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

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-...ite-designer-aa529361bc939c837ec2ece216b296d5

Most articles I've seen on this issue are not objective, the AP article is no different. This case was about a woman who makes custom websites for different purposes, including weddings. However, she did not want to make websites for gay weddings saying it goes against her beliefs. Colorado has compelled speech laws that require her to make custom websites for people that go against her beliefs or she could be fined and/or forced to go to re-education.

The end result of this is you could force a Muslim to make a movie calling Allah a pedophile. From the ruling:

 

The lady who brought the suit wasn't even asked to do anything she didn't want to do.

Does she even operate a functioning business, or was it just a ruse to get the court to rule against gay people?

 

It is not the person being discriminated against, but the content being promoted.

A straight person asking for a same-sex marriage website could be declined based on the content they wanted addressed.

The list goes on and on...

 

In this particular case, the web designer doesn’t operate a place of public accommodation, so she can discriminate against whoever she wants.

Still find it hilarious that she filed a lawsuit without an inciting incident though.

 

She didn't sue anybody. She took exception to a Colorado law. The decision clarified that free speech not only protects people's right to speak but also the right not to speak. It was actually an important decision that had nothing to do with what the woman didn't want to do. It made the Colorado law unconstitutional. You should read the decision. It is a landmark one.

It wasn't a rule against gay people. It was a ruling against a Colorado law that would force her to accept business that the government wanted her to accept that she might not want to accept by reason of the first amendment. It protected free speech in the form of government forcing speech.

 

She was fighting a Colorado law, not an incident. The law was unconstitutional and the supreme court validated that fact.

 

So does this mean you don't have to bake the cake?

 

Another victory for bigots everywhere. Yay.

 

She sued the state of Colorado.

It's absolutely a ruling against gay people or anyone else that a religious person decides to discriminate against.

An athiest wouldn't be able to refuse service to weddings that involve a religious ceremony.

Religious groups are given extra rights. Their beliefs are placed on a pedestal over beliefs of people who are not religious.

 

The law as written wouldn’t have applied to her. At least not as I interpret it.

 

She wanted to expand into making websites for weddings, however, she feared Colorado would enforce its anti-discrimination act against her if she turned down a same-sex wedding website. She claimed that she was willing to make websites for people of all genders, races, sexual orientations, etc. She just would not make a website that promoted gay marriage because it went against her religious beliefs. The law prevented her from expanding her business.

 

This is precisely the reasoning that was made in front of the Supreme Court.

 

No, the law didn't prevent her from expanding her business. Her fear did.

 

I mean, I guess it's a "landmark ruling" but it seemed obvious from the beginning that the Colorado law violated the first amendment. Couldn't a lower court have just stated the obvious based upon existing precedent..

 

So her belief is that at least once a week she has to go into a special building where someone dressed up in an ornate costume leads them in singing to an invisible man they believe lives in the sky.
And because of this she should get preferential treatment.

 

You're not making any sense. The state told her what the consequences would be if she expanded her business and the liability she would have. So she sued to remove those consequences allowing her to expand her business. This isn't debatable. The attorneys for the state told this to the Supreme Court. It's not a disputed fact. You're entitled to your opinions, but you're not entitled to make up facts.

 

Expanding her business would not have resulted in any consequences, until she refused service to a gay couple. That isn't debatable.

Expanding her business was not prevented in any way by this law. That isn't debatable. Those are all facts.

I hope everyone who doesn't hate gay people refuse to ever do business with her.

 

Please stop making things up. Even the Circuit Court that ruled against her held "she had established a credible threat that, if she follows through on her plans to offer wedding website services, Colorado will invoke CADA to force her to create speech she does not believe or endorse."

You're spinning for no reason. If she expanded her business, she would be forced to violate her religious faith. The consequence of expanding her business is that she would be held to CADA. She wouldn't be able to market her business as she chose and would be forced to take on commissioned work that went against her business.

 

The existence of the law doesn't force her to do anything until she has actual customers.

I'm just stating facts. Not sure why you keep saying I am making stuff up.

This lady made up an injury because she was afraid gay people just wouldn't be able to resist her beautiful websites.

 

Nobody ruled against gays. The decision allows business owners the freedom to choose their customers just as customers have the freedom to choose their vendors.

 

So I could choose not to serve a wedding because it was going to have a religious ceremony?

 

The Tenth Circuit panel she drew had two Clinton judges who claimed the state had a compelling interest in forcing her into compelled speech.

 

It's important to note that this is only for custom work. If the web designer made website templates and simply sold templates to customers they could be forced to comply with Colorado's law. Commissioned work is different though.

 

Why not?