Another one to put in the "Win" Column.

As many are commenting - a great way to end Pride Month

Supreme Court Rules Web Designer Can Refuse Work on Same-Sex Wedding Announcements


WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court sided with a Colorado web designer’s claim that the First Amendment entitles her to refuse commissions for same-sex wedding announcements, providing a victory for religious conservatives still smarting from the court’s 2015 ruling granting marriage equality to gay and lesbian couples.

Lorie Smith, an evangelical Christian who runs 303 Creative, a web-design company in Littleton, Colo., filed suit in 2016 to get a federal court order declaring her business exempt from state antidiscrimination law should any same-sex couple seek her services. A federal appeals court in Denver, like other federal and state courts confronting objectors to same-sex marriage, found no constitutional right to disregard state law requiring that businesses open to the public treat customers equally without regard to sexual orientation.

Writing for the court, Justice Neil Gorsuch said Smith’s First Amendment free-speech rights—in this case, the right to not express a view supportive of same-sex marriage—took priority over a Colorado law forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands,” he wrote, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The court’s three liberals dissented, arguing Smith’s actions rather than speech were at issue. “The act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In her appeal to the Supreme Court, Smith was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian advocacy group that also argued against same-sex marriage in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Smith said she views her work for hire as an artistic expression of her own beliefs rather than those of the client alone, and considers compliance with the antidiscrimination law as akin to the state compelling her to declare support for same-sex marriage.

The case involved a long-brewing contest between two lines of recent Supreme Court decisions: those that give priority to religious expression rights over secular public interests and those extending civil equality to LGBTQ Americans. Several cases posing that conflict have reached the court since the Obergefell decision, but at each juncture the justices either have turned down the appeal seeking exemption from nondiscrimination law, or issued a relatively narrow decision in favor of the objector to same-sex marriage without issuing a broader pronouncement on whose rights must yield.

At oral arguments in December, the court’s liberal and conservative wings read the court’s precedents to point to significantly different outcomes.

Jackson noted that the court paid no heed in the 1960s when segregationists raised religious objections laws and court orders prohibiting discrimination.

Some Southerners had opposed interracial marriage on religious grounds, but in the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that such prohibitions were “directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the 14th Amendment.” In another unanimous decision, the court in 1968 dismissed as “patently frivolous” a South Carolina restaurant owner’s argument that permitting Black people to eat barbecue on premises “contravenes the will of God.”

Alito said opposition to same-sex marriage shouldn’t be compared with racial prejudice. When the court, over Alito’s dissent, found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in 2015, the majority opinion spoke respectfully regarding those who held traditional moral beliefs opposed to such unions, he said. During the civil-rights era, in contrast, the court gave no credit to racist views when overturning segregation laws, he said.

The first sentence pissed me off.

"Still smarting from the 2015 ruling"

Another reporter who ought to be digging ditches.

But yeah, great way to end June. I thought to myself often during my travels last week "oh thank God, more rainbows, I was starting to think this place was homophobic...."

quote:

Originally posted by DoctorSolo:
The first sentence pissed me off.

"Still smarting from the 2015 ruling"

Another reporter who ought to be digging ditches.

The WSJ Opinion and the WSJ News sides live on different planets. I think that's why the news side seldom enables comments as their conservative leadership would be continuously call them on cheap shots like you mentioned.

Anyone that does not kneel to the alphabet community will be hounded out of business . This isn't about people being discriminated against and being unable to seek services , etc. It's about people daring to stand up to them .

I love this court!

quote:

Originally posted by selogic:
Anyone that does not kneel to the alphabet community will be hounded out of business . This isn't about people being discriminated against and being unable to seek services , etc. It's about people daring to stand up to them .

We saw this with various bakeries not taking the business of an alphabet couple's wedding.

The reality is, these people are zealots, willing to put themselves into the legal process, in order to advance their agenda. There's no doubt, that they are being financially supported by third party funds, who are looking to social engineer the culture, even if that means putting out of business a small, independent enterprise whether a bakery, printing service, web services etc.

I'm happy for this win but they'll still keep a-coming. That's what the Christian baker experienced. Interesting that this web designer took the initiative rather than wait when she was sued or persecuted. I truly pray this SCOTUS remain as is for decades to come.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

He certainly delivered big time and I mean HUUUGE! If there were nothing else than his SCOTUS nominations, conservatives owe Trump their support for reelection even for a second time.

And another:

The Supreme Court voted 6–3 on June 30 to strike down President Joe Biden’s controversial plan to partially forgive student loans.

The six conservative justices voted to invalidate the program in the closely watched case, while the three liberal justices voted to uphold it.

And add yet ANOTHER win for “us” by SCOTUS…

https://youtu.be/U4imE7TDlwg

** Sorry…for some reason the “embed” option for sharing YT vids does not come up on either my iPad or cellphone (Apple SE 2nd Gen).

** Also covered in “USSC and Affirmitive Action” thread…

I like the rebuttal from Gorsuch on Sotomayer's dissent. "It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case," Gorsuch wrote. Gorsuch said Sotomayor’s dissent in the case "reimagines the facts" from "top to bottom". "In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position."

One more...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/s...joy-work-on-sundays/

This was a 9-0 which flies in the face of Schumer's "MAGA court" BS.

Listening to some pundits on the Radio, the consensus is that the 303 Creative case is going to have far reaching effect on the DEI movement as well as states like MI and CA making laws regarding speech requirements vs jail.

CA and MI law are clearly going to be challenged and with 303 Creative on the books these and other "hate speech" laws should be unconstitutional

Winning....

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

He certainly delivered big time and I mean HUUUGE! If there were nothing else than his SCOTUS nominations, conservatives owe Trump their support for reelection even for a second time.

Agree!

And, though it may not be popular to say in some circles, we owe Senator Mitch McConnell our gratitude as well. He did a great job on getting these 3 Justices confirmed. Can you imagine if he had caved in 2016 and allowed Merrick Garland to be confirmed? I cant even think about it.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Listening to some pundits on the Radio, the consensus is that the 303 Creative case is going to have far reaching effect on the DEI movement as well as states like MI and CA making laws regarding speech requirements vs jail.

CA and MI law are clearly going to be challenged and with 303 Creative on the books these and other "hate speech" laws should be unconstitutional

Winning....

Absolutely. I'm actually more excited about this victory right now than any of the other cases. The government cannot compel your speech. That has now been explicitly stated by the highest court in the land. I'm pumped with this ruling.

This Supreme Court is the only thing keeping this country from sliding off a cliff at the moment.

Thank you, President Trump.

Looking at it in another perspective:

If the decision had gone the other way, designers then might have had the same rights to sue potential customer for not choosing their service.

It is, however, equal protection.

This court legitimizes Trump. He pretty much has to be treated as a significant figure by historians. As ironic and painful as it may be for leftist, Trump will likely be remembered as the most significant modern President.

I think I'm beginning to like this group.

quote:

Originally posted by mlee:
I like the rebuttal from Gorsuch on Sotomayer's dissent. "It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case," Gorsuch wrote. Gorsuch said Sotomayor’s dissent in the case "reimagines the facts" from "top to bottom". "In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position."

Firstly the decision is great. Second Gorsuch rebuking that commie swine Sotomayor is a joy to see. She is for the most part a disgrace as a jurist. Third, thanks President Trump!