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

In the world of politics there are often a number of ways of viewing something. One is the dichotomy of individual vs. society.

In this instance, the individual's freedom of action [Ed.: or lack thereof,] is considered more important than the society expectation that a business opens its doors to all.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

No it hasn't. You still can't refuse to sell to a person because they are Christians or Wiccan or Jewish or whatever. You can, however, refuse to create a specific piece of work (cake, web site, advertising sign, etc) that has a religious theme to it.

 

You are the one not understanding. The selling of a generic cake is not protected such that the baker/seller can refuse because of say the buyer being in a same sex marriage. What is protected is the ability of the baker to not make a cake that has specific same sex marriage content on it.

 

No they shouldn't and this ruling doesn't allow them to do so, if they are already making wedding cake. However, the baker can refuse if the buyer wants to have the baker put a bunch of religious content on it. I'm hard pressed to think of anything that would be Catholic specific.

 

There were some. One of the bakeries had taken the order and then told the couple 2 days before the wedding that they would not do the cake and also refused to refund the money. And I think one or two of them outright refused even when the cake itself didn't have any specific same sex marriage content on it. I do remember at least one was willing to sell a plain wedding cake, but refused to do all the same sex content that couple wanted. I just don't remember which one is which any more. One of these days I will remember to take notes as these things unfold. (ADD starts laughing in the background)

 

It's a victory for freedom of expression.

 

Transubstantiation.

 

Pff.
You invite a hand picked group who are predominantly corrupted devoted Christians to judge if LGBTQ+ can be discriminated by Christians, and like a bunch of ayatollah's on a religious court they say yes.

"freedom" lol
Freedom to discriminate it is.

 

If society is so insistent that s business opens it's doors, then society will vote with it's pocket book. It's that simple.

The Left's forced conformity agenda is just flat wrong.

 

Freedom of religious expression is not discrimination. These Christian shop owners are not refusing to serve them they're declining to add symbols or messages to their products that violate their religious beliefs.

 

There is no such connection made linking Allah with homosexuality in my poats. This is clearly projection on your part and I would suggest internalizing these thoughts rather than sharing them publicly.

 

I would say (and apparently the court agreed) that any customization that you do to a generic product would fall under the broad rubric of "creative." If a baker refuses to sell an off the shelf wedding cake to a gay couple because they are gay, that would generally be understood to be a violation of their civil rights under some manner of public accommodation laws. However if that couple wanted a customized cake in which there were an icing illustration of two chicks scissor grinding, the court ruled that the baker could refuse.

That shouldn't even be a controversial ruling, but taking your position to the extreme, if a neo-Nazi couple wanted to get their wedding cake by a Jewish baker, and they wanted it decorated with swastikas and an icing outline of Auschwitz, it sounds like you are arguing that the Jewish baker would have to make that cake.

 

Not doing the cake and refusing to refund the money sounds like a customer service issue, not a constitutional one.

 

that's the turd in the woke punch bowl. and many on the left have never figured out that if we say someone has the FREEDOM to do something-that does not mean we necessarily approve of what they do. But you'd think the LBQTetc crowd could find plenty of people in their own circles to do the job

 

No, it isn't custom work to deliver a pizza. That is nonsense.

 

That is the one. If someone enters a bakery, puts cash or a credit card on the table and states that they want to buy that that cake then the bakery must sell it to him or her. If a customer wants a message added to the cake decoration that conflicts with the bakery's beliefs, then the bakery can refuse to do the decoration. But they have to sell the cake if the customer will take it without a message.

Personally I think it would be bad business to refuse to do the message. That someone has views different from yours has no place in business. Business is about operating to a profit, not about opposing or trying to change the ideology of the customer. In the Masterpiece Bakery case the message would have increased the ability of the bakery to operate to a profit.

Several years ago I owned and operated a gourmet store. One day members of the local republican party came into the store and asked if they could put a political sign in my window. Naturally I refused. That would likely interfere with operating to a profit by opposing the political preferences of potential customers. Business has no business messing with religion or politics. It is bad business. Taking care of customers is good business.

 

Supreme Court Defends Freedom of Speech. “Justice Gorsuch devotes the final seven pages of his opinion to dissecting the dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. If genteel, it is also rather brutal.”

