US Supreme Court backs business that refused service to same-sex couple

www.ft.com...-f4588c9a-97fc-4eee-b0c7-dc53c7e96e1a

The Supreme Court handed down a ruling on Friday in favour of a Christian wedding website maker in Colorado who had refused services to a same-sex couple, arguing that doing so infringed upon her freedom of speech.

The designer had challenged state law barring facilities from refusing to offer services based on sexual orientation, saying it violated her right to free speech.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court’s conservative majority held that the US constitution’s First Amendment “prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer” to create designs that include “messages with which the designer disagrees”.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in dissent that: “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class"

A rather interesting case where the first amendment is used to argue the State of Colorado cannot force the wedding website maker to offer her services to a same-sex couple as this violates her freedom of speech.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Someone can argue this is a landmark case where the Supreme Court places the freedom of speech of an individual above the rights of a protected class as said by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Other similar cases may follow. What is your position on this matter?

www.nbcnews.com...

The justices, divided 6-3 on ideological lines, said that Lorie Smith, as a creative professional, has a free speech right under the Constitution’s First Amendment to refuse to endorse messages she disagrees with. As a result, she cannot be punished under Colorado’s anti-discrimination law for refusing to design websites for gay couples, the court said.

Weirdest thing about this case is that the guy whose name is used in the lawsuit as a gay customer that asked this lady to make him a website, is neither gay nor getting married. He was contacted by the media and he says he had no idea his name has been used for this lawsuit for the last 6 years. He's appalled no one in the court system has bothered to contact him or check whether he actually exists.

He's been married to a woman for 15 years, and get this, he's a website designer himself. He says in the interview, why would he ask for website services when he could do it himself.

Really bizarre case. Names used were fraudulent, and the lady didn't even own a business when she filed, nor has she ever made a single website. It was all hypothetical. Meaning there was no injured party to even file a case upon in the first place. No injured party, no case.

And the SC still used the case as a way to enact an agenda, it would seem. Weird things happening.

originally posted by: Mahogany
Weirdest thing about this case is that the guy whose name is used in the lawsuit as a gay customer that asked this lady to make him a website, is neither gay nor getting married. He was contacted by the media and he says he had no idea his name has been used for this lawsuit for the last 6 years. He's appalled no one in the court system has bothered to contact him or check whether he actually exists.

He's been married to a woman for 15 years, and get this, he's a website designer himself. He says in the interview, why would he ask for website services when he could do it himself.

Really bizarre case. Names used were fraudulent, and the lady didn't even own a business when she filed, nor has she ever made a single website. It was all hypothetical. Meaning there was no injured party to even file a case upon in the first place. No injured party, no case.

And the SC still used the case as a way to enact an agenda, it would seem. Weird things happening.

Do you have a link for this?

a reply to: Mahogany

What is even weirder is how you have no proof of your claim. Also, I highly doubt SCOTUS would take up a false claim and even if they did if the 3 leftist on the court know this, why aren't they saying anything?

a reply to: AlienBorg


And they are correct, freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to force people to agree with your speech, nor place their speech on a product you have made.

Can I force Mattel (or whoever) to put MAGA hats on Star Wars figurines? Nope, I can't. Therefore no one should be able to force any business to display a message that they do not want to display.

This case has nothing to do with refusing to serve a protected class, it has to do with forcing someone to create content they disagree with. She stated she will make websites for clients so long as the content doesn't conflict with her views. This is about forcing someone to make content, not doing the service specifically.

I would ask any who disagree, especially a rep of the LGBQ group, if you were a business owner and someone came in and said I want you to design a website full of religious quotes from prior popes, the Bible, and Quran verses condemning homosexuality, would you feel that you should be legally compelled to do it?

originally posted by: Halfswede
This case has nothing to do with refusing to serve a protected class, it has to do with forcing someone to create content they disagree with. She stated she will make websites for clients so long as the content doesn't conflict with her views. This is about forcing someone to make content, not doing the service specifically.

