SCOTUS sided with Christian Web Designer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you think it is appropriate for people to be FORCED to make statements in which they don't believe?

Do you know what a wedding website is? It has info about hotel blocks and registries. It's not a statement of beliefs.

Wedding websites are all different. This is a custom request. You don't know what she may be asked to do.
And, that is what this case is about. You cannot compel a person to create something against their beliefs.
Just like I would never create something for a follower of Satan. And, I would be within my rights to refuse that.

You know what the next step is, right? A gay couple being denied the use of a hotel or restaurant for their wedding/reception. "Speech" has to be created for such an event, just like with the web designer.

Or what if an interracial couple wants to use the web designer's services, but the designer's religious beliefs forbid interracial marriage. Is that OK?

There is an obvious middle ground here that SCOTUS is staking out: public accommodation laws must be balanced within the Constitution. Joe’s Diner that serves burgers and fries has no reasonable speech claim, but the customized Cake Baker does.

I hate that this was decided in hypothetical rather than actual facts, but there was evidence that the couple in the Colorado cake case had specifically targeted the baker so they could file a complaint, so I can sorta see why the judges took the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you think it is appropriate for people to be FORCED to make statements in which they don't believe?

Do you know what a wedding website is? It has info about hotel blocks and registries. It's not a statement of beliefs.

Wedding websites are all different. This is a custom request. You don't know what she may be asked to do.
And, that is what this case is about. You cannot compel a person to create something against their beliefs.
Just like I would never create something for a follower of Satan. And, I would be within my rights to refuse that.

You know what the next step is, right? A gay couple being denied the use of a hotel or restaurant for their wedding/reception. "Speech" has to be created for such an event, just like with the web designer.

Or what if an interracial couple wants to use the web designer's services, but the designer's religious beliefs forbid interracial marriage. Is that OK?

There is an obvious middle ground here that SCOTUS is staking out: public accommodation laws must be balanced within the Constitution. Joe’s Diner that serves burgers and fries has no reasonable speech claim, but the customized Cake Baker does.

I hate that this was decided in hypothetical rather than actual facts, but there was evidence that the couple in the Colorado cake case had specifically targeted the baker so they could file a complaint, so I can sorta see why the judges took the case.

I agree, but at least in creating their little law school exercise case they stipulated to some facts that limit the scope of this and ability of hotels, etc. to claim this case falls under their free speech rights as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you think it is appropriate for people to be FORCED to make statements in which they don't believe?

Do you know what a wedding website is? It has info about hotel blocks and registries. It's not a statement of beliefs.

Wedding websites are all different. This is a custom request. You don't know what she may be asked to do.
And, that is what this case is about. You cannot compel a person to create something against their beliefs.
Just like I would never create something for a follower of Satan. And, I would be within my rights to refuse that.

You know what the next step is, right? A gay couple being denied the use of a hotel or restaurant for their wedding/reception. "Speech" has to be created for such an event, just like with the web designer.

Or what if an interracial couple wants to use the web designer's services, but the designer's religious beliefs forbid interracial marriage. Is that OK?

There is an obvious middle ground here that SCOTUS is staking out: public accommodation laws must be balanced within the Constitution. Joe’s Diner that serves burgers and fries has no reasonable speech claim, but the customized Cake Baker does.

I hate that this was decided in hypothetical rather than actual facts, but there was evidence that the couple in the Colorado cake case had specifically targeted the baker so they could file a complaint, so I can sorta see why the judges took the case.

I agree, but at least in creating their little law school exercise case they stipulated to some facts that limit the scope of this and ability of hotels, etc. to claim this case falls under their free speech rights as well.

Why do you think that? Remember Hobby Lobby, a massive corporation with 43k employees is allowed to have religious beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you think it is appropriate for people to be FORCED to make statements in which they don't believe?

Do you know what a wedding website is? It has info about hotel blocks and registries. It's not a statement of beliefs.

Wedding websites are all different. This is a custom request. You don't know what she may be asked to do.
And, that is what this case is about. You cannot compel a person to create something against their beliefs.
Just like I would never create something for a follower of Satan. And, I would be within my rights to refuse that.

You know what the next step is, right? A gay couple being denied the use of a hotel or restaurant for their wedding/reception. "Speech" has to be created for such an event, just like with the web designer.

Or what if an interracial couple wants to use the web designer's services, but the designer's religious beliefs forbid interracial marriage. Is that OK?

There is an obvious middle ground here that SCOTUS is staking out: public accommodation laws must be balanced within the Constitution. Joe’s Diner that serves burgers and fries has no reasonable speech claim, but the customized Cake Baker does.

