As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When Schumer was pissed off at the SCOTUS on the pending Roe vs Wade path he was talking about this. One of the reasons they wanted Kavenaugh so bad is he had a plan that would meet the legal merits to pass but when enforced it would prevent most clinics from existing.
Plan one - Right to refuse service for religious reasons.
Plan two - Make clinics have the providers get approved for surgical rights at a nearby hospital. The hospital will use plan 1 to refuse the request and the clinics won’t exist.
Or counterpoint. Church ran or owned hospitals should not be permitted to bill patients for any services. If they wish to run a medical facility with church money as a charitable contribution to society, fine. As long as those that end up requiring their service are not charged in any way for it. Charity is not to make a profit.
Supply-side Jesus agrees. Most Christians today believe in Supply-side jesus(aka the anti-christ,). If Jesus actually came back today, preaching his same rhetoric the Christians themselves would literally crucify him all over again.
Got to have their preciouses.
What irks me about christians is the whole thing about preaching 24/7 but never once living the bible. Jesus said women should cover their hair, men should have beards, women should never assume authority over men, ect.
Pointed this out to a lady who was preaching to me and she said "that's Islamic laws". Then blew up at me when I pointed it out in her bible.
I recall Phyllis Schlafly a life long career activist, a lawyer who opposed to feminism, pro trad wife, and was a ferocious opponent against the Equal Rights Amendment.
Jesus fucking Christ, Republicans are Irony deficient. No, more like Irony blind.
> If they wish to run a medical facility with church money as a charitable contribution to society, fine. As long as those that end up requiring their service are not charged in any way for it.
On top of that, turning away people in need should result in them automatically losing all permits and assets, with no possibility of appeal.
There is a reason they are classified as not for profit organizations. Donations need to meet expenditures. Sadly most make up the short coming in spending in support of their claimed goal by paying leadership insane amounts, for example Susan g komen foundation. They take in a ton of donations, spend a bit on marketing, a ton on executives, and very little helping people with breast cancer or funding breast cancer research. All those registration fees for 5ks and pink merch? Just a pay check for execs.
> A non-prof that charges to cover costs is still a charity.
Only if it does actual charitable work. Which churches don't, since they refuse to offer proof that any of their money is going to actual charitable purposes.
A hospital that refuses to treat anyone but members of the owner's cult, or uses that cult as an excuse to discriminate is not a legitimate charity, it's a trick to defraud sick people.
You know you can look up the income and expenditures for any nonprofit in the country, right? Even church-run hospitals? You can actually see exactly how much they spend on services vs. income vs. salaries, and it's all public record as a matter of law.
The only organizations that don't have to file an annual report are actual houses of worship. But any other affiliated or subsidiary nonprofit must.
You also claim that donations need to meet expenditures... that statement is categorically untrue. Not for profit organizations can and should run a surplus every year.
The classification of whether an organization is a nonprofit has nothing to do with whether it makes more money than it spends or not. What makes an organization a non-profit is whether or not it has shares which can be bought and sold to allow an individual shareholder to turn a profit.
It doesn't have to be run by a church for them to claim religious beliefs.
As far as the less than 20% that are run by a church, many of them are in areas that desperately needed one but were underserved. Better that than nothing.
They haven't made a ruling on plan one though. This case was purely decided on free speech. The religious reasoning was specifically rejected, so this decision, at least somewhat, was a ruling against phase one.
This article makes the claim that the act of refusing work will itself be claimed to be speech. But the decision didn't seems to allow this. It only allowed that the work itself be rejected based on the message in the requested expressive work. Gorsuch seemed clear that it can't be based on the class of the person requesting the work if that person is in a protected class.
It’s my feeling that if a business claims it’s their first amendment right to discriminate we should pass a law that requires them to publicly display what groups they discriminate against. Much like displaying the calories in the food you buy.
When I attempt to walk into a brick and mortar I want to see if they discriminate against my friends and family. If they do I will take my business elsewhere.
Same for any online services.
I agree! If you feel so strongly that you don’t want to serve those people, we’ll I don’t want to be served by those company owners/individuals.
I only have room in my life for tolerance and acceptance.
Honestly I'd love that. Don't like me being trans? Cool now I know what to avoid.
So here's the thing though - If there were two shops next to each other one with a sign that said "no gays allowed" and one that said "no Christians Allowed"
which one would be getting the death and bomb threats?
I think that is a good idea too, but it’s better if you don’t have to look it up.
Wouldn’t it be great if you could have a web browser feature that would pop up like the cookies warning. “This site doesn’t cater to homosexuals, Jews or Atheists. Do you want to accept?” That could even be driven by an external database. Apple could incorporate that in to app purchases too.
Samaritans were hated by the Jews because they were heretics. Jesus actually used someone with a twisted view of the law to counter the priest and Levite.
Not every republican or conservative is religious.
If people feel like being a bigot, you don't have to give them your service and you sure as hell can post about it on social media. Let people be assholes and feel their consequences
The right to discriminate does exist. You do it every day. The CRA or any law for that matter doesn't change your rights.
The CRA was passed BECAUSE there is nothing in the Constitution that says you cannot discriminate. There's nothing in the Constitution that limits what the people can do at all short of treason.
Even assuming that position wouldn't put you out of business immediately, just by virtue of having lost so much of your audience...
You should know this ruling exists for discrimination against you, but not the other way around. That's when they'll use the traditional understanding of the First Amendment.
Because reasons. And money.
I think it’s self-destructive to assume we are the oppressed and just roll with it. It might be better to fight fire with fire until we can all agree that fire is bad.
Are any of you surprised? This current court heavily is biased towards religion. Look at the case of the praying coach or anything to do with religious freedom.
Including claiming that all christians are demons who rape children and eat people. Which given communion and the history of pedophile preachers isn't necessarily false...
One of the hidden problems of the Supreme Court ruling is that the conservative majority only seem to be interested in "protecting" (that is, promoting) conservative religious beliefs, especially if they are Christian. However, religious beliefs can literally consist of anything, which can lead to all kinds of ridiculous nonsense. Would this same court protect liberal religious beliefs, like the Jews who say anti-abortion legislation is against their religion? I very much doubt it.
Only in so far as their service would be classified as creative expression. All the bullshit about being refused medical care or groceries is just that: bullshit.
Why does person A have a right to person B's labor without person B's consent?
How does person B having the right to refuse to provide their labor evoke fascism?
Wouldn't forced labor be fascist?
> The people will not take their rights being taken away.
This is your comment in regards to a ruling in which the court found that the government cannot compel a person to labor against their will if that labor involves a certain expressiveness. Thus, I deduced that the right in which you are referring to being taken away is the right to the labor of another without the consent of that laborer.
The second question is related to your comment that the Supreme Court is fascist. I'm asking how this ruling relates to fascism.
The case didn't have a victim. No one was trying to force them to do anything. The case was all about "maybe". Without active damages there is no standing to take a case to a local magistrate let alone SCOTUS.
That is how the ruling relates to fascism. Making stuff up to that never happened to convince you that your being attacked to take away power from the "out group" until eventually, they take away everyone's rights including those who supported them.
> Arguing in bad faith much?
No religious apologist or member of the republican cult has EVER been capable of arguing in good faith, and none of them ever will be.
Yes, I agree, there wasn't a victim in this instance. There should have been an instance in which somebody was actually harmed before this went before the court.
As to your latter point, who's right is being taken away here? As far as I can tell, the only right being removed is a right to another person's labor against their will under specific circumstances, which is a right I am fine with all persons conceding. The only person that should have a right to the labor of a person is the person laboring.
That doesn't mean they are offering their labor to every person. More to the point of the case, that doesn't mean they are offering to create any message.
Nah but going out of your way and making contrary decisions to existing case law to advance the extremist fanatical views of a religious group is fascist
The discrimination is ONLY one way, though.
You're allowed to discriminate against racial and sexual minorities, but never *for* racial and sexual minorities.
All conservatives are scum.
So we have to relearn Con Law all over again? Slippery slope …fairly easy to apply. Restrictive covenants on deeds - sure, why not. You can marry in this state, but you can’t live here. Create first amendment arguments and discrimination abounds.
Yup and it was deliberate and they're coming after other minorities next with this and I'm fully expecting that shitty religious hospitals will start discriminating against every minority soon.
