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

[Copernicus]

And until yesterday the law said that business providing services to the public could not deny such services to any protected sector of society. That has been altered now to say "unless they're gay."

I'm not so sure that it is that simple. LGBTQ people can be discriminated against if the service involves some kind of "speech" product that the business owner provides the customer. If it is something like serving a meal, I don't think that the SCOTUS decision would allow the restaurant to refuse to serve them. However, the general public will likely interpret the decision that way, as they have for the Heller decision on gun ownership.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I guess the question becomes; who decides which group gets protective status.

Congress and the President, subject to judicial review.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Civil Rights Act does not protect sexual orientation. LGBTQ are not a protected class in the good ol' US of A. Guess LGBTQ aren't worthy of protection.

Okay, that may be correct (I haven't time to research it at the moment). But it makes Justice Sotomayor's comment in her Dissent incorrect, when she said: “The Supreme Court of the United States declares that a particular kind of business, though open to the public, has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. The court does so for the first time in its history."

To what do you think she was referring?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not so sure that it is that simple. LGBTQ people can be discriminated against if the service involves some kind of "speech" product that the business owner provides the customer. If it is something like serving a meal, I don't think that the SCOTUS decision would allow the restaurant to refuse to serve them. However, the general public will likely interpret the decision that way, as they have for the Heller decision on gun ownership.

As Justice Sotomayor said in her Dissent, '“Today is a sad day in American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBT people. The immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status.”

And I think she is correct in that. With, unfortunately, the imprimatur of the Supreme Court itself. And that's going to cause a lot o pain to a lot of people, and I think I can say that with little cause to suppose I may be wrong.

 

[We Never Know]

The Civil Rights Act does not protect sexual orientation. LGBTQ are not a protected class in the good ol' US of A. Guess LGBTQ aren't worthy of protection.

From the link....

"Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent read from the bench, said this is the first time in history the court has granted a business open to the public a right to refuse service to members of a protected class."

 

[We Never Know]

Also about having the same ideas,
but balancing competing interests
differently. I'm fine with gays marrying,
but I lean towards less governmental
power over us.

There is another thread about how this gay couple may not even exist.

What do you think

about this link? https://www.yahoo.com/news/gay-couple-cited-by-christian-web-designer-who-won-supreme-court-case-may-not-exist-164940986.html

www.religiousforums.com

She is religious and didn't want to do any work for anyone/anything that as agaist her religious beliefs.

Now if in her business had she turned down a gay couple, backlash would have broke loose and she probably would have been sued. This way she now knows she can turn them down.

She did it the wrong way if she lied, "put the cart before the horse" so to speak but now she knows.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not so sure that it is that simple. LGBTQ people can be discriminated against if the service involves some kind of "speech" product that the business owner provides the customer. If it is something like serving a meal, I don't think that the SCOTUS decision would allow the restaurant to refuse to serve them. However, the general public will likely interpret the decision that way, as they have for the Heller decision on gun ownership.

I have said repeatedly in this thread that in this case, the "speech product" is completely spurious. She is not being asked to say anything for herself, but rather to provide a on-line platform for the "speech products" of her (potential, since she's never even tried it) clients.

Picture a publisher, being asked to print a book about the "Scopes Monkey Trial." Well, says the publisher, "I could print the worthy stuff that William Jennings Bryan said, because that was all the truth. But I certainly couldn't print the nonsense spouted by that awful Liberal Clarence Darrow!"

You see, he is not being asked to say (for himself) anything -- only report on the words spoken by others.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Civil Rights Act does not protect sexual orientation. LGBTQ are not a protected class in the good ol' US of A. Guess LGBTQ aren't worthy of protection.

Okay, I've found the relevant law for myself, and it is not in the Civil Rights Act, but in a decision by SCOTUS itself.

Five years ago, the 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 0p. at 9). The Court also recognized the “serious stigma” that would result if “purveyors of goods and services who abject 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.” Id., at __ (slip op., at 12).​

​

And now, the Court is rescinding those very words, and thereby condoning the "serious stigma" the Court itself recognized would be the result.

 

[Copernicus]

There is another thread about how this gay couple may not even exist.

What do you think

about this link? https://www.yahoo.com/news/gay-couple-cited-by-christian-web-designer-who-won-supreme-court-case-may-not-exist-164940986.html

www.religiousforums.com

Now if in her business had she turned down a gay couple, backlash would have broke loose and she probably would have been sued. This way she now knows she can turn them down.

She did it the wrong way if she lied, "put the cart before the horse" so to speak but now she knows.

After looking everywhere to see if the story was covered, I posted a link to it above. Now you tell me that it was discussed under the uninformative thread title "What do you think". Oh, well.

 

[We Never Know]

After looking everywhere to see if the story was covered, I posted a link to it above. Now you tell me that it was discussed under the uninformative thread title "What do you think". Oh, well.

You have to search using key words.

Search here using "gay couple might not exist" and the thread and replies show up

Search results for query: gay couple might not exist

 

[fantome profane]

After looking everywhere to see if the story was covered, I posted a link to it above. Now you tell me that it was discussed under the uninformative thread title "What do you think". Oh, well.

Didn't anyone explain to you that you are required to read every single post in every single thread before commenting. It is a rule. It is a rule that is posted here somewhere.