I hate that this was decided in hypothetical rather than actual facts, but there was evidence that the couple in the Colorado cake case had specifically targeted the baker so they could file a complaint, so I can sorta see why the judges took the case.

I agree, but at least in creating their little law school exercise case they stipulated to some facts that limit the scope of this and ability of hotels, etc. to claim this case falls under their free speech rights as well.

Why do you think that? Remember Hobby Lobby, a massive corporation with 43k employees is allowed to have religious beliefs.

Why do I think what? Hobby Lobby isn't a web designer with speech implications. Hobby Lobby is more like Joes Diner from above. It doesn't have the right to refuse a gay couple entry into their store to buy paint supplies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heads are exploding on the left right now

No I’m just going to reject business from MAGA.

Good for you... now you see how the 1st amendment works.

And I am free to practice my profession, and now I have the ability to turn away clients that run counter to my Christian beliefs. And that means no longer accepting work from MAGA Catholics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can force people to make gay websites, you can also force them to make websites advocating for Pizza gate, or force them to make evangelical Christian websites. Be careful what you wish for-- any weapon you create can be used against you.

This is where I'm choosing to come at this being a win for the first amendment, and I'm a liberal. I think we're taking too many hits to the first amendment and this case at least distinguishes her speech section of the website development, and the rest of it. They stipulated in the facts that she creates other websites that are non-wedding related and that she does that regardless of who they are. So if the website is for someone else's business, making stationary, or jewelry, or whatever, she's going to design that website no matter who comes to her. But her "business design" for the wedding sites involves all this speech around her creating a story of the couple, etc. which distinguishes it from the other portion of the business. It makes her look like an a$$ and is probably super disingenuous, but it also helps to stave off the crazies who are going to want to apply this to all businesses.

I agree this is the right outcome as well, and I’m shocked by the garbage understanding of constitutional law a lot of people seem to have.

In certain states there are now laws being promulgated regarding trans participation in sports, youth access to gender-affirming care, etc. Would the angry liberals in this thread be upset if a web designer put a banner on their website saying that due to their sincerely-held religious beliefs or beliefs concerning the health and well-being of transgender people, they will not design websites for organizations that seek to limit youth access to gender-affirming care? Should that be disallowed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you think it is appropriate for people to be FORCED to make statements in which they don't believe?

Do you know what a wedding website is? It has info about hotel blocks and registries. It's not a statement of beliefs.

Wedding websites are all different. This is a custom request. You don't know what she may be asked to do.
And, that is what this case is about. You cannot compel a person to create something against their beliefs.
Just like I would never create something for a follower of Satan. And, I would be within my rights to refuse that.

Usually, Satanic worshippers would want to support another Satanic worshipper's business. Why would they want to pay money to support a Christian business?

Were they baiting her to make a case?

My mother used to do design work for weddings. And she always felt like she was sometimes cut out of some business that she would have been happy to have, but that business went to others who were more diverse owners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you think it is appropriate for people to be FORCED to make statements in which they don't believe?

Do you know what a wedding website is? It has info about hotel blocks and registries. It's not a statement of beliefs.

Wedding websites are all different. This is a custom request. You don't know what she may be asked to do.
And, that is what this case is about. You cannot compel a person to create something against their beliefs.
Just like I would never create something for a follower of Satan. And, I would be within my rights to refuse that.

You know what the next step is, right? A gay couple being denied the use of a hotel or restaurant for their wedding/reception. "Speech" has to be created for such an event, just like with the web designer.

Or what if an interracial couple wants to use the web designer's services, but the designer's religious beliefs forbid interracial marriage. Is that OK?

There is an obvious middle ground here that SCOTUS is staking out: public accommodation laws must be balanced within the Constitution. Joe’s Diner that serves burgers and fries has no reasonable speech claim, but the customized Cake Baker does.

I hate that this was decided in hypothetical rather than actual facts, but there was evidence that the couple in the Colorado cake case had specifically targeted the baker so they could file a complaint, so I can sorta see why the judges took the case.

I agree, but at least in creating their little law school exercise case they stipulated to some facts that limit the scope of this and ability of hotels, etc. to claim this case falls under their free speech rights as well.

Why do you think that? Remember Hobby Lobby, a massive corporation with 43k employees is allowed to have religious beliefs.

Why do I think what? Hobby Lobby isn't a web designer with speech implications. Hobby Lobby is more like Joes Diner from above. It doesn't have the right to refuse a gay couple entry into their store to buy paint supplies.

Why would a web designer is no different from a dinner. The bigger question is is there any proof that this lady is actually religious and follows all of the tenants of her religion? Does she pick and choose which parts of her religion she follows? Did the highest earthly authority in her religion send the court a letter under oath stating she is a member in good standing in her religion and she has complied with all their beliefs and practices? Does the same religion say you can not do business with a married gay couple or gays in general?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you think it is appropriate for people to be FORCED to make statements in which they don't believe?

