The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn’t want to make wedding websites for gay couples

[RDKirk]

I meant actual examples of the work the business was so offensive that they were compelled to discriminate against the wrong types of customers.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what the actual objectionable web site content was or wasn't. Given the court wasn't working from any actual customer requests, we're all just guessing at this point.

Which is kinda a strange way to make case law, but it fits in with the pattern others have noted in the thread.

The court was working from the actual lawsuit filed by the website maker against the state, which was pre-emptively preventing her from stating her intention not to create websites for homosexual marriages.

 

[JSRG]

I know this is off topic, but here's why overturning the framework of that precedent is a problem: it's precisely the compramise that two extremes need. If you have one side that is for unmitigated abortion and another that seeks to ban abortion, RvW was a workable compromise. Here's the framework as I understand it:

1st trimester = woman's choices
2nd trimester = state's choice
3rd trimester = contingent on special circumstances (e.g. mother's health)

This issue will not be resolved without compromise, and the one that worked got thrown out so we can haphazardly work back to something very similar. Inane, is what I call it.

If there is to be compromise on the issue, then it should be done by the elected legislatures, not an unelected group of judges whose job is not to make legislation anyway. When it comes to abortion, the question before the Supreme Court is not "what would be a good compromise between two political factions?" or "what is good policy?" but "what does the Constitution say?" Given that the Constitution says essentially nothing about abortion even implicitly, it is not the Court's place to try to insert itself into the issue. Roe v. Wade was the Court inserting itself into an issue the Constitution is silent on, and its overturn was the Court getting out of the issue it had no business being in to begin with and only hurt the country's political system by inserting itself into.

Even if the Constitution does in fact say something about requiring access to abortion, then the Court's determination of what it should be based on the Constitution and its history, not as a compromise between two political factions. What is striking about Roe v. Wade is, beyond the question of whether it was correct to find an abortion right in the Constitution, how blatantly legislative it is. I can think offhand of no other Supreme Court decision that was as legislation-like in giving such specific guidelines in what is allowed and when it is allowed ("The opinion strikes the reader initially as a sort of guidebook, addressing questions not before the Court and drawing lines with an apparent precision one generally associates with a commissioner's regulations" as John Hart Ely put it in the critique I linked to before). The subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey at least toned down that aspect, even if it didn't eliminate it completely.

That is a relevant precedent when my initial assertion was that we have a conservative court that overturns precedent in favor of religious conviction. Keep up

Given the context of your post, the most reasonable interpretation of your statement was that you were saying the specific case in question was the one overturning precedent, not cases in general. Perhaps that was not your intent, but that was how it came across as.

As for your religious conviction claim, while I cannot read the justices' minds to know for sure if religious conviction had a role or not in their decision, one need no religious conviction to assert Roe v. Wade was wrong, as one can make a perfectly valid legal and constitutional case against the decision without invoking the slightest bit of religious belief.

 

[public hermit]

Sorry, no, I'm not going to let you derail a First Amendment thread to an interminable abortion thread. There is nothing relevant about it.

That makes it easy for you. I understand and so be it.

 

[public hermit]

If there is to be compromise on the issue, then it should be done by the elected legislatures, not an unelected group of judges whose job is not to make legislation anyway. When it comes to abortion, the question before the Supreme Court is not "what would be a good compromise between two political factions?" or "what is good policy?" but "what does the Constitution say?" Given that the Constitution says essentially nothing about abortion even implicitly, it is not the Court's place to try to insert itself into the issue. Roe v. Wade was the Court inserting itself into an issue the Constitution is silent on, and its overturn was the Court getting out of the issue it had no business being in to begin with and only hurt the country's political system by inserting itself into.

Even if the Constitution does in fact say something about requiring access to abortion, then the Court's determination of what it should be based on the Constitution and its history, not as a compromise between two political factions. What is striking about Roe v. Wade is, beyond the question of whether it was correct to find an abortion right in the Constitution, how blatantly legislative it is. I can think offhand of no other Supreme Court decision that was as legislation-like in giving such specific guidelines in what is allowed and when it is allowed ("The opinion strikes the reader initially as a sort of guidebook, addressing questions not before the Court and drawing lines with an apparent precision one generally associates with a commissioner's regulations" as John Hart Ely put it in the critique I linked to before). The subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey at least toned down that aspect, even if it didn't eliminate it completely.



