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

I do not agree with this woman’s beliefs, and I have very little respect for the ultra conservatives on SCOTUS, but this ruling seems reasonable to me.

Hate to say it, mind you.

This woman should have a right to choose.

Great use of supreme power. Opus Dei, yay yay yay!! (Where’s the vomit emoji?)

What’s next? No wedding websites for mixed race couples?

America continues its decent into backwards theocracy.

Excellent news. The ones denied service would happily refuse service to anyone wearing a maga hat, Trump shirt, anything patriotic or Americana, etc.; and they would demand they leave the premises, too. Not to mention the rights to free speech and religious freedom were upheld. This is a win.

I do not agree with this woman’s beliefs, and I have very little respect for the ultra conservatives on SCOTUS, but this ruling seems reasonable to me. 

Hate to say it, mind you.

Wow, I’m shocked, never thought I would hear that from you, but I’m glad you think so. You don’t have to agree with a persons political, social or religious belief no one should be forced to make something they don’t want or believe in.

Lorie Smith, a Christian graphic artist

I didn't know that Christianity had things in their teachings that would make one feel that the chance of simply working with a homosexual needs to be eliminated entirely.

Guess I was wrong.

plasticmonkeyToday  06:31 am JST

I do not agree with this woman’s beliefs, and I have very little respect for the ultra conservatives on SCOTUS, but this ruling seems reasonable to me.

Hate to say it, mind you.

3( +4 / -1 )

A reasonable observation.

agree with monkey and Randy. People should have a right to choose.

In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court's conservative majority ruled on Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples. One of the court's liberal justices wrote in a dissent that the decision's effect is to “mark gays and lesbians for second-class status” and that the decision opens the door to other discrimination.

Find another graphic artist. Sheesh.

Aly: Find another graphic artist. Sheesh.

And if the graphic artist doesn't like black people, find a new one.

And if a graphic artist doesn't like working with women, find a new one.

And if the graphic artist doesn't like working with Jews, find a new one.

Just keep trying until you eliminate all the bigots. Easy peasy.

And if the graphic artist doesn't like black people, find a new one.

And if a graphic artist doesn't like working with women, find a new one.

And if the graphic artist doesn't like working with Jews, find a new one.

Just keep trying until you eliminate all the bigots. Easy peasy.

yes. exactly. forcing people to work with people they don't want to work with isn't a good idea

I didn't know that Christianity had things in their teachings that would make one feel that the chance of simply working with a homosexual needs to be eliminated entirely.

Guess I was wrong

There are thousands of bakeries that will cater to your needs and be happy to have your business, go there if someone denies you service or doesn’t want to work with you, it’s that simple.

And if the graphic artist doesn't like black people, find a new one.

Yes.

And if a graphic artist doesn't like working with women, find a new one.

Of course!

And if the graphic artist doesn't like working with Jews, find a new one.

Absolutely!

Just keep trying until you eliminate all the bigots. Easy peasy.

Just go somewhere else, you’ll never get rid of bigots or racists or people that have different religious beliefs.

Good for her

If ever a legal mountain was created out of a mole hill here we have it

Blown out of all logical proportion.... And at want a preposterous cost.

In a defeat for gay rights........“mark gays and lesbians for second-class status”

No this is ludicrous, take your business elsewhere...

I hardly believe for one second, that gay and lesbian or the rather foolish political notion "weakens long-standing laws that protect all Americans against discrimination in public accommodations – including people of color, people with disabilities, people of faith, and women.”

What a load of old gibberish baloney.

Lorie Smith, refuses business for whatever reason, then that is Lorie Smith ultimate loss, may I also suggest Smith's 303 Creative business employees may not share her religious beliefs, yet have mortgages to pay, ever increasing costs of living commitments to meet.

Firstly, don't mix your religious beliefs with your business model, just present a bill.

Bass: There are thousands of bakeries that will cater to your needs and be happy to have your business, go there if someone denies you service or doesn’t want to work with you, it’s that simple

But just so we're clear, there's something about Christianity telling people that they don't have to work with gay people that created this situation in the first place.

Agreed?

Why did this need a SC ruling? Should be common sense.

Private business should always have the right to refuse service, whoever, whenever.

