Supreme Court takes up clash over Colorado law’s protection for same-sex weddings

Come_Hither1

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Posts
69,769
this new service for Lit forums is quite different, and hoping this post works properly



The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a Christian website designer’s appeal challenging a Colorado law that bars businesses from refusing to serve customers based on their sexual orientation.

The court said in a list of orders that it will hear arguments about whether “a law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”

The graphic artist, Lorie Smith, says she wants to expand her business into creating wedding websites “promoting her understanding of marriage” and post a statement explaining why she will refuse to “promote messages contrary to her faith, such as messages that condone violence or promote sexual immorality, abortion, or same-sex marriage.”

But Smith cannot do so because the state law “considers it illegal,” according to her request for the Supreme Court to take up the case. Respondents say the statute, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, is constitutional.

Smith’s company, 303 Creative, “filed its complaint despite failing to identify any investigation into the Company’s conduct or any complaint filed against the Company,” the respondents said.

The law had been upheld by two lower courts. The justices are set to hear oral arguments and issue a ruling on the case in the court’s next term, which begins in October.

The high court’s decision to hear the case comes more than seven years after the landmark ruling Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage.

In 2018, the court ruled 7-2 in favor of a Colorado bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, which had declined to design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The court said at the time that Colorado’s civil rights division showed “clear and impermissible hostility” toward the religious beliefs underpinning the baker’s decision.



this thread is similar and refers to:
Supreme Court declines to decide whether religious flower shop owner can refuse same-sex weddings
Jul 2, 2021



a personal thought -
I understand those being discriminated against.
At the same time, depending how this plays out, a business owner may have no rights. The court system could be saying that as a business owner you have no choice and you must provide service to every customer. Despite your beliefs, the type of person they are, et cetera. Whether it's racial, religious, or political difference. For example, Ku Klux Klan members have to provide service to those that aren't white and heterosexual, and vice versa. Same with those that are more religious with those they don't agree (i.e. those they decide that are less moral), and also politics, such as those loyal to former president Trump must provide service to 'people who don't swear 100% fealty to the Dear Leader' - (R) MD Gov. Larry Hogan.

Seems we could loose our freedom of choice.


don't see field reason edited post: corrected URL for MD Gov Larry Hogan
https://governor.maryland.gov/2022/...-republican-party-on-cnns-state-of-the-union/
 
Yeah you’re right. People should have the right to operate a public business and discriminate against who they serve. NOT! Another one on the block list!
 
Yeah you’re right. People should have the right to operate a public business and discriminate against who they serve. NOT! Another one on the block list!

I didn't say a company either privately or publicly owned, should be allowed to discriminate.
That's fine, block me since this thought doesn't align with you. It's merely a thought I had.

I didn't say discrimination is acceptable. My thought is businesses might not have the right to not conduct business with someone. Instead courts saying that they have to with everyone. Know I don't want to have anything to do with a terrorist, however if they want to conduct business with my firm, that a court order saying that I must and forcing me to do so. They, the terrorist in this example, have the right, where I would have none, and must provide the services and products they want. It's a hypothetical scenario or situation, have no facts supporting it, and not my personal view or stand. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I didn't say a company either privately or publicly owned, should be allowed to discriminate.
That's fine, block me since this thought doesn't align with you. It's merely a thought I had.

I didn't say discrimination is acceptable. My thought is businesses might not have the right to not conduct business with someone. Instead courts saying that they have to with everyone. Know I don't want to have anything to do with a terrorist, however if they want to conduct business with my firm, that a court order saying that I must and forcing me to do so. They, the terrorist in this example, have the right, where I would have none, and must provide the services and products they want. It's a hypothetical scenario or situation, have no facts supporting it, and not my personal view or stand. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
This is the problem with using laws intended to cover lodging, restaurants, and gas stations to regulate the whole of society... wouldn't be more productive to simply take your business to photographers, florists, web designers, bakers, and pizza shops that are part of or openly friendly to the LBGT community, rather than those who don't want the business? It may not have the intended result... as you note, the courts may say business owners cannot choose to refuse business with [insert whatever group works], or the contrary it may say they can but in a way that makes it more pervasive... and it may force people to choose sides on the debate that would have otherwise been happy to go about their lives interacting with everyone as a person, rather than as a person of [insert whatever group works] community... This is already happening, and the possibility of a backlash is real...
 
This is the problem with using laws intended to cover lodging, restaurants, and gas stations to regulate the whole of society... wouldn't be more productive to simply take your business to photographers, florists, web designers, bakers, and pizza shops that are part of or openly friendly to the LBGT community, rather than those who don't want the business? It may not have the intended result... as you note, the courts may say business owners cannot choose to refuse business with [insert whatever group works], or the contrary it may say they can but in a way that makes it more pervasive... and it may force people to choose sides on the debate that would have otherwise been happy to go about their lives interacting with everyone as a person, rather than as a person of [insert whatever group works] community... This is already happening, and the possibility of a backlash is real...
The debate? I wonder what the debate is about? Whether people should be allowed to exist and shown the basic respect that everyone should receive? The problem with Christians is that they are not Christians. They do not love their neighbors. They do not practice anything that Jesus asked them to do. In fact they serve Satan in their evil hatreds. Christians are the absolute worst advertising for Christianity. They are just righteous hypocrites.
 
The debate? I wonder what the debate is about? Whether people should be allowed to exist and shown the basic respect that everyone should receive? The problem with Christians is that they are not Christians. They do not love their neighbors. They do not practice anything that Jesus asked them to do. In fact they serve Satan in their evil hatreds. Christians are the absolute worst advertising for Christianity. They are just righteous hypocrites.
It is odd that you see this as just a Christian issue... some Muslims want to throw people off buildings... some Christians don't want to recognize (or participate in) what they see as an encroachment on their holy sacrament... sure some religious people are self-righteous hypocrites, others are not... and I think you appear to fail (or refuse) to acknowledge the possible logical outcome of the losing the case and debate more broadly (and yes, within society, it is a debate, though it is not as simplistic as you frame it... failing to acknowledge it doesn't make it go away).
 
Back
Top