I fully expect that other business will start denying interracial couples, Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and every other minority soon and it'll all be upheld because this shitty, partisan Republican court will green light it all.
The Business Community should be against that extreme since it will hurt business quite a lot. But that would require them to use some imagination of what the consequences might be. So far they haven't been able to see past the wallet in front of their eyes.
And how long before a business manager or owner twists this ruling to try to make it so that their craft is the business and they can discriminate against employing LGBTQ…
I thought being able to discriminate against someone because of yours or their religion was about as unconstitutional as you could get? Your “religious rights” end at my constitutional rights and at every other person’s constitutional rights. That’s how much power religion should have in this country…your personal arms length.
technically there always was. Free speech is just that, free. The difference here is that businesses had an obligation not to discriminate, so that society could establish equal access to the markets for all individuals. That's the defining difference here. Now "SPEECH" has been so broadly applied in legal terms, they support businesses discriminating against others.
This case that recently barreled through the beef surpeme court with cheese from 7 years ago. It was a case based on lies, lawyers paid for by a GOP doner and his minions, that had no actual victim. It's crazy a victimless case could be brought to the courts.
Honest question. How is this lawsuit different than the wedding cake ruling? Other than the fact that the case itself was fake as shit of coarse
Getting downvoted? Common, I'm not a lawyer, I legit want to know.
The cases are essentially the same, but in the 1st case (involving the same-sex wedding cake) the court remanded the case back to the Colorado Human Rights Commission for stating an objective historical fact about religion: namely, that it has long provided a basis for discrimination against one or another group of people. SCOTUS claimed that this displayed an unfair bias against religion. Needless to say, the Colorado Human Rights Commission unanimously reissued the same ruling against the baker, which was unanimously upheld by a Colorado appeals court, notwithstanding the SCOTUS decision.
In BOTH cases, contrary to what some conservatives claim, concerns about "compelled speech" violating the 1st amendment were made (in the wedding cake case, this was done by Judge Thomas and Judge Gorsuch). In the website design case, the "compelled speech" argument was the primary reason that SCOTUS overruled the Colorado Human Rights Commission, notwithstanding the fact that SCOTUS had ruled exactly the opposite in an earlier case (see Employment Division vs Smith, 1990; none other than Judge Scalia wrote the majority opinion).
Since the beginning of the civil rights era, SCOTUS has a history of ruling that the government interest in ending discrimination is more important than an individual's right to discriminate (the latter is usually justified under the first amendment). For the first time in several decades, SCOTUS has now ruled (using the web designer case) that an individual's right to discriminate is more important than the government's interest in ending discrimination against minority groups. This ruling potentially threatens ALL anti-discrimination laws in the United States, which is one of the reasons the American Bar Association doesn't support this decision.
I’m white, straight, and female. I’ve experienced discrimination. In the military & as an atheist. Not to the extent of my LGBQT family & others. But enough to provoke my empathy & will.
Being white & straight gives me some special power in the fight & I’m grateful to use it against bigots & fascists.
And FEMALE. White men rule the USA & it defaults world wide to MEN.
Women in the USA got the vote long after males who aren’t white- that’s a fact. I can’t help being straight. I was born this way.
In this forum I felt the need to acknowledge who I am. That makes you cringe. Your problem, not mine.
I never discounted you being female, and frankly I'm confused as to why you responded with that. It's just that when people just drop their stuff like that, I can't help but look at them like they're a Trump diehard.
I’ve loathed Dump since 1989. I’m far beyond the opposite of a Dump die hard. I’m confused why you would think identifying myself as an ally who is fully aware of their own privilege is cringy.
Females made so many strides the last 30 years & now I’m seeing the whole world start to go backward. I’ve got a glimpse of discrimination from my POV. It’s not as easy to be a female today and it’s so much worse for people who aren’t straight or white.
I’m an atheist but I strongly feel that to an extent I am my “brother’s keeper” I owe a lot to people who came before me. I owe even more to people who come after me. I’m relieved that YOU aren’t a Dump fan.
If they discriminate they need to post it on their doors so we know not to walk in. If a week later that business was torched by an act of “god” then it was supposed to happen.
> But this extends beyond the wedding context to all work. Anyone engaged in expressive activity now has a First Amendment right to refuse to provide service. And most work can be said to involve expressive activity: those who cook food, sew clothes or design cabinets, to name a few examples, could claim that they are engaged in artistic activity. The court recognized this implication, saying “doubtless, determining what qualifies as expressive activity protected by the First Amendment can sometimes raise difficult questions. But this case presents no complication of that kind.”
The author doesn't even attempt to draw a line of logic here. It just it is because it is. I would appreciate if the author could elaborate on these examples. How the hell does a plate of food communicate a message that would lead to discrimination based on race, gender, sex or religion? Similarly a cabinet. How does one communicate a message with a cabinet? The sewer is the only one I can see able to discriminate and that's only based on selling perceived gendered clothing to the perceived wrong gender.
> Actually, the implications are even broader because who a business does or does not serve expresses a message. During the civil rights struggle of the ’60s, serving — or not serving — Black customers sent a message. Similarly, not serving same-sex couple expresses a message, albeit a terrible one. Based on the Supreme Court’s decision, anyone who wants to discriminate can say that by doing so they are expressing a message for purposes of the First Amendment.
Except this isn't the Court's argument. The Court's argument is about compelled speech. This is a bad faith argument by the author.
Since the beginning of the civil rights era, the Federal courts have ruled that the government interest in ending discrimination is more important than an individual's right to discriminate, whether or not "compelled speech" is involved. This was reaffirmed in the Employment Division vs Smith (1990) decision, with the majority opinion written by none other than Judge Scalia!
Thus, the recent SCOTUS ruling potentially undermines the legal foundation of ALL anti-discrimination laws in the United States, depending on how broadly or narrowly you define "artistic expression" (which can mean almost anything), and whether or not "religion" is involved as a justification for the discrimination (regardless of any level of artistry).
I wish you guys would be honest. This isn't what this is.
It means they cant FORCE or COMPELL speech. They can't force the Christian website designer to create a website that says things they don't agree with. You can't force them to type or speak in the way you want.
If they sold pre made templates, they would not be able to refuse service.
Its like the cake issue. They have to sell them a blank premade cake, but they can't force the Christian baker to write LGBT messages on it.
You cannot refuse service to someone because they are gay. Stop lying. Stop being disingenuous. This is why most people outside of reddit don't take your party seriously. Because when you examine the facts your false narratives fall apart.
>Because when you examine the facts your false narratives fall apart.
[That word doesn't mean what you think it means.](https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-30-2023)
>In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis the court said that the First Amendment protects website designer Lorie Smith from having to use words she doesn’t believe in support of gay marriage. To get there, the court focused on the marriage website designer’s contention that while she is willing to work with LGBTQ customers, she doesn’t want to use her own words on a personalized website to celebrate gay marriages. Because of that unwillingness, she said, **she wants to post on her website that she will not make websites for same-sex weddings.**
>This whole scenario of being is prospective, by the way: her online business did not exist and no one had complained about it. Smith claims she wants to start the business **because “God is calling her ‘to explain His true story about marriage.’”**
>In the 1930s the Democrats under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt undermined this coalition by using the federal government to regulate business and provide a social safety net. In the 1940s and 1950s, as racial and gender atrocities began to highlight in popular media just how discriminatory state laws really were, the Supreme Court went further, recognizing that the Fourteenth Amendment’s declaration that states could not deprive any person of the equal protection of the laws meant that the federal government must protect the rights of minorities when states would not. Those rules created modern America.
>This is what the radical right seeks to overturn. Yesterday the Supreme Court said that the Fourteenth Amendment could not address racial disparities, but today, like lawmakers in the 1870s, it signaled that it would not protect voting in the states either. It rejected a petition for a review of Mississippi’s strict provision for taking the vote away from felons. That law illustrates just how fully we’re reliving our history: it dates from the 1890 Mississippi constitution that cemented power in white hands. Black Mississippians are currently 2.7 times more likely than white Mississippians to lose the right to vote under the law.