This ‘case’ would only make a point for right wing christians if they were consistent in their beliefs, but of course they aren’t.

Are businesses going to be able to refuse service to Black people like they used to be able to do in the South?

The streets and malls of America are going to look pretty unwelcoming, soon.

"No gays allowed!"

"No Blacks!"

"Christians only!"

"No cis-genders!"

"We refuse to serve boomers"

"Hands up who wants a cake! Not so fast, straight white men"

I actually agree with the ruling. The Colorado law is a form of compelled speech, but that's what it opens the door to. Can't we all just get along?

Are businesses going to be able to refuse service to Black people like they used to be able to do in the South?

If so, go somewhere else.

If so, go somewhere else.

I thought we had kind of collectively agreed as a nation that the Jim Crow era was not a good thing.

If the only pharmacy around has life-saving medication that someone needs, but the owner refuses to sell to a certain class of people, then what?

Politics and religion, never at the dinner table, or in business decision making.

Worst still is when when politicians attempt to combine all three at the same time, in this case over over design of wedding websites.

There are days when I wonder want crazy identity political new low I will wake up too.

"No gays allowed!"

But pushing transgender ideology and forced acceptance should be forced on people?

"No Blacks!"

No Whites!

"Christians only!"

Atheists?

"No cis-genders!"

Men and women only!

"We refuse to serve boomers"

How about Millennials or Gen Z’ers?

Just flip it around and go by these examples.

I actually agree with the ruling. The Colorado law is a form of compelled speech, but that's what it opens the door to. Can't we all just get along?

We should. But you should never be forced or compelled as a responsible adult to do what you may not want to do.

If the only pharmacy around has life-saving medication that someone needs, but the owner refuses to sell to a certain class of people, then what?

It's a good point. But the ruling is limited to those "who can refuse to offer what the court called expressive services...But that's different from other businesses not engaged in speech"

I don't know if you could say a pharmacy in engaged in 'speech.'

Thanks fatrain. I obviously didn't read this article. That's helpful to know. I just hope it doesn't expand beyond that. Hopefully the conservatives are satisfied and we can put this matter to bed.

whats a cis gender? This is what you people can’t be taken seriously

You'll notice I took examples from both 'sides,' in reference to Justice Gorsuch, who said "a gay website designer could be forced to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage,"

The ruling can work both ways.

bass4funk,

Just flip it around and go by these examples.

That's what I did.

But you should never be forced or compelled as a responsible adult to do what you may not want to do.

That's what I said. Sorry, bass, I'm not sure if you are trying to support or refute my argument. Both?

Regardless of your views on this ruling, we do agree that people who refuse services based on race, religion or sexual orientation are bigots, right?

That's what I said. Sorry, bass, I'm not sure if you are trying to support or refute my argument. Both?

Sorry, I was just adding other examples to that argument that’s all.

That pink dollar has a value.....

From Wall Street to Silicon Valley, LGBT+ investment on the rise and this is 2021.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-investment-feature-trfn-idUSKBN2613MR

Some 17 million people in the United States are LGBT+ and they spend $1.1 trillion a year, according to LGBT+ Capital, one of a growing number of specialist asset management firms.

Don't let your private prejudices cloud your business decisions and ultimately your investors, customers.

I frankly couldn't care less whether an investor with money to spend walks into my office sporting a pink feather boa, stilettoes and a beard, whistling "I'm Coming Out"

And if the graphic artist doesn't like black people, find a new one.

And if a graphic artist doesn't like working with women, find a new one.

And if the graphic artist doesn't like working with Jews, find a new one.

Just keep trying until you eliminate all the bigots. Easy peasy.

This.

The posters celebrating this ruling would be the first to throw a tantrum and whine about "discrimination" if they were refused housing in Japan due to being a foreigner.

Regardless of your views on this ruling, we do agree that people who refuse services based on race, religion or sexual orientation are bigots, right?

If they are bigots so what? You will never have a world where people will be accepting of others 100% we all have our feelings and thoughts about people, class and race and we are allowed to have these feelings, they can’t be controlled nor regulated nor should they be, don’t like how someone thinks or acts, go somewhere else. Stop pushing people to accept something they don’t want. Adults can make these decisions for themselves.

