Supreme Court to decide whether website designer may decline same-sex weddings

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: USA TODAY

Supreme Court to decide whether website designer may decline same-sex weddings

John Fritze
USA TODAY
Published 9:57 a.m. ET Feb. 22, 2022

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will decide whether a web designer may decline to make wedding websites for same-sex couples in a case that could have sweeping implications in the battle over LGBTQ rights.

Ever since the nation's highest court handed down a landmark ruling in 2015 legalizing same-sex marriage, the justices have been confronted with a litany of lawsuits involving wedding photographers, bakers and other matrimonial businesses that claim serving same-sex couples would violate their constitutional rights.

The court has so far largely dodged the fundamental question presented by those cases: Whether the decision to deny service to LGBTQ customers because of religious objections is illegal discrimination – or is, instead, protected by the First Amendment.

Lorie Smith, a graphic and website designer in Denver, Colo., intends to develop sites for weddings but wants to decline to provide her services for same-sex weddings. She sued the Colorado Civil Rights Division and other state entities in 2016, asserting Colorado's anti-discrimination laws violate her First Amendment rights to free speech and to practice her religion. ... In agreeing to take the case Tuesday, the high court limited the appeal to consideration of only the free speech claims.

{snip}

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/02/22/supreme-court-decide-if-web-designer-can-decline-same-sex-weddings/9150830002/

---

Hat tip, the CBS radio news, heard on WTOP

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Why waste time on this cultural sh*t when we need decisions on

TFG and his policies?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. Possibly, justices on the Supreme Court can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I would like to add that a proposal to remove a ban on same-sex marriages from the Virginia constitution failed last week.

Also, within my lifetime, it was considered medically sound practice to treat homosexuality as a mental illness. One member of my family was involuntarily confined in a mental institution for being gay. Another was expelled from college for being gay. Not doing anything; just being something. He went on to get drafted into the Army. Selective service had no problem signing me up.

It goes on. I wish it wouldn't.

Thanks for your insight, but I disagree.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Not this Supreme Court. Laser focused on bringing a

theocracy to the US

[BradAllison]

5. This court is not looking to move away from the old days. n/m

[bluestarone]

4. THIS court will

Take ANY religious case!

[azureblue]

6. by the same logic

Can someone refuse service to a person who eats pork or shellfish? Wears glasses to church? Has tattoos? All of these are forbidden in Leviticus and religion is the basis for gay discrimination.. So come on, SC, and throw open those doors. I will use "eats bacon so I will not work with them because religion" as a valid excuse to dump Repubs from my business..

the problem is this - once they do this then any person can use religious exemption as an excuse to deny service. And the court cannot define what is a "valid" religion, and what is not. So the church of Satan can use this ruling, too.

But I think the court is too stupid to realize this..

[LoisB]

7. Doesn't seem like a sound business decision to me.

nt

[Freddie]

8. It's a slippery slope to

“I won’t let that couple rent my apartment because they’re gay and that offends my religious beliefs”
“I won’t hire you because you’re gay and that offends my religious beliefs.”

[SomewhereInTheMiddle]

9. Who has standing?

I thought someone had to suffer actual harm before they could bring suit.

According to the article the plaintiff "intends to develop sites for weddings but wants to decline to provide her services for same-sex weddings."

Intends and wants do not make real harm.

"She sued the Colorado Civil Rights Division and other state entities in 2016, asserting Colorado's anti-discrimination laws violate her First Amendment rights to free speech and to practice her religion."

Had they actually stopped her from doing something?

I am not a lawyer, but I don't understand the basis of her suit. Who was harmed?

[JT45242]

10. then they will refuse mixed race couples... the theocracy of white male only power is close

They will take this. Beerbong, hand maiden, etc will say religious freedom for businesses trumps any logical discrimination claim.

They will allow discrimination against mixed race couples. They will eventually allow people to refuse people of color, those who speak a different language, jews, etc.

They will return to Plessy v Ferguson and say that all decisions that nullified Plessy v. Ferguson ignored judicial precedent and were wrongly decided.

The american taliban will stop at nothing less than an apartheid-like white male rule of all aspects of society.

Obergefell, Loving, Roe, etc will all fall before the three Trump stolen SCOTUS seats because we do not have the will to either investigate them for money crimes (liek Beer Bong) or add seats to the court to match the number of judicial regions.

