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

https://www.reuters.com/legal/web-designers-anti-gay-marriage-stance-goes-us-supreme-court-2022-12-05/

by geox • 4 years ago

18 53 4 years ago

Will SCOTUS side with other Christian beliefs? I'm thinking specifically of the traditional "peace churches", Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, and their historical opposition to war and killing. What if a Quaker decides to not register for selective service because of strongly held religious beliefs? What if a devote Mennonite subtracts 28% (or whatever the DoD gets as a percentage of the yearly budget) from their income tax? The latter has happened in the past, btw.

How far does religious belief and freedom of religion take us?

hirundo• 4 years ago

We won't find out from this case, which was accepted for its freedom of speech rather than religion arguments.

adamredwoods4• 4 years ago

> Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said Waggoner was on her "strongest ground when you're talking about her sitting down and designing and coming up with the graphics to customize them for the couple." Barrett questioned whether the First Amendment would still protect Smith if she wanted to decline to provide a "plug-and-play" website to a gay couple that an opposite-sex couple could buy.

crackercrews• 4 years ago

You don't have to avoid SSS registration. The govt already has an exception for "conscientious objectors" that requires appearing before a panel. [1] It sounds like any observant Quaker would pass with flying colors. Still a hassle of course.

1: https://www.sss.gov/conscientious-objectors/

bediger40002• 4 years ago

Thanks, last time I looked, which was a few years ago this did not exist. Good to see this coming back in the system!

But you still have to register, and I can imagine someone objecting even to that, someone Amish, say. They object to going to high school.

yieldcrv• 4 years ago

Bring the cases and find out

This case is only going to modify the Colorado statute, and maybe others

It likely won’t answer all your questions

But in America if you have a little free time and money you can mold the country by bringing these cases, instead of just imagining them at your keyboard

Dont let your dreams be dreams, or your slippery slopes hypothetical

ss108• 4 years ago

There's already caselaw about a lot of that.

Also, SCOTUS and other federal courts frequently do rule in favor of religious rights regardless of whether the person asserting them is Christian.

Not always, but it's not like they conspicuously don't.

adamredwoods4• 4 years ago

> She preemptively sued Colorado's civil rights commission and other state officials in 2016 because she feared she would be punished for refusing to serve gay weddings.

I know little of this case. She preemptively did this without a specific incident? How did this even make it to the SCOTUS? I feel anyone can refuse to work for someone else on any unsaid basis. It's when it is definable why they denied a customer, or work, then we can explore the implications.

Preemptive fears are baseless in this circumstance, IMO.

sieabah• 4 years ago

The bakery incident really made people wonder whether you can deny anyone and stay in business.

adamredwoods4• 4 years ago

Suppose I was a freelance website developer and one day a Christian came to my work and asked me to write out Leviticus 18 with a big fat logo for their website, I'd say my hand hurt and ask they go somewhere else to do it. Even if it was later discovered that I am a card-carrying Atheist, will I be shut down? Could anyone prove my intentions? Doubtful.

Natsu2• 4 years ago

It's a bit more complicated than that, they're suing to test the constitutionality of the law because it barred them from doing something they would've otherwise done:

=== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis ===

Before implementing the notice, Smith discovered that such a notice would violate the Colorado anti-discrimination state laws that were amended in 2008, which prevents public businesses from discriminating against gay people as well as making statements to that effect. Smith, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, sued Colorado in 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, seeking to block enforcement of the anti-discrimination law. The district court waited for the result of the Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission which dealt with the same anti-discrimination law. As Masterpiece was ruled in 2018 on more narrow procedural grounds, the district court ruled against Smith in 2019, as Colorado had yet to investigate Smith and thus there was no evidence that she had engaged in discrimination.[4][5]

Smith appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which upheld the district court decision in a 2–1 ruling. In the majority ruling, the Tenth Circuit held the anti-discrimination law satisfied strict scrutiny under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, deepening a circuit split with decisions issued by the Arizona Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[6] Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich dissented in the Tenth's decision, writing "the majority takes the remarkable — and novel — stance that the government may force Ms. Smith to produce messages that violate her conscience."[3]

adamredwoods4• 4 years ago

Thank you for this. It seems the case made it because of a "writ of certiorari" and the SCOTUS decided to hear it.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...

amanaplanacanal• 4 years ago

Could a web designer refuse to create a site for an inter-racial marriage because they don’t believe in miscegenation?

