Gay Wedding Cake Issue Revisited In Denver . . . Only Now It's Websites - Not Cakes

[CLAX1911]

So I will agree with you partially. The ruling was correct. However, I don't think the standing was there.

If Colorado's law violates the free speech clause in the first amendment it is hard to see how there isn't standing. constitutional violations seem to be the standing in all supreme court cases. Remember Colorado was the defendant. If colorado imposes a law and subjects it's citizens to penalties for not obeying? seems the standing is absolutely obvious. so, explain how i am mistaken.

 

[CLAX1911]

Well, you're just wrong.

Pre-enforcement challenges are well-established and happen all the time.

I am not sure where people get the idea that you have to be penalized by a law to challenge it.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

If Colorado's law violates the free speech clause in the first amendment it is hard to see how there isn't standing. constitutional violations seem to be the standing in all supreme court cases. Remember Colorado was the defendant. If colorado imposes a law and subjects it's citizens to penalties for not obeying? seems the standing is absolutely obvious. so, explain how i am mistaken.

The standing is not obvious because she did not actually have a business that would be affected by it. The way the court's ruling stated was that she wanted to have a wedding business (meaning, she did not have one yet -- I think the wording was "in case she wanted to start a wedding business)". In my opinion, she would have to actually have established the business first.

You are right that she needn't have some sort of "harm" come to her; however, she must have -something- that would be affected by the violation of the free speech clause, even if harm hadn't come to her yet. However, the court's own decision is not clear enough (on paper -- meaning, how it ruled and the arguments presented to it) as to whether she had the business or not. She says she did, but the court's own ruling is unclear.

According to the link below, you must be for lack of a better phrase, an interested party, or as the link calls it, having a "dog in this fight." If she does not have the business but merely wants to start one, then until she starts the business, in my opinion, she does not have a dog in the fight.

https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/WhatIsStanding.pdf

 

[CLAX1911]

The standing is not obvious because she did not actually have a business that would be affected by it. The way the court's ruling stated was that she wanted to have a wedding business (meaning, she did not have one yet -- I think the wording was "in case she wanted to start a wedding business)". In my opinion, she would have to actually have established the business first.

Why?

You are right that she needn't have some sort of "harm" come to her; however, she must have -something- that would be affected by the violation of the free speech clause, even if harm hadn't come to her yet. However, the court's own decision is not clear enough (on paper -- meaning, how it ruled and the arguments presented to it) as to whether she had the business or not. She says she did, but the court's own ruling is unclear.

According to the link below, you must be for lack of a better phrase, an interested party, or as the link calls it, having a "dog in this fight." If she does not have the business but merely wants to start one, then until she starts the business, in my opinion, she does not have a dog in the fight.

https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/WhatIsStanding.pdf

Citizen of Colorado being subject to penalties for breaking laws makes her an interested party. Same has a dog in the fight because she is a citizen with as granted right to free speech. The first amendment doesn't just apply if you already have a business.

 

[AGENT J]

its always gonna be so simply to me

i fall on the side of freedom and rights and respecting my fellow americans who are decent people and to stand against vile dishonest, illogical, hypocritical hate and bigotry

you own a business and its public access and say you have a catalog or display and somebody walks in and wants to Design# 22A (the design and make is established and you sold it to others)

you have ZERO right to deny somebody 22a based on race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, religion etc

now you have a business that is private or a customer wants a CUSTOM order or SPECIALIZED order or INVENTED (new art creation) , that you can reject for whatever you want and im good with that

making item 22A for customer A, then being willing to make it for customer B until . . . dun dun dun. . you find out they are gay, or black, of Christian etc is a complete ****ing joke
then you have no business running a public access shop and agreeing to the rules and regulations that come with that and there other avenues for you.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

Why?
Citizen of Colorado being subject to penalties for breaking laws makes her an interested party. Same has a dog in the fight because she is a citizen with as granted right to free speech. The first amendment doesn't just apply if you already have a business.