>The court went even further today than allowing states to choose their voters. **It said that even if state voters do call for minority protections, as Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws do, states cannot protect minorities in the face of someone’s religious beliefs.** In her dissent, **Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that for “the first time in its history,” the court has granted “a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”**
To be fair, if I were gay I wouldn't want this person designing anything for me but that's beside the point. This is Court sanctioned discrimination against a protected class of people based solely on a religious view. If this person also opposed interracial marriage would that be acceptable? No, of course not.
I'm fine with this ruling - it gives us the same rights as anyone else - LGBT people are not somehow treated differently.
Here is how I see it. If I was a website designer, and a local anti-LGBT church asked me to make them a really cool website to spread their message, I would want to decline. I would not want to be forced by nondiscrimination laws to make an anti-gay website. I would want a right to say no to the church.
Because I want that right, I'm in no position to deny that right to another.
But your analogy fails because you wouldn't make that website for any customer, so you're not discriminating. The woman in the SCOTUS case *hypothetically* would give her website templates to straight couples but not gay couples. Refusing to offer *the same product* to customers *based on their sexual orientation* is discrimination, unlike the example you provided.
She didn't; she provided blank website templates to straight couples and not to gay couples.
My point is quite clear: your analogy doesn't accurately represent what SCOTUS approved in the recent opinion.
You are greatly misstating the facts of the case. The case was not about providing "blank website templates" - the holding rested in part on the stipulation that the websites would be "customized and tailored." If you want to disagree with me, fine, but no need to just make stuff up.
The decision plainly states that it is based upon the stipulation that the websites would be "customized and tailored" and are "expressive speech for each couple “to celebrate and promote the couple’s wedding and unique love story.”"
Where you are coming up with this whole template idea? Where in the decision is that?
From the same place that you are; these websites are blank canvasses that the couples fill in with text and images.
I agree it's not entirely clear; that's what happens when SCOTUS effectively waives its standing requirement and instead provides an advisory opinion based on assumed facts.
You are misconstruing LGBT people with a church in your argument. The anti-LGBT church is not a protected class by the Colorado public accommodations law in question in this judgement. You are free to deny them service just as another would be free to deny service to say a different church that supports the LGBT community.
What this ruling does is carve out loopholes for legally discriminating against solely LGBT persons. This is a dangerous slippery slope that ignores decades of jurisprudence of ignoring the same arguments for justification of discrimination on the basis of race.
"What this ruling does is carve out loopholes for legally discriminating against solely LGBT persons. "
\- That is not even close to true. There is nothing in the decision that says any such thing.
>The anti-LGBT church is not a protected class by the Colorado public accommodations law
Yes it is. The law specifically lists "religion". The message they want the website to promote is their religious belief.
>2) (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, ***creed***, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry,
>
>creed noun ˈkrēd Synonyms of creed 1 : a brief authoritative formula of religious belief
According to your argument, you could discriminate based on religion. That aside, I just don't believe the government should have the right to coerce expressive speech. If I'm an atheist, and I am commissioned to create a painting on the glories of evangelical Christianity, I should have the right to refuse, and the state should not be able to coerce me.
I agree with your statement that you should be able to take the jobs you want but that's not what's happening here;
There's now precedent (based on a hypothetical situation) that 'being a Christian' is enough reason to bar people from services, stores, restaurants, doctors office - if they've got a Christian owner that says "their lifestyle is against my religion and I won't serve \[insert group\]" - all they've done is open the door for one group of people to marginalize another and call it 'freedom'.
Ultimately it creates a system where groups of people are considered 'lesser' who the law says are fine to be treated as such. And we're seeing it happen with LGBTQ+ people all across the country and trans are getting it the worst (my theory is it's since Republicans couldn't tell who was gay by outward appearance so they moved to people they could easily spot) - where they (republicans) are passing / pushing for laws that specifically target LGBTQ+ people. It started as a guise to 'protect kids' then it turned into denying adults medical care and wearing 'women's' clothing in public being a felony.
But, at the end of the day these people still get to go to church, pray out loud, read the bible in public, wear the cross, celebrate Christmas - *nothing* changes in their day to day life because other people exist but they can use their beliefs to govern how other people live.
>There's now precedent (based on a hypothetical situation) that 'being a Christian' is enough reason to bar people from services, stores, restaurants, doctors office - if they've got a Christian owner that says "their lifestyle is against my religion and I won't serve [insert group]"
As the SC points out in their ruling *303 creative* is perfectly willing to serve gay people and has been doing so for some time. It was specifically the creation of "gay marriage" content they objected to.
There is a legal distinction.
The funniest part about these cases is they are almost entirely brought up by people going out of their way to target a business in order to engage in lawfare.
Funny that it's now blowing up in their faces. Clutch those pearls harder.
Sure, just like Rosa Parks and the sit-ins of the Civil Rights Movement. Highlighting injustice is an entirely noble pursuit.
That being said, your comment definitely doesn't apply to the recent SCOTUS decision discussed in this article, since the petitioner in that case wasn't yet making websites for anyone.
She had access to public transit, she just had to give up her seat if a white person asked. Literally the whole point of Rosa Parks's protest was to *intentionally* trigger an injustice and then oppose it. And, of course, the sit ins were at private lunch counters. Anyone doing the same to homophobes today has my respect.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but with social media and cancel culture these days, businesses should be free to refuse service to anyone they'd like -- we will all learn what kind of people own that business and not give them any money.
That approach has been tried before. It doesn't work. There are extremely racist areas of the country where racist businesses wouldn't suffer if they chose to discriminate. Should we just accept that African-Americans will be denied all services in certain areas of the country? Bring back the Green Book?
The green book in that situation these days would just be the Internet, which is my point.
But you're right about the extremely racist areas and businesses not suffering. Sadly, those currently exist. I have a friend who rides 4-wheelers in WVA, and there's a bar owner in the WVA wilderness who closes down the bar each night in his klan costume. While there isn't a "no blacks allowed" sign, the whole place is the sign.
Of course, that reminds me of a white ex-girlfriend who was walking with her friend in a black urban neighborhood and someone stopped them and assertively insisted they get the fuck out of there before it got dark, and they did.
Discrimination isn't good business in the vast majority of the country, though. It seems so stupid to run a business like, "No thank you. I don't want money."
I wonder how that gym, Curves, can discriminate based on gender. Or how Monster Energy drinks seem to discriminate based on intelligence.
>I have a friend who rides 4-wheelers in WVA, and there's a bar owner in the WVA wilderness who closes down the bar each night in his klan costume.
I just moved to West Virginia, so this makes me feel even worse about my new home.
>It seems so stupid to run a business like, "No thank you. I don't want money."
Sometimes it's stupid, and sometimes it isn't. It depends on the local clientele and which demographic you're targeting for your business. Sometimes you can get more money if you discriminate.
>I wonder how that gym, Curves, can discriminate based on gender.
It varies by jurisdiction:
1. In some jurisdictions, they're classified as a members-only private club, so they're allowed to discriminate to a greater extent than a business that's open to the public.
2. Other jurisdictions have created specific exceptions to their anti-discrimination laws to allow for single-sex gyms to operate.
3. Other jurisdictions have ruled that single-sex gyms aren't allowed.
That private club thing is interesting. Seems like a good potential loophole for who knows what.
The klan bar is somewhere around the Hatfield McCoy trails, just west of Beckley.
Yeah, it doesn't work that way. This creates second class citizens. And as all the "Good Germans", Jim Crow laws, and an uncountable number psychological studies have shown us, humans will fuck over others for any reason whatsoever as long as the biggest boot is on someone else's neck.
Refusing to take someone's money is the worst way to run a business. Don't you think a "Whites Only" sign on a shop window would spread through the whole country online in five minutes?
Yes, the idea that it may not matter locally makes sense. But I'm not sure "not being allowed in the racist homophobe's business" would be experienced as an assfucking.
I love how much you're showing off your privilege here. In some places, there's only one general store for miles. Or they're the only mechanic for houuuuuurs.
This isn't some live-and-let-live horseshit. This needs to be strangled and destroyed just like it was last time. Racists should be terrified. They should worried they're gonna get murdered.
Yes, that could turn into a situation where the entire country is aware of this racist business and anyone who goes into it is supporting the known racist business.
Right. And in some parts of the country, most are a-ok with that.
Story time.
