Supreme Court docket alerts help of web site designer in Colorado case | US-TODAY.NET



The conservative majority Supreme Court docket appeared prepared to aspect with web site designer Lorie Smith who desires to say no same-sex weddings.

RELATED: Supreme Court docket preview: LGBTQ rights to affirmative motion https://bit.ly/3iGJ6Zo

A majority of the Supreme Court docket on Monday appeared sympathetic to an internet designer who desires to say no to create web sites for same-sex weddings, embracing the concept that a state anti-discrimination regulation can not compel her to take action.

In a case that might have profound implications for when companies might flip away prospects, the Colorado web site designer argues the state shouldn’t be permitted to make use of a regulation designed to make sure companies take all comers to compel her to speak messages to which she objects.

The 2-and-a-half-hour debate centered on whether or not same-sex {couples} can be denied wedding ceremony web sites due to their standing as LGBTQ people – a consequence which may favor the state – or whether or not the designer was refusing to endorse a message of approval of same-sex marriage that she says conflicts together with her non secular beliefs.

Subscribe to US-TODAY YouTube Channel @ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvvMLMowJkvqc7gjhGlL7RA
» Watch extra on this and different matters from US-TODAY.NET: https://bit.ly/3KtpSjh
» US-TODAY.NET delivers present native and nationwide information, sports activities, leisure, finance, know-how, and extra via award-winning journalism, photographs, movies and VR.

#SupremeCourt #LGBT #Regulation

24 thoughts on “Supreme Court docket alerts help of web site designer in Colorado case | US-TODAY.NET

  1. It's a no-brainer.

    1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

    Civil Rights Act of 1964: "TITLE II–INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

    SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

    CASE CLOSED!

  2. What about when the Heart of Atlanta Motel owner claimed his business had to the right to deny back folks because it's against his religion, and freedom of speech? (This happend AFTER the Civil Rights Act of 1968) He also claimed his buisness was speech. The Supreme Court said the federal government, specifically Congress, has the right to regulate ANY actions that affects Interstate commerce. WHICH is why private discrimination laws have been enforceable after people tried to ignore the Civil Rights Act. Dispite the 13ths A, and CRA prohibited government discrimination not private. IT'S the Commerce Clause that has given Congress that authority to make private discrimination illegal in most cases relating to buisness.

  3. Hey Sonia, ‘How about people that are vegan. Do you believe they really are?’
    And what does interracial marriage have to do with homosexuality?

  4. So Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson presented a scenario as to if a shopping mall wanted to create a Christmas event; geared towards 1950’s era, ideas of what Christmas looked liked back then, would it be right to only take photos of white children? Based on the past, where “ALL” people of color were discriminated against. Would it be right?
    But then it was presented in a alternate scenario, Another Justice countered with the idea of a Black Santa not wanting to take a photograph with a child wearing a Nazi uniform, wouldn’t that be denying a service based on a personal belief? So if we hang the Pride flag in schools, should we also hang the Nazi flag?
    This is really becoming a place where we remove the rights of others to satisfy the needs of another. How does my feeling and values, not matter more to me than another’s? So we are going to remove the “Freedom of Choice and Freedom to Exercise Personal Decision Making, from all people to satisfy one preference group? We are changing science, changing vocabulary, changing teaching practices, changing the way we live, think and breathe for that community, we also have constructed terms ( that sound like extinct species of Neanderthal) to refer to women as to appease to them. “Nothing People, Humans with Uteruses and Cis”, and do you think they care how Women feel? We are even have even normalized having sexual conversations with children about sexual preferences and identities to the point where that is all that’s being taught in schools. Parent are sending children to school to learn how to read, but the teachers are more focused on teaching them how to transition and identify their sexual identity. Men are gaslighted to date what they don’t prefer or be labeled “Phobic/Scared” When is enough, enough?
    We just need one example of a Trans Man who is sent to a male prison, watch how they alter their “wants and expectations”. We need one Heavyweight Boxing match with a Trans Man. Notice you don’t hear too much from that population, I doubt they see things they was their counterparts do.
    When will it be legal to be Heterosexual again? When will it be ok to raise your own children and teach them values and transitions you have?
    And let’s get this clear, I am on both sides. You can call yourself whatever, but other don’t have to. You also have to take the good and bad; trans women in women’s prison and trans men in mens prison, general population. If trans women compete against women, trans men should compete against men.
    But remember, reality is going to set in when a trans woman has to have a prostatectomy and a trans man has to have a ovarian or uterine cancer screen.
    Where is all this “I am a woman” energy when we women need support. We March Alone!

  5. As a liberal, I'm glad this went this way, even if this had nothing to do with religion at all, you can't force someone to say something against their own free will…

  6. It's her business, and she can run it the way she wants, but I don't believe she will be in business for long. A narrow-minded business ultimately loses revenue and sustainability. Good luck

  7. Would 303 make a gay marriage website, if a straight person asked them? If not, then how is this a matter of discrimination of customer status? 303 simply does not provide a gay marriage website product. To anyone. They only offer a hetero marriage website product. This is a clear case of the government wanting to compel someone to make something they don't provide, and ascribe their name to a message they do not support.

  8. It all depends on the art you being the artist where's the limit where it's becomes egregious?? and as an artist does that take away your right as a person too?? beyond labels of Rights and religion.. if someone wants to make art what may seem egregious to another can that person in general refuse..* EXAMPLE * tattoo artists have refused people who wanted to get celebrities tatted on their bodies so in general can an artist refuse a person art request?? … Is the glass half empty or have full???

  9. Who would have thought the activists on the Supreme Court would have sided with something so unconstitutional, and so blatantly in direct opposition to the religious beliefs that this woman claims are her reasons behind discriminating against citizens.

  10. Here’s the problem with this for me as a disciple of Christ. Unless you’re not going to serve adulterers, liars, thieves, those who covet the stuff of others, etc. then you’re just picking and choosing which sin offends you. You’re a business in the business to do business not discriminate based upon hypocritical morals. This kind of decision opens the door to all kinds of discrimination based upon your personal beliefs. What’s next?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.