I would ask any who disagree, especially a rep of the LGBQ group, if you were a business owner and someone came in and said I want you to design a website full of religious quotes from prior popes, the Bible, and Quran verses condemning homosexuality, would you feel that you should be legally compelled to do it?

Still it's a protected class that is not served on the basis of her religious beliefs. But the rest of what you said is correct.

a reply to: Halfswede

This case has nothing to do with refusing to serve a protected class, it has to do with forcing someone to create content they disagree with.

Nice work, if you can get it.

I'm not sure how that will go over with employers who don't care what their customers want, as long as it's not illegal.

A link...

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court

originally posted by: greendust
a reply to: Mahogany

What is even weirder is how you have no proof of your claim. Also, I highly doubt SCOTUS would take up a false claim and even if they did if the 3 leftist on the court know this, why aren't they saying anything?

I can't see any link about this rather serious claim. The member said there is no injured party and no case but this case has gone to the supreme court. Did they all live under an illusion where they were convinced there was a case when in reality there wasn't one?

originally posted by: frogs453
A link...

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court

So this person claims this and yet not ONE legal expert or none of the legal eagles working for SCOTUS know about it?

I mean if true CNNABCCBSNBC would all be crowing non stop. I think whoever or whatever this is, it is imaginary. Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it.

originally posted by: frogs453
A link...

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court

Noted. I need to take a look on other sites to see if they're having similar coverage of this case. The mainstream media present the story as it was given in the OP

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Halfswede
This case has nothing to do with refusing to serve a protected class, it has to do with forcing someone to create content they disagree with. She stated she will make websites for clients so long as the content doesn't conflict with her views. This is about forcing someone to make content, not doing the service specifically.

I would ask any who disagree, especially a rep of the LGBQ group, if you were a business owner and someone came in and said I want you to design a website full of religious quotes from prior popes, the Bible, and Quran verses condemning homosexuality, would you feel that you should be legally compelled to do it?

Still it's a protected class that is not served on the basis of her religious beliefs. But the rest of what you said is correct.

If homosexual or perverted behavior truly is a protected class, then I now state that I am gay. Prove that I am not. I have just now made that decision. Hurting me in any way shape or form is now illegal. Do not do anything that might injure me either physically or mentally or economically or you will be severely punished.

I hope that if you have sense you can see the holes in this. Its very bad law and it will be used in very bad and dishonest ways.

originally posted by: greendust

originally posted by: frogs453
A link...

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court

So this person claims this and yet not ONE legal expert or none of the legal eagles working for SCOTUS know about it?

I mean if true CNNABCCBSNBC would all be crowing non stop. I think whoever or whatever this is, it is imaginary. Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it.

The story from Reuters

www.reuters.com...

June 30 (Reuters) - In a blow to LGBT rights, the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority on Friday ruled that the constitutional right to free speech allows certain businesses to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings, a decision that the dissenting liberal justices called a "license to discriminate."

The justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in favor of Denver-area web designer Lorie Smith, who cited her Christian beliefs against gay marriage in challenging a Colorado anti-discrimination law. The justices overturned a lower court's ruling that had rejected Smith's bid for an exemption from a Colorado law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and other factors.

Smith's business, called 303 Creative, sells custom web designs, but she opposed providing her services for same-sex weddings.

originally posted by: greendust

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Halfswede
This case has nothing to do with refusing to serve a protected class, it has to do with forcing someone to create content they disagree with. She stated she will make websites for clients so long as the content doesn't conflict with her views. This is about forcing someone to make content, not doing the service specifically.

I would ask any who disagree, especially a rep of the LGBQ group, if you were a business owner and someone came in and said I want you to design a website full of religious quotes from prior popes, the Bible, and Quran verses condemning homosexuality, would you feel that you should be legally compelled to do it?