I see you are only responding to me instead of reading the document, or you would have had specifics from the document to debate me on instead of the summary I gave. The first rule is that you can't sue on the basis of hypothetically, someday, this law might apply to me. You must sue on the basis of, right now in my situation, the law could be applied to me.

Consider the following (and please read this to understand where I'm coming from):

First, the enforcement of the law applied specifically to businesses. If she was unemployed, she fails the standing test. She passes this check, even though she's a freelancer (if she even has a LLC, which I believe she did, she would pass this). Since the law affects businesses, you are required to have a business or be an employee to be affected by the law. Not everyone is affected by the clause. Let's consider who is genuinely affected by said law. You must -currently- either be affect or subject to being affected by a law. Nowhere in the law does it require her, as a private, American citizen, to support gay marriage. It requires her, in line with her business, to hypothetically support gay marriage should she be commissioned to do so. If you're not in a situation where you're an employee or can be commissioned to specifically support gay marriage, this law does not apply to you. You are not required to, say, make a personal video supporting gay marriage. So, she fails this test on an individual level, but passes it since she could be commissioned to write such an article.

Second, I'm an agnostic and -I- would not have standing even if I had a wedding business because the law would not be applicable to me as the law is not making me say something against my beliefs. She passes this check. A religious business passes this check, too.

Third, she would have to have a business in which the law would be applied. This is where I think she fails this test. For example, her specific complaint is that the law would require her to accept any freelance work, regardless of her religious beliefs. As discussed in the second check, she passes this check on religious ground, but not where the law would be applied. But consider if her business was about reporting the outcome of insurance claims. There's no violation of the law there. You're reporting on cases in a neutral manner, and not being asked to support anything. So, the question of "does she have a dog in the fight" hinges on what her current business is. If she doesn't have a business that could be affected by the ruling, then she has no standing.

Put another way, if the government passes a law that forces all black people to quit their jobs, do individual white people have standing? No, because the law doesn't apply to them, but any corporation could sue if it has black people on their payroll.

What I'm saying is if she doesn't have a situation where her free speech -could- be abrogated (undetermined), she doesn't have standing. Which means one of two things: a) The court made a mistake in their ruling (Which can happen -- human beings are fallible, regardless if you're a district court or the Supreme Court -- the conservative SCOTUS right now is saying the prior, liberal SCOTUS has made mistakes), or b) the situation she currently is in actually does apply and the Court's decision does not adequately explain it.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

its always gonna be so simply to me

i fall on the side of freedom and rights and respecting my fellow americans who are decent people and to stand against vile dishonest, illogical, hypocritical hate and bigotry

you own a business and its public access and say you have a catalog or display and somebody walks in and wants to Design# 22A (the design and make is established and you sold it to others)

you have ZERO right to deny somebody 22a based on race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, religion etc

now you have a business that is private or a customer wants a CUSTOM order or SPECIALIZED order or INVENTED (new art creation) , that you can reject for whatever you want and im good with that

making item 22A for customer A, then being willing to make it for customer B until . . . dun dun dun. . you find out they are gay, or black, of Christian etc is a complete ****ing joke
then you have no business running a public access shop and agreeing to the rules and regulations that come with that and there other avenues for you.

But the issue is that the law does not allow her to turn down commissions that specifically go against her religion. So, you would support the outcome, as would I. My argument is simply that she did not have the standing, which would make it like your last paragraph. The question you need to pass is, "what is your situation now and are you or could you currently affected by the law?" You cannot sue on the grounds that hypothetically, someday, one day, you might be affected by it. You must be affected by the law (or a potential enforcement of it) at the present time to sue.

 

[Absentglare]

Well, you're just wrong.

Pre-enforcement challenges are well-established and happen all the time.

Regarding federal law, SCOTUS established that injury must be real or imminent. You are free to try and correct cornell law if you feel otherwise.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The standing is not obvious because she did not actually have a business that would be affected by it.

