Gay Weddings Return to The Supreme Court
Can a web designer be compelled under the First Amendment to host wedding pictures?
The debate over whether businesses can be forced to provide goods and services for gay weddings will return to the Supreme Court in an upcoming case.
In February, the Supreme Court agreed to hear 303 Creative v. Elenis. Lorie Smith owns and runs 303 Creative, a web design firm based in Colorado. Smith planned to design and host sites for weddings, but she has religious objections to same-sex marriage and does not want to be forced to design and host sites for LGBT couples. That puts her at odds with Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits "places of public accommodation" from discriminating against LGBT customers.
In her petition to the Supreme Court, Smith says she is not refusing to serve LGBT customers. Rather, she "cannot create websites that promote messages contrary to her faith, such as messages that condone violence or promote sexual immorality, abortion, or same-sex marriage."
Historically, the Supreme Court has limited the government's ability to compel a private business to transmit a message it finds objectionable. A book publisher, T-shirt printer, or social media platform generally cannot be forced to print or host messages that support or oppose any particular cause or policy.
Smith argues that the same logic should apply in her case. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that Colorado could legally require her to design and host sites for gay weddings and prohibit her from putting a message on her website stating that her religious beliefs prevent her from supporting gay marriage with her services.
The Supreme Court previously considered Colorado's anti-discrimination law in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 2018 case involving a Lakewood bakery whose owner, Jack Phillips, refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. In a 7–2 ruling, the Court blocked enforcement of a cease-and-desist order against Phillips. But rather than decide whether a bakery could be compelled to make a cake for a gay wedding, the Court determined that Colorado's law had not been neutrally applied because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstrated "clear and impermissible hostility" to Phillips' religious views.
If that ruling seemed like a dodge, the Court now appears ready to tangle with the underlying issue in 303 Creative v. Elenis: "whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There is a bit more nuance to the underlying arguments than ‘whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.’ There is the clear partisan and in-group biases behind how public accommodation laws have been used against those who will not comply, those who do not conform to the viewpoint of the in-group. It would be preferable to have government and bureaucracies stay out of these decisions entirely, but I suspect that battle is long since lost. The busybodies won.
Without the CR Act of 1964 which included public accommodations, the south and parts of the north might still be segregated. Those opposed to that were not “busybodies” and America is a much better country as a result.
Considering that segregation takes place nowhere in the modern western world, it’s almost certain that segregation would have ended regardless of what the government did.
Given there is still rampant racism out there, I highly, highly doubt that to be the case.
Wasn’t it just a year ago or something they had a news article about segregated proms in Georgia?
If some people weren’t dragged kicking and screaming into civil society, they’d never arrive.
Some something a year ago you think you remember a segregated prom, so we would definitely have segregation without laws?
Whatever you need to believe for your narrative, totally unsupported by actual facts.
Yes there was an attempt to have a segregated prom…by the black students who wanted a prom to themselves.
I hope no one called in the national guard.
That sounds “racist” and must be wrong since only Whites can be racist not oppressed Black students.
Lefturds are also arranging segregated graduation ceremonies in universities.
-jcr
Given that there is still rampant racism.oit there but segregation effectively doesn’t exist in the public sphere shows that racists are still more motivated to ‘get the bag’ than to forgo business.
The segregated prom the *black people* demanded?
Segregation isn’t good, and the government shouldn’t be participating in it or supporting it, but government also shouldn’t force private citizens to be good people either. Right of association means the right to choose who you associate with. If some assholes want to have a segregated prom, let them.
The fundamental problem with segregation in the US was it was enforced by government in various ways. The market would put paid to most segregation if government hadn’t been stopping it. (Businesses which chose not to do business with or hire certain groups of people would suffer economically relative to those who didn’t. The only reason that didn’t play out is because government was stopping the market from working).
Get government out of the business of forcing people to be good.
^WELL SAID!!!
There is nothing wrong with segregation of CHOICE on private property… Pretending one has a right to someone else’s property/creation just because of their skin color in contrast to the skin color of the provider is just as racist as it gets…
What’ll be next; Forcing Jews and Christians to host the same church?
But there isn’t rampant racism out there. When you position has is founded on a falsity, well, that basically negates the remainder of your position.
Yes, the democrats still engage in rampant racism, and many are even now attempting to re introduce segregation.
CHAZ; Only black doctors can work on black patients…
Their racism is off the charts.
Nothing says “civil society” like compelled speech at the end of a government gun.
Fuck. Off. Slaver.
Given there is still rampant racism out there
Of course there’s still rampant racism out there. No one except white people seem to want to do anything about it.
Black people have no problem being racist against Jews, Asians, Hispanics and whites.
Asians think anyone who isn’t Asian isn’t really people and those who ARE Asian are hated for being Asian from a different area of asia.
Hispanic people openly call for ‘brown’ power, while also obeying their own internal color hierarchies.
Hell, even with white people, Canadians, Aussies and New Zealanders and Europeans are casually racist in ways that would scandalize Americans.
So racism’s gonna be here for a while–because it’s only American whites who really care about it at all.
Lackwit is mouthing the favored talking points on this, I see. And as per the norm, doesn’t comprehend what it is referring to when it brings up either segregation or the Civil Rights Act. Typically, its sad emotional reaction involves creating a strawman versus addressing the topic at hand. Ditto shit for brains dinners. I will point out, their pathetic in-group is more than happy to segregate, demonize, debase, their ideological opponents.
“Lackwit…its sad emotional reaction involves creating a strawman… ….shit for brains dinners….their pathetic in-group is more than happy to segregate, demonize, debase, their ideological opponents.”
Got a little compartmentalization going on, Hank?
Brian, segregation in the south lasted from the effective end of Reconstruction (end of Grant’s 2nd term) until 1964 or almost 90 years and showed zero signs of ending on it’s own. I lived in the Deep South then – still do – and I know what it was like.