Given the context of your post, the most reasonable interpretation of your statement was that you were saying the specific case in question was the one overturning precedent, not cases in general. Perhaps that was not your intent, but that was how it came across as.

As for your religious conviction claim, while I cannot read the justices' minds to know for sure if religious conviction had a role or not in their decision, one need no religious conviction to assert Roe v. Wade was wrong, as one can make a perfectly valid legal and constitutional case against the decision without invoking the slightest bit of religious belief.

You and I both know these decisions center on Christian ideology. I think it's a mistake both for the country and for the faith. But if you disagree, I'll be nonplussed.

 

[stevil]

What i'd like to know whether this woman (web designer) was hired to create the words, the message to be on the website, or if the words were provided by her gay customers.
I can understand if a person doesn't want to create the words, because it might be difficult for them to put the words together if they don't believe in the message. BUT, if the words were provided and all her job was to paste them into the website. Then this is a completely different thing.

If it isn't her words, then it isn't her freedom of speech that is in question.

 

[JSRG]

You and I both know these decisions center on Christian ideology.

Roe v. Wade turned on the question of whether the Due Process Clause protects right to an abortion. No "Christian ideology" here. While this current case does "center on Christian ideology" in the sense that the plaintiff's issues with the law were on religious convictions, the judicial question itself was really concerning the issue of free speech, not religion.

So no, they do not "center on Christian ideology." Or are you referring to the fact the results of the decisions are favorable to "Christian ideology", even if the decisions themselves do not come fro such? I am sure that some of those who applaud the current case and Dobbs are doing so not due to any agreement in the reasoning, but only the result--but, of course, I am sure that plenty of those those who complain about them also care not one whit about the legal reasoning and only care about the bottom line. But the legal reasoning in overturning Roe v. Wade and in upholding freedom of speech in this case do not "center on Christian theology."

I think it's a mistake both for the country and for the faith. But if you disagree, I'll be nonplussed.

Disagree with what? The decisions in question? I think that it was completely correct to overturn Roe v. Wade because it was a bad decision that shouldn't have happened, just as it is correct to overturn other previous incorrect decisions. As for the current case, it is in my view a fairly straightforward issue of free speech that was correctly decided on First Amendment grounds. But both are due to constitutional interpretation, not mere "Christian ideology."

 

[public hermit]

Roe v. Wade turned on the question of whether the Due Process Clause protects right to an abortion. No "Christian ideology" here. While this current case does "center on Christian ideology" in the sense that the plaintiff's issues with the law were on religious convictions, the judicial question itself was really concerning the issue of free speech, not religion.

So no, they do not "center on Christian ideology." Or are you referring to the fact the results of the decisions are favorable to "Christian ideology", even if the decisions themselves do not come fro such? I am sure that some of those who applaud the current case and Dobbs are doing so not due to any agreement in the reasoning, but only the result--but, of course, I am sure that plenty of those those who complain about them also care not one whit about the legal reasoning and only care about the bottom line. But the legal reasoning in overturning Roe v. Wade and in upholding freedom of speech in this case do not "center on Christian theology."


Disagree with what? The decisions in question? I think that it was completely correct to overturn Roe v. Wade because it was a bad decision that shouldn't have happened, just as it is correct to overturn other previous incorrect decisions. As for the current case, it is in my view a fairly straightforward issue of free speech that was correctly decided on First Amendment grounds. But both are due to constitutional interpretation, not mere "Christian ideology."

You seem excited. Forgive me if I've exacerbate an underlying issue. I'm fine being wrong.

 

[RDKirk]

What i'd like to know whether this woman (web designer) was hired to create the words, the message to be on the website, or if the words were provided by her gay customers.
I can understand if a person doesn't want to create the words, because it might be difficult for them to put the words together if they don't believe in the message. BUT, if the words were provided and all her job was to paste them into the website. Then this is a completely different thing.

If it isn't her words, then it isn't her freedom of speech that is in question.

