Same-sex marriage and LGBTQ protections at center of another Supreme Court case

[BumRushDaShow]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: NBC News

WASHINGTON — To Lorie Smith, her lawsuit is a free speech crusade. To her opponents, it's an effort to weaken laws aimed at combating LGBTQ discrimination. A conservative evangelical Christian who opposes same-sex marriage and runs a business in Colorado designing websites, including for nuptials, Smith sued the state because she would like to accept customers planning opposite-sex weddings but reject requests made by same-sex couples wanting the same service.

Smith has not been sanctioned for refusing to design such a website but filed the lawsuit on the premise that she could be. Her case has reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where she is asking the justices to decide in a case being argued on Monday that she cannot be punished under Colorado's anti-discrimination law for refusing to design websites for same-sex weddings.

Smith 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 seriously undermine public accommodation laws that require businesses to serve all customers.

The case is the latest example of the enduring conflict over the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, which conservative Christians continue to loudly oppose even as Congress has moved to enact a law with bipartisan support that bolsters protections for married same-sex couples.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/web-designer-tests-ability-refuse-work-sex-weddings-supreme-court-clas-rcna57374

[Marthe48]

1. Is lori the new karen?

I hope she goes out of business. She is not only guilty of discrimination, but casting a pall on relationships she has no part of.

You know she is just doing this to jump on the rw bandwagon that is driven by the unelected rw fascist liars seated on the (formerly) s.c.

[moose65]

2. I don't understand these people

How in the world can she file a suit like this when she admits that she hasn't been harmed yet. I didn't know that you could file a preemptive lawsuit! How can she possibly have any standing??

These people astound me.

[Farmer-Rick]

6. So, Since we are doing preemptive legal hearings by the Supremes

I think I'll file suit against the state of TN because their constitution says they will not allow me, an atheist, to hold government office. No no one has stopped me from running....yet. And no one in the government has claimed they would keep from office because I'm an atheist. But it is the clear intent of the state.

So, onward to imaginary scenarios so the supremes can advance their Christian agenda.

[NullTuples]

12. Republican judges have weaponized eligibility for standing

When it favors GOP/Federalist Society goals vs when it hinders them seems to be the general rule.

[RKP5637]

3. She's clearly an irritant, hater and religious freak. And seeder of chaos. These people

are so damn disgusting.

[Marthe48]

4. I've got friends

all they each try to do is live their lives. They find someone they love, who loves them back. They get married, they establish families, circles of relationships. The people I know are kind, and give so much of themselves to others.

People like the person filing this lawsuit have to practice their hate. Otherwise, I don't know how they can live with their cruelty and spitefulness.

All I can do personally is support my friends, and love who they are.

[Marthe48]

5. Don't share her contact information

https://303creative.com/

https://303creative.com/contact/

Media can contact alliance defending freedom, of course they are conservative christians rw. I recognize some of the names.

[bucolic_frolic]

7. It's a case about business obligations in public domain but SCOTUS will be inside her religious head

When did businesses become religious expression? To me the idea is absurd. You open doors and accept all traffic. You do the work. Because work is not about religion. If you want religion, go to religious services. If you don't agree with someone, suck it up, take their money, smile, and pray they wise up or croak. That's your right. You are entitled to your feelings. You are not entitled to make others abide by your feelings. Once again this is about boundaries. Religious zealots are borderlines.

[intheflow]

10. Businesses are people.

This is the logical outcome of Citizens United, decided by a SCOTUS not nearly as conservative as the current makeup.

[NullTuples]

13. Citizens, but also Hobby Lobby's "Corporations can have religious based bigotry & that's okay"

[bronxiteforever]

8. The Court majority that would require a ten year old child

to give birth to her rapist’s baby is going to give us a lecture on freedom.
Ain’t that America something to see.

[iluvtennis]

9. Here we go trying 2 take this country back in time. Just reword these for sexualtity vs race.

Hell to the NO that we are going backwards.

[edhopper]

11. he suing becauase

the State MIGHT sanction her, but hasn't. What are the damaging for something that hasn't happened? Why would the SC even take this crap on?

[NullTuples]

14. This court has weaponized who has standing

In class action suits, every single member must now meet the "real world harm" rules for the class to have standing.

In religious liberty cases however, "nominal damages" (ie minimal or none at all except to their pride) is satisfactory.

"Uzuegbunam and a fellow student, also an Evangelical Christian, argued that this prohibition violated their First Amendment rights. However, rather than fight for their previous policy, Gwinnett College simply relented. Uzuegbunam still wanted to move on with the case, however, and sought nominal damages for this violation, even though he is no longer a student, the policy has changed, and he suffered no financial harm. The district court dismissed the case, saying that nominal damages were not enough to move the case forward. The Supreme Court, in a notable 8-1 decision, reversed, holding that nominal damages were enough to provide the plaintiffs with standing."

[Initech]

15. A lot of this shit would be avoided if people would just vet who they're buying from.

Why would gay couples go to a business that actively discriminates? There aren't any other web designers in Colorado? I don't get it.

[Omaha Steve]

16. After a review by forum hosts....LOCKING

This is a feature story, not news. Can be posted in editorial or GD.