Comes at the end of Pride Month.

This wasn’t a free speech issue. This woman wanted to discriminate against a protected class because she doesn’t like gays.

SCOTUS just allowed discrimination against a protected class based on religious “faith”.

Well Katie, bar the door. Next up not providing other services to other protected classes.

Don’t like interracial couples? God tells you it’s not natural? Want to deny them services? Sure.

Dont want to sell to Jews? No problem.

God says that races should be separated? So no blacks at your lunch counter? That’s coming.

This is really bad law, very poorly applied. Girlish tried to say it’s limited to a speech issue. It’s not.

And this woman didn’t even have a business with a web site. There is no actual web site, she does not have standing because she has suffered no harm as of yet.

Simply put, the Court had a purely hypothetical case and took it (which is another violation of precedent, but the Christian Taliban in the majority have shown they don’t care) BECAUSE it wanted to strike a blow against Gay rights.

It was the GQP that used to whine about legislating from the bench. This ruling and the one on Affirmative Action reveal these politicians in robes to be judicial activism hypocrites.

Discrimination creeps.

This wasn’t a free speech issue. This woman wanted to discriminate against a protected class because she doesn’t like gays. 

Her choice.

SCOTUS just allowed discrimination against a protected class based on religious “faith”.

So she should have been forced to accept these people?

Well Katie, bar the door. Next up not providing other services to other protected classes. 

If that is her choice.

Don’t like interracial couples? God tells you it’s not natural? Want to deny them services? Sure.

Dont want to sell to Jews? No problem.

God says that races should be separated? So no blacks at your lunch counter? That’s coming. 

Here we go….

Yes, the constitution and this ruling solidified once again, that as American citizens we have the absolute right to decide who we want to marry, where want to live and who we want to associate with.

This is really bad law, very poorly applied. Girlish tried to say it’s limited to a speech issue. It’s not.

No, it’s a justified ruling, liberals are out of their mind to think they have the absolute right to dictate to someone how they should deal with people. I don’t need the government to tell me how to live and whom to accept. Don’t like it, go somewhere else. Your money.

To be honest, any potential gay customers dodged a bullet there. Nothing says bad graphic artist like a christian graphic artist. Nobody picks up a christian rock album thinking it's actually going to rock.

designer Lorie Smith's website is 303 Creative.

https://303creative.com/

Regardless of your views on this ruling, we do agree that people who refuse services based on race, religion or sexual orientation are bigots, right?

If they are bigots so what?

I was just establishing what we are dealing with - bigots.

We are in agreement that this ruling is allowing more freedom to bigots to put their bigotry into practice.

When you look at it that way, decent people gain nothing from this ruling.

I don't care for the decision, but despite being an atheist we cannot infringe on the religious beliefs of others.

But the common trope as some here are using.

What’s next? No wedding websites for mixed race couples?

And

And if the graphic artist doesn't like black people, find a new one.

> And if a graphic artist doesn't like working with women, find a new one.

> And if the graphic artist doesn't like working with Jews, find a new one.

Etc...

These are the common tropes used but are false and impossible.

Read the article read the ruling!

They make it clear it applies only to religious beliefs, no recognized religion has core beliefs based on race,

If the only pharmacy around has life-saving medication that someone needs, but the owner refuses to sell to a certain class of people, then what?

And

The streets and malls of America are going to look pretty unwelcoming, soon.

Again more tropes, read the article and ruling.

From the article:

The decision suggests that artists, photographers, videographers and writers are among those who can refuse to offer what the court called expressive services if doing so would run contrary to their beliefs. But that's different from other businesses not engaged in speech and therefore not covered by the First Amendment, such as restaurants and hotels.

so the pharmacy the mall the streets, your doctor, dentist, supermarket, car dealership, etc....

Are not protected by the ruling and cannot use it the deny service to anyone!

But this FACT will not stop people from claim it will!

I was just establishing what we are dealing with - bigots.

I see.

We are in agreement that this ruling is allowing more freedom to bigots to put their bigotry into practice. 

