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

Once again this is a test of how much religion affects the state...law.
Another chew at the secular foundation of the country.
RELIGION MUST NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN MAKING LAW

It is step one in the direction of a theocracy.

 

Dozens. Her portfolio is linked on her website.

 

Which is perfectly legal and doesn't effect her legal claims, their basis, or the injury in fact she sustains. You still don't understand the law around standing I see, or you'd not be posting such asinine thoughts.

You still haven't read the pleadings I see, or you'd know the answer to that question.

 

Replace gay with KKK. Should a business be forced to serve KKK members?

 

No one is establishing religion ffs.
They're saying she cannot be forced to provide artistic expression against her religious beliefs. That's in line with the 1st amendment, and the establishment clause.

Put the pearls down.

 

I never said it wasn't legal.

All I am saying is that she doesn't really care, she just wants the attention.

 

dozens.. wow.

Has she ever done one for a wedding before?

 

"The case was brought by Lorie Smith, a website designer seeking to expand her business to include weddings"

 

That is why i asked the question.

Did her business exclude weddings before?

She just made that up so she could sue the state.

She is just another White Christian playing a victim.

 

OK. At least you didnt call her a slut this time.

 

That was well said !

This was a decision in search of a case. The lady had no standing as she had no case. This is beyond judicial overreach, but we all know that this case needed to be heard while there was a radical bench presiding.

And I could not agree more that this is proof of the abandonment of the rule of law that not only was the case brought to this level, but that the SC accepted it with no actual case to preside over and no argument in support of the counter to her position. And lets not forget that this was already settled with the baker being able to deny a same sex couple wasn't it ?

 

Interesting opinion, but clearly the supreme court disagrees with GrapeApe from PoliticalForum.com

 

My reply had been addressing Drluggit's claim, that Judge Jackson had argued that it was "OK" for black businesses to deny service to white people, based on their race. I saw no such quote, in the post, to which you provided me the link. I believe that this was only Drluggit's creative reinterpretation, of her saying something else. Before I go searching down a fruitless hole, of the links at the post, to which you sent me:
1) are you vouching for Drluggit's claim, that Judge Jackson said, in those words, that it was acceptable for a business to discriminate, based on race? I see she said something about the 14th Amendment not being "race neutral," which I'm not sure of what she had meant, taken out of context, however it certainly is not the same as saying that black racism against whites, is fine, in her view.
2) If your answer to #1, is "yes," then where will I find that quote?

 

Again, the radicalized court took a case with no real plaintiff. Its no surprise to anyone that this SC is now setting case law with no real cases. This is the politicization of the court in its most blatant fashion

 

As the Dude says, "that's just like, your opinion man" . I don't see anyone of consequence challenging the Supreme Court's authority, just angry democrats at the moment.

 

Just so were all on the same page....

You are now OK with the Supreme Court making decisions without an actual plaintiff or case to adjudicate ? This is LITERALLY hearing one side of the case and then making it decided law.

this case was heard because the original case in Colorado was a very narrow decision. It granted the right to deny based on "speech" claiming that the cake that the baker made could be construed as his speech, and not that of the couple being married. Thus, it was a VERY narrow decision. This new case basically codifies the right to deny services to gay people based on "religious belief" re: Bigotry.

Again, this case was brought without a plaintiff to allow a much broader interpretation/base to solidify the ability to discriminate. This is a very large politicization of the court, and its exactly why the right denied Obama his picks.

 

Remember last time.
Follow the link, and you tell me what she said and its implications.

 

You certainly implied it invalidated her claim.

Do you have any idea how expensive a SCOTUS case is? She cares.
Additionally: She wants to comply with the law and have clarity before beginning in earnest. That's a reasonable position.
Further: Redress of grievances is a constitutional right, and she demonstrably suffers constitutional harms.
Let it go.

 

She did this for attention.

Do you really think she is having to pay her own legal bills for this?

 

What are you talking about?

Her entity has standing, and there is a real case and controversy.

 

She seems to have done it so she can run her business free from unconstitutional interference and compulsion of speech.

Her name is on the invoice dude. If its not paid, guess who gets sued?

 

She didn't even try to run her business. No one has interfered with her running her business.

She is essentially suing for the right to hang a "no gays" sign in the window.

 

As already pointed out to you, she has dozens of clients already.

 

Not wedding clients apparently. No one has stopped her from running her business. We have no reason to believe that any gay person would have ever asked her to provide a service to them.

She is just suing for the right to hang a "no gays" sign on her door.

 

Unless she thinks that state laws that indicate that she must provide these services are unjust.

I kind of agree with you, seems she is playing the victim, but there are definitely state laws on the subject I don't agree with.