Creating an expressive website is more creatively intense than just authoring the words.

 

[Pommer]

I’m starting to come down on the “good decision” side.

After “the norms” have been broken…we HAVE to reestablish new norms.
The CRA (1964) has done it’s job, (and works still), but we’re going to want to know again, where we stand on what is going to be socially acceptable and to exercise our free-association rights again, until we find the balance.

If this person were allowed to say “I respect everyone’s right to marry whom they please but I only do wedding pages for straight people”, then everyone would have known not to go to this person for gay wedding stuff; but she wasn’t allowed to state/publish that.

She needs to be free to be able to pre-filter her clientele to be sure to do a great job because she’s not bothered by anything in her clients’ lifestyles.

I say, let her! So did SCOTUS, win/win!

 

[Bradskii]

If this person were allowed to say “I respect everyone’s right to marry whom they please but I only do wedding pages for straight people”, then everyone would have known not to go to this person for gay wedding stuff; but she wasn’t allowed to state/publish that.

She needs to be free to be able to pre-filter her clientele to be sure to do a great job because she’s not bothered by anything in her clients’ lifestyles.

This was suggested in the first few posts. She just needs to be upfront about it. But the backlash against her doing that was immediate.

 

[stevil]

Creating an expressive website is more creatively intense than just authoring the words.

It really depends on what this WebSite creator is creating.
Are they putting together the functionality of the website, and just inserting the images and words provided to them.
OR are they word smithing and/or doing creative writing themselves?

 

[stevil]

If this person were allowed to say “I respect everyone’s right to marry whom they please but I only do wedding pages for straight people”, then everyone would have known not to go to this person for gay wedding stuff; but she wasn’t allowed to state/publish that.

She needs to be free to be able to pre-filter her clientele to be sure to do a great job because she’s not bothered by anything in her clients’ lifestyles.

I say, let her! So did SCOTUS, win/win!

Are you serious?

And perhaps someone could say “I respect everyone’s right to marry whom they please but I only do wedding pages for white people”, then everyone would have known not to go to this person for a non white wedding

"I say, let her! So did SCOTUS, win/win!"

 

[Bradskii]

Are you serious?

And perhaps someone could say “I respect everyone’s right to marry whom they please but I only do wedding pages for white people”, then everyone would have known not to go to this person for a non white wedding

"I say, let her! So did SCOTUS, win/win!"

I don't think it's valid for anyone to decide in any circumstance. But the SC had made it's decision in this case. And in this case, as it had been decided that she could refuse to deal with gay couples getting married then she should be asked to advertise that fact.

Apparently she is planning to do that.

 

[Pommer]

Are you serious?
And perhaps someone could say “I respect everyone’s right to marry whom they please but I only do wedding pages for white people”, then everyone would have known not to go to this person for a non white wedding

"I say, let her! So did SCOTUS, win/win!"

Yes, that would be fine.
I’d like to know where the racists are, rather than allowing them to pass undetected.

 

[stevil]

Yes, that would be fine.
I’d like to know where the racists are, rather than allowing them to pass undetected.

And if you live in a town FULL of racists?

 

[stevil]

I don't think it's valid for anyone to decide in any circumstance. But the SC had made it's decision in this case. And in this case, as it had been decided that she could refuse to deal with gay couples getting married then she should be asked to advertise that fact.

Apparently she is planning to do that.

Well hopefully, people that are against discrimination will make a point to avoid doing business with such a person.

Many Christians will visit it in droves to support their Christian "right" to discriminate, and Christians and non Christians who are against discrimination will avoid it like the plague.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

And if you live in a town FULL of racists?

like i said. We've been here before...

 

[KCfromNC]

The court was working from the actual lawsuit filed by the website maker against the state, which was pre-emptively preventing her from stating her intention not to create websites for homosexual marriages.

And yet without these web sites even existing, the court was sure that they were such a work of expressive art that they needed to gut anti-discrimination laws to protect the "right" not to make them. I mean, we still don't know if these are simple templates the business bought from someone else which are filled in with customer provided info, or if they're actually some form of original creative expression.

If this were a serious attempt, you'd think the court would want to know what was so offensive about this, which would require a real customer request.

