- Joined
- Jun 22, 2019
- Messages
- 14,992
- Reaction score
- 12,381
- Location
- Oregon's High Desert
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
But according to your interpretation of the 1st Amendment if someone says some belief or practice is their sincere religious belief the law can't stop them from inflcting this on other people in the public market place.That you do not “get it” is irrelevant. Yes, maybe to you this isn’t sensible, but that is simply not a rebuke or refutation of the legal arguments or the religious beliefs.
The Colorado law does not force Ms Smith to create something that is against her core religious beliefs. It prevents her from discriminating against a protected group. What the law says is if she decides to create something she has create for all customers. Ms Smith doesn't want to do that. She wants to exclude gay couples asking for a wedding site design.The question is whether states like Colorado can, in applying their anti-discrimination laws, compel an artist to express a message they disagree with. In the Phillips Masterpiece Cakeshop case they ruled that Mr. Phillips could not be forced to bake the gay wedding cake because it was a creative design. In the 303 Creative case, it is also a creative design (obviously), so we should expect SCOTUS to rule in favor of Smith.
"Nobody should be forced to create artwork, custom expression, that goes against the core of who they are and what they believe. And that's what Colorado [statute] is doing," Lorie Smith said.
Their goal is to remain free from sin. Collaborating with sinners in their pursuit of sin, is sin. Selling alcohol for example, is a sin for Christians. Selling a wedding cake to gay couples is abetting their sinful union. You understand. You just don't like it so you make stuff up. It's not an effort to weaponize the legal system. That's pure BS.She hasn't even been ASKED to make a website for a gay couple.
Why do people think that gay couples are going to go off to Christian businesses (and she openly advertises her Christian faith on her website) and want them to make a website or a cake?
It is 2022, and this plaintiff is from Colorado. Why would a hypothetical couple not seek out a business such as Tree Ring Digital - right there in CO - which is certified as LGBT-friendly and owned?
That's where this entire argument falls apart. Gays aren't rushing off to Christian-owned businesses ANYWHERE and demanding that Christians make websites for them. They go to one of the countless businesses that advertise that they are inclusive and spend their money there.
But, see, free market capitalism like that isn't what these religious conservatives want. The goal is to use the legal system as a weapon.
No more, no less.
No, it is an effort to weaponize the legal system. Which has zero to do with any religion.Their goal is to remain free from sin. Collaborating with sinners in their pursuit of sin, is sin. Selling alcohol for example, is a sin for Christians. Selling a wedding cake to gay couples is abetting their sinful union. You understand. You just don't like it so you make stuff up. It's not an effort to weaponize the legal system. That's pure BS.
"purely private speech" can hurt government and societies interests... when it comes into conflict with what is best for society, i.e. anti-discrimination laws, then it can be deemed in violation of said laws.How?
Your references are in relation to government speech where the facts of this case involve purely private speech, whose private speech is it, and what impact a public accommodation law has in relation to private speech.
You’ve done nothing more than present a slippery slope whose slope isn’t parallel to the facts of the case.
Just an excuse to discriminate.Their goal is to remain free from sin.
Then don't open a liquor store.Selling alcohol for example, is a sin for Christians.
Then don't open a wedding cake bakery.Selling a wedding cake to gay couples is abetting their sinful union.
Whether it is an effort or not to do so... that is what will be happening. Pretty soon black people will not be served in restaurants in Virginia again.It's not an effort to weaponize the legal system.
Emphasis mine."purely private speech" can hurt government and societies interests... when it comes into conflict with what is best for society, i.e. anti-discrimination laws, then it can be deemed in violation of said laws.
Speech has been restricted and denied as free in certain situations though, correct? If the government deems something discriminatory, as has already happened in cases denying black people the right to eat in a restaurant, for example.Emphasis mine.
Not in the U.S. and not under U.S. law. The rights in the Constitution, such as free speech, exist in the Constitution to preclude subjugation of those rights to “said laws.”
That is a separate issue though, correct?Rightly, public accommodation laws cannot compel speech, exactly and precisely because free speech means in part and includes freedom from government compulsion to speak, create speech, or engage in speech.
The Colorado law does not compell speech. It states that store owners may not discriminate against protected groups.Rightly, public accommodation laws cannot compel speech, exactly and precisely because free speech means in part and includes freedom from government compulsion to speak, create speech, or engage in speech.
Except for the fact that she never had a website business and there as never gay couple seeking her to make a website, so there was no standing to even bring this legal clusterpuck to the SCOTUS for a ruling on an issue that only existed as a hypothetical.A very late update to this story:
Back in June, SCOTUS ruled 6-3 in favor of web designer Lorie Smith who refused to design wedding websites for same-sex couples, finding the 1st Amendment prohibits the State from forcing Smith to express messages contrary to her religious beliefs.
The ruling establishes that states cannot force or coerce artists to create speech which would violate their free speech rights.
source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/read-f...ner-declining-to-make-lgbtq-wedding-websites/
I think it was a preemptive gambit for Smith in the event that her company (303 Creative) would be solicited to design a web page for same-sex couples.Except for the fact that she never had a website business and there as never gay coupleassking her to make a website, so there was no standing to even bring this legal clusterpuck to the SCOTUS for a ruling on asn issue that only existed as a hypothetical.
Then its not ripe for a ruling until there was an case to be decided. She had no standing to even object because it never happened. The SCOTUS is not to be ruling on hypothetical possibilities. This decsion is a legal sham.I think it was a preemptive gambit for Smith in the event that her company 303 Creative would be solicited to design a web page for same-sex couples.
