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

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Mahogany

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?

No, this is not about forcing anyone to do anything. In fact, nobody has even asked her to make them a website of that sort.

Here is a similar hypothetical situation, to put things in context:

Let's say I was thinking about opening up a cake making business. I haven't registered it yet and I've never made a cake and sold one before. I am Christian and I decide it would be horrible if a Muslim asked me to make them a Muslim cake. So I go through a phone book and pick a random Muslim name and file a lawsuit saying that person contacted me and asked me about making them a cake I don't want to make because of my free speech rights.

There is no business, there is no person asking for service, there is no cake.

Can there be a lawsuit?

This is a case where a person has refused to make content they disagree with. And they have every right to do so. They cannot be forced legally to create such content. She said she will continue making websites as long as the content is appropriate for her beliefs. It's hard to go against this and especially when this is a private matter and a private business.

No, that's wrong and this SC decision will go down in history as wrong, or it will be corrected.

The reason is, even if this really happened and the circumstances of the case weren't made up, her free speech was never infringed on. She has a full right, in her personal life, to say anything she wants to. The problem is you can't discriminate against people in public, and running a business is a public effort.

What this SC decision allowed her to do is to open up an actual store and she would be legally ok to now put up a sign that says 'No Gay People Allowed' or 'We Don't Provide Services to Gay People'.

And she would be ok to do that, because technically she's been allowed to discriminate in public, against a protected class. Why not just put a sign saying that?

And if she can put up a sign like that, what other signs can we put up?

It's wrong, for many reasons, and it can't last.

I guess if that "slippery slop" circumstance ever happens the wronged party can try to bring their own case infront of the SCOTUS. Its the wonderful part of living in a constellation Republic; people of good conscience on all sides of an issue can argue civilly to set and change policy to suit the times.

The Supreme Court has been correct in both cases I ve referenced.

6-3 in favour of common sense

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.

7-2 in favour of common sense

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a baker in Colorado who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The Colorado state court had found that baker Jack Phillips' decision to turn away David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012 was unlawful discrimination.

But the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 7-2 vote that that decision had violated Mr Phillips' rights.

Lately

Supreme Court's declared race-based affirmative action in college admissions is unconstitutional

Triumph of common sense!

Next step is for the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional gender ideology in schools.

a reply to: Halfswede

If you think this ruling is incorrect, then imagine being a gay artist and someone comes in and says you must make a painting with god striking down a person holding a pride flag with lightning. The person bringing it in might be brown, gay, woman, etc. It doesn't matter as it is about the content that the business disagrees with.

That was never an issue. A commissioned artist can choose who to work for and what to paint. There was no law that say an artist has to accept a commission from a disabled person to paint whatever the disabled person wants, for example, and can't legally turn down them down. Like, they have more rights because they're disabled. That was never the case, until now. Now, a religious person can refuse a disabled person based on some religious doctrine they hold that they're unclean, the Mark of Cain, or whatever.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I dont think this case was about the website design being turned down because the customer was gay, but because the topic of the website was gay marriage.

This is very different. If the gay person wanted a website about a gardening business, or a high school graduation celebration, the artist might well do business with them, and the fact they are gay never comes up, or doesn''t matter to the artist.

I see so many businesses that have a sign posted that says 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone'. I assumed they have this to keep themselves out of legal trouble somehow?

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

I dont think this case was about the website design being turned down because the customer was gay, but because the topic of the website was gay marriage.

This case was about a woman who wanted to open a business doing wedding websites, but she didn't want to have to offer same sex wedding websites. She didn't have a wedding website design business and her "gay customers" were hypothetical.

Remarkably, the court agreed to hear the case, even though the woman didn't have standing, having no wedding website design business and no gay wedding website requests.

The court ruled that by the state forcing the woman to accommodate same sex weddings, under Colorado's equal protection laws, should she open her business and should she have a gay wedding website request, is equal to forced speech that condones same sex weddings and violates her 1st Amendment right to free speech, based on her religious beliefs.

My concerns are:
The Court ruled on a hypothetical situation, which is not their job.
The Court elevated one 1st Amendment right above the others.
This doesn't stop at wedding website design. It allows for discrimination of any protected group.
This ruling doesn't represent employees and their ability to refuse jobs based on their personal religious feeling about a customer.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
False. Compelled speech is exactly the argument used in the majority opinion. Whether the bringer of the case was gay, straight, black, blue or whatever was irrelevant. At issue was legally compelling speech/expression.

If the person bringing the case had been straight, the ruling would have been the same for the same reasons.

Also, legally, protected classes are ALL races, sexes, religions, etc. People have been trained to think otherwise, but white, straight, male are all protected classes. The protect class only comes into play when the discrimination is because of the class. Again, had a straight white male asked for the same content, he would have been denied -- correctly.

a reply to: Halfswede

False. Compelled speech is exactly the argument used in the majority opinion.

Yes. The Court ruled that the Colorado LGBT equal protection laws were equal to forced speech. But you said:

imagine being a gay artist and someone comes in and says you must make a painting with god striking down a person holding a pride flag with lightning.

That's not the kind of forced speech the court addressed. If a business is already doing something, but refuses to do that something due to race, skin color, religion, disability or sex, that is discrimination. The Court ruled that it's okay to discriminate against a protected classes now, as long as it's based on your own religious convictions....if you're a business owner, it seems. I don't see a path, in this ruling, for employees to discriminate if their employers don't acquiesce.

a reply to: AlienBorg

No.

Your title is wrong.