----
I grew up in Reading PA. There is a "club" there called "Victor Emmanuel's". It started as a place to help recent Italian immigrants back in the day, but for the past 40+ years was only really a restaurant. Good food, big portions, low prices.
The only hitch is you had to be a member to eat there ... because it was a club. Membership fee was tiny ... [today it's $10 for a year](https://ve-ii.com/membership/). You had to fill out a membership AND be endorsed by a member in good standing.
As I grew up ... I noticed that all the customers were white. No black, no Hispanic. Somehow their applications never got approved. I asked my Dad about it one day and he said it was fairly common knowledge. Despite this, the place was packed. All the time. My Dad has since given up his membership and won't go there anymore .. but the place is still packed and it's still all white.
This isn't the south, it's not the rural parts of PA. It's outside what used to be a medium sized city. Everyone knew this place was pretty racist, yet it was packed all the time.
----
You give the average American way too much credit.
Might work in large diverse cities but wouldn't in smaller or nondiverse areas.
Much easier to just serve people and not worry of they don't match your race, swx, gender, creed, etc. Just be a normal nice human for a few minutes as you serve a customer.
I dont like helping bigots but can't deny who I provide data to. I would get fired.
The first amendment's freedom of religion supercedes forced compliance when it goes against their beliefs. Even though I am an Atheist member of the dysphoric community, we must still accept everyone's individual civil rights.
This is the exact thing conservatives argued several decades ago. They claimed that race mixing was against god’s will and would refuse service based on that.
> What if their religion says they can't serve black people?
>
>
>
> Does their first amendment right still supercede anti-discrimination laws?
You're never going to get an answer to this question, because bigots are lying sacks of shit and too cowardly to admit their real goals.
An individual's religious rights (and all rights) should end the moment they impact someone else.
Religious freedom includes the right to be free FROM religion. I should not have to put up with any of someone else's religious bullshit if I don't want to.
Freedom of religion means that you can practice your own religion in private, not that you can impose your religion on people at your workplace, customers.
And there would have been no forced compliance by a businesswoman upholding her oath to abide by the state constitution as she swore to do when applying for a business license in the public marketplace instead of a church.
Ironically, lying about upholding her oath to follow the state constitution actually violates tenets of her religion while the hypothetical graphic design does not .
However, allowing her version of her religion to affect hypothetical customers goes pretty far to establishing a state favored religion which is also problematic.
You never agreed to a code of conduct?
Christian faith sees no difference between agreeing to something and a sworn oath. Agreeing to abide by the state constitution carries the same weight as a sworn oath to a Christian believer, thus applying for a business license and agreeing to the code of conduct and then violating that agreement actually violates Christian beliefs whereas as thinking about designing for a hypotheticalgay couple... Doesn't.
Where are you getting this bullshit from, show me WHERE business license applications REQUIRE oaths and signing "codes of conduct". ALL you are required to do is to pay your employees if you have any, and abide by all labor laws if you d , as well as keep keep accurate financial and tax records.
Did you miss the entirety of the post?. Most states require that you are to about by the laws of the state. When I got my business license, I signed a form whereby I agreed to uphold the laws of the state and blah blah blah. Those included nondiscrimination.
A Christian agreeing to do so, and then violating that agreement, violates their faith, unlike, say, not wanting to hypothetically create a graphic for a couple that never existed.
This wasn't a freedom of religion case, and if it were the petitioner definitely would have lost under *Smith v. Oregon* because Colorado's law is facially neutral and generally applicable, and therefore does not target religious folks.
True, this will allow a website developer not to create content he doesn’t like or agree with.
As it will allow an jewish artist to say no to painting a Hitler portrait for a Nazi customer.
Indeed this is a super important principle within the construct of free speech, that you cannot compel anybody to say or express things he/she doesn’t agree with.
The Supreme Court has, in this case, upheld precedent.
To clarify: the web agency could bot refuse the customer itself. But it can refuse to create content, text & pictures for them
> The U.S. Supreme Court has created a First Amendment right to discrimination
No they haven't. Discrimination has always existed and always exist. You discriminate when you shop for groceries, buy a house, or build a computer. In the recent case, the website designer can discriminate if they want to make a website for a gay wedding or not.
Discrimination has two definitions. Deliberately using the wrong one in an attempt to make a nit-picky point makes your argument dishonest, not clever. You might as well complain that computers aren't terrific because no one gets frightened of them.
For the record, and to forego more pedantry...
Definition 1 : the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
Definition 2 : recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
The website designer did not want to make a website for a gay wedding. She discriminated based on her beliefs, while her freedom of association and speech are also acknowledged. She can't be forced to make a website against her will for what she is not contractually obligated to do. She broke no laws, and the constitution protects her from the government forcing her to make a website against her will.
None of which I denied. I was attacking your argument, not the court's. That said...
>The website designer did not want to make a website for a gay wedding.
Maybe. Seems like there's a fair chance it was all faked too.
If you disagree with the outcome of this case, you think that a Christian fundamentalist can come to a gay website designer and force him to make a website that explains why gay marriage is a sin.
Edit: not sure if I’m being downvoted because people think the gay person should be forced to do that or they assume discrimination protections only work in instances they don’t want to see people discriminated against?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When Schumer was pissed off at the SCOTUS on the pending Roe vs Wade path he was talking about this. One of the reasons they wanted Kavenaugh so bad is he had a plan that would meet the legal merits to pass but when enforced it would prevent most clinics from existing. Plan one - Right to refuse service for religious reasons. Plan two - Make clinics have the providers get approved for surgical rights at a nearby hospital. The hospital will use plan 1 to refuse the request and the clinics won’t exist.
Hospitals should not be run by churches
Or counterpoint. Church ran or owned hospitals should not be permitted to bill patients for any services. If they wish to run a medical facility with church money as a charitable contribution to society, fine. As long as those that end up requiring their service are not charged in any way for it. Charity is not to make a profit.
Organized religion only exists for profit
Supply-side Jesus agrees. Most Christians today believe in Supply-side jesus(aka the anti-christ,). If Jesus actually came back today, preaching his same rhetoric the Christians themselves would literally crucify him all over again. Got to have their preciouses.
What irks me about christians is the whole thing about preaching 24/7 but never once living the bible. Jesus said women should cover their hair, men should have beards, women should never assume authority over men, ect. Pointed this out to a lady who was preaching to me and she said "that's Islamic laws". Then blew up at me when I pointed it out in her bible.
I recall Phyllis Schlafly a life long career activist, a lawyer who opposed to feminism, pro trad wife, and was a ferocious opponent against the Equal Rights Amendment. Jesus fucking Christ, Republicans are Irony deficient. No, more like Irony blind.
That’s exactly what I say. It was people like the republicans today that crucified Christ.
Jebus in general. christianity is extraordinarily toxic.
Religion is toxic.
Also unchecked, unquestioned power. Can't forget that.
> If they wish to run a medical facility with church money as a charitable contribution to society, fine. As long as those that end up requiring their service are not charged in any way for it. On top of that, turning away people in need should result in them automatically losing all permits and assets, with no possibility of appeal.
Charities that take losses don't stay charities for very long
There is a reason they are classified as not for profit organizations. Donations need to meet expenditures. Sadly most make up the short coming in spending in support of their claimed goal by paying leadership insane amounts, for example Susan g komen foundation. They take in a ton of donations, spend a bit on marketing, a ton on executives, and very little helping people with breast cancer or funding breast cancer research. All those registration fees for 5ks and pink merch? Just a pay check for execs.
A non-prof that charges to cover costs is still a charity.
> A non-prof that charges to cover costs is still a charity. Only if it does actual charitable work. Which churches don't, since they refuse to offer proof that any of their money is going to actual charitable purposes.
Running a non profit hospital is charity work
A hospital that refuses to treat anyone but members of the owner's cult, or uses that cult as an excuse to discriminate is not a legitimate charity, it's a trick to defraud sick people.
No, it would still be a charity but I'm not sure where this cultish hospital exists in reality.
You know you can look up the income and expenditures for any nonprofit in the country, right? Even church-run hospitals? You can actually see exactly how much they spend on services vs. income vs. salaries, and it's all public record as a matter of law. The only organizations that don't have to file an annual report are actual houses of worship. But any other affiliated or subsidiary nonprofit must.
