Supreme Court to Hear Case of Website Designer Who Won’t Do Same-Sex Weddings

[cpwill]

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it would consider whether a Colorado website designer had a First Amendment right to refuse to produce same-sex wedding announcements...​

​

Last June, the justices decided that a Catholic foster-services agency receiving city funding was entitled to turn away same-sex couples, despite local laws prohibiting such discrimination. The decision was based, however, on the court’s own reading of Philadelphia’s Fair Practices Ordinance and its contract with Catholic Social Services rather than broad constitutional principles... The Colorado case granted Tuesday, to be argued in the court’s next term and likely decided by June 2023, suggests the justices may be ready to address that issue.​

​

Tuesday’s order phrased the question before the court as “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”​

That last bit sort of signals the bar that the State will have to clear.

Color me hopeful, but cautious.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it would consider whether a Colorado website designer had a First Amendment right to refuse to produce same-sex wedding announcements...​

​

Last June, the justices decided that a Catholic foster-services agency receiving city funding was entitled to turn away same-sex couples, despite local laws prohibiting such discrimination. The decision was based, however, on the court’s own reading of Philadelphia’s Fair Practices Ordinance and its contract with Catholic Social Services rather than broad constitutional principles... The Colorado case granted Tuesday, to be argued in the court’s next term and likely decided by June 2023, suggests the justices may be ready to address that issue.​

​

Tuesday’s order phrased the question before the court as “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”​

That last bit sort of signals the bar that the State will have to clear.

Color me hopeful, but cautious.

I hope the SCOTUS rules in favor of the website designer.

In the first place, it is a private business, and no one is entitled to the labor or services of anyone absent an agreed upon contract. If someone does not wish to work for you, how can you compel them without creating an issue of servitude?

There already exists contract law that can punish someone financially for violation of a contract.

There already exists criminal law that can punish someone for fraud, embezzlement, and other financial crimes of contract violation.

But there should be no law that compels someone to work for another, because that is bondage, servitude, slavery.

Meanwhile, why not seek other "open-minded" providers of such services? There are many people who would have no problem doing the job.

So what is the REAL issue here that would compel someone to serve another?

 

[Deuce]

I hope the SCOTUS rules in favor of the website designer.

In the first place, it is a private business, and no one is entitled to the labor or services of anyone absent an agreed upon contract. If someone does not wish to work for you, how can you compel them without creating an issue of servitude?

There already exists contract law that can punish someone financially for violation of a contract.

There already exists criminal law that can punish someone for fraud, embezzlement, and other financial crimes of contract violation.

But there should be no law that compels someone to work for another, because that is bondage, servitude, slavery.

Meanwhile, why not seek other "open-minded" providers of such services? There are many people who would have no problem doing the job.

So what is the REAL issue here that would compel someone to serve another?

Weirdly, conservatives aren't falling over themselves to try and overturn public accommodation laws that protect race or gender.

Public accommodation laws are not slavery.

 

[cpwill]

I hope the SCOTUS rules in favor of the website designer.

In the first place, it is a private business, and no one is entitled to the labor or services of anyone absent an agreed upon contract. If someone does not wish to work for you, how can you compel them without creating an issue of servitude?

There already exists contract law that can punish someone financially for violation of a contract.

There already exists criminal law that can punish someone for fraud, embezzlement, and other financial crimes of contract violation.

But there should be no law that compels someone to work for another, because that is bondage, servitude, slavery.

Meanwhile, why not seek other "open-minded" providers of such services? There are many people who would have no problem doing the job.

So what is the REAL issue here that would compel someone to serve another?

That is indeed, the question at hand.

I can see cases for when it could happen - if a group is being effectively denied access to an entire sector and the state lacks a less coercive means of pursuing it's interests in ensuring access to that sector:

Example: a gay woman requires access to medication to keep a life-threatening condition at bay; all the medical providers in the area refuse to serve her because being gay is icky, the state has an interest in saying "someone is going to provide life-sustaining medication to this woman".​

That fits roughly with the test established by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that Bill Clinton signed into law: that the government may only substantially burden the free exercise of religion of a person or organization if the government 1) has a compelling interest to do so, and 2) is using the least restrictive means possible to further that compelling interest, applying strict scrutiny when adjudicating these types of cases.

...which agreeably would be vanishingly rare, especially nowadays. But if you had to draw out what would allow us to compel one person to serve another, that's where I would look.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

This is insanity. A corporation is a legal fiction created to limit liability. It can no more have a religion that it can fall in love. It is an absurdity.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, LTD v Colorado Civil Rights Commission; 303 Creative LLC v Elenis; that "LTD" and "LLC" actually mean something. As Scalia his Ownself said in Domino's Pizza, Inc. v McDonald: "... it is fundamental corporation and agency law—indeed, it can be said to be the whole purpose of corporation and agency law—that the shareholder and contracting officer of a corporation has no rights and is exposed to no liability under the corporation’s contracts."