Is web design considered a public accommodation under the law?

freejazz2• 4 years ago

Is web design considered a public accommodation under the law?

any reason why it wouldn't?

roflyear4• 4 years ago

I don't think it's appropriate to not serve people of specific races.

mensetmanusman• 4 years ago

Legal experts note the risk of the governments argument: if you are an artist, you have a de-facto monopoly on your speech, ergo your speech is regulated and compelled.

E.g. should a Jewish singer be forced to sing at a KKK event, etc.

proactivesvcs• 4 years ago

Not necessarily arguing with your point (it may be that of said legal experts) but a KKK event is not held, or run by people, because of any sort of protected status or attribute, as far as I understand it. Hence it's a fallacious comparison.

joshuamorton2• 4 years ago

This doesn't at all appear to be the governments argument though?

roflyear4• 4 years ago

Absolutely some things are not protected. Political speech is something you can discriminate against in the US. You can fire someone for being a Nazi. That's absolutely true.

boeingUH60• 4 years ago

I don’t know if this opinion is unpopular, but I personally think anyone should be allowed to refuse to render their services to anyone they want to…I mean, if I don’t want to offer my services, can’t I just make an excuse like I’m overbooked or something?

Obviously, it gets murky when it comes to innate characteristics like race…but I don’t think religious views fall under that category because a considerable number of people change their religions or go from religious to atheist or vice versa.

vineyardmike4• 4 years ago

I don’t think its an unpopular opinion, but I think the issue here is that there is a lot of nuance.

Should someone be forced to officiate a same-sex wedding or build a website is different from should that person be forced to rent an apartment to a same sex couple which is different from should a cashier be forced to provide service at the register to a same-sex couple.

The law provides distinction between speech and conduct, and that’s the main topic in this court case. Conduct can’t discriminate, but speech can. Eg. You can say mean things about a certain race, but you can’t refuse them service because if it. So professional services… is that conduct or speech? The Colorado law in question said that business is conduct not speech, and thats really what is at the root of this case. What is the line? Is baking a cake speech? Is building a website? What about being a grocery store cashier?

Obviously, it gets murky when it comes to innate characteristics like race

What about innate characteristics like sexuality?

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF2• 4 years ago

This is a good explanation of the subtleties involved in this.

- Alice wants to publish a website about how the moon is made out of cheese but Alice is bad at web design.

- Bob is good at web design and wants to sell his design services.

- Bob is discriminatory in how clients are accepted: he doesn't want people to make claims that the moon is made out of cheese.

- Alice is rejected.

I don't think Bob is really wrong in this hypothetical specifically because people who believe certain things about the moon aren't a class protected by law from discrimination.

However, when Alice is trying to make a website about her marriage to her future wife:

- Bob is discriminatory in how clients are accepted: he doesn't want people to announce or advertise their same-sex marriages.

Seems like this is discrimination against a protected class. Personally, I don't buy the argument that Bob's speech is compelled because it's not his speech (not his website).

(Not that the above comment makes this argument, just that it appears to be the prevailing argument in favor of this person's decision.)

jfengel• 4 years ago

I think it's a very popular opinion. That's the point. It's a very easy snap judgment to make when you're not in a group that's often discriminated against, and so you haven't put a lot of thought into what it's actually like.

That's the great thing about being in the majority. Most people share your opinion.

ccakes• 4 years ago

As another poster said - it's more nuanced than that.

Not all that long ago, almost nobody wanted to render services to same-sex couples. The only reason the level of blatant discrimination has (slightly) lessened is because laws were enacted that explicitly protected their rights.

As someone (referring to myself here) who has almost no reason to be discriminated against, it's very easy to imagine that allowing business owners to freely choose who they provide services would be ok. I'd imagine the reality of that scenario would be pretty grim however.

fzeroracer• 4 years ago

What happens if someone say, lives in Texas and suddenly can't purchase basic goods or get basic services because individually businesses decide they no longer want to serve people whom area gay? Should doctors, nurses etc be able to refuse to render service because their patient is gay? What about teachers?

The problem with this line of thought (and why we have laws to help protected individuals) is that it hurts a minority of people and imposes a tyranny of the majority. Christians will likely never have to worry about an Atheist shop telling them to pound sand, but an Atheist in a rural area could suddenly have services taken away from them unless they convert.

In this scenario they had the freedom to deny the job and move on; but they wanted to specifically make it about their religion. They want the ability to discriminate not on the basis of being picky with their clientel, but specifically so that they can impose their own religious beliefs on others. And that is the core problem of the case; and also why I sadly think the Supreme Court will rule in favor.

