Supreme Court rules FOR graphic designer who refused to create same sex wedding websites

[reason10]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-favor-colorado-graphic-designer-refused-create-same-sex-wedding-websites

Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado graphic designer who refused to create same-sex wedding websites

Supreme Court case 303 Creative v. Elenis pitted First Amendment freedom against LGBTQ non-discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court held that a Colorado graphic designer who wants to make wedding websites does not have to create them for same-sex marriages, in a landmark decision that pit the interests of LGBTQ non-discrimination against First Amendment freedom.

In a 6-3 decision issued Friday, the high court ruled in favor of artist Lorie Smith, who sued the state over its anti-discrimination law that prohibited businesses providing sales or other accommodations to the public from denying service based on a customer's sexual orientation.

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, which said that, "In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance." 

"But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong," Gorsuch continued. 

"But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed," he concluded.

Friday's decision reverses a lower court ruling that sided against Smith, who said the law infringed on her First Amendment rights by forcing her to promote messages that violate her deeply held faith.

Points to ponder:

1. For queers who are upset by this AFFIRMATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, there are plenty of graphic designers who will take your business. I'd imagine there are TONS of queers out there with web skills looking for jobs in web design.  If there are as many queers in this country as they say, this ruling won't even cause a ripple.

2. Once again, those dissenting include two of Obama's hacks (judges who wipe their asses on the constitution) and one judge appointed by Unelected Joe just because she was female and black. Thank GOD for the six defenders of the Constitution and thank BOTH GEORGE BUSHES AND PRESIDENT TRUMP for the majority that gave us this just ruling.

 

[impartialobserver]

This case and others like it... I support. Why? The customer has options. If business X does not want to take my order.. then I just go to business Y. There was a vegetarian restaurant in Boise owned by an older, conservative gentleman. He was quite dismayed to find out that the majority of his clientele was gay men and lesbian women. He made a few less than complimentary comments on social media and in person. What happened? Word of mouth spread that he despised gays and lesbians and six months later, it closed. Night after night of zero customers. The moral to the story. Word of mouth ended him not a government mandate. 

[Rebound]

39 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

This case and others like it... I support. Why? The customer has options. If business X does not want to take my order.. then I just go to business Y. There was a vegetarian restaurant in Boise owned by an older, conservative gentleman. He was quite dismayed to find out that the majority of his clientele was gay men and lesbian women. He made a few less than complimentary comments on social media and in person. What happened? Word of mouth spread that he despised gays and lesbians and six months later, it closed. Night after night of zero customers. The moral to the story. Word of mouth ended him not a government mandate. 

In the 1940’s and 1950’s, black people could not get hotel rooms. There were not alternatives.  
 

It’s wrong that the SCOTUS wants to reimpose segregation in universities and reimpose discrimination by businesses, because that is what this is. It’s not about religion and freedom of speech, it’s discrimination.  This court is not normal. 

[Michael Hardner]

I guess 

7 minutes ago, Rebound said:

In the 1940’s and 1950’s, black people could not get hotel rooms. There were not alternatives.   

I get it but .... I'm divided.  Making cakes doesn't impact on the fraternity of society, ie. LBGTQ+ and NON can still mix, just not be forced to make cakes for each other.  On the other hand, the privilege of religious exemption is pretty open and easy to abuse.

Here's the wording:

""In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance." 

You could conceivably have a conscience about a lot of things that could contradict the freedoms of other people.  I reserve judgment.

[reason10]

In the 1940’s and 1950’s, black people could not get hotel rooms. There were not alternatives.

This is why everybody says you're an !diot. You have no idea what you're talking about. You are comparing queers with blacks? Seriously? Where in the Constitution does is mention queers?

It’s wrong that the SCOTUS wants to reimpose segregation in universities and reimpose discrimination by businesses, because that is what this is. It’s not about religion and freedom of speech, it’s discrimination.  This court is not normal. 

You are assuming that NOT DISCRIMINATING AGAINST WHITES AND ASIANS somehow supports segregation? Are you high on meth today? And it's YOUR FCKING LEFT WING JIM CROW SIDE OF THE AISLE WANTING SEGREGATION TODAY,

https://www.israelunwired.com/liberal-students-support-segregation-on-college-campuses/

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/05/22/colleges-diversity-fixation-is-creating-segregation/

Are you REALLY THIS STUPID?

By the way, not all of this court is abnormal.Just the three Biden/Obama appointees who wipe their asses on the Constitution. The rest of them are just doing their jobs.