And that was almost 70 years ago. If you want to live in the past, go ahead. I’m not living there with you.
70 years ago federal legislation ended segregation of public accommodations, not the market or good will of those living in the south, or the actions of those state governments.. If we need proof of the value and utility of the federal government ending injustice, that is it.
Before 70 years ago, government was stopping the market from ending segregation. State and federal (and probably local) laws mandated or encouraged segregation in various ways. Hard for the market to overcome something when the government is stopping the market from functioning properly.
More proof of the government behaving badly for 90 years then proof of the government’s capacity to end injustice.
Squirrel, no. State governments were not hindering some imagined demand for integrated restaurants and hotels in the south. That did not exist. Yes, state and local governments codified it , but unless you’re an anarchist instead of a libertarian, this was local and non-federal government acting with the full support of the white southerners and it was ended by edict from the federal government.
If you want to know what some people were doing at a point in history, look at what they passed laws against. It’s pretty much proof positive that some people were doing it, and it was pissing other people off. Certainly government then didn’t have your confidence that segregation would be maintained without a law.
And ending government segregation does not involve demanding businesses end segregation. Once you stop government from enforcing it, the market will quickly fix it, because market incentives don’t care about race, just whether you can pay/do the job.
Further, it wasn’t just state and local. Red-lining was federally enforced segregation that persisted after the Civil Rights Act. The military was segregated in WW2. Pretending the feds weren’t part of it is nonsense.
Oh, and it’s not a demand for desegregated hotels, it’s being able to make more money because they deal with all customers.
The State Worshipping Shill for the State has it’s talking points. Nothing you say to it will matter to it. But it’s good that you document it’s lies and obfuscations.
You mean the segregation legalized and mandated by government?
You oppose state and local governments?
I grew up in California in the sixties, and I still remember segregated water coolers in some spots. It wasn’t just the deep south.
I lived in the Deep South then – still do – and I know what it was like.
That’s weird – last week you lived in the SF Bay Area.
Never said that Square though I did live there once for about 6 months and have a relative there I visit now.
Yes and no. Yes, it would not have continued for much longer, and because legislation is typically a lagging indicator.
But no, a major source of the problem was the racism institutionalized in the local and state (and even Federal) government of the time. While some may argue that applying the CRA to private entities was going to far, it DID need to be applied to government at all levels. And even today many people still say that went to far because they secretly in their dark hearts wanted racism to continue. And part of the government Jim Crow laws was preventing the private sector from serving Blacks equally.
CRA was basically using the 14th Amendment to get rid of Jim Crow. The modern Fauxtarian opposition to the CRA is based on the notion that we needed to keep the Bad because the Good wasn’t Perfect.
“And part of the government Jim Crow laws was preventing the private sector from serving Blacks equally.”
Absolutely not. There was no movement of any significance among whites for integration in the south and any restaurant which would served blacks would have been abandoned by whites. Feelings ran very strong on this as most whites thought blacks must be kept in order or they would run amuck and maybe treat them as badly as they had been treated.
LOL. Such an f’n liar. No one’s this stupid.
They had close enough. Nazis weren’t made in the USA, you know.
Without the CR Act of 1964 which included public accommodations, the south and parts of the north might still be segregated.
Bullshit. The very existence of Jim Crow laws in the first place proves that the market pressures are against racial discrimination.
-jcr
John, I lived in the Deep South then and now. There was no pressure by market or other forces other than the CR’s movement to end segregation and that was 90 years after Reconstruction ended. No opposition at all except movement blacks and white liberals and they would have failed absent the CR Act of 1964. Was 90 years not enough time for these supposed market forces to bring justice? Remember, power congeals in most cases, including in the market.
How old are you claiming to be?
“Segregation laws” don’t count as “market forces.”
Segregation of restaurants, hotels, etc were not enforced against unwilling owners or the majority white public and except for civil rights activists who were black with some very few whites mostly from the north there was zero pressure against it at the ballot box or at businesses. To think segregation laws forced an unwilling white majority to practice it misses the fact that the laws existed because that’s what whites wanted.
bullshit
Just because you supported segregation, doesn’t mean everyone else did.
There was no pressure by market or other forces other than the CR’s movement to end segregation and that was 90 years after Reconstruction ended.
You’re an idiot, and a liar. Maintaining segregated facilities is expensive, you dolt. The Jim Crow laws were enacted because businesses didn’t want to do it.
-jcr
Parts of the country are still segregated you moron. The country is by many measures more segregated today than it was then.
Yes, thanks to Obama, the poverty pimps Rev.s Jackson and Sharpton, BLM, Benj. Crump and of course the lying media.
Obama? The Obamas are desegregating Chicago, D.C,. Martha’s Vineyard and Hawaii one mansion at a time.
No, it isn’t Briggs. Not even close. I lived it. I’m not reading from a book.
No, Joe, you didn’t.
At best you may have been carried through the tail end of it by your mom.
But no one here believes that you were old enough, in 1964, to have any idea about things like ‘market forces’, ‘social pressure’ and the mindset of the people of the day.
You are a parrot, repeating back the phrases your masters have taught you to say.
The South was only segregated through government force.
There’s a huge difference between not allowing government discrimination and forbidding private citizens from engaging in it. The latter have to bear their own costs for doing so.
And it’s not like it stopped actual private discrimination anyway.
Complete ignorance or a lie. No, whites were not forced to segregate by law, they elected the leaders who wrote and enforced those laws over and over.
Yes.
Agammamon, sadly you couldn’t be more wrong. It’s fine to have ideological beliefs, but not when they deny reality.
Joe…in a free society you have the right to discriminate. Govt does not nor should pass laws forcing one to but honestly this entire debate is because of a poorly thought out CRA in 64. Either say sellers are obligated to sell their products or services to anyone who can compensate market rates in an acceptable form of monetary transaction or not. All this bullshit about religious this or that is stupid and just brings govt into this.
