SCOTUS Rules Against Colorado Law in Website Case

[Webster]

(The Guardian) Supreme court conservatives rule against Colorado law protecting LGBTQ+ rights
In its first decision of the day, the supreme court’s six conservatives ruled against a Colorado law meant to ban discrimination by businesses against members of the LGBTQ+ community.

Here’s the meat of the majority opinion in the Colorado LGBTQ+ rights case, as written by conservative justice Neil Gorsuch.

“In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance,” writes Gorsuch, who ruled against the Colorado law, along with the court’s five other conservatives. “But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong. Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider ‘unattractive’, ‘misguided, or even hurtful’, But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. 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.”

Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent in the Colorado LGTBQ+ rights case, which was joined by the court’s two other liberal justices.

“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,” Sotomayor wrote.

“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.”

She continues: A business open to the public seeks to deny gay and lesbian customers the full and equal enjoyment of its services based on the owner’s religious belief that same-sex marriages are ‘false’. The business argues, and a majority of the Court agrees, that because the business offers services that are customized and expressive, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment shields the business from a generally applicable law that prohibits discrimination in the sale of publicly available goods and services. That is wrong. Profoundly wrong.

“Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group,” Sotomayor writes. “I dissent.”

 

[Webster]

(The Guardian) Top House Democrat condemns decision against LGBTQ+ protection, GOP keeps quiet
It’s been a tough day for Democrats and their policies at the supreme court, and they’re letting their voters know it, with the party’s leaders and rank-and-file lawmakers alike speaking out against the justices’ decisions curbing LGBTQ+ protections, and stopping Joe Biden from relieving some student loan debt.

But as CNN points out, while plenty of Republicans are cheering the student loan decisions, but few have anything to say about the court’s decision against a Colorado law intended to stop businesses from discriminating against gay people:


Democrats have no such qualms. In a statement, House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries described the court’s decision in the Colorado case as a step backwards: Today’s extreme, rightwing supreme court ruling invites a return to a time when businesses were empowered to turn people away simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that when a business opens its doors, those doors should be open to all. Unfortunately, the extremists on the supreme court are more interested in jamming their rightwing ideology down the throats of the American people than promoting fundamental fairness.

No person or business should be given a license to discriminate. That is exactly what today’s wrongheaded supreme court decision will unleash. Every individual, no matter who they are or who they love, deserves the freedom to go about their daily lives and access the goods and services they need without fear or discrimination. House Democrats will continue to stand with the LGBTQ+ community until liberty and justice for all prevails and the Equality Act is the law of the land.

 

[Black Angel]

This isnt surprising.. but that industry is circling the drain anyway since there are a shit ton of tools out there to automate web and gfx design.. Canva is one of them and I forget the name of the one that does websites out of the box..

And this industry is set to be done by AI probably sooner thsn later because people really don't want to deal with over-inflated egos that many gfx and web designers have.

So with that being the case, it is good that she has her validation from this court, but she just lost a lot of potential customers over it, and even though she has a lot of support on the conservative side, that doesn't always translate to customers.

I mean that bakery that refused to serve LGBT+ customers ended up shutting down too.

So, she like the bakers before her, shut down a potential pipeline that could have saved her business or at least bought her some time to adapt to the rapidly changing industry, and that is her right too..

But gfx and web design are on its way out thanks to AI and online tools like Canva and that is exactly why I never considered it as anything more than a hobby.

 

[Nebulous]

I think a private business should be able to turn away whoever they want for any reason. They should pick their battles wisely though. Otherwise, if they pick the wrong battles, they will alienate a chunk of their customers (& potential customers) and go out of business.

 

[Black Angel]

Yep. This is why I don't always get the anger.. yes, it sucks to be discriminated against, and insulted for being who you are naturally.. since unlike being an asshole, your sexuality is not a choice, at least not where I am concerned.

And yes, the idea of having to basically have to go on a long drawn out search to find another person for the job, who hopefully isn't a bigot may suck too.. but would you really want someone like this having put hands on your food or anything that is important to you? Some people are so small-minded and vindictive, and haven't much going on in their lives and are miserable, so they decide to shit on other people for that reason, and these people will weaponize whatever little power they have over a person in that situation, they know that this energy is transferrable, and so their goal is just to try and make someone as miserable as they are.

And they exist in all industries. From a hairdresser, waitress to a SCOTUS judge.

Case in point, we have a SCOTUS judge who was bullied by his peers as a child, over his rich skin color, and was nicknamed "ABC" as a result and he never got over it. Seriously. He NEVER got over it. As a result, he became a petty, vindictive, self-hating person, and the perfect person to roll-back the few decades of progress that was made by his peers with the help from his predecessor. He has spent his entire career this far rolling back decades of precedent and social progress.