You're NO DIFFERENT from the RACIST LEFT WING DEMOCRATS WHO WROTE THE JIM CROW LAWS.

 

[West]

Right on!!!

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-favor-colorado-graphic-designer-refused-create-same-sex-wedding-websites

Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado graphic designer who refused to create same-sex wedding websites

Supreme Court case 303 Creative v. Elenis pitted First Amendment freedom against LGBTQ non-discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court held that a Colorado graphic designer who wants to make wedding websites does not have to create them for same-sex marriages, in a landmark decision that pit the interests of LGBTQ non-discrimination against First Amendment freedom.

In a 6-3 decision issued Friday, the high court ruled in favor of artist Lorie Smith, who sued the state over its anti-discrimination law that prohibited businesses providing sales or other accommodations to the public from denying service based on a customer's sexual orientation.

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, which said that, "In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance." 

"But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong," Gorsuch continued. 

"But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed," he concluded.

Friday's decision reverses a lower court ruling that sided against Smith, who said the law infringed on her First Amendment rights by forcing her to promote messages that violate her deeply held faith.

Points to ponder:

1. For queers who are upset by this AFFIRMATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, there are plenty of graphic designers who will take your business. I'd imagine there are TONS of queers out there with web skills looking for jobs in web design.  If there are as many queers in this country as they say, this ruling won't even cause a ripple.

2. Once again, those dissenting include two of Obama's hacks (judges who wipe their asses on the constitution) and one judge appointed by Unelected Joe just because she was female and black. Thank GOD for the six defenders of the Constitution and thank BOTH GEORGE BUSHES AND PRESIDENT TRUMP for the majority that gave us this just ruling.

 

This is familiar territory. Don't these homos understand that they can't just force people to do whatever the f*ck they want? 

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

In the 1940’s and 1950’s, black people could not get hotel rooms. There were not alternatives.  
 

It’s wrong that the SCOTUS wants to reimpose segregation in universities and reimpose discrimination by businesses, because that is what this is. It’s not about religion and freedom of speech, it’s discrimination.  This court is not normal. 

Rebound is sick of freedom and wants a single ruling class (LGBT) in the US. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Deluge

[West]

What a way to close out pride month. 

You can participate in Sodomy if you so choose but just don't make everyone else!

Very good ruling

[Rebound]

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I guess 

I get it but .... I'm divided.  Making cakes doesn't impact on the fraternity of society, ie. LBGTQ+ and NON can still mix, just not be forced to make cakes for each other.  On the other hand, the privilege of religious exemption is pretty open and easy to abuse.

Here's the wording:

""In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance." 

You could conceivably have a conscience about a lot of things that could contradict the freedoms of other people.  I reserve judgment.

If a cake baker and a web designer can discriminate against you, who can’t? 
 

You can’t come in my bar because you’re against my religion? You can’t come in my restaurant? You can’t work for my company? You can’t attend my university? You can’t get a bed in my hospital? In my hotel? 
 

I don’t have to bake a cake for gays, so I can refuse Jews and Mormons, too.  In fact, I’ll just organize a boycott in my whole town against all the Jews and gays and Mormons. Cause the Supreme Court said I can. 
 

I got a better idea: NO DISCRIMINATION. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Rebound

[impartialobserver]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

In the 1940’s and 1950’s, black people could not get hotel rooms. There were not alternatives.  
 

It’s wrong that the SCOTUS wants to reimpose segregation in universities and reimpose discrimination by businesses, because that is what this is. It’s not about religion and freedom of speech, it’s discrimination.  This court is not normal. 

apples to oranges.. Today. people have options. If not the one cake baker.. you can simply go to dozens (or hundreds) of others. 

[reason10]

9 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Rebound is sick of freedom and wants a single ruling class (LGBT) in the US. 

Rebound lacks the education to even SPELL "Freedom."

[reason10]

5 minutes ago, Rebound said:

 

 

 

 

If a cake baker and a web designer can discriminate against you, who can’t? 

How about a college that admits a black student with an SAT score ten points lower than yours but won't admit you.

You can’t come in my bar because you’re against my religion? You can’t come in my restaurant? You can’t work for my company? You can’t attend my university? You can’t get a bed in my hospital? In my hotel? 

And yet you have no problem with universities DISCRIMINATING AGAINST WHITES AND ASIANS.

I don’t have to bake a cake for gays, so I can refuse Jews and Mormons, too.  In fact, I’ll just organize a boycott in my whole town against all the Jews and gays and Mormons. Cause the Supreme Court said I can. 

