The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn’t want to make wedding websites for gay couples

As this is not an area of my expertise, I am not familiar with all the abbreviations, which you nonetheless use. So I was guessing, that was what you'd meant, by SSM. Since I had needed to think about your abbreviation (though obviously not long enough, because I have heard the term, "same sex marriage"), I wanted to write out what it is we were referring to, so it would be clear to all others who read it, regardless of their familiarity with issue.

As my own aside, I think you are using the wrong term, to begin with. The event which begins a "marriage," is a "wedding." Marriage refers to the entire relationship, from that point on, or to the Institution, itself. So, of course, same sex marriage, is a thing. But the websites are not for the marriages-- only for the weddings. Therefore, you should have said "same sex weddings."




P.S.-- I'm making this its own post, in the interest of limiting my post length. I will continue reading your reply & respond to the rest of it, separately.

 

Correction: this case has nothing to do with "compensation." That appears to be only part of your own bias.

Agreement: yes, this law is about freedom-- making the freedom to marry, in practical effect, less than an equal right for gays, and for anyone else whose equal freedoms are not seen & respected as such, by closed minded bigots.

 

Lorie Smith hasn't prevented anyone from getting married. Calling someone a bigot doesn't mean you get to force them to take part in your marriage. Can the Catholic Church choose not to officiate a gay wedding? Of course. And likewise, this woman can choose not to make a website.

 

Your analogy doesn't work, because no one who refuses to handle any pork products, could reasonably be a caterer. While I suppose the exceptional case might be speculated, of someone who works strictly within some minority community (for only Orthodox Jews, or only Orthodox Muslims), it is erroneous to equate that, with someone offering their services to the general public. There are chefs who are vegetarian, yet who prepare meat dishes. Otherwise, their only two choices are to work for a vegetarian restaurant, or find a new line of work.

I like your analogy, nevertheless, because it shows how utterly unreasonable an idea it would be for any cook, to expect his patrons to limit their eating, to only the things of which that cook personally approves. That doesn't seem ridiculous, to you?





P.S.-- Once again, I am treating different arguments, each with their own response, so further replies to the various arguments in your post, will follow.

 

Nice job taking me out of context. What I said was despite the discrimination I have faced in life I never asked for compensation. My comment had nothing to do with the case.

 

Sorry, then-- I had thought that was your implication. However, since I had quoted your post, in full, I had not been "taking (you) out of context." I had merely misinterpreted your intention.

 

That is because you favor using the government as a tool to force someone to say what you want them to.

 

so many lefties have no understanding-nor tolerance-of a government limited to its enumerated powers

 

No one was going to be forced to say anything. We all know that.

Let's not pretend that any of us really think it should be considered speech, whether the law sees it that way or not.

 

No it wouldn't because the tow truck driver is not the one creating the content or applying it to the towed car. That's the key difference that you and the others keep ignoring.

 

Can't blame you on the post length issue. It can be problematic at times.

Despite the fact the the wedding is the start of a marriage (same sex, opposite sex, polygamous, whatever), it still is part and parcel of the marriage. Regardless, the content still matters. One could have a problem with same sex weddings and not same sex marriages. We don't have to like or understand why someone objects to any given content. We just have to respect their freedom of speech rights to not force them to engage in the creation of said content. Just like freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, in the sense that one cannot be forced to have a religion, so too does freedom of speech include freedom from speech in the sense of not forcing anyone to create what they object to, keeping in mind that freedom of speech includes all forms; written, spoken, visual, etc.

 

The freedom to marry, as far as the legal institution goes, is the government not making a restriction on the legal institution based upon the protected classes. Which is why they can constitutionally limit the number within a legal marriage, but not the genders/sexes, races, or religions, or even ages (outside the ability to give informed consent restrictions). That freedom to marry does not extend to anyone or anything outside of that marriage and the government. The freedom to marry is neither enhanced nor restricted by any agency/person/entity/business/whatever outside of the couple and the government.

 

That would be a personal bias on what you think a caterer should be. There is nothing unreasonable about being a caterer that specialized as such or otherwise limits themselves. How successful they will be might be up for debate, and if they can be successful at what they do with their limits, then by all means they should do so. If they end up failing, then they have to decide to either compromise on their beliefs, or find another line of work where they don't have to make such compromises.