Do you know what a wedding website is? It has info about hotel blocks and registries. It's not a statement of beliefs.

Wedding websites are all different. This is a custom request. You don't know what she may be asked to do.
And, that is what this case is about. You cannot compel a person to create something against their beliefs.
Just like I would never create something for a follower of Satan. And, I would be within my rights to refuse that.

You know what the next step is, right? A gay couple being denied the use of a hotel or restaurant for their wedding/reception. "Speech" has to be created for such an event, just like with the web designer.

Or what if an interracial couple wants to use the web designer's services, but the designer's religious beliefs forbid interracial marriage. Is that OK?

There is an obvious middle ground here that SCOTUS is staking out: public accommodation laws must be balanced within the Constitution. Joe’s Diner that serves burgers and fries has no reasonable speech claim, but the customized Cake Baker does.

I hate that this was decided in hypothetical rather than actual facts, but there was evidence that the couple in the Colorado cake case had specifically targeted the baker so they could file a complaint, so I can sorta see why the judges took the case.

I agree, but at least in creating their little law school exercise case they stipulated to some facts that limit the scope of this and ability of hotels, etc. to claim this case falls under their free speech rights as well.

Why do you think that? Remember Hobby Lobby, a massive corporation with 43k employees is allowed to have religious beliefs.

Why do I think what? Hobby Lobby isn't a web designer with speech implications. Hobby Lobby is more like Joes Diner from above. It doesn't have the right to refuse a gay couple entry into their store to buy paint supplies.

I produce websites. That doesn't mean I generate the content for my clients. Even a 5 year old knows this. The whole case was bunk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can force people to make gay websites, you can also force them to make websites advocating for Pizza gate, or force them to make evangelical Christian websites. Be careful what you wish for-- any weapon you create can be used against you.

This is where I'm choosing to come at this being a win for the first amendment, and I'm a liberal. I think we're taking too many hits to the first amendment and this case at least distinguishes her speech section of the website development, and the rest of it. They stipulated in the facts that she creates other websites that are non-wedding related and that she does that regardless of who they are. So if the website is for someone else's business, making stationary, or jewelry, or whatever, she's going to design that website no matter who comes to her. But her "business design" for the wedding sites involves all this speech around her creating a story of the couple, etc. which distinguishes it from the other portion of the business. It makes her look like an a$$ and is probably super disingenuous, but it also helps to stave off the crazies who are going to want to apply this to all businesses.

I agree this is the right outcome as well, and I’m shocked by the garbage understanding of constitutional law a lot of people seem to have.

In certain states there are now laws being promulgated regarding trans participation in sports, youth access to gender-affirming care, etc. Would the angry liberals in this thread be upset if a web designer put a banner on their website saying that due to their sincerely-held religious beliefs or beliefs concerning the health and well-being of transgender people, they will not design websites for organizations that seek to limit youth access to gender-affirming care? Should that be disallowed?

Yes, it should be, so I know what business to avoid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you think it is appropriate for people to be FORCED to make statements in which they don't believe?

Do you know what a wedding website is? It has info about hotel blocks and registries. It's not a statement of beliefs.

Wedding websites are all different. This is a custom request. You don't know what she may be asked to do.
And, that is what this case is about. You cannot compel a person to create something against their beliefs.
Just like I would never create something for a follower of Satan. And, I would be within my rights to refuse that.

Usually, Satanic worshippers would want to support another Satanic worshipper's business. Why would they want to pay money to support a Christian business?

Were they baiting her to make a case?

My mother used to do design work for weddings. And she always felt like she was sometimes cut out of some business that she would have been happy to have, but that business went to others who were more diverse owners.

There was no baiting because there were no clients that the Plaintiff was being forced to serve. The whole thing was a hypothetical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you think it is appropriate for people to be FORCED to make statements in which they don't believe?

Do you know what a wedding website is? It has info about hotel blocks and registries. It's not a statement of beliefs.

Wedding websites are all different. This is a custom request. You don't know what she may be asked to do.
And, that is what this case is about. You cannot compel a person to create something against their beliefs.
Just like I would never create something for a follower of Satan. And, I would be within my rights to refuse that.

You know what the next step is, right? A gay couple being denied the use of a hotel or restaurant for their wedding/reception. "Speech" has to be created for such an event, just like with the web designer.

Or what if an interracial couple wants to use the web designer's services, but the designer's religious beliefs forbid interracial marriage. Is that OK?

There is an obvious middle ground here that SCOTUS is staking out: public accommodation laws must be balanced within the Constitution. Joe’s Diner that serves burgers and fries has no reasonable speech claim, but the customized Cake Baker does.