​

 

[HenryChinaski]

I hope the SCOTUS rules in favor of the website designer.

In the first place, it is a private business, and no one is entitled to the labor or services of anyone absent an agreed upon contract. If someone does not wish to work for you, how can you compel them without creating an issue of servitude?

There already exists contract law that can punish someone financially for violation of a contract.

There already exists criminal law that can punish someone for fraud, embezzlement, and other financial crimes of contract violation.

But there should be no law that compels someone to work for another, because that is bondage, servitude, slavery.

Meanwhile, why not seek other "open-minded" providers of such services? There are many people who would have no problem doing the job.

So what is the REAL issue here that would compel someone to serve another?

The supreme court previously stated the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. So I wouldn't think that a person can be denied goods and services for their sexual orientation anymore than they can for their sex or race

 

[Captain Adverse]

This is insanity. A corporation is a legal fiction created to limit liability. It can no more have a religion that it can fall in love. It is an absurdity.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, LTD v Colorado Civil Rights Commission;

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMM’N Syllabus

www.law.cornell.edu

This ruling upheld the right of the cakeshop to refuse service on the basis of religious belief. That was ruled on June 4, 2018. Justice Scalia died on February 3, 2016.

303 Creative LLC v Elenis; that "LTD" and "LLC" actually mean something.

That case is the OP's case pending SCOTUS review.

As Scalia his Ownself said in Domino's Pizza, Inc. v McDonald: "... it is fundamental corporation and agency law—indeed, it can be said to be the whole purpose of corporation and agency law—that the shareholder and contracting officer of a corporation has no rights and is exposed to no liability under the corporation’s contracts."

That has to do with contract law and not "free speech," nor "freedom of religion."

Perhaps you might take some time to review the cases before asserting an understanding of them?

 

[j brown's body]

If the court does rule in favor of the web designer, the anti-discrimination law will be unequally applied. One group will be able to discriminate against another, but the other can't discriminate against them. That's an injustice.

 

[HenryChinaski]

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMM’N Syllabus

www.law.cornell.edu

This ruling upheld the right of the cakeshop to refuse service on the basis of religious belief. That was ruled on June 4, 2018. Justice Scalia died on February 3, 2016.



That case is the OP's case pending SCOTUS review.



That has to do with contract law and not "free speech."

Last year the Supreme Court ruled that gay and transgender people cannot be discriminated in the workplace under the civil rights act. The civil rights act also protects against the denial of goods and services based on sex and race. It's a safe bet that also applies here.

 

[AGENT J]

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMM’N Syllabus

www.law.cornell.edu

This ruling upheld the right of the cakeshop to refuse service on the basis of religious belief. That was ruled on June 4, 2018. Justice Scalia died on February 3, 2016.



That case is the OP's case pending SCOTUS review.



That has to do with contract law and not "free speech."

Perhaps you might take some time to review the cases before asserting an understanding of them?

That is factually NOT what SCOTUS ruled
the ruling in that case was that the STATE (commission) did not follow proper legal procedure in its case against the baker and they rightfully so got their hand smacked, the commission's treatment of Phillips’ case was found to be hostile and not follow due diligence and due process.


that ruling was VERY specific to that only and it is still 100% illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation in colorado and no laws were struck down. Im glad you included the link that further explains this fact and if you need more you can try this one also

Not a Masterpiece: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

The recent decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case allowed a business to discriminate based on its owner’s beliefs, which goes against many established federal, state, and local civil rights laws.

www.americanbar.org

 

[Bok Tuklo]

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMM’N Syllabus

www.law.cornell.edu

This ruling upheld the right of the cakeshop to refuse service on the basis of religious belief. That was ruled on June 4, 2018. Justice Scalia died on February 3, 2016.



That case is the OP's case pending SCOTUS review.



That has to do with contract law and not "free speech," nor "freedom of religion."

Perhaps you might take some time to review the cases before asserting an understanding of them?

I am familiar with the cases, Hobby Lobby as well, and the inconsistency is breathtaking. I understand the capricious nature of our Court and know “rights” are wholly dependent on their whims but I am not required to agree with their decisions nor do they care if I do.

 

[AGENT J]

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it would consider whether a Colorado website designer had a First Amendment right to refuse to produce same-sex wedding announcements...​

​

Last June, the justices decided that a Catholic foster-services agency receiving city funding was entitled to turn away same-sex couples, despite local laws prohibiting such discrimination. The decision was based, however, on the court’s own reading of Philadelphia’s Fair Practices Ordinance and its contract with Catholic Social Services rather than broad constitutional principles... The Colorado case granted Tuesday, to be argued in the court’s next term and likely decided by June 2023, suggests the justices may be ready to address that issue.​

​

Tuesday’s order phrased the question before the court as “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”​

That last bit sort of signals the bar that the State will have to clear.