And the point was that she would be subject to the constraints of the law the moment she opened her business. Because opening her business exposes her to enforcement action, she declined to do so until her case was resolved. Given Colorado's previous record of enforcement (see: Masterpiece Cakeshop) and the state's refusal to declare the law would not apply to her business, the Tenth Circuit agreed she had standing. Even the Supreme Court dissent didn't argue against her standing.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Regarding federal law, SCOTUS established that injury must be real or imminent. You are free to try and correct cornell law if you feel otherwise.

I don't need to, as pre-enforcement challenges are not new and happen all the time.

 

[Absentglare]

I didn't express an opinion I agreed with the court.

Incorrect.

if you were correct they would not have heard it.

Incorrect again. Re-read what I wrote.

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.

Ah, so you deny the existence and purpose of the federalist society, and the actions of senator McConnell in strong-arming brazenly partisan SCOTUS appointments.

So, the constitution is right wing Bullshit? So, the left wing is anti-constitution? All the more reason not to agree with you.

You are making my point that you do not appreciate that the law should be based on reality by immediately responding with this bizarre fantasy.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Ah, so you deny the existence and purpose of the federalist society,

This "Federalist Society is the boogeyman" trope is so absurd it borders on the comical.

 

[Absentglare]

If Colorado's law violates the free speech clause in the first amendment it is hard to see how there isn't standing.

Actually it is very easy to see, I would say it is trivially obvious given the facts of the case and the definition of legal standing I already graciously provided for you.

constitutional violations seem to be the standing in all supreme court cases. Remember Colorado was the defendant. If colorado imposes a law and subjects it's citizens to penalties for not obeying? seems the standing is absolutely obvious. so, explain how i am mistaken.

Please, read the definition of legal standing.

 

[Absentglare]

This "Federalist Society is the boogeyman" trope is so absurd it borders on the comical.

What a stupid post. Of course, the majority of our current supreme court justices have been members of the organization whose explicit purpose is to impose right wing partisan will on what must always be politically impartial, the administration of justice.

The perverse organization is a scourge on the American way of life.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Actually it is very easy to see, I would say it is trivially obvious given the facts of the case and the definition of legal standing I already graciously provided for you.

Yes, so "trivially obvious" that the Tenth Circuit decided she had standing, and the Supreme Court found that part of their decision so unremarkable that they spent half a page discussing standing, and the dissent didn't mention it at all.

But no, you're probably more knowledgeable than they are.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

What a stupid post. Of course, the majority of our current supreme court justices have been members of the organization whose explicit purpose is to impose right wing partisan will on what must always be politically impartial, the administration of justice.

OMG, TEH RITE WINGZ PURTIZAN WILLZZ!@@@!@!@!@!!!!!!!!!!!

The perverse organization is a scourge on the American way of life.

lol. Comic absurdity.

 

[Absentglare]

Yes, so "trivially obvious" that the Tenth Circuit decided she had standing, and the Supreme Court found that part of their decision so unremarkable that they spent half a page discussing standing, and the dissent didn't mention it at all.

But no, you're probably more knowledgeable than they are.

You are making the same confused argument that I already rebutted, please review the thread.

 

[Absentglare]

OMG, TEH RITE WINGZ PURTIZAN WILLZZ!@@@!@!@!@!!!!!!!!!!!


lol. Comic absurdity.

Thank you for implicitly forfeiting the argument.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

You are making the same confused argument that I already rebutted, please review the thread.

I'm not going to scour 19 pages of posts trying to find the one post you're talking about. Feel free to link yourself. But I doubt you're going to accomplish much, as two levels of judicial review found standing and the dissent at the Supreme Court didn't even dispute it.

Thank you for implicitly forfeiting the argument.

I can't forfeit what never existed.