In this case we are talking about creators who are the owners of the business. If the vegetarian chef owns his restaurant or catering business, then he gets to decide what his limits are. If he wants to make nothing other than kosher or halal or whatever, that is his right. If he wants to make only items that do not meet kosher standards, such is his right. If the chef is employed, then he either follows the standards of the employer, or he seeks an employer who will allow him his limits, be that in having another do those dishes, or one who only offers the food within his limits.

Not at all, because that is what all restaurants do to some extent or another. There are tons of specific food selection businesses out there. Some only offer Chinese dishes, and not all of them offer the same dishes. Some only do Mexican. Some only pasta. A place might choose to only do fried food, no matter what it is (deep fried Twinkies anyone?). There isn't a single restaurant out there where the patrons are not expected to limit their eating to what the owner chooses to offer. We can even take that as far as specific sub types. For example, a pizza joint owner might only serve only red sauce pizzas and refuse to serve white sauce pizzas.

 

Today I learned @DEFinning doesn’t know Muslim caterers exist in America.

 

Correct. Good point. Some creativity is required by the ruling. Thanks for the reminder.

 

Well I feel this argument need be based in reality, not in some world based only on hypotheticals.

You have completely twisted my point, which was that it would be ridiculous for a chef, or a restaurant owner, to expect their patrons to limit themselves to the personal tastes of that owner/chef. Of course, no restaurant can offer every option-- but that is a practical consideration, having little to do with what the owner/chef thinks is "good." In fact, the main consideration, in addition to cost, and profit margin, is what is believed will sell, what it is that the customers will want. That desire to please the customer, only falters at the point when, to do so, becomes no longer practical.

I will give another example: most restaurants have bars, offer alcohol; this does not mean that all restaurant owners drink. Also, all bars will generally offer the full spectrum of alcohols (again, within practical limits). I have yet to go into a bar, well stocked with 8 brands of vodka, but without any whiskey, because the owner doesn't drink whiskey. Every bar will carry numerous vodkas, regardless of how the owner personally feels about that grain spirit. No bartender I know of, has a problem with making a drink with gin, even if he personally, finds gin disgusting. It is about what customers want, and can be provided in a cost effective way-- not about trying to force customers to conform to the particular "tastes" or beliefs, of the owner.

I will accept your arguing that a business owner doesn't have to try to be economically successful, but please drop the pretense that this would not be unusual.

 

Actually most of us consider electronic communications speech as it pertains to the first amendment. I think you are in a minority.

 

I believe your interpretation to the best of my knowledge and legal analysis to be fair to you because I disagree with the decision is correct.

 

First off I appreciate your positions. I may not agree with the decision but I do get your points stated very clearly and many of which I have no LEGAL argument with. My concerns ultimately are political mixed with legal. Out of respect to you I wanted to make my position clear so you know why I both agree with you on certain remarks but not on others.

So the person who incited the ruling runs 303 Creative which sells custom web designs. She opposes providing her services for same-sex weddings saying if she did this would compel her to say and do things she does not agree with violating her rights under the First Amendment. She argued the Colorado Discriminations Act could force her to serve gay clients and here is what Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that gives me great concern:

"Were the rule otherwise, the better the artist, the finer the writer, the more unique his talent, the more easily his voice could be conscripted to disseminate the government's preferred messages. That would not respect the First Amendment; more nearly, it would spell its demise,".

I believe the above went off on a tangential political agenda and did not properly address the hypothetical Ms. Smith asked. I would contend Ms. Smith, is anti same sex marriage and claims this givers her the right to refuse services to gays.

My problem is no gay person asked a damn thing of her. She in fact pre-emptively sued Colorado's civil rights commission and other state officials in 2016 because she said she feared being punished for refusing to serve gay weddings under Colorado's public accommodations law. Let's be clear she filed her legal action based on a hypothetical scenario based on a fear of gay people suing her in the future and necessarily her assumptions believe gays would want to give her business or work with her knowing her religious beliefs and upon finding them out would sue her for not working with them.

Because of that unfounded assumption about the motive of gays, I would ARGUE the above quoted Judge went off on a non related political agenda claiming anti discriminatory laws are state agents of persecution to prevent free thought.

