Supreme Court leans in favor of a Christian website designer's right to turn away gay weddings

The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Monday sounded ready to rule that a Christian website designer has a free-speech right to refuse to work with same-sex couples planning to marry.

The justices heard arguments in a Colorado case that posed a conflict between the 1st Amendment rights of a business owner and a state antidiscrimination law that gives customers a right to equal service without regard to their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

The outcome could cut out a hole in the laws of California and 21 other mostly blue states that directly forbid discrimination against LGBTQ customers.

More at the link

=======================================================================

I think a good decision from the supreme court here. One thing I find interesting is many of the gay couples i've seen pursue a service from an religious organization (Bakers, Weddings in churches, etc...) seem to go after Christians. Haven't seen to many request put in for muslim services. I guess what I find the most odd overall is who would want to work with someone who wants nothing to do with you?

 

She sued the state before a gay person even asked her to build their website.

I wonder if she has actually done any business at all, or if she just started this business for the purpose of suing the state.

 

She's expanding a current business and sought insurance that she wouldn't be forced to promote something she didn't want to.

"The case was brought by Lorie Smith, a website designer seeking to expand her business to include weddings. But she filed suit against the state of Colorado seeking assurances that she need not work with a same-sex couple seeking such a wedding website.

In their legal brief, Smith's lawyers argued she does not seek a right to discriminate against gay people in every instance, but only wants the right to avoid being required to — in her view — express support for same-sex marriages that contradict her religion."

 

So she's playing a victim.

 

Interesting take

 

This suit is bullshit: there is no legitimate harm here, yet done, over which to base a suit; that is, it is contrary to court precedent, to grant "standing" to sue, based on a speculated, prospective harm. She should have been forced to wait until at least someone had been trying to force her to design a site, that she felt "contradicted her religion." But that's how eager, our current SCOTUS is, to make over U.S. law, in their own, particular, theocratic image.

The fact that the SCOTUS even decided to hear the case, is proof of their abandonment of the rule of law: that is what they use, to control the rest of us.

 

In the same way that the plaintiff who sued masterpiece cake shop was, yes.
In the law we call that a test case plaintiff. Its perfectly legal, and the moral position of the person has no real bearing on their legal claim.

 

Do you have evidence of this? If not, why postulate this? Defamation? It's hard to know.

 

At least the people who sued the cake shop had actually been denied service.

This would be like a gay couple suing a cake shop because they assumed they wouldn't bake them a cake.

 

I guess she will have to sue me for defamation to find out.

She's a lying slut.

 

Wow

 

This is blatant bigotry, as your own, concluding statement demonstrates: if then, a business owner wanted "nothing to do with," black people, would you support his right to say, no service for blacks?

 

Yes absolutely.

 

Exactly. And before that post disappears... So, absent any indication of factual evidence of the assertion, just blasting out this kind of personal attack.... But hey, they are liberals, calling other folks names is the only technique that matters to them.

 

Well that has long been held to be unConstitutional.

 

*sigh*

So you're unfamiliar with the law and facts of the case. Shocking, I'm sure. Here, help yourself: https://adflegal.org/case/303-creative-v-elenis This page has pdfs of all the pleadings and decisions of each court at each level. Read it for yourself.

The Colorado law has 2 prongs: The accommodation and the communication clauses. Accommodation is what masterpiece ran up against, someone asked and they refused to accommodate.
She ran in to the communication clause, likely on purpose, by posting a warning on her website explaining don't ask because I won't do it.
That, according to the communication clause, is unlawful. Her doing it gives her standing to challenge the communication clause of the law, and she has.
You'll notice that she challenged both at the trial court level and her accommodation claim was bounced for lack of standing.

 

I don't think a business should be forced to serve anyone. I think we do a great job policing that type of behavior on our own with out the oversight. I see the use for it in previous times, but I think if a bigot wants to conduct his business like a bigot he won't have any customers.

 

Perhaps you folks need a team huddle. Ms Ketanji Brown Jackson just literally asserted this, from the F'in SCOTUS bench. And she was serious. She's said over and over that the 14th amendment doesn't mean you can't arbitrarily advance based on race. So, if that means that she doesn't have to sell to white folks, she's ok with that. How do you reconcile this?

 

You realize that only "feelz" matters, right? Facts? the liberal folks don't accept anything as facts. Just the "feelz".

 

Thanks very much for both the link and, especially, for taking the trouble to explain it.

 

WTF? Please include a citation, because that seems like total B.S., to me. Jackson had, in fact, made the case, here, that allowing a business to discriminate against an entire protected group (gay people), was no different than allowing a public business to practice exclusionary racist policies.

 

You're welcome, and thanks for taking correction even with snark in a reasonable and level headed manner.

 

^ read the case please, THEN comment on the law and facts. Its very important that you know the facts and law at issue before you go opening your yap.

 

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...on-14th-amendment-is-not-race-neutral.604438/

 

She purposefully created a situation where she could sue the state.

How many websites has she built since she started her business?