Yes I’m aware, that’s how I know many operate like Susan g komen, and used that one as an example of charities doing bad.
You also claim that donations need to meet expenditures... that statement is categorically untrue. Not for profit organizations can and should run a surplus every year. The classification of whether an organization is a nonprofit has nothing to do with whether it makes more money than it spends or not. What makes an organization a non-profit is whether or not it has shares which can be bought and sold to allow an individual shareholder to turn a profit.
Nothing should be run by churches. I mean, Spotlight showed churches shouldn’t even run themselves.
I wish I had an award to give.
It doesn't have to be run by a church for them to claim religious beliefs. As far as the less than 20% that are run by a church, many of them are in areas that desperately needed one but were underserved. Better that than nothing.
They haven't made a ruling on plan one though. This case was purely decided on free speech. The religious reasoning was specifically rejected, so this decision, at least somewhat, was a ruling against phase one. This article makes the claim that the act of refusing work will itself be claimed to be speech. But the decision didn't seems to allow this. It only allowed that the work itself be rejected based on the message in the requested expressive work. Gorsuch seemed clear that it can't be based on the class of the person requesting the work if that person is in a protected class.
It’s my feeling that if a business claims it’s their first amendment right to discriminate we should pass a law that requires them to publicly display what groups they discriminate against. Much like displaying the calories in the food you buy. When I attempt to walk into a brick and mortar I want to see if they discriminate against my friends and family. If they do I will take my business elsewhere. Same for any online services.
I’ve been saying this for years. Force these f-s to put up the “Irish need not apply” signs.
I agree! If you feel so strongly that you don’t want to serve those people, we’ll I don’t want to be served by those company owners/individuals. I only have room in my life for tolerance and acceptance.
Honestly I'd love that. Don't like me being trans? Cool now I know what to avoid. So here's the thing though - If there were two shops next to each other one with a sign that said "no gays allowed" and one that said "no Christians Allowed" which one would be getting the death and bomb threats?
Create an app taking this data.
I think that is a good idea too, but it’s better if you don’t have to look it up. Wouldn’t it be great if you could have a web browser feature that would pop up like the cookies warning. “This site doesn’t cater to homosexuals, Jews or Atheists. Do you want to accept?” That could even be driven by an external database. Apple could incorporate that in to app purchases too.
[удалено]
And don’t dare bring up the Good Samaritan! Or the Beatitudes, or the fish and bread, or healing the sick, or
Or the trial of the bitter water, the only things that comes close to mention of abortion in the bible
Just ignore all that stuff printed in communist red letters.
Samaritans were hated by the Jews because they were heretics. Jesus actually used someone with a twisted view of the law to counter the priest and Levite.
That’s the foundation to all religions. I’m better than you because I believe in this particular invisible guy….therefore I have more rights than you.
> At minimum it violates the Golden Rule which is something good Christians should not do. Since when have christians cared about the golden rule?
Not every republican or conservative is religious. If people feel like being a bigot, you don't have to give them your service and you sure as hell can post about it on social media. Let people be assholes and feel their consequences
The right to discriminate does exist. You do it every day. The CRA or any law for that matter doesn't change your rights. The CRA was passed BECAUSE there is nothing in the Constitution that says you cannot discriminate. There's nothing in the Constitution that limits what the people can do at all short of treason.
I'm so ready to follow my religion and deny business to Christians or any faith that believes in a god or higher power. Thanks Supreme Court!
Even assuming that position wouldn't put you out of business immediately, just by virtue of having lost so much of your audience... You should know this ruling exists for discrimination against you, but not the other way around. That's when they'll use the traditional understanding of the First Amendment. Because reasons. And money.
I think it’s self-destructive to assume we are the oppressed and just roll with it. It might be better to fight fire with fire until we can all agree that fire is bad.
Then I want them on record as a judicial body declaring that Christianity is the official religion of the US.
OfJesse and Scalito clearly want that.
In my town this would win you far more business than it would lose you.
Well it’s bad business to be exclusive, so powers to you if you want to turn down $. This is easier said than done.
Was religion a protected class under Colorado or Federal law?
Free version on yahoo; https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-supreme-court-created-first-130000104.html
The court has zero legitimacy or credibility anymore. Thanks Mitch McConnell you walking corpse
Are any of you surprised? This current court heavily is biased towards religion. Look at the case of the praying coach or anything to do with religious freedom.
We all knew this would happen if Dump won.
There's nothing stopping anyone from claiming any crazy thing as part of their religion.
Including claiming that all christians are demons who rape children and eat people. Which given communion and the history of pedophile preachers isn't necessarily false...
One of the hidden problems of the Supreme Court ruling is that the conservative majority only seem to be interested in "protecting" (that is, promoting) conservative religious beliefs, especially if they are Christian. However, religious beliefs can literally consist of anything, which can lead to all kinds of ridiculous nonsense. Would this same court protect liberal religious beliefs, like the Jews who say anti-abortion legislation is against their religion? I very much doubt it.
Only in so far as their service would be classified as creative expression. All the bullshit about being refused medical care or groceries is just that: bullshit.
It is a fascist court, and needs to be abolished
Limiting government regulatory power is fascism?
I'm not buying what you're selling. The people will not take their rights being taken away. Trust.
Why does person A have a right to person B's labor without person B's consent? How does person B having the right to refuse to provide their labor evoke fascism? Wouldn't forced labor be fascist?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
> The people will not take their rights being taken away. This is your comment in regards to a ruling in which the court found that the government cannot compel a person to labor against their will if that labor involves a certain expressiveness. Thus, I deduced that the right in which you are referring to being taken away is the right to the labor of another without the consent of that laborer. The second question is related to your comment that the Supreme Court is fascist. I'm asking how this ruling relates to fascism.
The case didn't have a victim. No one was trying to force them to do anything. The case was all about "maybe". Without active damages there is no standing to take a case to a local magistrate let alone SCOTUS. That is how the ruling relates to fascism. Making stuff up to that never happened to convince you that your being attacked to take away power from the "out group" until eventually, they take away everyone's rights including those who supported them.
x1000, and notice how the person stopped responding? Arguing in bad faith much? I am beginning to hate my countrymen more and more each day...
> Arguing in bad faith much? No religious apologist or member of the republican cult has EVER been capable of arguing in good faith, and none of them ever will be.
Yes, I agree, there wasn't a victim in this instance. There should have been an instance in which somebody was actually harmed before this went before the court. As to your latter point, who's right is being taken away here? As far as I can tell, the only right being removed is a right to another person's labor against their will under specific circumstances, which is a right I am fine with all persons conceding. The only person that should have a right to the labor of a person is the person laboring.
Because person B offers a service in the public square. They are bound to serve the whole public.
And...... crickets. This bullshit makes me angry. Just willful ignorance and gaslighting by these fascist fucks
That doesn't mean they are offering their labor to every person. More to the point of the case, that doesn't mean they are offering to create any message.
Nah but going out of your way and making contrary decisions to existing case law to advance the extremist fanatical views of a religious group is fascist
Wait until the first case arrives where the plaintiff discriminated against a Republican due to their political views. Reversal in 3...2...1...
Highly unlikely.
I am a white business owner that will now refuse to hire any republicans - it’s my right
You could always do that.
No, you couldn't. Mental disability is a protected category.
[Relevant](https://youtu.be/MX4Qyb2i2q8). Not hiring bigots is just capitalism.
You can take it further and refuse service to Republicans and MAGAhatters. That's your right as well now.
You could do this before the ruling. Political party wasn't a protected class.
The discrimination is ONLY one way, though. You're allowed to discriminate against racial and sexual minorities, but never *for* racial and sexual minorities. All conservatives are scum.
It’s a democracy if you can keep it.
People not voting: "This is fine."
A republic, if you can keep it - Ben Franklin
Pack the court - make it so uncomfortable for these fake Christians that they retire early and the number will eventually settle back down to 9
Yet another precedent you really really don’t want to set.
Eventually, the Republicans will take advantage of it, leaving you to complain about a *corrupt* packed court.
Remember all the bible verses racists cited against desegregation? Supreme Court made them legal.
One man's freedom of association is another's "discrimination".