I’m actually ok with saying sellers must sell if the buyer can pay but I see the other side as well. In a free society you have the freedom to discriminate in your choices including who to do business with.
Which shows that the LGBT political movement is against the right to free speech, free thought, freedom of religion, and property rights. They want their beliefs enforced as a kind 9f protected, established religion.
That’s not fair. The ‘LGB’ part of the movement is clear in that they mostly, well somewhat, well, I mean, they’ll sorta change their flag to be inclusive of the ‘T’ portion of the movement, but aside from that, they don’t want to be associated with the ‘T’ portion of the movement that holds some truly ludicrous opinions about the state and individualism. If the ‘T’ portion of the movements gets crazi*er*, they might have to think about excluding them from parades and featuring them on the masthead of Pride propaganda.
Can you explain what you mean? How are the T’s different from the L’s, G’s and B’s in their opinions about the state and individualism?
My attempts at subtle sarcasm fails. I figured the oxymoronic equivocation about “We reject your ideology, but will redesign our flag to include you.” was a dead giveaway. I blame your sarc-o-meter.
It’s become a popular refrain in the comments here that portions of the LGB community aren’t on board with the entirety of the troon nonsense. I don’t necessarily doubt the credibility of any given speaker when they say as much, but they do need to acknowledge or should stop refuting that they and/or their community and ideology have literally been parading around with these people for a couple of decades and shouting down anyone who’s said things like “I agree people shouldn’t be hounded in their bedrooms but what’s being done, and why, is a very slippery slope.” together.
Duly noted. Thanks. I will recalibrate my sarc-o-meter.
Fair admission that the fault is at least partially mine. There was a time when such one-sentence, retarded equivocations like “We nominally reject them except when we nominally include them.” would be a signal well above background. I think many of us are guilty of working off pre-2019 calibrations.
It’s not your fault, this ‘brix’ troll is not known for being particularly bright.
I guess this is what you get for honestly admitting a mistake online. Thanks, Hank, for the reminder that nearly everyone posting online is a little man with a big keyboard.
Isn’t it wonderful that we can turn society on it’s head to accommodate 3% of the population? Weren’t we assured that what other people did in their bedroom was none of our business?
I fail to see how it’s implicit support of any kind of viewpoint. They’re asking for a cake (or website, whatever.)
It’s funny though that it’s always in this direction. Has any liberal/hippie not designed a website or baked a cake for a hardline Jewish orthodox or devout we-don’t-like-gays couple?
Or did they just bake the cake and stfu?
I love how outraged you are too- “turned society on its head.” Get over yourself snowflake. Having to acknowledge there are other people out there that are, believe it or not, just like you is not “turning society on its head.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QumW5NICuL0
It’s funny though that it’s always in this direction. Has any liberal/hippie not designed a website or baked a cake for a hardline Jewish orthodox or devout we-don’t-like-gays couple?
The difference is that the people you list aren’t whiny little bitches who hire lawyers when they get offended. The just move on and spend their money somewhere else.
But the Westwood Baptist Church *is* a bunch of whiny little bitches. Which is why I encourage them to go to some leftist web designers and demand that they create a website pushing their gay-bashing agenda, then sue for religious discrimination when the web designers tell them to go pound sand (which they would be free to do in a sane society, but we don’t live in such a society, and the only way to restore sanity is to give the lunatics in charge a good, hard taste of their own medicine).
Forcing other people to acknowledge you is childish self-centeredness.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/rays-players-undercut-pride-night-by-not-wearing-rainbow-logos/ar-AAY7Xhq?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9ec4236edc304e4d9fee5cac4211ec92
More to the point, they’re not just forcing other people to acknowledge them, they’re attempting to use the power of the state to compel another person’s labor.
Fuck off, slavers.
-jcr
Nobody is compelling labor. The lady can close her wedding website business, if she does not want to follow public accommodation laws.
So she can comply or go out of business? Nope, not a smidgen of compelling there.
“Has any liberal/hippie not designed a website or baked a cake for a hardline Jewish orthodox or devout we-don’t-like-gays couple?”
All the time.
I can professionally and factually say that for a good portion of the backend business, pornography unwittingly subsidizes and evangelical ministry and vice versa. Operation Chokepoint’s crackdown on porn adversely affected everyone accepting high-risk (conversely, high-faith) transactions.
Have any of the people cheering on the persecution of that cake decorator in Colorado attempted to shove their demands down the throat of any Muslim small business owners?
-jcr
Better yet, have any gay activists demanded that some halal baker make a rainbow cake? (Especially from the bake shop on the roof of the tallest building)
Um, I think you just described 75% of American media and pretty much all of academia and academic publishers.
Aren’t the Social Media (authoritarian echo) platforms refusing to run conservative political ads and ads for TPA and other groups? Does that qualify?
It’s funny though that it’s always in this direction. Has any liberal/hippie not designed a website or baked a cake for a hardline Jewish orthodox or devout we-don’t-like-gays couple?
It happens all the time. And it’s celebrated in the media. Artists who have different opinions get their lives ruined, their careers trashed–all while the media and the left applaud.
It’s called ‘cancel culture’.
The left has tried to cut off people’s access to the funds in their banking accounts, tried to take their kids–all to refure to do business with them.
Because the left can’t just say ‘no, we don’t want your business’–they have to punish you for having the audacity to even ask.
Know who else used religion to excuse discrimination?
L Ron Hubbard?
Is that why Tom Cruise never remarried?
Is this the “It is good when we do it” rationalization?
Who is “we”?
The Spanish Inquisition?
Well I didn’t expect that
Siddhartha Gautama?
Muhammad ibn Abdullah?
Moctezuma Xocoyotzin?
Zarathushtra Spitama?
Xerxes?
Caesar (take your pick)?
Joan of Arc?
It’s always Colorado.
Californians, NYers, other flatlanders who moved to Colorado and brought their sociopolitics and the shit economic policies with them.