[Lonestarblue]

11. The SC opened this door with the baker's case. It will only get worse if they side with her.

It would seem to me that a clear distinction could be made. If you operate a business serving the general public, then you cannot refuse service because of your religion. If you bake cakes for friends and acquaintances for special occasions at home, then you can choose the people you bake for. Businesses do have the right to set certain standards, e.g., the no shirt,,no shoes, no service standard we’ve all seen, but that standard is applied to everyone equally. This case is just a way for religious fanatics to evade federal anti-discrimination laws, and I suspect the website developer is bing paid to bring it by right-wing Republican funders.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

12. From Joe.My.God.:

SCOTUS To Hear Hate Group On LGBTQ Protections
February 22, 2022 Christianists, Hate Groups

ABC News reports:

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new clash involving religion and the rights of LGBT people. The high court said Tuesday it would hear the case of Colorado-based web designer Lorie Smith.

Smith offers graphic and website design services and wants to expand to wedding website services, but she says her religious beliefs would lead her to decline any request from a same-sex couple to design a wedding website.

She also wants to post a statement on her website about her beliefs, but that would run afoul of a Colorado anti-discrimination law. Smith had argued the law violates her free speech and religious rights.

Read the full article.

As I reported when this suit was first filed back in 2016, it’s likely that Smith’s is yet another fake company created by the Alliance Defending Freedom in order file a “peremptory challenge.” In other words, she’s never refused any LGBT clients because she’s never had any attempt to hire her.

{snip}

[Claire Oh Nette]

15. Nor will she ever have any same sex client couples...

My parents were Depression era babies. LGBT were strictly closeted. THose life long single aunts or uncles? Probably gay. (1%)

My birthparents were baby boomers--first cohort. LGBT still closeted, but they came of age in the 60s, so their minds were opened. (3%)

Mr. OhNette is later baby boom. In his later 60s, he has friends and colleagues who were out. Live and let live. (6%)


Gen X. We came of age with AIDS, and Reagan, so we knew Rock Hudson was gay, and Elton John, and Billie Jean King, and we remember how shitty people were to Ryan White. Our friends were dying not long after high school. (8%)

Millennials--even more open and tolerant. They were born into a world where LGBT folks existed. Like Technology, it's part of the fabric of their lives. (12%)

And finally, those coming of age now, Gen Z.
17% of those born after 2000 identify as LGBTQ. That's almost 20%.


20% means that horse has left the barn. Many of that Gen Z cohort were 14, 15, 16, 17 in 2020. They'll be olde enough to vote in 2022 and 2024.

Beau of the fifth column did a great video on this.

[Sapient Donkey]

13. In cases like this where there are lots of options

I wonder why anyone would want to give their business to bigots. I understand the desire to force it out of principle, but is it really worth it? Also, let’s say a company specializes in making wedding websites (or cakes) for gay couples, I don’t think they should be compelled to offer their services to non-gay couples. At least that’s my half-baked thought on this. I haven’t had many discussions about this internally with myself or with other people.

[hueymahl]

14. I predict this will be a 9-0 ruling

In favor of the web designer. The free speech argument, the only one being considered, will rule the day amongst liberals and conservatives alike.

[jgmiller]

16. Just like the baker case I'm really having trouble understanding why this is a lawsuit

Any business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. It might be discrimination but this is different from a lunch counter blocking non-whites from eating there. This company and the baker are providing a specific service in a non-public environment, they shouldn't be forced to take on a customer if they don't want to.

[moriah]

18. That could perhaps work, if refusing businesses....

... cited "scheduling conflicts" then referred them to an equally great LGBT+-owned or friendly wedding vendor.

Most might wonder if their names/appearances was what caused the "scheduling conflict" but as long as the vendor they were referred to was excellent, they'd likely not sue.

Instead, far too many want to say exactly why they ARE refusing service. And no, I do believe a public business is allowed (at least federally) to say "I'm sorry, we don't serve your kind here" to a black couple then in let an equally-or-less-well-dressed white couple though.

[onenote]

19. WRONG: It is not true that "any business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason."

States can and do enact anti-discrimination laws that apply to a broader range of businesses than the "public accommodations" defined in the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

For example, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) prohibits a “place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services . . . to the public" from discriminating against customers based on disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

Not sure if your post indicated what you think the law is or what you think it should be.

[J_William_Ryan]

17. The Court will rule

in a manner that strikes down public accommodations laws affording protections to gay Americans using ‘religious liberty’ as ‘justification’ although no religious liberty is being ‘violated.’

This will allow rightwing racist and bigot business owners to discriminate against gay and transgender Americans.