 

[Copernicus]

You have to search using key words.

Search here using "gay couple might not exist" and the thread and replies show up

Search results for query: gay couple might not exist

True. I actually looked for any thread title that looked like it might mention the story, and that particular title did not attract my attention for some reason. This thread seemed the only one devoted to the subject, and that's why I didn't search further. That thread should probably be merged with this one.

 

[Copernicus]

Didn't anyone explain to you that you are required to read every single post in every single thread before commenting. It is a rule. It is a rule that is posted here somewhere.

I didn't see mention of the fakery underlying the filing in this particular thread, but it's possible I missed an earlier mention when I went through the previous posts. People who were aware of the other thread might have refrained from mentioning it here because they already knew about the other thread. Oh, well. Live and learn. I did publish the link here to the original article that broke the story, and I'm not sure that was mentioned in the other thread. Also, I gave details on why this particular case would be disallowed in federal courts under the Constitution's "case and controversies" clause.

 

[We Never Know]

Didn't anyone explain to you that you are required to read every single post in every single thread before commenting. It is a rule. It is a rule that is posted here somewhere.

Be sure to use key words when searching for that rule lol

 

[Copernicus]

Be sure to use key words when searching for that rule lol

Didn't need to. I actually read the posts in this thread before posting my comment. I just didn't realize there was another thread on the same SCOTUS case.

 

[fantome profane]

I didn't see mention of the fakery underlying the filing in this particular thread, but it's possible I missed an earlier mention when I went through the previous posts. People who were aware of the other thread might have refrained from mentioning it here because they already knew about the other thread. Oh, well. Live and learn. I did publish the link here to the original article that broke the story, and I'm not sure that was mentioned in the other thread. Also, I gave details on why this particular case would be disallowed in federal courts under the Constitution's "case and controversies" clause.

You know I was just kidding, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, I've found the relevant law for myself, and it is not in the Civil Rights Act, but in a decision by SCOTUS itself.

Five years ago, the 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 0p. at 9). The Court also recognized the “serious stigma” that would result if “purveyors of goods and services who abject 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.” Id., at __ (slip op., at 12).​

​

And now, the Court is rescinding those very words, and thereby condoning the "serious stigma" the Court itself recognized would be the result.

What can I say. It was a 6-3 decision. I swear, if there was one less conservative on the Supreme Court all of them would do a lot more thinking before they made their decisions. The odds are that when the court is properly balanced again many of these 6-3 decisions will be revisited and be overturned. The Supreme Court has lost all sorts of respect due to their present ability to put an unconstitutional filter upon their decisions.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Now here's some interesting new background on this nonsense. Apparently, Lorie Smith actually argued all the way up to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that somebody named "Stewart" sent in a inquiry about her building a site for his marriage to "Mike." Well, since it's in court, many of the details (including "Stewart's" phone number) were publicly available, so a reporter from New Republic (Melissa Gira Grant, staff writer for The New Republic) decided to call "Stewart" and ask him about his request.

Well, surprise, "Stewart" turned out to be a married man -- to a woman, and with a child -- and also a web designer himself! And Stewart said, "I never sent any request, and why would I ask somebody who has never designed a wedding site to build one for me anyway?"

If this is all correct, I really have to ask: 'Goodness! What will these "Christians" do next!"

(It is reported on MSNBC, and here's a link on Democracy Now -- but I haven't verified fully, so be warned.)

 

[Copernicus]

What can I say. It was a 6-3 decision. I swear, if there was one less conservative on the Supreme Court all of them would do a lot more thinking before they made their decisions. The odds are that when the court is properly balanced again many of these 6-3 decisions will be revisited and be overturned. The Supreme Court has lost all sorts of respect due to their present ability to put an unconstitutional filter upon their decisions.

I suspect that this case was motivated purely by a strong desire among conservatives to strike a blow against the particular state law that led to the wedding cake decision 5 years ago that expanded protection for same sex marriages. It was a softball thrown underhanded to the six on the Court that were waiting to hit it out of the ballpark. The fact that the case itself was slapped together and lacked standing wasn't going to stop them. The idea was to bash that one state law. In the process, they did considerable damage to antidiscrimination laws in general, because now the right wing mob will be using it as an excuse to strike down more antidiscrimination laws around the country.

 

[Copernicus]

Now here's some interesting new background on this nonsense. Apparently, Lorie Smith actually argued all the way up to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that somebody named "Stewart" sent in a inquiry about her building a site for his marriage to "Mike." Well, since it's in court, many of the details (including "Stewart's" phone number) were publicly available, so a reporter from New Republic (Melissa Gira Grant, staff writer for The New Republic) decided to call "Stewart" and ask him about his request.

Well, surprise, "Stewart" turned out to be a married man -- to a woman, and with a child -- and also a web designer himself! And Stewart said, "I never sent any request, and why would I ask somebody who has never designed a wedding site to build one for me anyway?"

If this is all correct, I really have to ask: 'Goodness! What will these "Christians" do next!"

(It is reported on MSNBC, and here's a link on Democracy Now -- but I haven't verified fully, so be warned.)

Yep. This is what my post #113 was about. The original New Republic breaking story is linked to there. It is referenced in your Democracy Now source.