The US Supreme Court just stated that you cannot obligate someone to do what they don't want to do.

Basically, they reaffirmed that slavery is bad.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Perhaps it irked the court when they ruled on the wedding cake, and the State ignored their ruling. So they took the hypothetical in order to rule AGAIN.

Maybe the state will get the hint?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Do you think it might have been because the State of Colorado ignored their wedding cake ruling, so they did this to remind them?

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Perhaps it irked the court when they ruled on the wedding cake, and the State ignored their ruling.

That's not what happened. The Court didn't rule on the cake affair at all. It ruled that, because the commission mocked and denigrated the baker's religion, it didn't give him a fair hearing and violated his rights. SCOTUS ruled Colorado had the right to protect LGBT people's rights. They didn't rule the baker had the right to refuse baking a cake for a gay wedding.

The Supreme Court's majority opinion said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had been biased against Mr Phillips.

The verdict said the commission had shown "clear hostility" and implied religious beliefs "are less than fully welcome in Colorado's business community".

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that while Colorado law "can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services... the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion".

The opinion cited the following comment from a Colorado commissioner during a public hearing:

"Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to use their religion to hurt others."

The opinion called such language disparaging of Mr Phillips' religious beliefs and inappropriate for a commission charged with "fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado's anti-discrimination law - a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation".

The Colorado state court had found that baker Jack Phillips' decision to turn away David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012 was unlawful discrimination.

But the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 7-2 vote that that decision had violated Mr Phillips' rights.

www.bbc.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The wedding cake baker was in colorado courts again because he wouldn't make a cake celebrating a transition.

Maybe Colorado courts will notice this ruling, now and this poor man can get on with his life.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AlienBorg

No.

Your title is wrong.

The US Supreme Court just stated that you cannot obligate someone to do what they don't want to do.

Basically, they reaffirmed that slavery is bad.

Agree with your interpretation but the title is fine

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: PorkChop96

Not in the Bible, it's not.

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

See, the bible looks at it like I do. Two dudes sucking yuk. two hot chicks tongue kissing each other=hotness.
I am fully aware of the double standard, the irony, and all other aspects of it, yet, my position remains unchanged.

LOL
Exactly!

Besides, those men were sometime gone for a long time, fighting wars, or out on hunting excursions....as long as nobody's getting knocked up, no harm no foul!

LOL, you can offer many "excuses" as to why one dude would smooch another dude, but in my eyes, it comes down to they are gay. I could be stuck with another dude for a long time, and while we may become good friends, I cannot imagine any scenario that would make me want to bump uglies. I'm a staunch lesbian.

LOL

I was making excuses for the sister wives and harem women, being left alone while their husbands were out warring, hunting or scoring new wives!

Ok. Thats hot. No argument here.

It's plain fascism after a point.
You need to accept me and my values otherwise...
Otherwise what? Here comes the Supreme Court and reminds you what democracy is.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

ANd once again, you are failing to acknowledge that your cited example has now moved to corporate employees contractually obligated to fulfill the commitments and standards of that corporation. This case is an individual, whos is their own boss, not some corporation that has proclaimed a pledge to the cause and whose employees are contractually obligated to carry out the work and standards expected of them by their employer.

I think this is sometimes referred to as moving goalposts, but I could be using the wrong term.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Sookiechacha

ANd once again, you are failing to acknowledge that your cited example has now moved to corporate employees contractually obligated to fulfill the commitments and standards of that corporation. This case is an individual, whos is their own boss, not some corporation that has proclaimed a pledge to the cause and whose employees are contractually obligated to carry out the work and standards expected of them by their employer.

I think this is sometimes referred to as moving goalposts, but I could be using the wrong term.

This is what I said earlier but very good you remind the other poster of the basics. I will even challenge that the 'commitments' of a company don't really apply or have to be followed by its employees. Imagine the case of a Muslim employee who don't want to celebrate or don't want to engage in anything related to PRIDE

a reply to: worldstarcountry

ANd once again, you are failing to acknowledge that your cited example has now moved to corporate employees contractually obligated to fulfill the commitments and standards of that corporation.

Again? The only corporation I cited is Subway, which are individually owned franchise shops. I'm referring to any business, not just corporations, that hire employees.

This case is an individual, whos is their own boss, whos is their own boss...

So you're saying the ruling only applies to business owners? That's what I I'm saying too. It seems to me, this ruling only addresses a business owner's rights, not the rights of their employees.

not some corporation that has proclaimed a pledge to the cause and whose employees are contractually obligated to carry out the work and standards expected of them by their employer.

Like Hobby Lobby and Chic-Fil-A?

I think this is sometimes referred to as moving goalposts, but I could be using the wrong term.

I have moved no goal posts. I have said from the start, this ruling doesn't seem very "equal rights under the law"-ish. It doesn't seem to protect the same right for employees.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Never understood people like this... I would never go to a liberal baker for a MAGA cake, I would never go to a liberal wedding website maker to design a Conservative website for me. If someone doesn't want to serve me then I'd prefer to go elsewhere anyways. Then again, I'm not an angry, miserable human who walks around looking for a reason to be bitter. That's reserved for people with a mental illness.

a reply to: LSU2018

I don't believe the people filing these lawsuits actually want a cake. I wouldn't eat a cake I forced to be baked for me by threat of law! I never understood why the baker didn't just accidentally measure the salt out where it called for sugar. Oh pardon me! I was stressed out over a lawsuit and got mixed up! Here's your money back!

These are activists FORCING others to kowtow to their protectedness.