That’s just BS. Has nothing to do with outsiders. Colorado was one of the first states to prohibit that sort of discrimination in 1972. But in 1992 a ballot initiative passed to restore discrimination. That was ruled unconstitutional by the SC in 1996 but R’s here and religious lobbyists (Focus on Family, etc) kept on pushing. So wealthy gays here in CO decided that they would do whatever it takes to undermine what they now perceived as permanent enemies. Now it is apparently war.
I still don’t understand why people seek to compel businesses to do things against the will of the owners and employees.
That’s like begging them to do a terrible job.
The American way of doing things would be to raise a big stink and get people to take their business elsewhere. Punish the offending business by making them lose money. Set up a new company that specifically caters to the offended party and take business away. This is just creating an opportunity for the offender to intentionally do a lousy job.
Control. It’s all about control. Submit or else.
It does seem to always be about forcing compliance, or destroying those who will not comply. Seem may be granting too much leeway.
Because all of these lawsuits are performative. Gay and transgender people do not seek out the Masterpiece Cake Shop because it has the best tasting wedding cake in town. They aren’t doing it because they particularly need the services and talents of Jack Phillips, master baker. They do it because they know Jack Phillips won’t bake their cake. The outrage is the point.
Because all of these lawsuits are performative.
This. They were actively hunting for refuseniks.
It’s not enough to be legally allowed to fuck other mens assholes, or to pretend to be a mating pair and receive government approval. Some people want to compel everyone to approve by force if necessary.
This is the problem with treating a behavior as an immutable physical characteristic like phenotype or biological sex.
“The American way of doing things would be to raise a big stink and get people to take their business elsewhere. Punish the offending business by making them lose money.”
Or just go find another web designer who’s willing to take your money and your referral business. I’m sure she’s not the only designer in the world.
1. The lawsuits are performative and a way to exercise power over others.
2. You do a bad job and you get sure for doing a bad job because you did it poorly to discriminate. *And* you get that bad Yelp review.
Well, it’s Scott, so this goes without saying, buy I haven’t had my coffee yet and feel mean.
“Jack Phillips, refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.”
This is a lie; a deliberate lie. Especially in relation to this “story”. What Jack refused to do was DECORATE a cake with a pro-homosexual theme. He in fact had sold several cakes to homosexuals. Plain old message free cakes off the shelf. But since this site opposes individual freedoms, I expect nothing less.
Notably absent from Scott’s book report on the topic:
Any affirmative defense of free speech.
Notably absent as well are pics of his husband / boyfriend, significant others, family, or who he is a person other than a letter in the alphabet
Time was when gays used to push back strenuously on straights on how they defined us by our orientation. We argued then, we were sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, church members who tithed generously (since we do not have children), we were business owners, entrepreneurs, physicians, pharmacists, people with goals, aspirations, people who sought the same Maslow Hierarchy of needs that everyone else sought.
Scott is a shallow, empty man. If actions speak loudest, all he lives for is to be a hammer. Even Jesus Christ healed others, welcomes His enemies, broke bread with sinners and modeled love. There are too many Catholic Saints (canonized and non-canonized) to inspire us how to live. Yet Scott is consumed with moralizing from a position he lacks power, credibility, standing. All he is doing is repelling people, divide and conquer, and winning no converts, and I include gays and lesbians. While I understand he is paid to write for Reason, his ROI (aside from income) is in the negative.
Pity him for being so empty, so angry and likely single. No married man would continually spew forth such divisiveness unless if that is what he as a person. Sadly, many gays and lesbians are like Scott, but far more reject him and his ilk, e.g. Andrew Sullivan, Bari Weiss, Dan Savage, et al.
Being gay is only one facet of who we are. Scott needs to get a life or will likely end up like David Brock, a bitter, miserable queen who nearly died from an MI in his 50s. Scott is morbidly obese. He should take note
This sums up my feelings on the matter almost perfectly.
The messaging used to be, “See how similar we are? We can coexist.”
Today the messaging is, “No, we are not like you. If you can’t accept that, we can’t coexist.”
Also, “we just want the same rights as everyone else, and to be treated like regular people” turned into “we demand special privileges and demand that everyone celebrate our weirdest and most extreme behavior”.
I never understood the drive for some people to be self-reductionist in this fashion. Tony appears to be in this direction.
I think this is, minus the ‘mischaracterization’ of what has occurred with Jack Phillps, is Shackford being better than his emotive insistence that the Florida law said what it did not and other myths of the gay and trans community + ‘allies.’
what you have just claimed is the lie. he refused to even hear how they wanted the cake decorated….. they never requested a “pro-homosexual theme,” because he flat out refused to listen to ANY request from them as soon as he learned it was a same sex couple.
i think the guy might have had an argument if what you claimed were true…. but it isn’t.
what you have just claimed is the lie…because he flat out refused to listen to ANY request from them as soon as he learned it was a same sex couple.
Cite? What were the circumstances that led to him learning they were a couple?
i guess if you really want to be made to look stupid…. here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission
“Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any of the details of their wedding cake.”
he knew they were a couple because they went in together. any other stupid questions that are easy to answer with a quick web search?
You think this makes me look stupid? I didn’t accuse you of lying, I asked for a cite in good faith.
You said “he flat out refused to listen to ANY request from them as soon as he learned it was a same sex couple”. You then cite an article starting “Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any of the details of their wedding cake”. You sound like a hostile fool.
HAHAHAHAHAHA…..
here are the facts….
you asked me for a cite because you wanted to believe i was a liar. (you were probably hoping i would not see the response.)
you did not ask the original poster for a cite because you wanted to believe they were not.
no details about the cake were ever discussed…. the original poster is the liar, and i am not.
the evidence for this takes about 30seconds to find.
sorry if i was not inclined to be extra nice to someone trying to imply i was a liar while refusing to take any effort learn anything for themselves.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
You want to be taken seriously while quoting from Wikipedia on a controversial topic?
“he refused to even hear how they wanted the cake decorated”.