So you are saying if the ruling hadn’t been made, I would have been forced to serve this person no matter what to appease the left. Now the left got what they want because I was forced to give service and guess what? I’m still a bigot and nothing is changed other than I’m just being forced to do something I don’t want. This totally came back to the left and bit them on the rear as it should have, but they took it to the Supreme Court and now they finally heard it from the highest court in the country and now, once and for all, they know now they legally cannot force anyone to accommodate or accept them for whatever reason. It would’ve been better if they would have just gone somewhere else, the choices are out there.

When you look at it that way, decent people gain nothing from this ruling.

Just because you don’t agree politically, sexually or socially with someone, that doesn’t make you a bad person, and if you are a bigot, where does it state that it’s wrong or immoral? Where?

the ruling is limited to those "who can refuse to offer what the court called expressive services...But that's different from other businesses not engaged in speech" 

That’s why I think this is a reasonable ruling. This does not allow restaurants to refuse service to black people (for example), and I disagree vehemently with bass that that would be OK. Black people have a right to eat where they want. LGBTQ people do not have the right to compel a business to advertise opinions that run counter to their religious beliefs.

This ruling is fairly narrow, and I think my fellow liberals would be wise to refrain from drawing unwarranted parallels with clearly discriminatory behaviors.

Black people have a right to eat where they want. 

For now.

For now.

No, forever.

This totally came back to the left and bit them on the rear as it should have, but they took it to the Supreme Court and now they finally heard it from the highest court in the country and now, once and for all, they know now they legally cannot force anyone to accommodate or accept them for whatever reason

There is no 'once and for all' when it comes to the Supreme Court, otherwise we would still have 'separate but equal' accommodations for the races under the Plessy v Ferguson ruling. Courts change, times change.

No, forever.

I hope so too, Bass, but you never know.

—Black people have a right to eat where they want. 

For now.

Sorry to disagree, but the law and legal precedent are rock solid on this point.

I agree any business person should have the right to refuse business to anyone if they so choose.

This is legalized discrimination against a demographic that he/she doesn't like be it religious, ethnic, or lifestyle.

And it hardly seems reasonable that the original comment which is a defacto statement of support of discrimination on "free speech" grounds, is deemed on topic but pointing out the inherent discriminatory nature of it is somehow off-topic.

So much ado about nothing. Its 2023, just get a different designer. Im sure many will be happy to take gay couple money / business.

Actually, during the vaccine passport regime, it was Blacks who bore the brunt of the discrimination because proportionally they have the highest ratio of unvaccinated

Very weak post. Went nowhere.

Just because you don’t agree politically, sexually or socially with someone, that doesn’t make you a bad person, and if you are a bigot, where does it state that it’s wrong or immoral? Where?

I think you might be painting yourself into a corner again here.

Are you sure you understand what ‘bigot’ means?

As long as she proclaims her religious worldview as a disclaimer. There is a big difference between :

Hi, I'm Lorie Smith. I'm a graphic designer.

and

Hi, I'm Lorie Smith. I'm a christian graphic designer. Due to my strict adherence to my faith I cannot accept commissions from homosexuals, divorcees, adulterers, those who take God's name in vain, gamblers, non-believers and anything else dependent on someones interpretation of ancient texts. I'm also closed Sunday.

I think you might be painting yourself into a corner again here. 

Not at all

Are you sure you understand what ‘bigot’ means?

Rhetorical question?

I don't understand the couple in this case!

Why would you want someone that is fundamentally against your views and marriage to do your wedding website?

If as an atheist I was getting married and the venue, the website designer the photographer was fundamentally opposed to our being atheist and force them to take my money, would I trust them to do the job correctly? No.

Move on find someone that is happy to do it and needs the work give them your business and that of your friends.

Last fall in Kyoto my wife went into a restaurant, I was in the convenience store.

When I arrived to join her the staff at the entrance said full no space.

I pointed out my wife sit at the table waiting for me.

The staff still didn't let me in the instead told my wife " there was a mistake" the table was "reserved and we had to leave.

She gave them a few choice words and we found a great place down the road the husband and wife owners were happy to serve use, great food and I was pleased to give them my business and our next trip we will go there again.

Why force people that don't like you to take your money, give your business to people that respect you.

This is legalized discrimination against a demographic that he/she doesn't like be it religious, ethnic, or lifestyle.