1123581321• 4 years ago

The line being drawn in these cases is creative expression, i.e. courts are ruling that these are artistic statements, speech can’t be compelled, and so on.

This would never affect the ability to buy groceries or receive medical care.

tacotacotaco• 4 years ago

For a while I also thought this. If these bigots don't want money then let them go without. Then I thought about what desegregation looked like in this country. It only applied to government institutions so private businesses hung "WHITES ONLY" signs in their window. Are we going to have "STRAIGHTS ONLY" signs or should I just assume any Christian symbol to mean discrimination?

Nevermark3• 4 years ago

(If anyone wants to critique my solution attempt, I would be interested in any perceived problems with it.

I have a practical interest in finding solutions to difficult moral problems.)

Clearly people shouldn't be discriminated against for the protected class they are in.

And yet people shouldn't be required to harness their own free speech for views that they find morally objectionable.

I don't see how any workable solution can dispense with either of those principles.

But I don't see any contradiction either. No discrimination based on customer class. But allowable service limits, on providing unique creative contributions to promoting ideas the supplier finds morally objectionable.

The distinction is between mechanical services, creative non-speech related services (always must be provided equally) vs. creative service directly involved in speech choices.

A cake maker should provide cakes to anyone. Put any combination of figures for sale on a cake, as a customer requests. Put any writing a customer wants on a cake. And even produce cakes in designs inherently celebrating any ideas, supporting the free speech of the customer.

None of those tasks involve the cake supplier making creative choices about any ideas. The customer made those choices.

But a cake maker can decline to come up with their own wording for phrases supporting ideas they don't agree with. And decline to make choices regarding unique visual designs, specifically promoting an idea they find morally objectionable.

So a gay couple should be able to get a unique cake made (from a maker of custom cakes), with rainbow colors (they chose), in a shape of a non-binary symbol (that they chose), with two male figures on top (at their direction). And the cake maker can be expected to apply their general creative calligraphy and cake shaping skills to make the cake presentable, without having to make any decisions about the ideas it represents that they may or may not have personal moral objections too.

The only other aspect I can think of is, suppliers should generally be able to decline projects for moral reasons, as long as the moral objection isn't based on protected class of customer.

For instance, a request for a cake in the shape of genetalia can be rejected for being too obscene, given they would decline such a cake for anyone of any class.

Georgelemental5• 4 years ago

If a customer walks in requesting a cake with a swatzika and other Nazi insignia, should the bakery be allowed to refuse?

roflyear4• 4 years ago

Political speech has never been protected.

Nevermark3• 4 years ago

Good question, thanks!

I think divisive political or social messages would fall under the providers right to decline based on personal morals, that don't involve making distinctions dependent on a protected customer class.

But it would be a problem if the cake maker was ok making very divisive cakes favorable to white supremacists, but then refused to make similarly divisive cakes associated with other races or religions. As that inconsistency would indicate the supplier was making distinctions based on protected classes (i.e. religion, race).

primeradical3• 4 years ago

I would be mortified walking into a karaoke bar with a group of friends and they ask me and my husband to leave but continue to serve our friends because they don't want LGTBQIA+ people to use their microphones.

I shouldn't have to lookup which minorities/protected classes your public business refuses to serve.

Easy to stand with her when you're not on the receiving end of that discrimination.

Ferrotin3• 4 years ago

You’d only get kicked out for your conduct, like stepping up to the mic and singing some lyrics about gay stuff that grosses everybody out.

We have a long history of having gays not being a protected class, so you can see from ten years ago how realistic your concerns are.

freejazz2• 4 years ago

Ah, yes, history only goes in one direction... except for when it doesn't.

primeradical3• 4 years ago

She didn't get to the Supreme Court because she was forced to serve a client whose conduct she disapproved. In fact, this case doesn't involve a specific client at all. This case is about the would-be client that hasn't even walked in the door.

And the court isn't considering whether LGBTQIA+ people fall into a protected class category, that's not this case. Metaphorically, this case is whether or not she can put up a sign on her business's front door that says "No ___ allowed." And according to the article, this conservative SCOTUS appears to be sympathetic to the "No ___ allowed" sign.

It appears SCOTUS is trying to draw line between public accommodation businesses and businesses that create speech, a distinction I believe Justice Sotomayor and KBJ countered aptly.

I could imagine an ISP denying the use of its networks to LGBTQIA+ people because they have sincerely held religious objections to transmit those customers' data across their network.

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

Related Stories