This is why I would then suggest in response to the above agenda caused Judge Sotomayor to warn in her minority ruling that and I quote:

"A website designer could equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, for example ... A stationer could refuse to sell a birth announcement for a disabled couple because she opposes their having a child. A large retail store could reserve its family portrait services for 'traditional' families. And so on," Sotomayor wrote.”

That is the point and I would argue is my basis to now argue the full implications and impact of how this ruling could now legitimize discriminatory practices in business was not properly addressed and leaves the door wide open for people to now discriminate and use the First Amendment as a shield to do so.

Interestingly Smith said after the decision and I quote:
"Colorado can't force me or anyone to say something we don't believe."

The problem is no one is arguing or told Ms. Smith what her religious beliefs should be nor did any gay demand she serve them and ignore her religious beliefs. No gay did that. Smith assumes they would and so triggered the state of Colorado to have to respond and they explained her religious beliefs must be balanced with protecting others from those beliefs if they cause unfair discrimination.

I would argue in any democracy individual rights including the right to discriminate clash with collective rights. It is an inevitable consequence of a democracy to deal with that tension and balance it fairly and I just do not have confidence this latest decision did that from reading its narrow scope of consideration by the majority.

Next, I would point out to you there are over 5-6 thousand people who ask for references from the US Supreme Court of the US each year, and only 70-90 are allowed. So I must ask what criteria did the Supreme Court use to choose to accept reference of this hypothetical when there were so many other applications rejected on actual determined cases? Why did the Supreme Court not wait until the State of Colorado actually compel Ms. Smith or anyone else to take on gay clients? The problem is no one knows their priority criteria and so it lends to the appearance it picks and chooses only specific issues it chooses and not those based on pure merit, i.e., impact on the greatest potential of Americans. Please do not tell me hundreds let alone thousands let alone millions of Americans are being forced to do business with gays let alone turn down their money or will turn down their money.

Next before I go further, let me state a legal view many US lawyers have and that I agree with (keeping in mind I am Canadian and am only discussing the law not telling Americans how their legal system should work) . We would argue the Supreme Court of the US (and I argue the same with our Supreme Court in Canada) should only take on fully decided case decisions NOT hypotheticals-the argument for this can be found at: https://columbialawreview.org/content/the-origins-of-supreme-court-question-selection/


That said, there is of course argument to be made that some potential issues need to be addressed to head off future cases. The determination therefore of whether the Supreme Court felt this was such a compelling legal issue it needed a reference on let alone when it did, remains an issue? Was it really a pressing legal? Were hundreds, thousands, millions of Americans faced with a wave of gays demanding their services?

Can we please get real. Does anyone think a gay couple on finding out Ms. Smith’s religious beliefs would sue her and not just find someone else?

Do we want to return to a time when people can put up signs that say no gays served, no blacks served, and then argue that is a religious first amendment right or a political freedom of speech first amendment right to be allowed to discriminate?

 

Reb this is my dilemma on this issue. The people who argue anti discrimination laws make them victims of government coercion have no problem using the government and court system to coerce and impose their beliefs on others.

Its a theme we see time and time again with the Trump agenda which now also is expressed through his judicial appointments.

 

Same exact thing could be said of Democratic appointments. Tell us something we do not know.

 

DEFinning said: ↑
Your analogy doesn't work, because no one who refuses to handle any pork products, could reasonably be a caterer. While I suppose the exceptional case might be speculated, of someone who works strictly within some minority community (for only Orthodox Jews, or only Orthodox Muslims), it is erroneous to equate that, with someone offering their services to the general public
<End Quote>


Today, I see more confirmation, of the totally false arguments that Corn Pop is willing to knowingly manufacture.

And to do so, not just to make an argumentative point, but simply to take a gratuitous swipe at another member.

You keep doing you, Corn Pop-- I don't know anyone else, who would want that lousy job.

 

Democrats impose their beliefs as much as Republicans do. No difference in the Trump agenda than the Biden or Obama agendas. This is different than forcing you to perform an action or say something you do not believe in.

 

Sure they were. Forcing them to act in a way they don't believe is no different than making them say it. Let's not pretend any of us really think this is anything other than free speech.

 

how is someone who doesn't want to serve SSM advocates using the government to impose their beliefs on others. Merely saying NO-I will not serve you doesn't require any government coercion