Color me hopeful, but cautious.

not familiar with this case and the link is pay so my comments might not apply

if this website designer had a business open to the public and one of their products was wedding invitations and wedding invitation orders are just fine until the names were same gender then I hope the designer loses and rightfully so.
Its vile discrimination that should not be tolerated and has no place in civil society with rights

that being said there are certain situations that i would side with the designer also like PRIVATE business, membership business only, the designer is an artist and doesn't have any standard products (but that's etc but im unfamiliar Ill have to look into this myself for a link

 

[Captain Adverse]

I am familiar with the cases, Hobby Lobby as well, and the inconsistency is breathtaking. I understand the capricious nature of our Court and know “rights” are wholly dependent on their whims but I am not required to agree with their decisions nor do they care if I do.

That reply contains both a non sequitur, and an attempt at deflection

No one said anything about you needing to "agree" with anything. Simply that your prior case citations either had nothing to do with the issue being discussed or did not support your position.

 

[Taylor]

The civil rights act also protects against the denial of goods and services based on sex and race.

Race, not sex.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

the ruling in that case was that the STATE (commission) did not follow proper legal procedure in its case against the baker and they rightfully so got their hand smacked, the commission's treatment of Phillips’ case was found to be hostile and not follow due diligence and due process.


that ruling was VERY specific to that only and it is still 100% illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation in colorado and no laws were struck down. Im glad you included the link that further explains this fact and if you need more you can try this one also

Not a Masterpiece: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

The recent decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case allowed a business to discriminate based on its owner’s beliefs, which goes against many established federal, state, and local civil rights laws.

www.americanbar.org

And then proceeded to do the exact opposite in Trump v Hawaii.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

That reply contains both a non sequitur, and an attempt at deflection

No one said anything about you needing to "agree" with anything. Simply that your prior case citations either had nothing to do with the issue being discussed or did not support your position.

I misunderstood you response. I thought you were making the point it doesn’t matter what I thought, SCOTUS does as it chooses. If you are saying Scalia was wrong about corporations and you believe legal fictions are sentient beings well, okay.

 

[HenryChinaski]

And

Race, not sex.

And sex

Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules (Published 2020)

The court said the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

www.nytimes.com

By a vote of 6-3, the court said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person's sex, among other factors, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status. It upheld rulings from lower courts that said sexual orientation discrimination was a form of sex discrimination.

 

[Taylor]

And

And sex

Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules (Published 2020)

The court said the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

www.nytimes.com

You're confusing employment discrimination with public accommodations. The two are not the same. There are no federal public accommodations protections that prohibit sex discrimination. The web developer is challenging a state law.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I misunderstood you response. I thought you were making the point it doesn’t matter what I thought, SCOTUS does as it chooses.

No, I was not making that "point." I repeat, the cases you cited were not in support of your "point."

If you are saying Scalia was wrong about corporations and you believe legal fictions are sentient beings well, okay.

Again, I never made any such points. The underlined is a non-sequitur (A non sequitur is a conclusion or reply that doesn’t follow logically from the previous statement.), AND the bolded is an appeal to the absurd.

If you cannot argue reasonably, then there is no point in arguing with you.

Tagline time.

 

[HenryChinaski]

You're confusing employment discrimination with public accommodations. The two are not the same. There are no federal public accommodations protections that prohibit sex discrimination. The web developer is challenging a state law.

§2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

The CRA of 1964, prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments

 

[Bok Tuklo]

No, I was not making that "point." I repeat, the cases you cited were not in support of your "point."



Again, I never made any such points. The underlined is a non-sequitur (A non sequitur is a conclusion or reply that doesn’t follow logically from the previous statement.), AND the bolded is an appeal to the absurd.

If you cannot argue reasonably, then there is no point in arguing with you.

Tagline time.

Okay.

 

[Taylor]

The CRA of 1964, prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments

Not for public accommodations. You posted the correct info, but didn't read it: "race, color, religion, or national origin." That's it. No sex. No sexual orientation.

Furthermore, a website developer isn't even considered a "place of public accommodation" under federal law. Federal public accommodations laws are very limited in scope. Hotels, restaurants, theatres, and gas stations, more or less.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Not for public accommodations. You posted the correct info, but didn't read it: "race, color, religion, or national origin." That's it. No sex. No sexual orientation.

Furthermore, a website developer isn't even considered a "place of public accommodation" under federal law. Federal public accommodations laws are very limited in scope. Hotels, restaurants, theatres, and gas stations, more or

"Sex" was added as an amendment in title VII.

 

[Taylor]

"Sex" was added as an amendment in title VII.

Title VII pertains to employment discrimination. Title II has not been amended.

 

[Carjosse]

If you regularly do business with general public, you must do business with general public regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, and the other protected classes.