Supreme Court leans toward web designer over refusal to work on same-sex weddings
So what's the point of state nondiscrimination laws? One can always scream "Jesus made me discriminate!!!"
Conservative Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared sympathetic toward an evangelical Christian web designer’s bid to avoid working on same-sex weddings as they weighed the latest clash between religious conservatives and LGBTQ rights.
But after two-and-a-half hours of arguments that included a broad array of tough hypothetical questions directed at both sides, it is unclear how exactly the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, will rule.
Lorie Smith, who opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds and runs a business in Colorado designing websites, is seeking an exemption from a state law that outlaws discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodations.
Smith sued the state in 2016 because she said she would like to accept customers planning opposite-sex weddings but reject requests made by same-sex couples wanting the same service. She argues that, as a creative professional, she has a free speech right under the Constitution’s First Amendment to refuse to undertake work that conflicts with her own views.
Civil rights groups say Smith is asking the conservative-majority court for a “license to discriminate” that would gut public accommodation laws that require businesses to serve all customers.
Justices in the conservative majority seemed generally supportive of the notion that Smith should not be forced to express sentiments to which she disagrees, with Justice Clarence Thomas noting that policing speech was not how public accommodations laws like Colorado's were traditionally applied.
"This is is not a hotel. This is not a restaurant. This is not a riverboat or a train," he said, referring to businesses required to service all customers. Other conservative justices, including Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, asked similar questions.
| by Anonymous | reply 16 | December 7, 2022 4:04 PM
|
This is good because then I will not get shoddy service from someone who hates gays.
| by Anonymous | reply 1 | December 5, 2022 7:28 PM
|
This court will definitely rule in favor of her, if only because she states that she would be happy to do a website for an LGBTQ client as long as it's not a same-sex marriage site. So SCOTUS justices can tell themselves that it's not general, all-purpose discrimination.
But the wording of the decision will be crucial - the broader it is, the more slippery the slope towards allowing other types of discrimination against us and other minorities.
Of course, now that she's sued before her site design business has even launched, she won't have to worry about getting any gay clientele as they'll go elsewhere. So it's a win-win for her.
| by Anonymous | reply 3 | December 5, 2022 7:42 PM
|
[quote]But the wording of the decision will be crucial - the broader it is, the more slippery the slope towards allowing other types of discrimination against us and other minorities.
However narrow it is, it will allow one religious (or irreligious) group to discriminate against the other. I can't see how you'd be able to avoid that scenario. Unless they explicitly say only Christians can discriminate against the gays, which would be wholly unprecedented.
| by Anonymous | reply 4 | December 5, 2022 7:45 PM
|
They wouldn't say that as there are conservative/Orthodox Jews and Muslims that would have the same stance in this kind of case. The possible difference is that people entering into a same-sex marriage are probably less likely to go to an Orthodox or Muslim-owned business (based on assumptions, correct or not) as opposed to someone like this woman whose views may not be apparent.
For years the religious right complained about gays wanting "special rights" when it was clear we just wanted equal rights. Of course, all along what they really wanted were special rights to discriminate against us (and probably others they don't approve of) because in their view, "equal rights" should only apply to them. Freedom only applies to them. They can discriminate against others, but no one can do the same to them.
If SCOTUS is going to continue to sanction selective discrimination in the name of "religious freedom" then these businesses should be required by law to clearly state in their printed and online material that they do not serve same-sex couples getting married. If the Right whines about that, then tough. Gays and lesbians shouldn't have to waste their time dealing with people who won't service them. If these businesses aren't willing to state their "deeply held beliefs" in this way, then you have to wonder how deep those beliefs really are.
| by Anonymous | reply 5 | December 5, 2022 10:20 PM
|
Bump. Surprised by the lack of comments here. Guess people don't care or gave up.
| by Anonymous | reply 6 | December 6, 2022 6:58 PM
|
She's a cunt, who wants to be able to say "I HATE GAYS" by refusing service. If she wasn't she could just say she was too busy to take on the jobs that she wasn't interested in doing. She hasn't even opened her business and she just wants to the the Rosa Parks of the homo-hating kkkristian cunts. The Alito court can't wait to support her. This is what we get by not supporting Hillary, Ms. Sarandon.
| by Anonymous | reply 7 | December 6, 2022 7:09 PM
|
She's represented by a group that argued that gays in Uganda should get the death penalty
| by Anonymous | reply 8 | December 6, 2022 7:12 PM
|
R7 Well maybe you’re onto something. Businesses in these areas who are loud and proud about it usually generate more business.
Making her a “free speech fighting” business who won’t make cups for gays will attract the clientele she wants.
| by Anonymous | reply 9 | December 6, 2022 7:18 PM
|
Jesus told me to hate you!
| by Anonymous | reply 10 | December 6, 2022 7:22 PM
|
Notice that she wasn't actually approached by a same-sex couple. She's just so enraged by the theory of having to do this that she sued. And the freaks on the Supreme Court will enshrine it in law.
Remember that Jim Crow was based on religious views too. So...say goodbye to anti-discrimination laws.
| by Anonymous | reply 11 | December 6, 2022 7:45 PM
|
How did this dumb asshole even get her case before a court?
She is not actively designing websites for couples of any kind. She has never refused a couple, nor has she been asked by any couple to violate her so-called beliefs. SHE HAS NO STANDING TO FILE SUIT!!!
| by Anonymous | reply 12 | December 6, 2022 8:08 PM
|
The same group that financed the Colorado cake case is funding this case, and now with a more conservative court.
If SCOTUS says religion trumps all, what is the point of state nondiscrimination laws?
| by Anonymous | reply 15 | December 7, 2022 4:00 PM
|
R15 Remember, it's only SOME discrimination. They're not uniformly elevating religious faith over public accommodation. They're only doing it for Christians.
A Christian doesn't want to bake a cake for fags or Black people? "Let them follow their faith!"
A Jew/Muslim/Atheist doesn't want to serve Christians? "OUTRAGEOUS! THROW SOMEONE IN JAIL!!!!!"
| by Anonymous | reply 16 | December 7, 2022 4:04 PM
|