Forcing someone to comply with something that is against racial social or religious is not discriminatory?

And it hardly seems reasonable that the original comment which is a defacto statement of support of discrimination on "free speech" grounds, is deemed on topic but pointing out the inherent discriminatory nature of it is somehow off-topic.

Sorry, but the left lost big on this, and there is nothing they can say that will justify a dissent.

If you don’t like the ruling that’s ok, but for millions they now don’t have to be forced to doing something they don’t want because the right says, you have to! What’s that? The very definition of “discrimination.”

Why force people that don't like you to take your money, give your business to people that respect you.

If my taxes are helping to pay for the infrastructure that the business needs to function, then they damn well better serve me and others like me. That's what being a business and a public accommodation is about. Don't like it? Become private club and forego the tax advantages due a proper public accommodation.

The streets and malls of America are going to look pretty unwelcoming, soon.

Again more tropes, read the article and ruling.

Artistic license. An analogy for 'expressive' goods and services offered in the market place. And if I want to use tropes to make a point, I will.

 I don't understand the couple in this case!

That is the mindnumbingly ridiculous point. There are no couples. She hasn't done any work yet. She is imagining a possible scenario where she might be asked by an imaginary gay couple to provide her services.

She is pre-empting a legal decision.

Sadly, it seems she went to the Supreme Court joy because of an imaginary gay couple, not because of imaginary divorcees, adulterers, gamblers, jews etc. etc.

Paustovsky

Today 10:21 am JST

As long as she proclaims her religious worldview as a disclaimer. There is a big difference between :

> Hi, I'm Lorie Smith. I'm a graphic designer.

> and

> Hi, I'm Lorie Smith. I'm a christian graphic designer. Due to my strict adherence to my faith I cannot accept commissions from homosexuals, divorcees, adulterers, those who take God's name in vain, gamblers, non-believers and anything else dependent on someones interpretation of ancient texts. I'm also closed Sunday.

Great! Now you and everyone knows!

So now go give your money to someone else that will welcome you openly!

She isn't the only person offering this service and I doubt she is the best.

As an atheist I avoid giving my business to people like her, doesn't that mean she can force me or claim I discriminate against her?

Find someone else that will be happy to server you!

I didn't know that Christianity had things in their teachings that would make one feel that the chance of simply working with a homosexual needs to be eliminated entirely.

Guess I was wrong.

These are not Christians. Not even close. Really they are apostates. They are using religion to justify their bigotries and as a sledge hammer with which to bludgeon those with whom they disapprove for whatever reason.

If one reads the New Testament it is clear that Jesus is depicted as having dealings with all of the outcasts of society of the time and these outcasts, whether a prostitute like Mary Magdalein, a tax collector, a Samaritan, etc., are almost always portrayed favorably. The story I get from the New Testament was that Jesus was all for the prisoner, the immigrant and the outcasts and against those in power like the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The issue is this case is the intersection between free speech AND discrimination when providing goods and services to the public.

[The cause of the discrimination is not germane. Religious freedom is not at issue]

The problem, IMO, with the majority opinion is, under CO law, homosexuality is a protected class, meaning it is considered the same as race and national origin. That is why, as Sotomajor wrote,   

“...the decision’s logic cannot be limited to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity."

Do you all you see the problem now?

According to the conservative majority, I can tomorrow start a web design business, and advertise the following:

“I design original, customized Webpages weddings,  tailored for you to capture that special moment in your life.”*

*Japanese will not be accommodated, because of my deeply held beliefs.

If you all are ok with that, then there you go. Are you also ok with this?

“I design original, customized Webpages weddings,  tailored for you to capture that special moment in your life.”*

*Blacks will not be accommodated, because of my deeply held beliefs."

Read the decision. Sotomajor is right: The decision’s logic cannot be limited to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The posters supporting the SC decision are the same ones that last month spoke out.

 About a chicken company including Pride in its business. Chick-fil-A.

 When before it had based it on Christian faith.

Why the different support?

Read the decision. Sotomajor is right: The decision’s logic cannot be limited to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

If someone's deeply-held religious belief says that races shouldn't mix, then I can't see why they couldn't discriminate against Black people or interracial couples.