Well, if you are Muslim, you probably could claim the Supreme Court gave you the right to KILL every non Muslim you see, since that is in the Koran.

Again, you misunderstand the ruling (kinda like you'd probably be LOST with Florida third grade arithmetic.) A baker who is Christian and whose religion forbids her to  affirm a marriage between two queers cannot be compelled to go against her religion. That's all it is.

I got a better idea: NO DISCRIMINATION. 

Unless it's discrimination against whites and Asians in favor of blacks and other minorities, huh?

 

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, Rebound said:

1. If a cake baker and a web designer can discriminate against you, who can’t? 

2. I got a better idea: NO DISCRIMINATION. 

1. Well.... I have to point out again that I'm leery of this decision so please don't get into an argument with me for pointing out POSSIBLE answers...  

Some possible answers: people presumably can't discriminate against you for actions outside the domain of religion, like a birthday.  If somebody said "I won't bake a birthday cake for them because they're gay" is that covered by this ruling ?  If somebody said "I won't bake a birthday cake for them because they write with the devil's hand (ie. left handed) and my faith directs my decisions on this".   

I'm not sure what the limits are but those are possible answers.

2. Well I agree, but the question is how much should government tell you how to behave ?  We have a candidate for president vowing to destroy "leftism" ie. the Democratic party.  i would say that's too far.  Would you ?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

In the 1940’s and 1950’s, black people could not get hotel rooms. There were not alternatives.  
 

It’s wrong that the SCOTUS wants to reimpose segregation in universities and reimpose discrimination by businesses, because that is what this is. It’s not about religion and freedom of speech, it’s discrimination.  This court is not normal. 

There is a bit of a difference here.  People have a right to religious beliefs. People have a right not to be discriminated against.

In the 'hotel' example the only right at play is the second one - so it's wrong for them to deny busienss based on prejudice.

 But in this case you have two rights butting up against each other.  And there has to be some accommodation for both. the man DOES deserve his religious freedoms. And there can be no doubt that this is a legit religious issue, it's not frivolous or faked as an issue, the church has believed this for quite some time.

So, i think it's fair for them to say that they don't want to provide services that violate their faith. I'd be LESS inclined to agree if he refused their business just because they were gay - but they were asking him to make something specifically for gays.  That's a little different.

 

[Rebound]

16 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

apples to oranges.. Today. people have options. If not the one cake baker.. you can simply go to dozens (or hundreds) of others. 

So a Constitution which prohibits discrimination actually allows discrimination, UNLESS the discrimination benefits underprivileged minorities, then it’s unconstitutional. 
 

To be honest, I find your opinion disturbing. You’re saying that Jim Crow is perfectly fine, because  black people are free to move North.  Do you really think that? 
 

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, Rebound said:

If a cake baker and a web designer can discriminate against you, who can’t? 

You need to understand that there is a difference between discriminating against a person and against something else

If a person said 'bake me a birthday cake and the baker said 'are you gay? because i do that for straight people but not for gays" - then that is discriminating against a person.

If they say "bake me a gay pride cake in the shape of a penis entering a butt", and the store owner says "i don't do that kind of thing for ANYONE" - then that is not discrimination against the person, that's just someone refusing to make "gay" things.

 

[Rebound]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There is a bit of a difference here.  People have a right to religious beliefs. People have a right not to be discriminated against.

In the 'hotel' example the only right at play is the second one - so it's wrong for them to deny busienss based on prejudice.

 But in this case you have two rights butting up against each other.  And there has to be some accommodation for both. the man DOES deserve his religious freedoms. And there can be no doubt that this is a legit religious issue, it's not frivolous or faked as an issue, the church has believed this for quite some time.

So, i think it's fair for them to say that they don't want to provide services that violate their faith. I'd be LESS inclined to agree if he refused their business just because they were gay - but they were asking him to make something specifically for gays.  That's a little different.

 

It’s not a “legit religious issue.” 
What if it’s my religion that you’re the devil, and the devil should be killed? Does that make it my religious right to kill you?

We already had the court case of the clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay people because it was against her religion. She lost. Now the Court has decided that discrimination is perfectly fine UNLESS ITS STRAIGHT WHITE PEOPLE!!!! THEN ITS BAD! But gays and black people? Discriminate away, as long as you say it in the name of Jesus. 

