U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments over anti-gay marriage web designer

[kelly1mm]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday began hearing arguments in a major case pitting LGBT rights against a claim that the constitutional right to free speech exempts artists from anti-discrimination laws in a dispute involving an evangelical Christian web designer who refuses to provide her services for same-sex marriages.

The justices were hearing 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, including the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021.

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.

The case follows the Supreme Court's narrow 2018 ruling in favor of Jack Phillips, a Christian Denver-area baker who refused on religious grounds to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The court in that case stopped short of carving out a free speech exemption to anti-discrimination laws.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/u-s-supreme-court-hears-arguments-over-anti-gay-marriage-web-designer/ar-AA14VlzJ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=04e4781c16904c24b4271f031d45d30d

---

An interesting case that is NOT being reviewed on religious freedom grounds but rather on free speech grounds.

The Court is reviewing if there is a right of a business person to not be forced into compelled speech if the requested speech by the customer is based on a protected class.

Should a t-shirt printer open to the public be able to legally refuse to produce t-shirts saying 'Gay Pride'?
Should a t-shirt printer open to the public be able to legally refuse to produce t-shirts saying 'Allah Hates Gays'?

Should a t-shirt printer open to the public be able to legally refuse to produce t-shirts saying 'Black Pride'?
Should a t-shirt printer open to the public be able to legally refuse to produce t-shirts saying 'White Pride'?

Race, religion and sexual orientation are all protected classes.

Should be a fascinating opinion to read, as well as the dissents.

[peppertree]

1. Dollars to donuts the Extreme Court says 'yes - Smith's 1st Amendment rights are being trampled!"

And then, the minute some inbred Repug sues a business for refusing to print 'Allah Hates Gays, and God Hates Allah (sic) - so you're going to Hell if you're for either!'

Then the Extremes will rule that the customer's 1st Amendment rights were the victim here.

[kelly1mm]

4. It would be a lot easier if there was a 'Just don't be an asshat!' clause to the Constitution

that's for sure! Until then we have to deal with competing constitutional rights.

[peppertree]

6. True - but all the more so when you have a radicalized Court choosing who is/isn't an asshat

depending on their own, arbitrary preference.

And what's worse, choosing what is or isn't a right - depending on that same criteria.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. We're just a hop, skip, and jump away from food as religious expression

"I will not sell food to anyone I don't like!"

"Or provide electricity, shelter, clothing, gasoline, or the right to drive on the road past my house!"

[cstanleytech]

3. I predict she will win and I suspect she would win even in an unbiased SCOTUS.

Why? Because this is the government mandating that a bigot support in essence the speech of someone else which is a no no.
Might be a different ruling if say this was a case where she was employed by a company and refused to do her job and was suing the company because it would be a case where she is trying to compel the company to support her bigotry.

[Cattledog]

5. Yep. Even the guy who represented the Gay couple in the prior "Cake" suit agrees her case

is on solid grounds.

[kelly1mm]

7. At the end of the day I think you are right. Compelled speech is the flip side of

prohibited speech. I am wondering if there will be a limiting principle that says only those types of businesses that produce 'speech' can use this as a defense? I mean can a plumber refuse service to a gay couple? that is different than making t-shirts with text on them as the latter is speech whereas fixing to toilet is not?

[cstanleytech]

8. "I mean can a plumber refuse service to a gay couple?" Probably. After all there are plenty of other

plumbers a person can hire.
It would probably be a different ruling though if it was a case of something like a company refusing to provide electrical service.

[qazplm135]

9. We are never going to win this

We can't force people to be decent.

It just provokes stubborn resistance.

If they don't want to do these things then shun them, don't use them, drive them out of business. Make it absolutely unprofitable to be a bigot.

[moose65]

10. Sadly, I think that may be the answer!

She would NEVER sue for the right to refuse serving Black customers or Hispanic customers- that would be a bridge too far for even radical MAGAts.

In a few years, this will be the same - and we will look back and shake our heads.

One thing I still can't figure out. For most businesses, money trumps everything, and gay money is just as green as anyone else's money. I don't know many businesses that will refuse to do business!