This has also made him the perfect tool, for those who hate the very same people that was helped by his predecessor. Ironically enough, if it weren't for his predecessor, he himself would not have the job he holds today. I am sure he knows that they don't like him either, maybe they hate him too and consider him a useful idiot, but he is also married to a woman, a former cult survivor who was pulled out of her deprogramming, and is currently in another one (that doesn't involve getting nude with others and shouting hateful things toward each others bodies, but is still a cult) who literally bank-rolled, (at least partially) prayed for, cheered and otherwise supported those who tried to over throw our government. (I sincerely doubt this was a coincidence, since she comes from a wealthy, well connected family, who only tolerated her future husband because he was on their side, and it was enough to overlook his skin color.) This is tragic because it is two hurt people that are being used to further the goals of of those that really don't give a fuck about them. But he was determined to hurt his peers, as much as he has been hurt himself, and he has, and that has been and will always be his legacy. So for him, just like the people that he works for, the cruelty is the point.

The point is, when you have people that have energy like that, the LAST place you want them, is in a position to sabotage something you care about. In this case, you most definitely don't want their hands in your hair, your food or on your website, and especially one that is a celebration of your love toward another person. At least, that is the case with my culture. If a person is bigoted toward BIPOC, and make a point of showing their hostility toward them because of their "religion" (I mean they literally did the same shit in the 50s in response to desegregation.. they had picket signs with scriptures on them, as support for their cause..) then chances are, that is a person you wouldnt want to be patronizing anyway.

But as much as it does suck, why not save a picture of the item or design idea from that particular person, and take it to someone else who will do the work? Why try to force their hand? Yes it is unfortunate, but they can be circumvented and this would be an excellent opportunity to support a local business that is LGBT+ friendly, and if you can't find any, then start one yourself.

That is what Black people did, in response to the hatred and discrimination they faced from others, and that is what these other marginalized groups can do and have done themselves. I think that nowadays, the people who follow that path, would probably see more success, than the people who discriminated against them.. and this is largely because people really don't like assholes.. and they love a good backstory with a happy ending. I am pretty sure that there are a number of LGBT+ friendly businesses that have popped up in the wake of these unfortunate events.

I just think that events like this, end up giving more attention and notoreity to the people who deserve it least.. therefore rewarding them for their bigotry.. because now, they have a backstory with a happy ending.

The odd thing is, the discrimination always seems to be one sided. I mean the LGBT+ have always existed in human history. Hell their marriages predate straight marriages. So, in our society they have always existed and in all industries.. but I have never heard them (or any other marginalized group say, "Sorry, but I don't tip straight people" or "Sorry, I don't serve Christians" etc., or any of the things that we have heard in these incidents from these supposed religious people, since LGBT+ people can be religious too. But the discrimination always seems to be toward the marginalized group in question.

It really makes you think..

 

[Nebulous]

unlike being an asshole, your sexuality is not a choice

Love that quote. ...and so true!

 

[Webster]

For what its' worth, I agree with Michael Brown here....

Questions for Those Who Differ with the SCOTUS Decision in Favor of a Christian Graphic Artist

townhall.com

...Last week the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision that Lori Smith, a Colorado-based Christian graphic artist and web designer, did not have to create content that violated her beliefs. In response, Clara Jeffery, editor-in-chief of Mother Jones, tweeted, “perhaps gay stylists, designers, caterers, and planners should start withholding services from Christian conservatives and see where that goes.” After all, Jeffery reasoned, if a Christian can create content for a gay couple, surely gay professionals can decline services to Christian conservatives.

Similarly, in her strong dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that, “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.” And she claimed that the ruling comes amid a “backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities.”

... ... ...

In reality, the ruling did no such thing, and Justice Neil Gorsuch was right to challenge Justice Sotomayor’s arguments. He stated that Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion “reimagines the facts” from “top to bottom.” He also argued that she failed to answer the fundamental question of, “Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?”

.... ... ....

As for the counter-argument raised by Jeffery and others, I’d love to hear their answer to these simple questions.

--Should a gay web designer be compelled by the state to design a website for a counseling service that helps people overcome same-sex attractions?
--Should an Orthodox Jewish web designer be compelled by the state to design a website for Jews for Jesus?
--Should an atheist web designer be compelled by the state to design a website called “Answering Atheism”?
--Should a trans-identified web designer be compelled by the state to design a website on the dangers of hormone therapy and sex-change surgery?
--Should a Muslim web designer be compelled by the state to design a website for a meat service specializing in pork products?
--Should an African American web designer be compelled by the state to design a website selling Confederate flags?
--Should a Christian web designer be compelled by the state to design an “Adultery Hookup” website?
--Should any web designer be compelled by the state to design a pornography website?

The answer to all these questions is obvious: none of these people should be compelled to create content that violates their beliefs or convictions. The state clearly has no right to compel them to do so.