The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn’t want to make wedding websites for gay couples

What you say is true. The issue the supreme court decided was whether or not the first amendment includes freedom not to speak as well as protecting speech. They decided that it does. Government doesn't have the right to demand that speech fit its concept of what is required. It is OK not to engage in speech despite what government wants. It improved freedom in America in an important and valid way. The decision doesn't change the laws that require a business to sell to minorities. A website, like a fancy cake, communicates. This was a free speech issue, not a religious freedom issue like the Masterpiece Bakery case. It hasn't harmed anybody. Nobody was refused service. The case had nothing to do with her. It was about a Colorado law.

 

So I could refuse to serve a wedding because it involves a religious ceremony, and i don't want to be compelled to speak in support of the delusions of religious people?

 

Correct. It is the same thing as a bakery selling a cake off the rack. But this was a free speech issue not a religious freedom issue like that of the bakery.

 

I don't see why not. If your closely held belief is that religion is offensive then I don't see why you should be compelled to serve a religious ceremony.

 

Because it would be discrimination based on religion.

 

that's the statist way of looking at it. for those of us who actually honor the oath we took to defend the constitution, the supreme court has done just that. Like it or not, the government doesn't have the proper power to make every sort of thought that you disapprove of, illegal.

 

I get that and don't have a problem with it. For example, if someone bought a generic wedding cake from a baker and put their own decorations on it then there's no problem. If, on the other hand, they intentionally go to a bakery that specializes in a given theme and tries to get that bakery to make something contrary to that theme then there's an issue. I wouldn't, for example, go to "Trans Cakes R Us" and expect them to make an "Only Two Genders" cake.

 

This decision is about custom creative services being included in the scope of the first amendment. You can refuse to do anything that involves that. If you don't want to do business with a wedding party you can simply explain that you don't do weddings. Not complicated.

 

There has never been a law against bigotry. Bigotry is a personal thing. The decision has nothing to do with bigotry even though the claimant may be bigoted. It simply included the right not to speak along with the right to speak in the first amendment. Do you want government to have the power to force you to communicate things you don't want to communicate? Think about it.

 

Baking a cake or selling a cake isn't a speech issue. Designing a website is.

 

Apparently the supreme court interpreted it differently. I'm not a lawyer so my opinion is worthless in this matter. I support the protection of not speaking in the first amendment, though. That is what the decision was about.

 

Your intolerance is noted.

 

it sort of reminds me of the Clash video "ROCK THE CASBAH"

 

I’m at work and haven’t had a chance to sit down and read the decision. I guess I’d have to see what portions they believed would have compelled her speech when I’ve got some time. Don’t suppose you have a quote.

 

Not true. Nobody is required to do work they normally don't do. You can simply explain that you don't do weddings. A car mechanic can say he doesn't do work on your type of car. A body and paint shop can refuse to paint signs on a car. They can explain that they are car painters, not sign painters. They would be happy to paint your car and then you could take it to a sigh painter. What is illegal is refusing to let a minority eat in your restaurant or refusing to sell something to someone dressed in drag. It would be illegal as well as bad business for the body and paint shop to say they won't paint your car because you are an Asian. Not the same thing as refusing to paint signs on a car. No law should require you to do work you don't want to do or communicate things you don't want to communicate.

 

But i could do weddings, just not ones that involve a religious ceremony.

 

No, I just have analyses I got from TV. The case was about the right not to speak in the first amendment. It included custom creative work that communicates something the provider doesn't want to communicate. Unlike the Masterpiece Bakery case that was about religious freedom, this decision was about free speech. It has no affect on the laws requiring businesses to sell to minorities if that is the reason service is denied. The decision just bans government from requiring people to communicate things they don't want to communicate. It makes sense to me.

 

I'm not a lawyer but I would suggest that you are in the wrong business. Nevertheless I don't believe religious people are viewed as minorities requiring protection and nothing in this decision would force you to take the business. Again, I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps one will show up with a better answer.

 

Yeah, makes sense to me too. I agree with the concept of the government not compelling speech. I just keep hearing people claim that the law was determined to be unconstitutional, but that doesn’t add up based on my understanding of the Colorado anti-discrimination act. Guess I’ll just have to read up on the decision some time after work.

 

I am saying that I should be forced to take their business.

I really don't think i should be able to discriminate against religious people.

 

A note of warning is that Colorado changed their legal justification when it got to the Supreme Court. It seems they knew they got lucky in the 10th Circuit with sympathetic judges, but the Supreme Court wouldn't be as easy. At the end of the day the final decision is based on precedent from other cases in regard to free speech. You don't have free speech if the government tells you what you MUST say.

 

I’ll keep that in mind when I get a chance to read through the decision. Thanks.

 

I'm not sure of the first part but this decision would disalow government to force you to say something you don't want to say. Silence is protected along with speech.

 

What if a gay atheist website designer didn't want to make a website for a Catholic wedding? I'm thinking it wouldn't even make news because that couple would have just taken their business elsewhere. I'm on the fence with this particular issue though. I think business is business but what if this person has a lot of Catholic clients that put food on her table? Maybe she fears losing those clients. There are a lot of factors to consider when it comes to putting food on the table.

 

The problem could be that Colorado changed the law in between the 10th circuit decision and the supreme court decision. Even though the point was moot with the Colorado law, the SC thought it important to protect the right not to speak.