Still it's a protected class that is not served on the basis of her religious beliefs. But the rest of what you said is correct.

If homosexual or perverted behavior truly is a protected class, then I now state that I am gay. Prove that I am not. I have just now made that decision. Hurting me in any way shape or form is now illegal. Do not do anything that might injure me either physically or mentally or economically or you will be severely punished.

I hope that if you have sense you can see the holes in this. Its very bad law and it will be used in very bad and dishonest ways.

www.upcounsel.com...#:~:text=If%20you're%20wondering%2C%20%22,orientation%20as%20a%20protected%20class.

Just for clarity

If you're wondering, "is sexual orientation a protected class," the answer is yes. Sexual orientation is a personal quality that is protected from discrimination. The Federal Government's equal opportunity employment policy was amended in 1998 by President Clinton to include sexual orientation as a protected class.

And under federal law

Under federal law, sexual orientation is not a protected class, however, many state and local laws consider it to be.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Halfswede
This case has nothing to do with refusing to serve a protected class, it has to do with forcing someone to create content they disagree with. She stated she will make websites for clients so long as the content doesn't conflict with her views. This is about forcing someone to make content, not doing the service specifically.

I would ask any who disagree, especially a rep of the LGBQ group, if you were a business owner and someone came in and said I want you to design a website full of religious quotes from prior popes, the Bible, and Quran verses condemning homosexuality, would you feel that you should be legally compelled to do it?

Still it's a protected class that is not served on the basis of her religious beliefs. But the rest of what you said is correct.

The fact that they are a protected class isn't what is at issue here though. Their class is incidental. She wasn't refusing to serve them, just the content. That is like saying because someone is a woman that any case of refusing to serve her is because she is a woman.

The reason this was such an easy case is because she was explicit about the content she wouldn't do for anyone regardless of who they were. If a random person, gay person, nazi, white dude, etc. went in and asked to have an abortion rights website made, she would also refuse it based on her religious views. Them being gay doesn't change the issue and is only an incidental in the process. If they chose other content, even if they were gay, that didn't conflict with her religious views, she would provide the service.

As and aside, many people don't realize that race, sex etc. are protected classes regardless of which one(s). Yes, you can't discriminate based on being white or male or straight.

a reply to: AlienBorg

This is interesting. Would refusal to serve people based on race, gender, or religion be "free speech" as well? Like, where is the line at between free speech and discrimination?

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: frogs453
A link...

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court

Noted. I need to take a look on other sites to see if they're having similar coverage of this case. The mainstream media present the story as it was given in the OP

Other links The Guardian

The Independent

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Halfswede
This case has nothing to do with refusing to serve a protected class, it has to do with forcing someone to create content they disagree with. She stated she will make websites for clients so long as the content doesn't conflict with her views. This is about forcing someone to make content, not doing the service specifically.

I would ask any who disagree, especially a rep of the LGBQ group, if you were a business owner and someone came in and said I want you to design a website full of religious quotes from prior popes, the Bible, and Quran verses condemning homosexuality, would you feel that you should be legally compelled to do it?

Still it's a protected class that is not served on the basis of her religious beliefs. But the rest of what you said is correct.

The fact that they are a protected class isn't what is at issue here though. Their class is incidental. She wasn't refusing to serve them, just the content. That is like saying because someone is a woman that any case of refusing to serve her is because she is a woman.

The reason the was such an easy case is because she was explicit about the content she wouldn't do for anyone regardless of who they were. If a random person, gay person, nazi, white dude, etc. went in and asked to have an abortion rights website made, she would also refuse it based on her religious views. Them being gay doesn't change the issue and is only an incidental in the process.

As and aside, many people don't realize that race, sex etc. are protected classes regardless of which one(s). Yes, you can't discriminate based on being white or male or straight.

Being gay is associated with a number of extra rights in comparison to those who are heterosexual. And these rights are often challenged by others on the basis of religious beliefs, personal beliefs, cultural beliefs.