If they wanted a birthday cake, he would have made it for them.
the original claim was that there was a specific request for decorations that were specifically “pro-homosexual.” you quoted the part that includes no details being discussed.
that it was a “wedding cake” does not distinguish it in any way from a product he would have normally sold. that the only detail was who was buying it, and not what they were buying…… is why everyone trying to make that argument sounds like a bigot.
I’m for maximum human freedom. No one should ever be forced to do work they don’t want to do. That’s slavery.
^THIS
It seems like we finally have a SCOTUS with some brass balls to set some actual precedents.
Trump was good for the court and widening the fault lines in the political correctness insanity. He was also a narcissistic asshole with authoritarian tendencies. Win some, lose some.
Yeah, you got what you wanted so fuck the constitution and the intent of the founders. 2 of the majority seats were stolen from elected presidents and given to one the people rejected. 5 of the justices were appointed by presidents the people rejected. One of the stolen seats were in violation of the senate’s responsibility to advise and consent – no hearings means no advising – and the second granted after the election had already been started to the guy predicted by everyone – including himself – to lose and after letting the people decide was the excuse for not holding hearings on the nominee of the elected president. That 5 justices do not roughly represent the will of the people – the clear intent of the constitution in having the president appoint them – was an accident of our dysfunctional EC which is mostly winner take all by states, not proportional. That is not a feature of the constitution and while not against it it has created too many roll of the dice EC decisions (2 in our entire history before 2000 and 2 since) because states individually want to maximize their impact. The result is a court representing the views of the minority which has won only won vote of the people since 1988.
Long story short, the court is an outlier of the will of the American people and like the Senate puts the minority in control.
Cope harder.
Yeah, like I said: win some, lose some.
oops Meant to be a reply to Joe Friday.
Or was it? I get so confused by these dots.
That’s not a reply, but what I have come to expect from this board of weak minded MAGA fans pretending to be principled libertarians.
It is a reply. You state a bunch of facts which I don’t refute. The republicans have been much smarter in taking advantage of the system to attain minority rule. A bunch of stuff happened and you lose (I assume based on your post).
Weak minded? The average ‘MAGA fan’ here has 10 times your brain power. You are considered a joke here, and for good reason.
You know justices are not supposed to “represent the will of the people,” right?
Cronut, the SC justices are appointed by the president, a clear indication that popular will in the general by justices was the founders intent, if not specific issues.
But presidents aren’t elected by popular vote, according to the founders.
Brian, the founders left the selection of electors to the states and we have since determined at the federal level that the states electors shall be governed by popular vote. Do you oppose that system?
That’s not a federal popular vote.
I am not advocating for a federal popular vote. I am advocating for states EC votes being based on proportional voting by total count (as opposed to be congressional districts). The federal government has a say in certain aspects of presidential elections and this would be another sensible and fair method to help avoid unelected frauds like Trump as well as make GOP voters in California and Democrats in Texas have a say in those elections.
That’s up to each state to decide. Not angry progs that are having tantrums because they don’t get their way.
Not all state’s electors are governed by popular vote, retard. Also, the federal government has no role in determining how states apportion their electors.
Additionally, the people don’t elect the president. The states elect the president.
Cronut, thanks for confirming the problems with the EC. No doubt you’ll support changing it if your ox is gored, or you are just a fool.
Those are not problems.
Also, I am a red voter in a deep blue state, so my vote has never been reflected in the EC and I still support the EC, because not having an EC is worse than my individual vote being basically performative.
It does not indicate that. You just wish it did, so you can justify mob rule, rubber stamped by judges who “represent the will of the people.”
So, majority rule with protection for minorities is mob rule? I thought that was what democracies aspired to?
They do; That’s why the USA is a CONSTITUTIONAL Union of Republican States…….. Good grief; Y’all have been so mis-educated its crazy.
So, majority rule with protection for minorities is mob rule?
This is what we have–and what you’re complaining about and want changed.
To majority rule WITHOUT protection for minorities.
The presidents you’re complainimg about, by using the rules set forth by the founders, protected the voters from strict majority rule and forced perspective back towards the center.
Cite?
Sure:
https://reason.com/2022/06/06/gay-weddings-return-to-the-supreme-court/?comments=true#comment-9529318
‘Joe Friday’ is not a credible source
I can assure you that Joe Friday is the most reliable commenter here. According to him, the Soviets broke the back of the Axis. You can be 100% guaranteed that anything he spouts is history-free piss-ignorant rhetoric in support of the worst authoritarians throughout history.
Evidence strongly suggests no, and in fact, believes the opposite. Populist/statist masquerading as democrat, though how one would tell the difference these days I am not certain. Dissection?
Seamus, the democrats did not refuse to hold hearings for Bush nominees because they sought to deny him appointees, which was what the GOP Senate did in 2016. They opposed several nominees because they sucked. Surely you can discern the difference between opposing a specific nominee and opposing a president making a nomination, correct? If the GOP majority in 2016 opposed Garland – they had heartily endorsed him only a few years ago as a district judge and that was part of why Obama nominated him – they should begun the process and voted against him or signaled Obama to withdraw him for another. That’s how the advise part works.
Please bitch more on this. Historically, opposition party senates do what was done in 2016. The democrats just like to have things both ways.
“Surely you can discern the difference between opposing a specific nominee and opposing a president making a nomination, correct?”
You mean the difference between opposing a specific nominee and the Biden rule, holding that if the president and the Congress are in the hands of different parties, and a vacancy comes up on the Supreme Court during an election year, it is “essential” that the vacancy not be filled until after the election? Yeah, I think I can.
They were advising him not to make a nomination at all. That’s some pretty crappy advice, honestly, but it *is* advice.
“Biological males win women’s cycling event, kiss while third place female cares for child.”
https://thepostmillennial.com/biological-males-win-womens-cycling-event-kiss-while-third-place-female-cares-for-child
Two bio males competed in a womens event and won 1st and 2nd place.