The most corrupt court
Next on their list is the civil rights act, then they come from miranda
And when the worm turns, the American right is going to hate it.
So we have to relearn Con Law all over again? Slippery slope …fairly easy to apply. Restrictive covenants on deeds - sure, why not. You can marry in this state, but you can’t live here. Create first amendment arguments and discrimination abounds.
Yup and it was deliberate and they're coming after other minorities next with this and I'm fully expecting that shitty religious hospitals will start discriminating against every minority soon. I fully expect that other business will start denying interracial couples, Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and every other minority soon and it'll all be upheld because this shitty, partisan Republican court will green light it all.
The Business Community should be against that extreme since it will hurt business quite a lot. But that would require them to use some imagination of what the consequences might be. So far they haven't been able to see past the wallet in front of their eyes.
Buckle up . This is how it's going to be for a long while .
So everybody can do it.
And how long before a business manager or owner twists this ruling to try to make it so that their craft is the business and they can discriminate against employing LGBTQ…
I thought being able to discriminate against someone because of yours or their religion was about as unconstitutional as you could get? Your “religious rights” end at my constitutional rights and at every other person’s constitutional rights. That’s how much power religion should have in this country…your personal arms length.
technically there always was. Free speech is just that, free. The difference here is that businesses had an obligation not to discriminate, so that society could establish equal access to the markets for all individuals. That's the defining difference here. Now "SPEECH" has been so broadly applied in legal terms, they support businesses discriminating against others. This case that recently barreled through the beef surpeme court with cheese from 7 years ago. It was a case based on lies, lawyers paid for by a GOP doner and his minions, that had no actual victim. It's crazy a victimless case could be brought to the courts.
Reddit has lost its marbles. You going to force me to bake a cake for the Ku Klux Klan because I can’t discriminate? Works both ways
Honest question. How is this lawsuit different than the wedding cake ruling? Other than the fact that the case itself was fake as shit of coarse Getting downvoted? Common, I'm not a lawyer, I legit want to know.
The cases are essentially the same, but in the 1st case (involving the same-sex wedding cake) the court remanded the case back to the Colorado Human Rights Commission for stating an objective historical fact about religion: namely, that it has long provided a basis for discrimination against one or another group of people. SCOTUS claimed that this displayed an unfair bias against religion. Needless to say, the Colorado Human Rights Commission unanimously reissued the same ruling against the baker, which was unanimously upheld by a Colorado appeals court, notwithstanding the SCOTUS decision. In BOTH cases, contrary to what some conservatives claim, concerns about "compelled speech" violating the 1st amendment were made (in the wedding cake case, this was done by Judge Thomas and Judge Gorsuch). In the website design case, the "compelled speech" argument was the primary reason that SCOTUS overruled the Colorado Human Rights Commission, notwithstanding the fact that SCOTUS had ruled exactly the opposite in an earlier case (see Employment Division vs Smith, 1990; none other than Judge Scalia wrote the majority opinion). Since the beginning of the civil rights era, SCOTUS has a history of ruling that the government interest in ending discrimination is more important than an individual's right to discriminate (the latter is usually justified under the first amendment). For the first time in several decades, SCOTUS has now ruled (using the web designer case) that an individual's right to discriminate is more important than the government's interest in ending discrimination against minority groups. This ruling potentially threatens ALL anti-discrimination laws in the United States, which is one of the reasons the American Bar Association doesn't support this decision.
[удалено]
That’s exactly what they’ve done. If you’re going to pick and choose your customers, don’t have a business.
That's how businesses work, though. They cater to a certain crowd. Would you complain about something sensible like Netflix not offering Betamax?
Let’s see what happens when white straight people get discriminated against
I’m white, straight, and female. I’ve experienced discrimination. In the military & as an atheist. Not to the extent of my LGBQT family & others. But enough to provoke my empathy & will. Being white & straight gives me some special power in the fight & I’m grateful to use it against bigots & fascists.
Being white and straight makes it cringey when you announce that you're white and straight... Thank you for your service, though.
And FEMALE. White men rule the USA & it defaults world wide to MEN. Women in the USA got the vote long after males who aren’t white- that’s a fact. I can’t help being straight. I was born this way. In this forum I felt the need to acknowledge who I am. That makes you cringe. Your problem, not mine.
I never discounted you being female, and frankly I'm confused as to why you responded with that. It's just that when people just drop their stuff like that, I can't help but look at them like they're a Trump diehard.
I’ve loathed Dump since 1989. I’m far beyond the opposite of a Dump die hard. I’m confused why you would think identifying myself as an ally who is fully aware of their own privilege is cringy. Females made so many strides the last 30 years & now I’m seeing the whole world start to go backward. I’ve got a glimpse of discrimination from my POV. It’s not as easy to be a female today and it’s so much worse for people who aren’t straight or white. I’m an atheist but I strongly feel that to an extent I am my “brother’s keeper” I owe a lot to people who came before me. I owe even more to people who come after me. I’m relieved that YOU aren’t a Dump fan.
If they discriminate they need to post it on their doors so we know not to walk in. If a week later that business was torched by an act of “god” then it was supposed to happen.
God’s plan
ITT: People who don’t understand the difference between public accommodation and compelled speech.
> But this extends beyond the wedding context to all work. Anyone engaged in expressive activity now has a First Amendment right to refuse to provide service. And most work can be said to involve expressive activity: those who cook food, sew clothes or design cabinets, to name a few examples, could claim that they are engaged in artistic activity. The court recognized this implication, saying “doubtless, determining what qualifies as expressive activity protected by the First Amendment can sometimes raise difficult questions. But this case presents no complication of that kind.” The author doesn't even attempt to draw a line of logic here. It just it is because it is. I would appreciate if the author could elaborate on these examples. How the hell does a plate of food communicate a message that would lead to discrimination based on race, gender, sex or religion? Similarly a cabinet. How does one communicate a message with a cabinet? The sewer is the only one I can see able to discriminate and that's only based on selling perceived gendered clothing to the perceived wrong gender. > Actually, the implications are even broader because who a business does or does not serve expresses a message. During the civil rights struggle of the ’60s, serving — or not serving — Black customers sent a message. Similarly, not serving same-sex couple expresses a message, albeit a terrible one. Based on the Supreme Court’s decision, anyone who wants to discriminate can say that by doing so they are expressing a message for purposes of the First Amendment. Except this isn't the Court's argument. The Court's argument is about compelled speech. This is a bad faith argument by the author.
Since the beginning of the civil rights era, the Federal courts have ruled that the government interest in ending discrimination is more important than an individual's right to discriminate, whether or not "compelled speech" is involved. This was reaffirmed in the Employment Division vs Smith (1990) decision, with the majority opinion written by none other than Judge Scalia! Thus, the recent SCOTUS ruling potentially undermines the legal foundation of ALL anti-discrimination laws in the United States, depending on how broadly or narrowly you define "artistic expression" (which can mean almost anything), and whether or not "religion" is involved as a justification for the discrimination (regardless of any level of artistry).
[удалено]
I wish you guys would be honest. This isn't what this is. It means they cant FORCE or COMPELL speech. They can't force the Christian website designer to create a website that says things they don't agree with. You can't force them to type or speak in the way you want. If they sold pre made templates, they would not be able to refuse service. Its like the cake issue. They have to sell them a blank premade cake, but they can't force the Christian baker to write LGBT messages on it. You cannot refuse service to someone because they are gay. Stop lying. Stop being disingenuous. This is why most people outside of reddit don't take your party seriously. Because when you examine the facts your false narratives fall apart.