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You need to understand that there is a difference between discriminating against a person and against something else

If a person said 'bake me a birthday cake and the baker said 'are you gay? because i do that for straight people but not for gays" - then that is discriminating against a person.

If they say "bake me a gay pride cake in the shape of a penis entering a butt", and the store owner says "i don't do that kind of thing for ANYONE" - then that is not discrimination against the person, that's just someone refusing to make "gay" things.

 

It’s all discrimination against people.  Look, I’m uncomfortable around transvestites or whatever they’re called. Trannies.  They make me uncomfortable.  But if they come into my shop, I need to serve them the same as anyone else. If they make me uncomfortable, that’s my problem, not theirs.  

Edited June 30, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

It’s not a “legit religious issue.” 

Of course it is. The fact you don't like it doesnt' change that.   I don't like it either if we're being honest but people have a right to their religious beliefs and that  one is spelled out in the bible clearly enough that it's legitimate for someone to consider it to be against their religion.

Quote

What if it’s my religion that you’re the devil, and the devil should be killed? Does that make it my religious right to kill you?

Yes actually - but it would then butt up against my right to life.  ANd the courts would look for a solution that causes the least infringements of rights. And it would be determined that you losing your right to kill me would be a much lesser violation than me losing my life.

Which is how we get to a LOT of our laws and rights. Sorry   

it is COMMON for two people's rights to collide, and when that happens the law has always looked to minimize the infringement of rights.  And they've determined that the rights of the person to religion is greater than the right of those people to have him make a gay website for them.

Quote

We already had the court case of the clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay people because it was against her religion. She lost.

Sure. And for good reason.  She was discriminating against them as people, they were asking for a regular marriage license. Also - her actions were against her employer's policies.  Remember - they didn't ask for a "Gay" marriage license, just the same marriage license everyone gets.

Quote

Now the Court has decided that discrimination is perfectly fine UNLESS ITS STRAIGHT WHITE PEOPLE!!!! THEN ITS BAD! But gays and black people? Discriminate away, as long as you say it in the name of Jesus. 

Is that what the court said? Maybe read the ruling again.

Quote

It’s all discrimination against people.  

No, it isn't. Think about it a bit.

[Rebound]

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Of course it is. The fact you don't like it doesnt' change that.   I don't like it either if we're being honest but people have a right to their religious beliefs and that  one is spelled out in the bible clearly enough that it's legitimate for someone to consider it to be against their religion.

Yes actually - but it would then butt up against my right to life.  ANd the courts would look for a solution that causes the least infringements of rights. And it would be determined that you losing your right to kill me would be a much lesser violation than me losing my life.

Which is how we get to a LOT of our laws and rights. Sorry   

it is COMMON for two people's rights to collide, and when that happens the law has always looked to minimize the infringement of rights.  And they've determined that the rights of the person to religion is greater than the right of those people to have him make a gay website for them.

Sure. And for good reason.  She was discriminating against them as people, they were asking for a regular marriage license. Also - her actions were against her employer's policies.  Remember - they didn't ask for a "Gay" marriage license, just the same marriage license everyone gets.

Is that what the court said? Maybe read the ruling again.

No, it isn't. Think about it a bit.

Eating pork is against people’s religion, SO THEY DON’T EAT PORK. 
 

If being gay is against your religion, THEN DONT BE GAY.  
 

Now do you see how poor the argument is? You could use ANY commandment in the Bible or Koran and say that people who don’t agree with it can be discriminated against. If you aren’t wearing a spaghetti strainer on your head, I will discriminate against you!

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well.... I have to point out again that I'm leery of this decision so please don't get into an argument with me for pointing out POSSIBLE answers...  

Some possible answers: people presumably can't discriminate against you for actions outside the domain of religion, like a birthday.  If somebody said "I won't bake a birthday cake for them because they're gay" is that covered by this ruling ?  If somebody said "I won't bake a birthday cake for them because they write with the devil's hand (ie. left handed) and my faith directs my decisions on this".   

I'm not sure what the limits are but those are possible answers.

2. Well I agree, but the question is how much should government tell you how to behave ?  We have a candidate for president vowing to destroy "leftism" ie. the Democratic party.  i would say that's too far.  Would you ?

Consider that the baker would make a rainbow cake for a straight person, but won't bake a rainbow cake for a gay person. That is indeed discriminating against gays. If they said that rainbow cakes were outside the scope of their service, that's another matter.

But that isn't the case. These "religiously oppressed" plaintiffs don't have any problem making the deliverables. They simply don't want to serve gay people. Which extends to any other class of people. It really does rewind our society to the legally segregated lunch counter.