But perhaps simply knowing an eventual customer might be gay is enough for this particular court to make their decision.

 

[dzheremi]

How does there need to be a substantial customer request to be able to determine whether or not she has the right to put up a notice that she won't design websites for gay weddings? If the case hinged on the current law not permitting her to accurately advertise her services, then isn't that a somewhat separate issue than someone actually requesting those services?

In other words, wouldn't she have the same objection and the same rationale for it regardless of her actual customer base and the actual requests that they make? It's funny that you've placed "right" in scare quotes like that, KC, when the case apparently has to do with something that is unambiguously a right (i.e., freedom of expression), now (for the purposes of being argued against) being set against the objections of hypothetical "customers" who apparently have not actually materialized.

I mean, say what you will about the case against that baker (or was it a florist?) in Colorado a few years ago -- at least there were customers involved to actually bring a case concerning something that did happen in the actually-existing world! In a case like the one that is being discussed here, expression is being pre-empted! How exactly is this not equivalent to making a thought crime out of what web-designer had wanted to place on her website? On a more fundamental level, why do we cherish concepts such as freedom of expression in the United States if, when push comes to shove, they apparently don't actually exist unless the thing you want to express is in keeping with what the government allows you to?

Time was, not even so long ago (1970s), that absolutely vile groups were supported on civil liberties grounds by true defenders of freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. This is how it was that the ACLU defended the rights of literal neo-Nazis to march through Skokie, IL. in 1978, even as the neo-Nazis had specifically chosen that site due to the high percentage of Holocaust survivors living there at the time. You practically cannot get more inflammatory than that. Fast forward to today, when we are apparently so much further along the unstoppable march of societal progress, and a web-designer can't put "I do not design websites for gay marriages" on her own website without having to ask the Supreme Court for permission. This does not seem like progress in securing freedom of expression or association.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And if you live in a town FULL of racists?

As I pointed to earlier, there is a difference between discriminating against a person's circumstance of birth or protected characteristic, and discriminating against an idea.

I think it opens up a serious can of worms if we start operating on the precedent that "everything a person who happens to be in a protected class want to say/do/have made for them, is thereby an extension of that protected class"

In the case of this website designer, they said they would (and have in the past) done work for gay people, they just won't do a gay wedding website.


But all of that aside, much like the cake shop story from a few years back, this doesn't come across as a sincere concern that there's lack of public accommodation due to a person's immutable circumstances of birth, this is one of those stories where the dialog surrounding it suggests that it's more about one sides desire to create an imposition and force someone to do something so that people can "prove a point" and pat themselves on the back.


Why I get that vibe? Colorado is one of the most LGBT-friendly states there is, with ample amounts of business that will happily provide any service a gay couple may be asking for, so the conversation of "what if 100% of people in the city wouldn't do it/public accommodation" is largely a non-starter.


To use an analogy that highlights the tone of this public debate (but looking at it from the other direction):

If there were a conservative Christian area, and 29 of the 30 stores in town all put up signs that said Merry Christmas, and sold Christian-specific holiday decorations. But that 1 store out of 30 said "well, that doesn't really line up with my beliefs, so we're just going to say Happy Holidays, and and we're only going to sell non-religious or religion-neutral holiday decorations at our store"

If, instead of simply going to one of the other stores, a small, but loud & vocal, group of Christian activists descended on that store and started demanding the store owner sell them a "Jesus is the reason for the season" decoration, and when the store owner says "sorry, I can't do that, I'll gladly sell you any other decoration I have out on the shelves, but I'm not going to provide that specific niche one you're looking for, but all of the other stores in town have them so you'll have to get it from one of them"

And they, in turn, replied back with "No, I don't want to get it from them, I specifically want YOU to provide this product and sell it to me", and when the store owner refused, they all claim "See, look!, he's discriminating against Christians, that's a protected class!, we're taking you to court!"


Would that come across to you as a good-faith complaint or any sort of sincere concern about Christians not being able to find public accommodations? Or would that come across more as the a mob ganging up on the one guy in town who's not sufficiently "bending the knee" and participating in the groupthink to the level of their liking?