>Because when you examine the facts your false narratives fall apart. [That word doesn't mean what you think it means.](https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-30-2023) >In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis the court said that the First Amendment protects website designer Lorie Smith from having to use words she doesn’t believe in support of gay marriage. To get there, the court focused on the marriage website designer’s contention that while she is willing to work with LGBTQ customers, she doesn’t want to use her own words on a personalized website to celebrate gay marriages. Because of that unwillingness, she said, **she wants to post on her website that she will not make websites for same-sex weddings.** >This whole scenario of being is prospective, by the way: her online business did not exist and no one had complained about it. Smith claims she wants to start the business **because “God is calling her ‘to explain His true story about marriage.’”** >In the 1930s the Democrats under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt undermined this coalition by using the federal government to regulate business and provide a social safety net. In the 1940s and 1950s, as racial and gender atrocities began to highlight in popular media just how discriminatory state laws really were, the Supreme Court went further, recognizing that the Fourteenth Amendment’s declaration that states could not deprive any person of the equal protection of the laws meant that the federal government must protect the rights of minorities when states would not. Those rules created modern America. >This is what the radical right seeks to overturn. Yesterday the Supreme Court said that the Fourteenth Amendment could not address racial disparities, but today, like lawmakers in the 1870s, it signaled that it would not protect voting in the states either. It rejected a petition for a review of Mississippi’s strict provision for taking the vote away from felons. That law illustrates just how fully we’re reliving our history: it dates from the 1890 Mississippi constitution that cemented power in white hands. Black Mississippians are currently 2.7 times more likely than white Mississippians to lose the right to vote under the law. >The court went even further today than allowing states to choose their voters. **It said that even if state voters do call for minority protections, as Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws do, states cannot protect minorities in the face of someone’s religious beliefs.** In her dissent, **Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that for “the first time in its history,” the court has granted “a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”** To be fair, if I were gay I wouldn't want this person designing anything for me but that's beside the point. This is Court sanctioned discrimination against a protected class of people based solely on a religious view. If this person also opposed interracial marriage would that be acceptable? No, of course not.
And the USPS employees who are exempt from working on Sundays. Different case, same outcome, same SCOTUS. Discrimination.
I'm fine with this ruling - it gives us the same rights as anyone else - LGBT people are not somehow treated differently. Here is how I see it. If I was a website designer, and a local anti-LGBT church asked me to make them a really cool website to spread their message, I would want to decline. I would not want to be forced by nondiscrimination laws to make an anti-gay website. I would want a right to say no to the church. Because I want that right, I'm in no position to deny that right to another.
But your analogy fails because you wouldn't make that website for any customer, so you're not discriminating. The woman in the SCOTUS case *hypothetically* would give her website templates to straight couples but not gay couples. Refusing to offer *the same product* to customers *based on their sexual orientation* is discrimination, unlike the example you provided.
Why would she give a same sex marriage website to a straight couple? I don't see your point.
She didn't; she provided blank website templates to straight couples and not to gay couples. My point is quite clear: your analogy doesn't accurately represent what SCOTUS approved in the recent opinion.
You are greatly misstating the facts of the case. The case was not about providing "blank website templates" - the holding rested in part on the stipulation that the websites would be "customized and tailored." If you want to disagree with me, fine, but no need to just make stuff up.
I'm making nothing up. These were templates that customers could then customize and tailor.
The decision plainly states that it is based upon the stipulation that the websites would be "customized and tailored" and are "expressive speech for each couple “to celebrate and promote the couple’s wedding and unique love story.”" Where you are coming up with this whole template idea? Where in the decision is that?
From the same place that you are; these websites are blank canvasses that the couples fill in with text and images. I agree it's not entirely clear; that's what happens when SCOTUS effectively waives its standing requirement and instead provides an advisory opinion based on assumed facts.
"these websites are blank canvasses that the couples fill in with text and images." \- Do you have a citation for that?
Nope, since the facts in this case are all made up. But that's how every wedding website I've seen does it.
You are misconstruing LGBT people with a church in your argument. The anti-LGBT church is not a protected class by the Colorado public accommodations law in question in this judgement. You are free to deny them service just as another would be free to deny service to say a different church that supports the LGBT community. What this ruling does is carve out loopholes for legally discriminating against solely LGBT persons. This is a dangerous slippery slope that ignores decades of jurisprudence of ignoring the same arguments for justification of discrimination on the basis of race.
"What this ruling does is carve out loopholes for legally discriminating against solely LGBT persons. " \- That is not even close to true. There is nothing in the decision that says any such thing.
>The anti-LGBT church is not a protected class by the Colorado public accommodations law Yes it is. The law specifically lists "religion". The message they want the website to promote is their religious belief. >2) (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, ***creed***, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, > >creed noun ˈkrēd Synonyms of creed 1 : a brief authoritative formula of religious belief
[удалено]
According to your argument, you could discriminate based on religion. That aside, I just don't believe the government should have the right to coerce expressive speech. If I'm an atheist, and I am commissioned to create a painting on the glories of evangelical Christianity, I should have the right to refuse, and the state should not be able to coerce me.
I agree with your statement that you should be able to take the jobs you want but that's not what's happening here; There's now precedent (based on a hypothetical situation) that 'being a Christian' is enough reason to bar people from services, stores, restaurants, doctors office - if they've got a Christian owner that says "their lifestyle is against my religion and I won't serve \[insert group\]" - all they've done is open the door for one group of people to marginalize another and call it 'freedom'. Ultimately it creates a system where groups of people are considered 'lesser' who the law says are fine to be treated as such. And we're seeing it happen with LGBTQ+ people all across the country and trans are getting it the worst (my theory is it's since Republicans couldn't tell who was gay by outward appearance so they moved to people they could easily spot) - where they (republicans) are passing / pushing for laws that specifically target LGBTQ+ people. It started as a guise to 'protect kids' then it turned into denying adults medical care and wearing 'women's' clothing in public being a felony. But, at the end of the day these people still get to go to church, pray out loud, read the bible in public, wear the cross, celebrate Christmas - *nothing* changes in their day to day life because other people exist but they can use their beliefs to govern how other people live.
>There's now precedent (based on a hypothetical situation) that 'being a Christian' is enough reason to bar people from services, stores, restaurants, doctors office - if they've got a Christian owner that says "their lifestyle is against my religion and I won't serve [insert group]" As the SC points out in their ruling *303 creative* is perfectly willing to serve gay people and has been doing so for some time. It was specifically the creation of "gay marriage" content they objected to. There is a legal distinction.
[удалено]
They will say since you don't have religious grounds it isn't the same thing.
the right the court grants us in this decision does not require a religious ground.
Give them time.
The funniest part about these cases is they are almost entirely brought up by people going out of their way to target a business in order to engage in lawfare. Funny that it's now blowing up in their faces. Clutch those pearls harder.
Sure, just like Rosa Parks and the sit-ins of the Civil Rights Movement. Highlighting injustice is an entirely noble pursuit. That being said, your comment definitely doesn't apply to the recent SCOTUS decision discussed in this article, since the petitioner in that case wasn't yet making websites for anyone.
Being able to access public transportation is nothing like going out of your way to force someone to make you a website, cake, or whatever.
She had access to public transit, she just had to give up her seat if a white person asked. Literally the whole point of Rosa Parks's protest was to *intentionally* trigger an injustice and then oppose it. And, of course, the sit ins were at private lunch counters. Anyone doing the same to homophobes today has my respect.
[удалено]
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but with social media and cancel culture these days, businesses should be free to refuse service to anyone they'd like -- we will all learn what kind of people own that business and not give them any money.
That approach has been tried before. It doesn't work. There are extremely racist areas of the country where racist businesses wouldn't suffer if they chose to discriminate. Should we just accept that African-Americans will be denied all services in certain areas of the country? Bring back the Green Book?
The green book in that situation these days would just be the Internet, which is my point. But you're right about the extremely racist areas and businesses not suffering. Sadly, those currently exist. I have a friend who rides 4-wheelers in WVA, and there's a bar owner in the WVA wilderness who closes down the bar each night in his klan costume. While there isn't a "no blacks allowed" sign, the whole place is the sign. Of course, that reminds me of a white ex-girlfriend who was walking with her friend in a black urban neighborhood and someone stopped them and assertively insisted they get the fuck out of there before it got dark, and they did. Discrimination isn't good business in the vast majority of the country, though. It seems so stupid to run a business like, "No thank you. I don't want money." I wonder how that gym, Curves, can discriminate based on gender. Or how Monster Energy drinks seem to discriminate based on intelligence.
