says in no uncertain terms will they ever sell a company a product or service to a same-sex couple. [Note: this is a blatant lie. He has to lie because he has no case. The company is willing to sell to same-sex couples and does sell to same-sex couples. They just will not make a custom website that goes against their religious beliefs].

Gorsuch: No. What they say is they will not sell to anyone, ANYONE, a message that I disagree with as a matter of religious faith. Just as a speechwriter says, the press release writer, the freelance writer, I will not sell to ANYONE a speech that offends my religious beliefs.

Colorado: But here, they are defining their service by excluding someone based on their..

Gorsuch: [cuts him off again] That's their religious belief.

Colorado: [Cuts off Gorsuch] Well in Colorado...

Gorsuch: [Cuts him off again] You can't change your religious belief. Right?

Colorado: No, but, well, but.. [stammers]

Gorsuch: And you protect religious belief under the statute, right? That is one of the protected characteristics.. in theory..

Colorado: Yes, and in practice. And in practice, we heard about it over, over, the past several years and my friend has pointed to no example where this has been applied.

Source: [starts around 5:15]

This summarizes the case perfectly. The problem Colorado has is they already lost at the Supreme Court on another case that mimics this one. And, rather than apply the Supreme Court ruling they continued to go after the website designer. The designer does not say they refuse service to all gay couples. The State is lying about this and they know they're lying. They have to make this claim because without it they have no case. Gorsuch corrects him and then reminds him that their statute expressly protects individuals based on their religious faith. The State then ignores these facts and says the website designer didn't point to another company the state went after in the same way. This is a non-issue point. It's not their job to find other companies that the state is persecuting and has no bearing on the outcome of their case. The website company acted within the confines of Colorado law and the recent Supreme Court precedent. Colorado has no coherent argument for why it continued to go after this company and subject them to punitive action. Gorsuch later refers to this punitive action as forcing them to go through State mandated "re-education."

 

This is from the plaintiff's petition for certiorari:


Lorie is willing to create custom websites for
anyone, including those who identify as LGBT, provided their message does not conflict with her religious views. App.184a. As Colorado stipulates, she does not discriminate against anyone. App.54a, 184a.
She is “willing to work with all people regardless of … race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender.”
App.184a. But she cannot create websites thatpromote messages contrary to her faith, such as messages that condone violence or promote sexual immorality, abortion, or same-sex marriage. App.184a. Lorie respectfully refers such requests to
other website designers. App.185a.
Lorie has written a webpage announcing her
expansion into the wedding business and explaining her reasons for the content she can and cannot create. App.188a–189a. But under CADA, Lorie cannot post her statement or offer her wedding websites because
Colorado considers it illegal.

 

Nip across to my Christopher Biggins post. Please call him a bigot because he disagrees with you.

Side note - I suggest people get of agenda mode and try to be consistent in thought. It's so embarrassing.

 

The clear and obvious decision should be this.

Businesses should be split into 4 categories for the purpose of determining discrimination.

1. Government Run- The 14th amendment is clear "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. The 14th amendment doesn't specify that it was only about race but it does specify that congress must enforce the legislation. Congress passed a law that the federal government recognises all marriages as equal and thus it would be unconstitutional for government run businesses or institutions.

2. Necessities- If a business works in fields mike Medicine or fire or police and other stuff that is necessary for the protection of life, then they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

3. Public service- If you allow the general population in without a requirement for someone to be a member then it shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. Basically if you for example own a restaurant and people are free to come in and eat, then it should have to be open to everyone, there is no special accommodations other than allergies that are made for specific people. Same for a grocery store or mall. If you want to discriminate then you need to be open about it and tell people what the requirement is to join.

4. Private service- This is different, if the service or business is openly a club or private institution that does not allow anyone to walk in or they make specific requests for a service then they should be allowed to deny anyone they want. In needing a website designed for their wedding the person isn't simply selling them some generic product she has to dedicate her time and effort into making said product and its her choice to deny customers. Its an online business they are free to spend their money on a company that will gladly make them a website or make them a cake. The supreme court should rule in favor of the vendor since she denied a request of service regardless of the reason and it has little to no affect on the couple.

 

Prove it.

 

Follow the case. It is well known that the she does work with same-sex clients who commission her to work on projects that do not violate her religious faith. The state has to prove she doesn't. Not the other way around. The state has given no example of her turning down same-sex clients for any reason other than the work product would go against her religious views... hence, the gay wedding website that the case is about. If they had a stronger case it would be about that and not this case that they are obviously going to lose to the point that it is absurd they are back in front of the same judges again looking for a different outcome. The colloquial definition of insanity applies here.

 

Between @CornPop above and @Le Chef in #444, it has been proven, including reference to supporting documentation.

 

I haven’t jumped into this thread because we’ve had many similar threads before, but I’ll say this:

I’d make the website for the couple. And if I needed a website and was told they don’t do websites for straight people I’d just go someplace else. What’s the big deal?