SCOTUS rules website designer does not have to design for a gay couple.

[pearl]

From what I understand the Court's findings rested on a hypothetical!

 

[fantome profane]

Arizona attorney general: Supreme Court ruling for website designer ‘woefully misguided’

Mayes emphasized that several local and state non-discrimination protocols are in effect.

www.azfamily.com

"If any Arizonan believes that they have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry in a place of public accommodation, they should file a complaint with my office. I will continue to enforce Arizona’s public accommodation law to its fullest extent."


Basically what she is saying here, if I may paraphrase, is that the Supreme Court has made its ruling, now let's see them enforce it.

 

[metis]

From what I understand the Court's findings rested on a hypothetical!

That's also what I heard on the news yesterday.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Gorsuch wrote that "Colorado seeks to enforce an individual to speak in a way that align with its views but defy her conscience and a matter of major significance."

Is design really speech? Is bigotry a matter of conscience?

Sounds ridiculous. How is Colorado doing anything like that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don’t understand how a case like that could even get up to the Supreme Court. If what you say in true there is no case. No one was violating her rights, no one was asking her to do something she didn’t want to do.

This should have been rejected by a lower court the second it was filed, and her lawyer sanctioned for wasting the courts time.

My thoughts, exactly. I don't get it.

 

[Copernicus]

For those interested in both sides of the case, you can read the majority opinion by Gorsuch and the dissent by Sotomayor on the SCOTUS website:

303 Creative LLC v Eleni

I strongly agree with the dissenters on this one. As Sotomayor points out, this decision says pretty much the direct opposite of what the Court had acknowledged five years earlier in the cake shop decision:

Five years ago, this Court recognized the “general rule” that religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage“ do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U. S. ___, ___(2018) (slip op., at 9). The Court also recognized the “serious stigma” that would result if “purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons” were “allowed to put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’”

Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public. The Court also holds that the company has a right to post a notice that says, “‘no [wedding websites] will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’”

 

[We Never Know]

The experts say it doesn't matter if it was made up.

"It doesn't matter that there was a fake detail in the case the Supreme Court used to roll back LGBTQ+ rights, experts say"

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Orbit]

The experts say it doesn't matter if it was made up.

"It doesn't matter that there was a fake detail in the case the Supreme Court used to roll back LGBTQ+ rights, experts say"

MSN

www.msn.com

I had this argument with my husband. It matters to me, because it tells something both about the character of the person that brought the suit, and by extension suggests how seriously (not) Christians take the commandment against lying.

 

[We Never Know]

I had this argument with my husband. It matters to me, because it tells something both about the character of the person that brought the suit, and by extension suggests how seriously (not) Christians take the commandment against lying.

Right. But the case and ruling wasn't about her character.

 

[Revoltingest]

I had this argument with my husband. It matters to me, because it tells something both about the character of the person that brought the suit, and by extension suggests how seriously (not) Christians take the commandment against lying.

What matters....
How the case came before SCOTUS?
Or what SCOTUS decided?

Next question...
Should SCOTUS have ruled against the
Constitution because socially AA is good?

 

[fantome profane]

What matters....
How the case came before SCOTUS?
Or what SCOTUS decided?

Both.

 

[Revoltingest]

Both.

I notice that so far, those who oppose the decision
oppose how the case came before the court.
Those who don't oppose it, aren't bothered by
the case getting there.

 

[fantome profane]

I notice that so far, those who oppose the decision
oppose how the case came before the court.
Those who don't oppose it, aren't bothered by
the case getting there.

For the record, in case you have not noticed something that is not there to be noticed, I personally have not given an opinion of the decision.

But I am highly critical of the way the case got to the court. They shouldn't have issued a ruling (and I am not going to issue a ruling either).

 

[Revoltingest]

For the record, in case you have not noticed something that is not there to be noticed, I personally have not given an opinion of the decision.

In case you haven't noticed,
I've not stated your opinion.

But I am highly critical of the way the case got to the court. They shouldn't have issued a ruling (and I am not going to issue a ruling either).

What prohibits hearing a seemingly moot case?

 

[fantome profane]

What prohibits hearing a seemingly moot case?

Waste of time and money.

 

[Revoltingest]

Waste of time and money.

From the perspective of the court,
it was productive enuf to take on.

 

[fantome profane]

From the perspective of the court,
it was productive enuf to take on.

???

What was produced?

 

[Revoltingest]

???

What was produced?

A decision that 6 of 9 justices
really really wanted to make.

Note:
Terrible decision IMO.

 

[Revoltingest]

I had this argument with my husband. It matters to me, because it tells something both about the character of the person that brought the suit, and by extension suggests how seriously (not) Christians take the commandment against lying.

What was a lie?

 

[fantome profane]

A decision that 6 of 9 justices
really really wanted to make.

Note:
Terrible decision IMO.

That response was very productive. In the sense that you produced a response.