As a long time centrist democrat – that is the majority of the party – I oppose competition in women’s sports from those who spent puberty as males with all the biological advantages that brings. There are a very small number of challenged humans who have biologically based anomalies about their sex who should be treated differently, but the cases based only on psychology should not be medically treated until maturity. This “issue” affects a small number of humans, which makes the reordering of society based on their needs a ridiculously out of proportion solution to a mostly non-problem. Those involved should of course have all rights other Americans have, except when in conflict with others who should be protected based on the reality of human existence. That existence is binary and women’s sports – which are flourishing to the advantage of girls and all of us who are parents and/or like watching sports activities – is a protected category for sound reasons. Surrendering that protection is unjust to millions while protecting special rights for thousands.
centrist democrat
Fuck off, slaver.
-jcr
Isn’t that cute! You have your own insider language. Teen age girls like to do that too.
You are not a centrist. Anymore than AOC is a centrist.
So you are a TERF?
Looking for signs of intelligent life on Reason’s comment board.
Anyone out there?
Maybe stop posting semi-retarded obvious bait first.
Yeah, crocodiles hang out on the banks of rivers looking for signs of intelligent life too.
Intelligent life rules out JF, just saying. Reasonmag doesn’t attract the best quality shills and trolls.
That is what the progs call someone who acknowledges that biological sex is a thing and may be an occasionally important distinction.
Guess not. What a pack of cretins.
Sorry to break up another circle jerk.
Probably not because Joe’s definitely a tankie.
No, the first woman over the finish line was the winner of the woman’s event.
https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Gov.-Ron-DeSantis-Proclamation-Declaring-Emma-Weyant-as-NCAA-500y-Freestyle-National-Champion.pdf
Two gay men transitioned to lesbian women?
I have no dog in this fight, but that seems a bit self serving for competitions.
So, we doing Private Company, or nah?
That’s only for Private Company violating your 1A rights, not for public accommodations laws.
Wut?
https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/1533559629707362304?t=EAO2QZ8Ru9ZFAF-4pqg7oA&s=19
NEW: Jan 6 committee has split behind the scenes over what actions to take after public hearings: Some members want big changes on voting rights — incl to abolish the Electoral College — while others are resisting proposals to overhaul the election system.
[Link]
so they’re not going to find Trump guilty of treason and execute him? I am so not shocked.
Thanks for the link.
While the Jan 6 committee is not the venue for revising our elections for President, these reforms must be carried out or we will lose support of the people.
The EC is in the constitution and no chance of removing it. States should be required to delegate electors proportionally based on the state totals, not congressional districts which are gerrymandered on a partisan basis in many states. Winner take all delegations are designed to maximize each states impact but fuck up our federal government. Enough all ready!
The “independent state legislature” doctrine must be clarified and soon. As covered in this opinion piece by a retired conservative Appeals Court justice, Trump faithful are busy trying to rig state governments to give their legislatures a veto power over their voters choice for president. The Democrats could do the same thing and this must be corralled and stopped or we will have serious constitutional crisis on our hands.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/27/opinions/gop-blueprint-to-steal-the-2024-election-luttig/index.html
The federal government was never meant to be as powerful as it is. We need a return to federalism. The United States is as large as Europe. We would all get along better with a libertarian federal government, and pursuing your favorite social experiments at the state level, where they can’t hurt people in other states. If they’re so awesome, I’m sure other states would fall in line soon after your brilliant success.
Brian, than you should advocate for electing those who agree with you, right? How does relying on dirty tricks involving senators not fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities and hoping the EC falls your way uphold the principles of democracy necessary to deserve the support of Americans. By the way, if Kerry had won 60k more votes in Ohio in 2004, he would have been president even though he lost the national popular vote. Does that somehow demonstrate the “widom” of this system? –
That’s what I’m doing, silly.
But no comment on our electoral process, the subject of the link NARDZ provided?
Yes, I practice free speech.
Maybe you democrats should focus on not committing election fraud or forum shopping to get activist judges to illegally rule for 11th hour changes to election rules.
There is an EC for the exact same reason we have sovereign states. NYC doesn’t get to speak for F’En everyone everywhere. Location does play a factor.
“The federal government was never meant to be as powerful as it is.”
Meant by whom? The constitution is a muddled compromise between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.
Oh, and in the Federalists vs Anti-Federalists, most people have backwards which side was which.
The Federalists wanted an all powerful national government and it was the Anti-Federalists who supported a limited government of defined powers.
At the Constitutional Convention, prominent Federalists, including Hamilton proposed outright eliminating the individual states or in the alternative reducing them to mere corporations, fully subject to the federal government.
Yep; good old Alexander Hamilton. The only Nazi of the founders who apparently did nothing but complain.
States are obligated to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct”.
It would be more to the point to abolish the voting and let the legislature appoint the electors directly.
Pretty sad. It seems the velodromes are open to this crap.If this gets to the real road events, I think there will be a big stink. It is up to the women to stop this. As a man, I can only mock these dudes pretending to be women. They are definitely the biggest losers. I never won many races but when I did, the quality of the competition made all the difference.
Maybe this time the Robert’s court will grow a pair rather than punting by deciding on the narrowest of ground.
By the way how is that leak investigation going?
Last time around, a number of questions were asked during oral arguments at the SCOTUS for which the baker’s lawyer had no answers.
Is a cake artistry? A cupcake? A steak?
Is “Free Speech” a license to refuse a “message” for an Irish customer? A Jewish customer? A Black customer?
However y’all feel, the lawyer at the time could (or chose not to) give no coherent answer why non-discrimination laws that covered sexual orientation shouldn’t apply to selling a cake, but the same laws that cover race and ethnicity should. They couldn’t (or chose not to) articulate why a baker could declare themselves an artist to evade non-discrimination law, but a chef couldn’t.
