Supreme Court rules in favor of Christian designer in gay wedding website case

The Hill ^ | 6/30/2023 | The HIll

[Whiskered Logic]

"The Supreme Court ruled Friday that Colorado cannot require an evangelical Christian web designer to provide same-sex wedding websites that she argued was in violation of her conscience.

The court found that the state’s anti-discrimination law violates Lorie Smith’s free speech rights under the First Amendment by demanding that she create same-sex wedding websites if she wants to do so for opposite-sex unions.

The decision narrows states’ ability to apply public accommodation laws to artists, dealing a significant blow to LGBTQ advocates."

[fruser1]

Nice but what we really need is for governments like in Colorado to stop persecuting folks for not toeing the leftist line.

They’ll continue to engage in their lawfare until stopped.

[Alberta's Child]

At some point in the future I sincerely hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns any use of "civil rights" laws against private citizens or business owners who are guilty of nothing more than associating with customers and business establishments they want to deal with.

The term "public accommodation" has been used to openly violate the God-given rights of business owners for decades.

[meyer]

Another good decision.

And what is a “protected class” that Sotomayor references? We are all equal, no protected classes, no more reverse discrimination, no special privileges for cross-dressing lunatics.

[Gay State Conservative]

I can accept the existence of three "protected" classes...children,the disabled and the elderly.

Perverts? No way,Jose!

[Alberta's Child]

I don't like your ambulance example. If you operate a private ambulance company, you should only be compelled by law to take someone to a hospital if you accept taxpayer funds to serve a public need.

Lawyers are so essential that their services are written into the 6th Amendment as an irrevocable right of all accused criminals. Taxpayers are compelled to pay for them to represent accused criminals who can't afford them.

And yet lawyers are not obligated to represent every prospective client who walks through their door or calls them on the phone. Why should any private business owner be treated differently under the law?

[Petrosius]

“Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” Sotomayor wrote.

Not true. They are not denying service because a customer is homosexual. They are denying a particular service because of its message. If a homosexual would want the service without the objecting message it would be provided.

[dfwgator]

Thank you, President Trump.

[Dr. Sivana]

"Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.

NOT TRUE! If the perverts wanted the web designer to make a website for an ice cream parlor or cat toys, they would have had no issue. If a non-pervert lefty wanted to set up a site celebrating Pride Month, that would have been rejected. Compelled expression was what was forbidden by the Court. If Freedom of Religion includes freedom not to believe, Freedom of Speech includes freedom. from coerced speech.

[matt04]

Exactly. I’m willing to bet they had to go out of their way to find this designer, knowing full well what the expected outcome would be.

[Lakeside Granny]

Matt Walsh
@MattWalshBlog
·
42m
The Pride Month has been an absolute disaster for the LGBT cult. They’ve taken one L after another. And now it ends with them losing in the Supreme Court. Awesome stuff.

[Gay State Conservative]

See Post #84

[rktman]

No doubt the n’er do wells will find ways to skirt the rulings in some fashion. Anyone believe they’ll simply comply? Anyone? Bueller?

[Lakeside Granny]

Jack Poso
@JackPosobiec
·
13m

Under this Supreme Court

Roe v Wade = GONE

Affirmative Action = GONE

Student Loan Forgiveness = GONE

Constitutional Carry = SECURED

Business Religious Freedom = SECURED

Say those 4 little words: Thank you, Donald Trump

[rktman]

Special treatment is NOT equal treatment. DOH! Laws? Meh!

[rktman]

Probably hire some far east heritage person to write the essays? Or pakistani or............

[Spktyr]

That one was more about employment contract law than religious freedom, BTW. USPS’ original employment contract with the guy was that he would not have to work Sundays due to his faith but after a while they kept demanding he work ‘mandatory overtime’ on Sundays or be fired. It doesn’t and shouldn’t matter why the contract states that certain days are off, you don’t get to change the terms unilaterally because you want to and that’s what the court (correctly) found.

[Labyrinthos]

She doesn’t understand that aPRIVATE owned company does have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Provided the reason is not illegal under the federal civil rights act or similar state laws.

[rktman]

Uh, when does the elderly part kick in. I’d like to use some extra equality sometime soon. 🤣🤣🤣👍 Oh, and I have a parking tag for being disabled so 2X?

[CodeToad]

I bet all those cake cases are headed back to court.

[Spktyr]

That does kind of run into the issue of ‘what about services that have nothing whatsoever to do with the person’s orientation/race/religion like car repair or plumbing services’ - should someone be able to deny service based on that? It’s not exactly the simplest question to answer.