Might not be a burden on someone with the options available in NYC, but try being gay in small town America and it starts to look pretty grim. 

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Consider that the baker would make a rainbow cake for a straight person, but won't bake a rainbow cake for a gay person. That is indeed discriminating against gays. If they said that rainbow cakes were outside the scope of their service, that's another matter.

But that isn't the case. These "religiously oppressed" plaintiffs don't have any problem making the deliverables. They simply don't want to serve gay people. Which extends to any other class of people. It really does rewind our society to the legally segregated lunch counter.

Might not be a burden on someone with the options available in NYC, but try being gay in small town America and it starts to look pretty grim. 

There are some errors in your post I have to point out. It's not that they won't bake a cake for gays, it's that it's for a wedding. The person in the article says they would serve gays.

 

That said, if your religion considers marriage holy, it likely doesn't acknowledge civic marriage anyway. And I would ask this person if they would make a cake for a divorce person, for example. I doubt they would have any qualms.

 

Like I say I'm leery of all of this based on the quote I got from the judgment.

 

It seems to me that people just get to decide when they're being principled, and when they're not. It's especially distressing that religious people should decide they're allowed to judge others when their religion specifically says not to.

[Hodad]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are some errors in your post I have to point out. It's not that they won't bake a cake for gays, it's that it's for a wedding. The person in the article says they would serve gays.

 

That said, if your religion considers marriage holy, it likely doesn't acknowledge civic marriage anyway. And I would ask this person if they would make a cake for a divorce person, for example. I doubt they would have any qualms.

 

Like I say I'm leery of all of this based on the quote I got from the judgment.

 

It seems to me that people just get to decide when they're being principled, and when they're not. It's especially distressing that religious people should decide they're allowed to judge others when their religion specifically says not to.

I know that the person in the article says that they would serve gays, but it's a segregated service. If you will make a cake for one class of customer, and then refuse to make the exact same cake for another class of customer you are not discriminating based on the nature of the work, but upon the nature of client.

That's the point of the rainbow cake example.

To put it in another context, imagine that a client shows up and orders 3-tier wedding cake with "Pat & Chris Forever" stenciled on the top. If a man and a woman show up to pick up that cake, great. But if two men show up to pick up that cake the baker throws it in the trash?

See, the work is the work. It doesn't affect the baker in any way, shape or form how the cake is used afterward. They aren't discriminating against different types of work. They are discriminating against types of clients.

For all we know, hetero Pat and Chris are buying a sheet cake because it's their turn to bring snacks to the swingers orgy. 

There's no such thing as a gay wedding cake. There are just cakes people eat at weddings. And it doesn't affect the baker one way or another.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Hodad

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

1. ...you are not discriminating based on the nature of the work, but upon the nature of client.

2. They aren't discriminating against different types of work. They are discriminating against types of clients.

3. There's no such thing as a gay wedding cake.

4. ...it doesn't affect the baker one way or another.

1. If they're honest, I think it's both.  ie. "I will make some things for a gay person but not a wedding cake".  Keep in mind that it's still legal to discriminate against gays in Canada, even, in some circumstances... on the religious charter provisions.

2. Well, I assume that they would do different work for gay clients, if they're honest,

3. Well, there may not be "gay cake" but there IS cake for "gay weddings".  I know because I have eaten that.

4. This baker says they had a crisis of conscience... if they're honest that is

Anyway, we're getting towards that area that I didn't want to go to - where you perceive my nitpicks on your arguments as me DEFENDING the decision which I am not doing.  This happens to me all the time here, when people take my "Trudeau isn't great but he's not a Marxist or Nazi" posts to mean "I love Trudeau so much"

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

Eating pork is against people’s religion, SO THEY DON’T EAT PORK. 
 

That is true.  And if a customer walked into their business and said "I'm a pork farmer and demand you eat pork!!!"  Then h would say no and be right to do so.

You seeing how this works now?

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

If being gay is against your religion, THEN DONT BE GAY.  

And to this guy that means don't write pro gay websites.

I think you're finally getting it.

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

Now do you see how poor the argument is?

You literally proved my point.

Asking him to partake in activities that are against his religion is not reasonable and they can't do it.

 

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

But that isn't the case. These "religiously oppressed" plaintiffs don't have any problem making the deliverables. They simply don't want to serve gay people.

that is not the case.  They want a gay website. The owner would not make a gay positive website for straight people either.