They’ve had a few years to refine their arguments, so hopefully they have a better answer this time. Though I suspect they’re still unwilling to argue that a baker (or website maker) should be permitted to refuse a customer based on that customer’s race or religion.
Then again, with Kennedy and Ginsburg off the court, it might not matter.
These are ridiculous questions to base enslaving a person over.
“Is a cake artistry? A cupcake? A steak?”
Yes, many(if not most) custom wedding cakes are essentially edible art pieces, a form of sculpture.
None of those things matter. A person should not be compelled to perform work he does not want to do. His reasons are immaterial.
If the ADF were making that argument (that public accommodation laws are unconstitutional in their entirety) then you would be correct, and the unsettled issues from Masterpiece would not matter.
But that is not what Smith or her lawyers are arguing. Instead, they are doing a follow-up to Masterpiece, and unless they are banking on court composition alone to give them a different result, they would be well served to have better answers then they did last time they were in front of the SCOTUS.
https://twitter.com/ishapiro/status/1533795860060028931?t=cviBPdZrUpGbLyus2L4olg&s=19
Although I scored a technical victory last week and was reinstated, @GeorgetownLaw and its diversicrats created a hostile work environment that made my remaining on the job untenable.
[Link]
The left should be cheering the creator in this. Considering the laws in Texas and Florida to prohibit social media companies from banning content based on the viewpoint of the person and to disclose its method of accommodation. The laws were reaction to the cancelling of conservative viewpoints. They will be winding their way to SCOTUS eventually.
If the courts allow Colorado to force content on a creator’s website, then it could follow that it could force content on a social media site.
This is a political issue. Logic has no place here.
Why is it so hard to answer the question? “Should an orthodox Jewish publishing house (book, blog, tv, newspaper, etc.) be compelled, by armed agents of the government, to publish a neo-Nazi screed?”
It’s not: publishers aren’t public accommodations, and aren’t covered as such.
But you inadvertently highlighted a gap between the objectives of Alliance Defending Freedom (the lawyers that recruited Smith for this case) and the commentariat here: ADF has no interest in arguing that Smith’s website design service is not a public accommodation, because their objective is to undermine Colorado’s inclusion of sexual orientation in it’s non-discrimination law, not the non-discrimination law itself. They have no problem with a baker, website designer, or anyone else being obligated to serve Christians. They just don’t want to be obligated to serve gays.
Why should guys be a “protected” class?
*gays, not guys
SoMeOnE sUe SaMsUnG aUtOcOrReCt!
That’s fine. They would be wrong to be obligated to serve Christians. Set up that case and bring it to the Supreme Court.
“We reserve the right to refuse service at any time for any reason”.
Problem solved. Don’t want to serve Mike Pence when he walks into your restaurant? You don’t have to. Simple. Don’t want to bake wedding cakes for Missouri Synod Lutherans? You don’t have to. Website celebrating gay sex? You don’t have to.
What you can’t do is advertise that you serve everyone, and then try to pick and choose. So can’t really do that with, say, a grocery store. But you certainly can with a bake shop or a design firm.
How many ads for bakeries, web design shops, etc. have you seen announcing that “We serve everyone”? Me neither.
Moreover, it ignores the (not so-)nuanced fact that, at least in the case of the bakery, that “open to the public” means that anyone can come into the store and buy anything they want off the shelves, not that their ass is open to the public in exchange for money.
After 50 pages of the twisted pretzel logic on can imagine, the court concluded, ‘….In short, Appellants’ Free Speech and Free Exercise rights are, of course, compelling. But so too is Colorado’s interest in protecting its citizens from the harms of discrimination. And Colorado cannot defend that interest while also excepting Appellants from CADA. …’
Under the Constitution, a ‘tie’ goes to the individual, not the State unless there is absolutely no way the person can obtain the services from another vendor. Big Brother here we come
Can a web designer be compelled under the First Amendment
*reads 1st Amendment*
CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW
Doesn’t look like it.
>>That puts her at odds with Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits “places of public accommodation” from discriminating against LGBT customers.
really more the Colorado law is at odds with 1A
I’m sure all the lawyers representing Elenis in this case would agree that lawyers should be required to represent everyone who shows up at their door, without discrimination on the basis or race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, or religion. They particularly agree that the laws against religious discrimination require them to take cases from the Westwood Baptist Church.
required to take cases?
“Historically, the Supreme Court has limited the government’s ability to compel a private business to transmit a message it finds objectionable. A book publisher, T-shirt printer, or social media platform generally cannot be forced to print or host messages that support or oppose any particular cause or policy.”
Unless it’s on a cake. Or are we forgetting that for the sake of this article?
they ruled in favor of the cake guy….
It was mixed. They had a really narrow ruling about the state acting in an explicitly biased way against Christians. Not that he had actual right of conscious. It’s why he’s been sued again and will probably go to the Supreme Court again with basically similar facts.
I’m not generally with the gay haters, but this one is past the line of common sense.
first, since there is design and publishing involved, there is absolutely no dancing around the concept of compelled speech…. it can be a bit harder to claim compelled speech for something like a cake, (at least with a straight face) but not for this.
second, it is a massive stretch to call a web site a public accommodation…. this isn’t a place where you would have to travel 100miles to get the same service, and it isn’t all that unique….
The concept of regulating access to (the invented category of) “public accommodations” is a big fail for freedom of association and obviously contrary to libertarian principles. Since libertarian principles are not applied by any court in the U.S. there isn’t much to do but complain.
So I’ll register my complaint here where it will serve as much use as complaining anywhere else.
Answer:
yes, the designer is required to design and host the images.
she can also include a disclaimer that she will pray for them to end their sinful ways.
Kind of a misleading headline considering whaat the case is actually about.
JFC, No gay weddings are not back at SCOTUS. Nobody is challanging the legality of gay marriage. What they are challanging is the legality of forcing unwilling businesses to serve a gay wedding. What a disingenuous headline.
