Posted on 12/13/2022 2:00:12 PM PST by Eleutheria5
.....
And the difference between the two women should be studied in what is wrong with the radical left and why they should not be in power to defend the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in the case.
“For nearly a decade, the justices have dodged and weaved on this clash of legal values, declining to hear some cases and punting on one involving a baker who refused to make custom wedding cakes for same-sex couples. But now the issue is back before a far more conservative court, a court that reached out to hear Monday’s case even before any same-sex couples complained that they were the victims of illegal discrimination,” NPR reported, adding:
The plaintiff in the case is business owner Lorie Smith, a Colorado web designer who for the past decade has created all kinds of custom websites for clients.
“The lead attorney who represented Colorado web designer Lorie Smith before the Supreme Court this week said she believed Justice Amy Coney Barrett “identified the real issue” in her client’s fight to refuse working on same-sex wedding websites, which violates her sincere religious beliefs,” Kaelan Deese reported for the Washington Examiner, adding:
Smith, a Littleton-based web and graphics designer, was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom CEO and attorney Kristen Waggoner, who told the Washington Examiner that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act caused her client a six-year “constitutional injury” because it would compel her to create messages for clients whose lifestyle goes against Smith’s religious conscience.
“In terms of Justice Barrett’s question, I thought that it identified the real issue here, which, again, is about what the message is and not who the person is,” Waggoner said, noting that Smith “serves everyone” and has worked on projects in the past for LGBT clients. .....
(Excerpt) Read more at republicbrief.com ...
Like the independent baker, this person should have editorial control over her creative services. As you point out, few would question her not taking on the KKK as a client because their message doesn’t fit her own values and beliefs. She’s not denying service to a person but avoiding compelled speech and building her brand. It’s a fine line. She, like the CO baker, take the commercial business risk that the marketplace will support them. At some point you need to determine if what you do is commercial or artistic. If she had a business with turnkey or off-the-shelf wedding sites there’s not much creativity there. There has to be room for artisans and creatives to express their beliefs while still earning a living. Not everyone and everything has to be hammered into a soulless woke factory enterprise. That’s not American.
I don’t know the fine details of the case but I am (naively?) hopeful this SCOTUS can strike a balance between public accommodation and first amendment freedoms.
That’s right. If this were a can of beans, everyone would have a right to buy it. But it’s a cake with a design and a message . That is the difference. Elton John has the right to refuse to play at Republican events. This cake designer should have the same freedom.
Damn straight !!
-fJRoberts-
“But liability insurance right now just means accidents and mishaps. Not deliberately targeting your business for litigo-warfare on ideological grounds.”
I was a litigation analyst in the insurance industry throughout most of my career, and retired after 35 years. Liability insurance is not limited to premises liability, slips-and-falls, etc. There are many types of liability insurance, under many different types of policies.
They cover YOU, the insured person or entity (the
policyholder, and whomever is defined as an insured under the policy) for a wide variety of risks, including — but not limited to — PO (premises and operations, under which you’ll find BI/PD: bodily injury/property damage); PI (personal injury, such as slander and libel); PL (professional liability); E&O (errors and omissions); etc. Then, there is auto liability; watercraft liability; et al.
The bottom line is liability insurance protects an insured from claims brought by a third-party for some type of injury, and legal expenses are part of the coverage provided (and those expenses are generally ON TOP OF policy limits placed on an injury, and are not limited, except under certain contracts).
“The Federal government has no authority.”
Haven’t you heard? Apparently now they do .
—fJRoberts-
America's enemies approve of this message.
Those two aren’t related - Elton John would be a private decision. The web designer is a business. Completely unrelated.
All true. But I think the proliferation of this sort of persecution will entirely change the actuarial dynamic and reality of insurance for some. Premiums will have to go up for certain classes of business that are targeted by these SOBs, because the likelihood of defending extensive litigation and incurring huge legal bills is much greater.
The question is, is your friend a private business or a commercial store front bakery?
It was a website for gay marriages that she refused to create, not a cake. 🙂
Moreover, under the insurance policy, the insurer (such as the insurance company) has a greater duty to DEFEND its insured for claims brought against him/her/it than it has the duty of to INDEMNIFY that insured (i.e., pay the amount of damages to the injured third-party).
Really, it’s a great bargain for an insured, as legal defense costs and expenses can often greatly exceed the amount of the injury itself.
It really should not be tied to religious beliefs. The problem is that homosexuality is abnormal behavior, and the law should not pretend otherwise.
Really bad things happen when governments pretend things to be true that aren't true.
Since Elton John played Rush’s wedding and allowed his music at Trump rallies I am not sure he thinks in those terms but you make a point.
It’s known as the principle of “spread of risk.”
These are just the opening salvos. Legal costs are going to grow exponentially, I think, in any business run by people whose beliefs require them to take a stand against woke a@@-holes. Disclosing what your beliefs are might be a section on liability insurance applications, and the underwriting changed accordingly, hiking premiums for the added risk. Surrender will be cheaper than taking a stand. Wokeness will be incentivized (just make the damned cake, fool).
You don’t think Elton John has a business ? Well, how about a lawyer. A lawyer has a right to represent whomever he feels like representing.
“Marriage should be left for the states or the people to decide. The Federal government has no authority.”
I’d prefer that government at all levels get out of the “marriage business” altogether.
Our religious freedoms are not transcended by any other right. It is a part of the 1st amendment, along with free speech for a reason. If you do not have religious freedom you do not have freedom. All the others follow...
A very simple, yet brilliant question that cut to the fact the premise of what is being alleged against the litigant was bogus. Cut right to the heart of the case.
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.