43
submitted 10 months ago by joe to c/politics

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a web designer can refuse to create websites for same-sex weddings on religious grounds. The case involved a Colorado web designer named Lorie Smith, who refused to create a website for a same-sex couple's wedding. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, alleging that Smith's refusal violated their civil rights.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] outrageousmatter 28 points 10 months ago

Well, they opened a way for businesses to refuse anyone for religious reason. The future doesn't look bright now.

[-] joe 19 points 10 months ago

It doesn't really even have to be "religious". Any so-called "strongly held belief" now lets people discriminate.

[-] outrageousmatter 3 points 10 months ago

Agreed, bet in some states people will hang signs stating "No lgbtq people allowed" or "No black people or asian people allowed" even though under the 14th amendment it protects them but supreme court choice to ignore it because of there own beliefs of hating people because they rather be rich then live under a progressive nation that is back-sliding because of our courts.

[-] cerevant 15 points 10 months ago

Yep, they seem to have forgotten that it wasn’t that long ago a strongly held religious belief that blacks were lesser beings and needed to be segregated from proper folk.

[-] macarthur_park 10 points 10 months ago

Oh they didn’t forget. That’s just a bonus to them.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

I don't think they've forgotten.

[-] Donjuanme 3 points 10 months ago

The last time the future looked bright for this country I was listening to the radio and heard about the new "grass roots" movement called the"tea party"

[-] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

This doesn't protect them from being socially boycotted though, which will hurt their bottom line more anyway.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Sotomayor condemned the Court, the very bench she sits on, today in her dissent.

When the civil rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims.

And the majority's opinion, they pat themselves on the back by attempting to indicate a limited nature to the degree that the first amendment overrides the protected class status.

the First Amendment protects acts of expressive association.

Which all of this does is now hinge "protected classes" on "expressive association". And where is the line? In this case, the line was "the website will be using the webmaster's words". That is the person designing the website is speaking about an event the occurred rather than the people in the event talking about the event that occurred.

And it's important to understand, that there is a major difference between "public accommodations" and "private clubs". Private clubs can openly discriminate as they see fit, they openly indicate they hold no duty to accept the public at large. 303 Creative (the web company in question) is explicitly operating as a public accommodation. And SCOTUS has seen fit today to accept that a company operating as such may openly discriminate because the end product the website will produce has some magical (but ill-defined) amount of their expressiveness put into the end product, that it somehow is more the person who created it and less the person who bought it.

Sotomayor is rightly so to be beside herself in her dissent. This is a crack in something that's been pretty rock solid. And with any crack, while today this doesn't open season discrimination, but this sure as shit gives a big fucking door for that "expressiveness" line to be broaden. And given how quickly we've gone from Dobbs to 303 Creative (again that speed is also noted by Sotomayor), that "expressiveness" is absolutely going to be broaden considerably within the lifespan of everyone who is reading this comment.

It's not just 303 Creative finally cracking the protective shell of "protected class", it is the speed at which SCOTUS has been dismantling things that should absolutely bring chills. 303 is one thing, the blinding speed at which all of this has been happening is otherworldly in even the most optimistic attempt to take today's loss for the LGBTQA+ community. If the last three years have been the tip of the iceberg, the iceberg itself is something no words have the ability to convey properly the degree of horrors that await the LGBTQA+ community.

this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
43 points (93.9% liked)

politics

17789 readers
4495 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS