Posted on 02/22/2022 7:24:33 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.
The Supreme Court said in taking the case, however, that it would look only at the free speech issue. It said it would decide whether a law that requires an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The case is expected to be argued in the fall.
In a 2-1 ruling last year, the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Smith’s attempt to overturn a lower court ruling throwing out her legal challenge. The panel said Colorado had a compelling interest in protecting the “dignity interests” of members of marginalized groups through its law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
The law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, is the same one at issue in the case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips that was decided in 2018 by the U.S. Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Homosexual acts should be illegal everywhere. Some things just need to be oppressed.
Even when they lose, they win. The Christians win the SCOTUS hearing, but it's practically a technical win only. They've lost their fortunes during the long legal battle -- the process is the punishment.
hmmm.....wonder if simply delivering a crappy product would work?
To the business owners - Why get involved in this? Find out what the requesters want ahead of time and tell them you are too busy to fulfill your request and give them the name of someone who will do it for them.
That is also a possibility. Take the hit or break the contract. This being forced as a small business to work on something you don’t want to work on crap, is just that.
In the 1980s I worked for city govt. Gay female boss told me many times that Denver would become a gay Mecca. She subsequently became involved in law, became a judge, etc. That’s why I don’t like Colorado and I want to leave.
So far, twice for the bakers.
Why/How is the appeals court able to not abide by the SCOTUS ruling?
If somebody doesn’t want to serve me, then I definitely want to eat somewhere else. I’m like, “Well, harumph, good day to you, sir! I mean, good day to you, you stuck-up, hateful, loserly smeller of other people’s bottoms!”
Hypothetical Q: What are some possible outcomes of FORCING PEOPLE TO PREPARE AND SERVE YOU FOOD????
“The Christians win the SCOTUS hearing, but it’s practically a technical win only. They’ve lost their fortunes during the long legal battle — the process is the punishment.”
But hasn’t the SC already decided this in the first bake-the-cake ruling? There must be some way for current and future business owners to stop Colorado dead in its tracks without having to go through the process over and over again.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. The rule of law is dead.
Try that with no shoes or shirt.
Here in Alabama in the 1980’s you knew someone was gay (including a boss I had for a while) only if you got to know them well. They didn’t want to wear they’re gayness on their sleeve and if you found out they were gay they were quick to tell you that they wanted to be treated like everybody else, not special. They were offended if you made a big deal about it, even in a nice way.
Lawfare … no matter if you win the case by bankrupting you they win the war.
The intended outcome of this Colorado law is to ensure strict adherence to current dogma. It does not matter that the Supreme Court has ruled that states must also abide by “Congress shall make no law...”
In other words, the idea is to force people to NOT follow their religious beliefs so the state can better control them.
Fh. Y how fa,ebook, Twitter youtube and ilk can deny people the right to use their social networks, which is open to,the public just like other businesses, for any reason, under the excuse that it “violates their beleifs”, but conservative businesses can’t deny service to anyone based on a violation of their beliefs.
[[Why/How is the appeals court able to not abide by the SCOTUS ruling]]
They are liberals, plain and simple, they are above the law- why? Because conservatives won’t punish them for breaking the law or ignoring rulings
"Rights of LGBT people" ... You don't have a "right" to someone else's services - that would be slavery. Businesses run by "LGBT people" likely would not be forced to personally design websites celebrating that marriage is between one man and one woman, would they?
And if there ever was a case in which SCOTUS could have made it clear that one can refuse to create special works for moral reasons then Masterpiece was it. provide Jack Phillips offered them anything available to the general public, but just as he had refuse to create a special work to celebrate divorce, so he also refused to be complicit (a legal terms) in the celebration of an immoral and illegal (as per the highest law of the state at the time, the CO constitution) sexual union/marriage,
However, since SCOTUS already had greatly erred in essentially making homosexuality to be like a matter of race, then the baker/artist is deemed to be a criminal if he refuses to create a special work to celebrate any homosexual events just as he would be to deny the same on racial grounds. When SCOTUS (by 5-4) got into bed with homosexuals they did not much contemplate what this would all give birth to.
Thatnwas back,when people were still civil and decent folks that just wanted to,live and let live. Liberals today have morphed into a very hateful. Angry mob who,are hell bent on taking over this country in as hostile a manner as possible, because they are truly miserable people who,can’t keep,their noses,out of other peoples business. They have to destroy everything
Evidently she wasn’t sued by the mafia. She went to court in 2016 to challenge the state law. This gives the supreme court a chance to clarify the Colorado cake baker’s decision. More here:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.