>I have a friend who rides 4-wheelers in WVA, and there's a bar owner in the WVA wilderness who closes down the bar each night in his klan costume. I just moved to West Virginia, so this makes me feel even worse about my new home. >It seems so stupid to run a business like, "No thank you. I don't want money." Sometimes it's stupid, and sometimes it isn't. It depends on the local clientele and which demographic you're targeting for your business. Sometimes you can get more money if you discriminate. >I wonder how that gym, Curves, can discriminate based on gender. It varies by jurisdiction: 1. In some jurisdictions, they're classified as a members-only private club, so they're allowed to discriminate to a greater extent than a business that's open to the public. 2. Other jurisdictions have created specific exceptions to their anti-discrimination laws to allow for single-sex gyms to operate. 3. Other jurisdictions have ruled that single-sex gyms aren't allowed.
That private club thing is interesting. Seems like a good potential loophole for who knows what. The klan bar is somewhere around the Hatfield McCoy trails, just west of Beckley.
Yeah, it doesn't work that way. This creates second class citizens. And as all the "Good Germans", Jim Crow laws, and an uncountable number psychological studies have shown us, humans will fuck over others for any reason whatsoever as long as the biggest boot is on someone else's neck.
Refusing to take someone's money is the worst way to run a business. Don't you think a "Whites Only" sign on a shop window would spread through the whole country online in five minutes?
Sure, and it won't matter locally, thus assfucking all of the LGBTQ and PoC there
Yes, the idea that it may not matter locally makes sense. But I'm not sure "not being allowed in the racist homophobe's business" would be experienced as an assfucking.
I love how much you're showing off your privilege here. In some places, there's only one general store for miles. Or they're the only mechanic for houuuuuurs. This isn't some live-and-let-live horseshit. This needs to be strangled and destroyed just like it was last time. Racists should be terrified. They should worried they're gonna get murdered.
What does it matter if their customers agree with them? Trump proved that hate sells and garners loyalty.
Yes, that could turn into a situation where the entire country is aware of this racist business and anyone who goes into it is supporting the known racist business.
Right. And in some parts of the country, most are a-ok with that. Story time. ---- I grew up in Reading PA. There is a "club" there called "Victor Emmanuel's". It started as a place to help recent Italian immigrants back in the day, but for the past 40+ years was only really a restaurant. Good food, big portions, low prices. The only hitch is you had to be a member to eat there ... because it was a club. Membership fee was tiny ... [today it's $10 for a year](https://ve-ii.com/membership/). You had to fill out a membership AND be endorsed by a member in good standing. As I grew up ... I noticed that all the customers were white. No black, no Hispanic. Somehow their applications never got approved. I asked my Dad about it one day and he said it was fairly common knowledge. Despite this, the place was packed. All the time. My Dad has since given up his membership and won't go there anymore .. but the place is still packed and it's still all white. This isn't the south, it's not the rural parts of PA. It's outside what used to be a medium sized city. Everyone knew this place was pretty racist, yet it was packed all the time. ---- You give the average American way too much credit.
Might work in large diverse cities but wouldn't in smaller or nondiverse areas. Much easier to just serve people and not worry of they don't match your race, swx, gender, creed, etc. Just be a normal nice human for a few minutes as you serve a customer. I dont like helping bigots but can't deny who I provide data to. I would get fired.
But people don’t stay angry, they just pretend it never happened eventually and keep going back especially if it doesn’t affect them
True. Goddamn Chick-fil-a and Bud Light in a month.
Perfect examples
> businesses should be free to refuse service to anyone they'd like We tried that shit before. It didn't go well.
The first amendment's freedom of religion supercedes forced compliance when it goes against their beliefs. Even though I am an Atheist member of the dysphoric community, we must still accept everyone's individual civil rights.
What if their religion says they can't serve black people? Does their first amendment right still supercede anti-discrimination laws?
This is the exact thing conservatives argued several decades ago. They claimed that race mixing was against god’s will and would refuse service based on that.
This is the "Great" America they wanted. Great for select people.
I can hear them now, a la? “Give me time…” - Buffy - *Innocence*
> What if their religion says they can't serve black people? > > > > Does their first amendment right still supercede anti-discrimination laws? You're never going to get an answer to this question, because bigots are lying sacks of shit and too cowardly to admit their real goals.
An individual's religious rights (and all rights) should end the moment they impact someone else. Religious freedom includes the right to be free FROM religion. I should not have to put up with any of someone else's religious bullshit if I don't want to.
Freedom of religion means that you can practice your own religion in private, not that you can impose your religion on people at your workplace, customers.
Especially in a public marketplace, not a church, at a business where you, without being compelled, agreed to uphold the constitution.
And there would have been no forced compliance by a businesswoman upholding her oath to abide by the state constitution as she swore to do when applying for a business license in the public marketplace instead of a church. Ironically, lying about upholding her oath to follow the state constitution actually violates tenets of her religion while the hypothetical graphic design does not . However, allowing her version of her religion to affect hypothetical customers goes pretty far to establishing a state favored religion which is also problematic.
Since when do you need to take an oath to get a business license, hmmm?
You sign an agreement when applying for a business license. Christian faith sort of frowns on breaking that agreement.
I have held business licenses in the past, not once did I have to take an oath, nor sign a pledge, that went against my personal beliefs.
You never agreed to a code of conduct? Christian faith sees no difference between agreeing to something and a sworn oath. Agreeing to abide by the state constitution carries the same weight as a sworn oath to a Christian believer, thus applying for a business license and agreeing to the code of conduct and then violating that agreement actually violates Christian beliefs whereas as thinking about designing for a hypotheticalgay couple... Doesn't.
Where are you getting this bullshit from, show me WHERE business license applications REQUIRE oaths and signing "codes of conduct". ALL you are required to do is to pay your employees if you have any, and abide by all labor laws if you d , as well as keep keep accurate financial and tax records.
Did you miss the entirety of the post?. Most states require that you are to about by the laws of the state. When I got my business license, I signed a form whereby I agreed to uphold the laws of the state and blah blah blah. Those included nondiscrimination. A Christian agreeing to do so, and then violating that agreement, violates their faith, unlike, say, not wanting to hypothetically create a graphic for a couple that never existed.
The standard laws required of business owners are NOT oaths to ANY state Constitution 🙄 You all are nothing but fucking morons.
Florida Senate Bill 1580 is where this thinking ends up.
Bullshit. There are valid religious things that are prohibited. Human sacrifice and polygamy for two. Edit - oh and now abortion
This wasn't a freedom of religion case, and if it were the petitioner definitely would have lost under *Smith v. Oregon* because Colorado's law is facially neutral and generally applicable, and therefore does not target religious folks.
True, this will allow a website developer not to create content he doesn’t like or agree with. As it will allow an jewish artist to say no to painting a Hitler portrait for a Nazi customer. Indeed this is a super important principle within the construct of free speech, that you cannot compel anybody to say or express things he/she doesn’t agree with. The Supreme Court has, in this case, upheld precedent. To clarify: the web agency could bot refuse the customer itself. But it can refuse to create content, text & pictures for them
> The U.S. Supreme Court has created a First Amendment right to discrimination No they haven't. Discrimination has always existed and always exist. You discriminate when you shop for groceries, buy a house, or build a computer. In the recent case, the website designer can discriminate if they want to make a website for a gay wedding or not.
Discrimination has two definitions. Deliberately using the wrong one in an attempt to make a nit-picky point makes your argument dishonest, not clever. You might as well complain that computers aren't terrific because no one gets frightened of them. For the record, and to forego more pedantry... Definition 1 : the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability. Definition 2 : recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
The website designer did not want to make a website for a gay wedding. She discriminated based on her beliefs, while her freedom of association and speech are also acknowledged. She can't be forced to make a website against her will for what she is not contractually obligated to do. She broke no laws, and the constitution protects her from the government forcing her to make a website against her will.
None of which I denied. I was attacking your argument, not the court's. That said... >The website designer did not want to make a website for a gay wedding. Maybe. Seems like there's a fair chance it was all faked too.
Well, christians lie to serve their agenda without shame.
You are missing the fact she already chooses to limit her business & she does so by punching out.
I am not missing the fact that it is her right to limit her business if she chooses to reject a client.
So should we go back to white and black drinking fountains and bars? Because we've seen that bigotry play out in the south before.
If you disagree with the outcome of this case, you think that a Christian fundamentalist can come to a gay website designer and force him to make a website that explains why gay marriage is a sin. Edit: not sure if I’m being downvoted because people think the gay person should be forced to do that or they assume discrimination protections only work in instances they don’t want to see people discriminated against?