'The State of Colorado lost the case when it stipulated to the relevant facts. Under the Court’s precedents, the result should have been clear:'

Ms. Smith and the State stipulated to a number of facts:

• 'Ms. Smith is “willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender” and “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sexual orientation;
• she will not produce content that “contradicts biblical truth” regardless of who orders it;
• Ms. Smith’s belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is a sincerely held conviction;
• Ms. Smith provides design services that are “expressive” and her “original, customized” creations “contribut[e] to the over-all message” her business conveys “through the websites” it creates;
• the wedding websites she plans to create “will be expressive in nature,” will be “customized and tailored” through close collaboration with individual couples, and will “express Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s message celebrating and promoting” her view of marriage;
• viewers of Ms. Smith’s websites “will know that the websites are her original art-work;” and “[t]here are numerous companies in the State of Colorado and across the nation that offer custom website design services.”'

At that point, the case was over.

'Anyone familiar with the Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence should have foreseen that Smith would win. The state cannot demand that Americans parrot speech with which they do not agree. Full stop.'

And why do some sick bastards want to control their fellow citizens in that manner?

'Gorsuch points out that Colorado’s purpose is to stamp out ideas with which its current politicians do not agree:'

• 'Ms. Smith seeks to engage in protected First Amendment speech;
• Colorado seeks to compel speech she does not wish to provide.'

That's the controversy.

'As the Tenth Circuit observed, if Ms. Smith offers wedding websites celebrating marriages she endorses, the State intends to compel her to create custom websites celebrating other marriages she does not. 6 F. 4th 1160, 1178. Colorado seeks to compel this speech in order to “excis[e] certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 633, 642. Indeed, the Tenth Circuit recognized that the coercive “[e]liminati[on]” of dissenting ideas about marriage constitutes Colorado’s “very purpose” in seeking to apply its law to Ms. Smith. 6 F. 4th, at 1178. But while the Tenth Circuit thought that Colorado could compel speech from Ms. Smith consistent with the Constitution, this Court’s First Amendment precedents teach otherwise.'

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

'this Court has also long recognized that no public accommodations law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. In particular, this Court has held, public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech. See, e.g., Hurley, 515 U. S., at 571, 578; Dale, 530 U. S., at 659. As in those cases, when Colorado’s public accommodations law and the Constitution collide, there can be no question which must prevail. U. S. Const. Art. VI, §2.'

GORSUCH TAKES ON THE DISSENT:

'Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?'

'When the dissent finally gets around to that question—more than halfway into its opinion—it reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom.'

'That is a common ploy by losing litigants and dissenting justices–pretend that the facts are something different from what is before the Court. In the 303 Creative case, that effort by Sotomayor is especially pathetic, since the facts were stipulated to by the parties.'

'Sotomayor’s dissent, not a judicial opinion but a partisan political rant, would be embarrassing if authored by a second-year law student. That such tripe can emanate from a Supreme Court justice is dispiriting. Shame on Elena Kagan, who should know better, and Ketanji Jackson for signing on with it. But the bottom line is, we have a Supreme Court majority that is actually in favor of the First Amendment.'

 

Breech of contract and/or theft in my book. But there were multiple bakery cases and there was an actual variety on what the cases needed to be judged on.

 

Freedom not to communicate something you don't want communicated. Think about it. Would you want government to force you to say things about which you disagree?

 

It's not for the people who have that religion. It is for the people who may be discriminated against. Iran got their version of "freedom" of religion.

 

The OP is about homosexuality. So your example is either off topic nonsense or it is equating homosexuality with pedo's. It is that simple.

 

The original post is about a court case involving freedom of speech/compelled speech. My hypothetical was about freedom of speech/compelled speech. There's two explanations for your responses:

1. You think the Muslim God is gay.
2. You were confused by an obvious hypothetical.

You're free to internalize which of the two applies to you, but each time you pretend I'm the one calling Allah gay you expose your personal bias which comes off as projection.

 

Years ago I heard a news story on the radio that a black baker refused to bake a custom cake for the KKK, and they brought him to court and a judge ruled that the black baker had to make the cake. So you can stop with the cake example.

 

If this is true, you can rest easy knowing this shouldn't happen again considering this is a high profile case. The lower courts will be forced to comply with the ruling. You should thank this court for standing up for their rights. Also, the KKK is not a protected class so this doesn't make any sense.

 

Who are the people who may be discriminated against? The people who can't get what they want or the people forced to comply against their will?