Why does there always have to be a religious component to these court cases? Practically, I know why: because the First Amendment freedom of religion is a legal sword or shield to use in court.
But non-practically, I as an atheist don’t want to participate in woke-ism any more than the next guy. Why do I have to be religious, to object to being forced to say, do, and espouse things that I do not believe?
Why do I have to be religious, to object to being forced to say, do, and espouse things that I do not believe?
Because the halcyon days of Christo-fascism, when you could hang your hat on a sign that says “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.” are behind you and many of your atheist fellowship worship on the altar of Woke.
Would it make you feel better if I acknowledged that because you, as an atheist, don’t belong to a Church, one shade of the definition of ‘fellowship’ doesn’t apply?
because “religious beliefs” isn’t something anyone can expect an explanation of. it is a lazy way to say “i don’t wanna” without actually justifying that position….. because they know the position is not justifiable…. that is why it is always used as an excuse, even though the bible explicitly says in multiple places that what they are doing is wrong.
even though the bible explicitly says in multiple places that what they are doing is wrong
“I don’t know what the Westboro Baptists or Creationists believe or how they come about believing it, but I’m sure as hell going to make their logic seem sound and straightforward and make them look like relatively honest and good faith actors in doing so.” – Foo_dd
i don’t know how the fuck you got that from what i wrote….. it is hard to imagine how your understanding could be more opposite of what i said.
He is pointing out your flawed logic in attempting to use the Bible to poo-poo the use of a doctrinal religious belief as a conscientious legal objection when you started out by discrediting all religious belief as dogmatic.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
his understanding is only a little more wrong than yours….
Foo then what do you do with people like me?
I object to “a man can decide to become a woman” not because “God made each person exactly the way they were born,” but because “through natural selection and evolution, XY is the male of our species and XX the female.”
number one, you are confusing issues….. the underlying question here is if gay people can enter a mutual agreement with each other and legally profess their love the same way straight people do…. can gay people get married…… it has nothing to do with transgenders. (i get people having a problem with transgenders….. it is a lot harder to find arguments that make even twisted sense against gay marriage.)
number two, assuming you have a similar argument against gay marriage…. fine. you might be wrong, but at least you are not hiding behind BS to avoid defending your position.
Foo you are the one confusing issues (maybe the headline confused you). Gay marriage is NOT the issue. It is the law of the land.
Whether a private person, in their own business, has to sell or do things that provide services to someone involved in a gay marriage, when they don’t want to — that is the issue. I’m not really into forcing people to do things they don’t want to do. I’m not a rapist, economic or otherwise.
“I don’t wanna” is all the justification needed
Good question Think it. In America, the religious have an extra right not available to those who don’t justify their beliefs on what they think a supernatural being told them.
“I don’t believe in killing because God told me it’s bad, so I refuse to go to war.” OK, you’re good. Have a nice day.
“I don’t believe in killing because I think taking another human’s life is literally stealing their life and those who love them and is also counterproductive, so I refuse to go to war.” Fuck you and enjoy you’re stay in prison.
You might want to investigate that a bit further. Religious faith is not required for conscientious objector status.
From Selective Service: Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don’t have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man’s reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man’s lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.
Of course he doesn’t know how that works. jF is as ignorant as he is stupid.
Because there’s a separation of church and state which was designed to protect religion from the state. However, I believe that the legal precedent is a “religious conviction” is “any strongly held moral belief” so you don’t have to have explain your religious exemption in terms of established scripture. Because if the state require that, that would be the state ‘establishing a religion’.
Is gay another word for homosexual?
If Facebook and Twitter cannot be compelled to publish certain speech they disagree with, since they are a private business, bakeries and photographers should not be compelled to either!
But… but… but…
The crux of the case may be on whether Ms. Smith is a “sole proprietorship” or a form of “corporation”.
Any form of “corporation” is two completely separate “persons” – a human-person and a corporate-person. If the corporate-person gets sued or goes bankrupt that model protects the owner (human-person) from liability.
Corporate-persons have no religious rights nor religious beliefs. If Ms. Smith wants to impose her religion interpretations onto her customers, she needs to become a “sole proprietorship” but will then lose protection of her personal assets.
It should be noted that then former U.S. Solicitor General for the Bush Administration, Ted Olson, was the attorney supporting equal marriage rights and equal adoption rights for LGBT Americans at the U.S. Supreme Court. Olson is also a devout Christian and his Supreme Court argument challenges this type of discrimination on Christian grounds. There is not agreement among all Christians themselves on Ms. Smith’s religious interpretation (ie: the biblical tale of “Sodom & Gomorra” was about hedonism not stable marriages to buy homes and raise children).
“Corporate-persons have no religious rights nor religious beliefs.”
I believe the same thing, but the Supreme Court said otherwise in the Hobby Lobby case.
Jordan Peterson warned against “compelled speech” and was shouted down by the Left.
More like they tried to shout him down, and ended up vastly increasing his audience.
-jcr
Yeah, except he actually had something interesting to say. They shouted down… *checks notes* Milo Yaninininopolous or whatever his name is and… is he still alive?
Jordan Peterson is the dumbest motherfucker who’s ever existed.
Fusion VR – AR, VR and MR Company in India
https://www.fusionvr.in/
What IS a gay wedding anyway? It’s a wedding between two people who identify… at the moment… as the same sex. It’s all really just a social construct.
“Born this way”
Uh, no, no you weren’t.
Marriage is an exchange of property from father to husband. Why we continue to engage in this antiquated ritual is beyond me.
Is it a violation of my freedom of speech for the government to compel me to host gay wedding pictures on my website? You’d think so, wouldn’t you. But, having seen so many other cases come out the wrong way, it wouldn’t shock me if the court says: “Sure, compel him, no problem!”
Of course, it is utterly wrong for the government to do this. Just as it is wrong for the government to compel bakers, florists, photographers, etc. to provide their services against their will. Just as it is wrong for the government to compel any private business to serve someone against their will.
Barry Goldwater was right.