New SCOTUS case, web designer refuses gay couple

Actually they can. The law is about not discriminating against sexual orientation, a state of being. Nothing in it about sexual ceremonies

 

Since the ceremony is sexual, it has an orientation. So still can't.

 

God you're stretching for all you're worth aren't you? Again, AA laws are about sexual orientation as a state of being. Ceremonies are social constructs. As such they are not capable of being a state of being.

 

I found this take interesting: I’m gay, I support gay marriage, and I don’t think the ‘gay rights’ side should win in this Supreme Court case.

'On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case called 303 Creative LLC v Elenis. The case centers around Lorie Smith, a Christian who owns a website design business. She wants to expand her business and start designing custom wedding websites, but due to her religious beliefs, is unwilling to create them for same-sex weddings, as she would be forced to do under current Colorado civil rights law. Smith is challenging the Colorado statute on First Amendment grounds, arguing that she has a free speech right (note: the case is not about religious liberty) not to be forced to create messages she disagrees with.'

Yes. The First Amendment protects us against compelled speech.

'No, she’s not suing because she wants to put a “no-gays allowed” sign in her window. In fact, she has served many LGBTQ clients and offers her general services to all. Smith is simply unwilling to create a custom wedding website, which inherently endorses said wedding, for a ceremony she does not agree with. She says she would seek to make the same refusal to other custom websites that violate her beliefs, including those which denigrate gay people or feature a heterosexual couple in violation of other tenets of her Christian faith.'

Exactly. We would not compel a gay person to custom design a message stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman, because, we don't compel speech.

'The state of Colorado, on the other hand, argues that her religion does not grant her an exemption to a neutral civil rights law. The government argues that if Smith is going to offer wedding websites, she must offer them to all.'

The State of CO is violating the rights of others with this policy and is going to lose.

 

You're lost. That is not what this case is about. They have served lots of gay people and will continue to do so. We would not force a Jewish Person to custom design something with the message "Hitler was Right About The Jews!'

We wouldn't force a gay person to custom design a message that states "Marriage Is Only Between A Man and a Woman!"

We would not force an adherent of Islam to produce art showing Muhammed as an exploding terrorist bomber.

We're a Free People. We do NOT compel speech. This yet another example of Woke Left Wing Authoritarian Clowns, once again, trying to criminalize disagreement. I don't know what the hell is wrong with these folks, but, I will enjoy watching them fail, Our Constitutional Liberal Democracy does not stomach illegitimate attempts, like this, to control others.

Justice Gorsuch Leaves CO Solicitor General Stammering During Oral Arguments on Religious Liberty.

'For understandable reasons, Gorsuch wasn’t really interested in hearing such obvious nonsense, noting that Jack Phillips had been put through a re-education program for honoring his religious convictions. That left the solicitor general stammering in an attempt to explain how it wasn’t a re-education program even though its purpose was to re-educate.+'

Yeah BS, Gorsuch was right, the crazed state of CO most certainly did compel Jack Phillips to complete a 're-education' program. Good for Gorsuch for clearly speaking out against the plain madness of these authoritarian freaks.

'Listening to that, Gorsuch is pretty obviously going to side with the web designer, and that’s the proper decision given that the basic tenets of religious liberty are at stake here. It’s not hard to judge where Barrett is going to end up either, and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are slam dunks if history is any guide. That really just leaves Justice Kavanaugh as the swing vote because Justice Roberts will do what he always does, which is be a coward who attempts to carve out some unworkable middle ground.'

Well, maybe this won't go the way I expect it to, that's only 4, for sure.

'When the Jack Phillips case was decided four years ago, the court chickened out, essentially giving him the win on a technicality that didn’t address the root issue. Unfortunately, the harassment of Phillips and others continues to this day. Hopefully, the Supreme Court is ready to put an end to the insanity with a decisive ruling.'

Hopefully.

 

Total nonsense, as usual; The issue is whether a state anti-discrimation law overrules the First Amendment.

 

So is religion.

 

I'm wondering if this is not done deliberately like these people seek out these types based on how they advertise themselves

 

The question I would ask is could you demand a theist web host a website talking about how atheists are immoral?

I don't want to live in a world where they can't say no we'll find another web hosting business.

 

For the sake of argument let's say you're correct (you're not as its a belief system, not a ceremony) Religion is listed in AA laws. Show me where weddings are listed in AA Laws.

 

There is no couple. That is to say, the web designer sued CO preemptively before she was asked to do anything for anyone. Which is why the case never should have been heard by the SC since no one involved in this case has been harmed. What does this tell us? That the conservatives on the court wanted to rule on the case because it checks a box in their religious crusade.

 

Pat,

Go to Chris Hayes's "All In" website https://www.msnbc.com/all

and click on the segment titled 'Hayes: Supreme Court conservative majority is ‘high council of Fox News viewers.’

 

These people are all minding their own business. It is the wokesters who want to subject people to involuntary servitude.

 

Offering to pay for the service the business owner provides is forcing involuntary servitude?

 

She's an activist plaintiff....amazing that this case is being adjudicated likely for/by activist judges.

 

If the government made religion illegal to practice is that not violating the constitution? You can not make laws that violate the constitution. As you put it, the law is more substantial than the constitution. The constitution never comes in 2nd to a law. Marriage was between a man and woman in religion at the time of ratification. All religious sectors practice that belief and government recognized their right to practice their religions. Forcing someone to practice against their religion is unconstitutional.

 

Well, they ARE rejected based on their sexual orientation, but I till think the correct ruling would be in favor of the web designer, because he should have the right to refuse work which he believes would not honor his God.

First amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise

But the Congress HAS made such law when they wrote the discrimination laws. IMO they can still enforce those laws when it comes to discrimination, but it can not be enforced when they contradict an individuals right to exercise his/her religion.

 

No. Forcing someone to do work they don't want to do is involuntary servitude. The presence of compensation is irrelevant.

 

They have an agenda. I wonder how many other folks out there who want the conservatives to rule on a case (like Leonard Leo) will funnel them to the SC in order to get a favorable judgement?

 

IOW, not allowing them to discriminate.

 

Precisely. Homosexuals have no inherent right to compel the labor of others. It is that simple.

 

It is possible. I know that when it has happened to me, however, I don't go out actively looking to find them. It usually involves me not having done the business research to find what was out there. For example, I inquired into using a certain custom home builder. They made great houses, fairly priced. turns out that if I had simply gone to their facebook, their super religious life was all there. I could have saved my time, effort in dealing with them up front. Turns out, they are great supporters of the democratic party, no surprise there.

My thought is that the reason democrats act the way they do is because they know their own guilt. It totally makes sense...

 

You tell us, endlessly that you support the constitution. Ok, Do you? Or don't you? Do you support religious freedom or not?

 

Leo can do as he pleases within the law but if they get to approach/intermingle with the justices (as in Alito and Thomas) and can influence which cases see daylight, that just putting special interest thumbs on the scale of justice. BTW, exactly what happened with Citizen's United.

 

This case isn't being contended on the grounds of religious freedom. It's being contended on free speech grounds.