https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/lgbtq-rights-public-accommodations-laws-supreme-court/index.html I agree with the Supreme Court. This wouldn't even be an issue for me. I wouldn't support any business that is anti-gay. The same way I don't buy anything at Chick Fil-A. So, I can't understand why the plantiffs were so adamant about patronizing a business that clearly doesn't like people like them. I'm glad they lost!
I disagree with it because it invites all kinds of discrimination. When does it cross over from speech to civil rights? They weren't adamant. This is a largely made-up case to give this Supreme Court an opportunity to reverse prior rulings (and it is wont to do).
I thought about the various discrimination that could ensue (e.g., based on one's race). However, let's hope it doesn't get there. I see this case as more about religious freedom.
I'm not sure the Court saw it that way. They seemed to be focused on speech. Anyway, the case was bogus--it didn't exist.
Sorry Chris, you're flat out wrong. You believed a bunch of lies. The person named in the case never actually asked the lady to make him a website. On top of that he's straight and married to a woman. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/colorado-web-designer-court-filings/index.html The theory as to why they made up this lie is that they didn't want anyone interviewing a real gay couple and then everyone would feel sorry for them. So they just made up a lie.
I now understand that the case was hypothetical. However, if someone was supposed to be opposed to offering service based on me being LGBTQ+, I'd gladly take my business elsewhere.
Umm…frankly I’m having trouble reconciling First Amendment free speech with state statutes against this sort of discrimination. If I make a product for sale to the general public there’s no doubt in my mind that I must sell to everyone who wishes to buy. I’m a lot less comfortable with the idea that I can be compelled to create original speech that I disagree with. LGBTQ rights are statutory whereas free speech, like racial equal protection, are specifically written into the constitution.
This seems reasonable, too. What is your take on the fact that there was no precipitating case? The Court turns away cases all the time over standing. Shouldn't they have tossed this because there was no real issue at stake, and that the original plaintiff lied about there being one? Or, is this just the Court's way of getting at an issue they WANTED to decide, even if the case in question was an ersatz one?
While I agree with the general sentiment, what about slightly different situations? Say a gas station that refuses to serve gas and say there's no other gas station in 40 miles? Or a small country market that is the only market in town that doesn't want to serve you because they know that you're LGBTQ+? They won't serve your kids either so when your kid goes to the store with a few friends, your 10 year old kid has to wait outside because the store owner knows their parent is LGBTQ+? That wouldn't be hurting you that would be hurting an innocent 10 year old.
Both examples are of general sales of merchandise into the community. I have no problem requiring these to serve all comers. Free speech is only tangentially connected if at all. As to the other question, there is no law protecting you from being insulted.
I don't quite know how to say it without sounding like I support bigotry, but it's not like anyone needed a SC decision before this to deny services to people they hate. You ghost them or make up an excuse that has nothing to do with why you hate them ("I'm sorry, we are unable to undertake a project of that scope at this time and have it completed by the deadline you need."). The decision is entirely about wanting to be able to be openly hateful towards "undesirables" whenever possible.
That doesn’t sound like bigotry to me. I do think that people forget exactly what the courts do and how they do it. Courts aren’t legislatures.
No, I don't think that's necessarily true. Read the majority opinion in Dobbs again for example. It appears to me, anyway, that Dobbs was largely an acknowledgement that earlier courts had legislated rather than ruled from recognized sources of basic law. One can certainly disagree with the policy outcome but fixing that is a matter for Congress and State Legislatures. I am also open to hearing any attack on the legal reasoning in Dobbs of course but as it stands I'm not sure what argument I could make.
I'm definitely not a lawyer. But this paper seems to make a pretty good stab at it. https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Legal-Analysis-What-Dobbs-Got-Wrong-3.15.23.pdf
None of the arguments I saw in a brief skim address the difference between a policy they don't like and the limits of the court's legitimate role in a democracy. I get that they don't like the results. I understand why they don't like the results. I see their "parade of horribles." But policy is properly a legislative function and they don't address that as far as I saw. Think about what is happening now. State legislatures ARE making policy and WILL be held accountable to their constituents. The country is having the vociferous policy debate it ought to have had in the 1960s and would have had but for Roe. Yes it's ugly, maybe outrageous (to both sides mind you) but it's how we are supposed to govern ourselves.
