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

[Taylor]

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.

And that's largely due to state laws. Not all states protect the same classes of people. Roughly half of the states have protections based on sexual orientation, including Colorado. The question before the court is whether Colorado's law infringes on the website developer's first amendment rights.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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.

Perhaps, but then why would you WANT to do business with someone who expresses a negative attitude, opinion, viewpoint of you?

Would you expect to get their best efforts? Would you expect there might be other issues with said services?

IMO it is one thing if you live in a place with no other options, like say a small mountain town with only one local store for miles around.

But if you are dealing with someone who tells you they have a problem with you, what would be the point? Especially if there are any number of other similar businesses who have no problem at all?

I mean I can understand the idealism, but I am also aware of realities.

 

[The Mark]

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."

​

I mean, it's a logical progression from "corporations are people and therefor cannot have their free speech limited by restrictions on how much they support political campaigns", to "corporations are people who can have religious beliefs".

In this reality.

 

[Individual]

If he was refusing to sell a finished product, perhaps then, there would be a case for the Court to rule against him.
Same with the wedding cake, the customer should not be denied the purchase of a cake but with knowledge they must take it elsewhere to be decorated.

 

[Individual]

The cost of civil cases brought to Court should be paid in full by the loser, perhaps even with a fine applied to the legal representation in some instances.

 

[Plasmaball]

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

Services.....goods..... its covered

 

[Taylor]

Services.....goods..... its covered

Nope. You made the same mistake he did. Read the whole thing.

 

[Plasmaball]

Nope. You made the same mistake he did. Read the whole thing.

I did...

 

[Taylor]

I did...

...on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

No sex. No sexual orientation.


...place of public accommodation, as defined in this section...

Web developers are not places of public accommodation under federal law, either. I've already summarized what counts. I encourage you to read the section for yourself.

 

[Plasmaball]

...on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

No sex. No sexual orientation.


...place of public accommodation, as defined in this section...

Web developers are not places of public accommodation under federal law, either. I've already summarized what counts. I encourage you to read the section for yourself.

They are a business or could be and they sell a product
I know full well how the court will rule on this

 

[Rawley]

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.

Act of Congress versus Constitutional rights.

 

[Taylor]

They are a business or could be and they sell a product
I know full well how the court will rule on this

You just don't know what law they're looking at.

The case will examine whether the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act violates her First Amendment rights.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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

The issue was not simply "discrimination against sexual orientation."

One of the issues discussed was:

QUOTE: [I]f a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter and the State would have a strong case under this Court’s precedents that this would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public and is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public accommodations law. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 4–7, 10.

Phillips claims, however, that a narrower issue is presented. He argues that he had to use his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation. As Phillips would see the case, this contention has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs. In this context the baker likely found it difficult to find a line where the customers’ rights to goods and services became a demand for him to exercise the right of his own personal expression for their message, a message he could not express in a way consistent with his religious beliefs. :END QUOTE. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-111

So while the issue was resolved around the various challenging issues (State had not recognized gay marriage at the time of refusal, issues with how the Commission determined it's ruling on the case), SCOTUS even then recognized issues with compelling both "expression," and Religious freedom per the 1st Amendment.

However, I grant that they skated the issue and focused the decision on the way the Commission handled the case.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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

If it were simply a refusal to sell a product off the shelf, or of having nothing to do with the use of his personal designing skills (like basic/generic products), then he would be required to sell it.

But the denial is not based on "sex or sexual orientation." The denial is on free expression and violates his religious beliefs, i.e. compelled to design via use of his skills something that conflicts with his beliefs. That is the issue before the SCOTUS in this case.

Example: If you were a Jewish flag maker, could you refuse to make a flag which reflects a swastika or other emblem of "Nazism?" It's just "a flag" after all, right? But of course anyone could buy a national flag, or other kinds of flags displayed for sale.

 

[AGENT J]

The issue was not simply "discrimination against sexual orientation."

didnt say it was and im not interested in your feelings, deflections, opinions or retarded strawman

However, I grant that they skated the issue and focused the decision on the way the Commission handled the case.

correct this is why the fact remains what you posted was not accurate as the links including your own prove thanks

 

[TheParser]

This is 2022.

The consensus is that no group should be discriminated against.

Thus, that designer should be required to make announcements for that prospective gay client.

The law, however, does NOT have the power to ensure that the designer does a good job.

So that gay person might be wise to find a more friendly business.

*****

Although this is 2022, I am guessing that some, say, restaurants (not only in the South!) still do not really, truly welcome, say, Martians. So the service those Martians receive is less than cordial. Word then spreads that maybe Martians might think about dining elsewhere.

 

[CaughtInThe]

i'm just glad that a number of people hate on others in the name of Christianity. that way, when their application is being reviewed at the Pearly Gates, they'll be sent down to burn in the fires of hell for all eternity.

 

[SuperDS77]

i'm just glad that a number of people hate on others in the name of Christianity. that way, when their application is being reviewed at the Pearly Gates, they'll be sent down to burn in the fires of hell for all eternity.

You apparently have a comprehensive misunderstanding of Christianity.

 

[CaughtInThe]

You apparently have a comprehensive misunderstanding of Christianity.

 

[SuperDS77]

Don't cry. Jesus loves you too!

 

[tres borrachos]

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?

Sounds like you miss the good old days when they could refuse to serve you at a lunch counter because you're black, or a bank could refuse to give you a loan because you're Hispanic. I mean, because private business and all that.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Don't cry. Jesus loves you too!

Don't worry. It won't be me crying at the pearly gates.

 

[Credence]

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.

I was just getting ready to reply with something similar and agree with you. However, as a minority, unless there was nothing else close in proximity, I would go elsewhere rather than jumping through these hoops for principal

 

[AGENT J]

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

I still havent looked into this yet but I have another question that typically gets these people in trouble and exposes them for the bigots they tend to be.
does the designer do all other weddings as long as they are man and woman?

asking because thats how a super old case was lost by bigots when they canceled a venue due to "Catholic beliefs" after they found out the reception was for a same-sex couple. But records showed they did remarriages, marriages of other religions and tons of Jewish events . . . .

 

[jonny5]

This is 2022.

The consensus is that no group should be discriminated against.

Thus, that designer should be required to make announcements for that prospective gay client.

The law, however, does NOT have the power to ensure that the designer does a good job.

So that gay person might be wise to find a more friendly business.

*****

Although this is 2022, I am guessing that some, say, restaurants (not only in the South!) still do not really, truly welcome, say, Martians. So the service those Martians receive is less than cordial. Word then spreads that maybe Martians might think about dining elsewhere.

That is not the consensus, but its irrelevant. The law, that we all agreed to, states that the govt shall not make laws which infringe on peoples right to express their beliefs, exercise religion, or be forced to work. With specific exceptions for race and color. As in other cases, the designer is not refusing to design a website based on the race or color of the person, or even their sexual orientation, but rather the content of the product they are being asked to make. They are fully within their right to refuse to act in a way that goes against their beleifs.