U.S. Supreme Court leans toward web designer with anti-gay marriage stance

[Eugene]

Earlier DU thread: U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments over anti-gay marriage web designer

______________________________________________________________________

Source: Reuters

U.S. Supreme Court leans toward web designer with anti-gay marriage stance

Andrew Chung and Nate Raymond
Mon, December 5, 2022 at 7:07 AM·5 min read

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled sympathy on Monday toward an evangelical Christian web designer whose business refuses to provide services for same-sex marriages in a major case pitting LGBT rights against a claim that freedom of speech exempts artists from anti-discrimination laws.

The justices heard more than two hours of spirited arguments in Denver-area business owner Lorie Smith's appeal seeking an exemption from a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and other factors. Lower courts ruled in favor of Colorado.

Smith, who runs a web design business called 303 Creative, contends that Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act violates the right of artists - including web designers - to free speech under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment by forcing them to express messages through their work that they oppose.

Smith, 38, has said she believes marriage should be limited to opposite-sex couples, a view shared by many conservative Christians. She preemptively sued Colorado's civil rights commission and other state officials in 2016 because she feared she would be punished for refusing to serve gay weddings.

While the conservative justices indicated support for Smith's stance, the liberal justices leaned toward Colorado's arguments. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

-snip-

Read more: https://news.yahoo.com/designers-anti-gay-marriage-stance-110724874.html

[Midnight Writer]

1. Surprise? This is a dream court for conservatives.

[Pinback]

2. How is this even a case?

As I understand it, no gay couples have asked this cretin to design a website for their nuptials, so she is protesting a potential butthurt. How does this hypothetical scenario merit Supreme Court review?

[AnnaLee]

6. She must have established standing somehow.

I don't think you can start a suit without standing. I cannot see how you get standing without some harm occurring. Potential harm wouldn't get standing, would it?

[roamer65]

3. So if they rule for the designer, that means the reverse will be legal.

LGBT and others will be able to discrimate against religious nuts.

[TheRealNorth]

4. Their convictions and beliefs don't count

Only those beliefs and myths that SCOTUS deems a valid religion.

[AnnaLee]

7. I was thinking about basing it on political registration.

Everyone should get a list of the registered voters in their area and check a name before selling them a Coke.

Or on the brand of shoes they are wearing or if they stand or sit to pee.

[CrispyQ]

5. Wouldn't it just be easier to tell potential clients who you don't want to work for

that you have too much work on your plate right now & you can't take on any more projects?

My bad. Flaunting your supposed moral superiority over those you dislike & disapprove of is part of the fun, for these loathsome, hateful people.

[Freethinker65]

8. Religious zealots can legally discriminate whereas free-thinking secularists cannot?