I hate that this was decided in hypothetical rather than actual facts, but there was evidence that the couple in the Colorado cake case had specifically targeted the baker so they could file a complaint, so I can sorta see why the judges took the case.

I agree, but at least in creating their little law school exercise case they stipulated to some facts that limit the scope of this and ability of hotels, etc. to claim this case falls under their free speech rights as well.

Why do you think that? Remember Hobby Lobby, a massive corporation with 43k employees is allowed to have religious beliefs.

Why do I think what? Hobby Lobby isn't a web designer with speech implications. Hobby Lobby is more like Joes Diner from above. It doesn't have the right to refuse a gay couple entry into their store to buy paint supplies.

Why would a web designer is no different from a dinner. The bigger question is is there any proof that this lady is actually religious and follows all of the tenants of her religion? Does she pick and choose which parts of her religion she follows? Did the highest earthly authority in her religion send the court a letter under oath stating she is a member in good standing in her religion and she has complied with all their beliefs and practices? Does the same religion say you can not do business with a married gay couple or gays in general?

There’s no proof that she got a legitimate request to design a wedding website, or even that she designs wedding websites at all. You think they dug into proving that she’s religious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can force people to make gay websites, you can also force them to make websites advocating for Pizza gate, or force them to make evangelical Christian websites. Be careful what you wish for-- any weapon you create can be used against you.

This is where I'm choosing to come at this being a win for the first amendment, and I'm a liberal. I think we're taking too many hits to the first amendment and this case at least distinguishes her speech section of the website development, and the rest of it. They stipulated in the facts that she creates other websites that are non-wedding related and that she does that regardless of who they are. So if the website is for someone else's business, making stationary, or jewelry, or whatever, she's going to design that website no matter who comes to her. But her "business design" for the wedding sites involves all this speech around her creating a story of the couple, etc. which distinguishes it from the other portion of the business. It makes her look like an a$$ and is probably super disingenuous, but it also helps to stave off the crazies who are going to want to apply this to all businesses.

I agree this is the right outcome as well, and I’m shocked by the garbage understanding of constitutional law a lot of people seem to have.

In certain states there are now laws being promulgated regarding trans participation in sports, youth access to gender-affirming care, etc. Would the angry liberals in this thread be upset if a web designer put a banner on their website saying that due to their sincerely-held religious beliefs or beliefs concerning the health and well-being of transgender people, they will not design websites for organizations that seek to limit youth access to gender-affirming care? Should that be disallowed?

Yes, it should be, so I know what business to avoid.

Then you should be happy with this decision, because it allows a designer to put that on their website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you think it is appropriate for people to be FORCED to make statements in which they don't believe?

Do you know what a wedding website is? It has info about hotel blocks and registries. It's not a statement of beliefs.

Wedding websites are all different. This is a custom request. You don't know what she may be asked to do.
And, that is what this case is about. You cannot compel a person to create something against their beliefs.
Just like I would never create something for a follower of Satan. And, I would be within my rights to refuse that.

You know what the next step is, right? A gay couple being denied the use of a hotel or restaurant for their wedding/reception. "Speech" has to be created for such an event, just like with the web designer.

Or what if an interracial couple wants to use the web designer's services, but the designer's religious beliefs forbid interracial marriage. Is that OK?

There is an obvious middle ground here that SCOTUS is staking out: public accommodation laws must be balanced within the Constitution. Joe’s Diner that serves burgers and fries has no reasonable speech claim, but the customized Cake Baker does.

I hate that this was decided in hypothetical rather than actual facts, but there was evidence that the couple in the Colorado cake case had specifically targeted the baker so they could file a complaint, so I can sorta see why the judges took the case.

I agree, but at least in creating their little law school exercise case they stipulated to some facts that limit the scope of this and ability of hotels, etc. to claim this case falls under their free speech rights as well.

Why do you think that? Remember Hobby Lobby, a massive corporation with 43k employees is allowed to have religious beliefs.

Why do I think what? Hobby Lobby isn't a web designer with speech implications. Hobby Lobby is more like Joes Diner from above. It doesn't have the right to refuse a gay couple entry into their store to buy paint supplies.

I produce websites. That doesn't mean I generate the content for my clients. Even a 5 year old knows this. The whole case was bunk.

But don’t you want to be able to refuse to produce a website for (say) a religious organization with which you disagree?

[Anonymous]

Honest question here.

If I was a baker, I wouldn't want to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church or for a white supremecist group. I think I should be able to refuse that request based on my sincerely held beliefs, even if my business is open to the public.

How is that any different than someone who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

I know my example is a hypothetical, but this SCOTUS cake was basically based on a hypothetical example too.