 

[AZRWinger]

But the issue is that the law does not allow her to turn down commissions that specifically go against her religion. So, you would support the outcome, as would I. My argument is simply that she did not have the standing, which would make it like your last paragraph. The question you need to pass is, "what is your situation now and are you or could you currently affected by the law?" You cannot sue on the grounds that hypothetically, someday, one day, you might be affected by it. You must be affected by the law (or a potential enforcement of it) at the present time to sue.

The courts have long held First Amendment rights cannot be chilled by prior restraint. The Colorado law positions the state to punish the exercise of first amendment rights, prior restraint. That's illegal.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

And the point was that she would be subject to the constraints of the law the moment she opened her business. Because opening her business exposes her to enforcement action, she declined to do so until her case was resolved. Given Colorado's previous record of enforcement (see: Masterpiece Cakeshop) and the state's refusal to declare the law would not apply to her business, the Tenth Circuit agreed she had standing. Even the Supreme Court dissent didn't argue against her standing.

First off, I highly hope you don't expect me to be anything -but- an armchair lawyer in this case. Just because I disagree with the Tenth Circuit and the Supreme Court, doesn't make me right -- in fact, if anything, it makes me wrong -- whether I believe I am or not

Second, I'm going to admit right here that I might have a comprehension problem vs. a legal argument problem.

So let me show you what I'm seeing, and then maybe you can fill in the blanks with what you're seeing. Let's use the common legal definition of "imminent" as "impending," or "likely to occur." I'm going to bold what it is that is confusing me.

Here's the facts of her case:

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. ___ (2023)

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis: Supreme Court holds that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs for same-sex marriages, speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.

supreme.justia.com

Here's what I am stumbling on (quoted from decision):
• "As she envisions it, her websites will provide couples with text, graphic arts, and videos to “celebrate” and “conve[y ]” the “details” of their “unique love story.” "
• "Specifically, she worries that, if she enters the wedding website business, the State will force her to convey messages inconsistent with her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman."
• "To clarify her rights, Ms. Smith filed a lawsuit in federal district court."
• "To secure relief, Ms. Smith first had to establish her standing to sue. That required her to show “a credible threat” existed that Colorado would, in fact, seek to compel speech from her that she did not wish to produce."
• "Ms. Smith alleged that, if she enters the wedding website business to celebrate marriages she does endorse, she faces a credible threat that Colorado will seek to use CADA to compel her to create websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse."

What is missing in my opinion is that though she does have a business plan, she does not appear to have committed to opening her business. I once had a business plan for my blog, but never used it.

So the question (For anyone) is what in the case, besides the business plan, demonstrates that she has made a commitment to open the business? If you can explain that, I'll drop my objections completely.

 

[Absentglare]

I'm not going to scour 19 pages of posts trying to find the one post you're talking about. Feel free to link yourself. But I doubt you're going to accomplish much, as two levels of judicial review found standing and the dissent at the Supreme Court didn't even dispute it.


I can't forfeit what never existed.

Well, seeing as how my rebuttal was in a post of mine that you already responded to, I figured it would be easy for you to find.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

So the question (For anyone) is what in the case, besides the business plan, demonstrates that she has made a commitment to open the business? If you can explain that, I'll drop my objections completely.

The opinion issued by the Tenth Circuit has an extensive discussion on the elements of standing (injury in fact, causation, and redressability), and why 303 Creative clears that hurdle. It's ten pages, starting at page eleven.

As it is the element of injury in fact that is the most contentious, the lower court satisfied that element on the basis that, "appellants have sufficiently demonstrated both an intent to provide graphic and web design services to the public in a manner that exposes them to CADA liability, and a credible threat that Colorado will prosecute them under that statute." (This is a summarizing quote from the beginning of the injury in fact analysis; for the full explanation, visit the linked opinion.)

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Well, seeing as how my rebuttal was in a post of mine that you already responded to, I figured it would be easy for you to find.

What, the "Supremes got fooled" bit? Is that seriously what you're resting your hat on?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

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.

Oh well it’s precedent now.

Be sad if you want.