There is standing if there is a grievance. The hypothetical gay couple wouldn't be involved in the lawsuit at all the lawsuit named the state is the defendant therefore it has to go to the supreme Court.Except for the fact that she never had a website business and there as never gay couple seeking her to make a website, so there was no standing to even bring this legal clusterpuck to the SCOTUS for a ruling on an issue that only existed as a hypothetical.
It is an effort by evangelicals to use the legal system elevate their religious beliefs into law. The SC has said it is OK for Ms Smith refuse service to gay couples because her right to be free from sin is a greater right than their right to freely buy products and services.Their goal is to remain free from sin. Collaborating with sinners in their pursuit of sin, is sin. Selling alcohol for example, is a sin for Christians. Selling a wedding cake to gay couples is abetting their sinful union. You understand. You just don't like it so you make stuff up. It's not an effort to weaponize the legal system. That's pure BS.
Well I would argue Lisa's dead wrong on this one the aggrieved party is an individual citizen defendant is a state. Such a situation must involve federal courts.I think it was a preemptive gambit for Smith in the event that her company (303 Creative) would be solicited to design a web page for same-sex couples.
In other words, she was covering her butt.
there was a case to be decided obviously because it was. I think the supreme Court knows their job better than you. The aggrieved party was the one that made the website the defendant was the state for making the law on the first place cuz that was the problem.Then its not ripe for a ruling until there was an case to be decided.
she absolutely had standing it happened the moment the law went into effect. There doesn't need to be some third party that you seem to think there needs to be.She had no standing to even object because it never happened.
so do you want to overthrow the government?The SCOTUS is not to be ruling on hypothetical possibilities. This decsion is a legal sham.
This is not true. It seems you have no idea what legal standing is.there was a case to be decided obviously because it was. I think the supreme Court knows their job better than you. The aggrieved party was the one that made the website the defendant was the state for making the law on the first place cuz that was the problem.
she absolutely had standing it happened the moment the law went into effect. There doesn't need to be some third party that you seem to think there needs to be.
so do you want to overthrow the government?
The ruling was perfectly correct if it wasn't the Congress would enact jurisdiction stripping they're not even talking about it. If you think it's just because there's too many Republicans and the only way you would get to strip the jurisdiction from the court is if you had an overwhelming majority then it's fair because you shouldn't always get your way no matter what that's a dictatorship.
At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
The Colorado LGBT rights law was passed in 2008. Its not unconstional. She is just a relgious bigot would doesnt know the differnce bwteen her religious rights as a private person and the equal rights proections of an incorporated business under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The SCOTUS destroyed their constitutional credibility with this farce of a decision.Smith was not the defendant. She was the plaintiff and sued the State of Colorado to block enforcement of their anti-discrimination law.
The case became ripe the day Colorado passed the unconstitutional law.
it doesn't really matter what you think. The supreme Court does know what standing is and they ruled. Sorry they didn't consult you.This is not true. It seems you have no idea what legal standing is.
No I'm not. I'm assuming they know better what is it is not standing than you do.
You are assuming that SCOTUS is infallible. It is not.
It seems like your just upset that the country isn't authoritarian left. Just because you don't get your way 100% of the time doesn't mean that anybody is legislating from the bench. I remember Republicans saying the exact same thing you said a few years back.We are all entitled to our own opinions regarding how militant and detached from reality our crooked puppet shithead “justices” are when they unconstitutionally legislate from the bench.
That may be your opinion, but your opinion that mine has no value because it’s not from SCOTUS applies to your opinion as well as mine.it doesn't really matter what you think. The supreme Court does know what standing is and they ruled. Sorry they didn't consult you.
No I'm not. I'm assuming they know better what is it is not standing than you do.
It seems like your just upset that the country isn't authoritarian left. Just because you don't get your way 100% of the time doesn't mean that anybody is legislating from the bench. I remember Republicans saying the exact same thing you said a few years back.
Same crying different crap parties
Well, you're just wrong.You do not understand, I am not questioning whether they know what standing is. I am saying that the case that was brought did not have standing.
I didn't express an opinion I agreed with the court.That may be your opinion, but your opinion that mine has no value because it’s not from SCOTUS applies to your opinion as well as mine.
if you were correct they would not have heard it.You do not understand, I am not questioning whether they know what standing is. I am saying that the case that was brought did not have standing.
So, either the supreme court has been taken over by people who are in some vast right-wing conspiracy to do... God only knows or you're wrong. I am going to go with Occam's razor on this one.If SCOTUS is either deceived or negligent, they may not care or not realize that the case did not have standing. In either case, I’m sure that they would know what standing is more than I do.
So, the constitution is right wing Bullshit? So, the left wing is anti-constitution? All the more reason not to agree with you.I know those who support republican ideals have difficulty appreciating that the law should be based on reality, and not right wing bullshit.
So I will agree with you partially. The ruling was correct. However, I don't think the standing was there.there was a case to be decided obviously because it was. I think the supreme Court knows their job better than you. The aggrieved party was the one that made the website the defendant was the state for making the law on the first place cuz that was the problem.
she absolutely had standing it happened the moment the law went into effect. There doesn't need to be some third party that you seem to think there needs to be.
so do you want to overthrow the government?
The ruling was perfectly correct if it wasn't the Congress would enact jurisdiction stripping they're not even talking about it. If you think it's just because there's too many Republicans and the only way you would get to strip the jurisdiction from the court is if you had an overwhelming majority then it's fair because you shouldn't always get your way no matter what that's a dictatorship.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?