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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] joe 43 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Also relevant: https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

The "gay man" this woman claims contacted her to have a wedding website made:

  1. Isn't gay.
  2. Was already married at the time she claims he contacted her about the website.
  3. Denies ever contacting anyone about a wedding website, because, uh, he's already married.
[-] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Christo-fascists falsifying cases in attempts to set precedent in MY legal system? Why I never….

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

So it's fake but not gay? I don't know how to process this.

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

Wtf. This can't be true? Or do they just say, "fuck it, we're still debating the principle of the fictional matter!"?

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

That's exactly what happened. This case was nothing more than a "thought project" and should have been tossed before it was even heard. That said, the ruling is accurate because: In a fictional scenario you can do whatever you want.

[-] 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.

[-] breadsmasher 20 points 10 months ago

We can all now refuse to work with republicans

[-] joe 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You always could; political party was never a protected class. The SCOTUS has now allowed people to discriminate based on intrinsic traits. Under this ruling, if someone has a "strongly held belief" that they shouldn't make websites for people of color, they are allowed to refuse.

[-] Armok_the_bunny 4 points 10 months ago

I was about to say I was willing to defend this one on freedom of speech grounds, but no, if this was about race and not sexuality this would be reprehensible, and thus it is still reprehensible.

[-] BeautifulMind 20 points 10 months ago

Welcome to America, where 'religious liberty' is the right to be a shitty bigot

[-] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

"There's no hate like Christian love."

[-] RealFknNito 17 points 10 months ago

Seriously depressing. Constantly feels like we're two steps forward and three steps backwards with a conservative majority in any legislative body.

[-] joe 15 points 10 months ago

Minority rule will inevitably lead to injustice.

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

Did I miss the two steps forward?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Affirmative action would have qualified as a step forward, but that's gone now. Abortion, but that's permanently on the ropes and I'll die of shock if it doesn't disappear, especially with the working class refusing to have children when they can barely feed themselves.

I do still retain the legal option to own and withdraw from my own bank account without a man's written or spoken permission, the lack of which trapped my grandmother in a horrifically abusive relationship, so that's pretty sweet. We came damn close to having healthcare for a minute there, before anyone noticed.

We're ethically doing a tango.

[-] FlyingSquid 1 points 10 months ago

You're allowed to own a credit card without a man's permission now too. Bella Abzug realized in the 1970s that she could be in congress but she couldn't own a credit card without her husband's permission and fought hard to end it.

Of course, I can't wait for SCOTUS to decide that one is dead too. Ratfuckers.

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

Legalizing gay marriage was a step forward, and not that long ago.

[-] DiachronicShear 10 points 10 months ago

So now people can deny literally anyone. People are free to put "WHITES ONLY" or "STRAIGHTS ONLY" out front

[-] theatremaker 7 points 10 months ago

So screwed up that they decided Affirmative Action on Equal Protection grounds and then pivoted to First Amendment rights to justify this decision.

It’s a constitutional failure in the US that rights can be undermined by the court in this way without any checks.

[-] joe 6 points 10 months ago

That it is. We need to make our representative democracy more... representative. Things like:

  • uncapping the seats for the house of representatives
  • moving away from plurality voting
  • getting rid of, or otherwise nullifying, the electoral college

There's a boatload of other stuff but I think those three would have the greatest return on investment.

The problem is that we are living under minority rule, and the minority that is ruling knows that if they lose power they may never get it back, which makes them desperate and dangerous.

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

If she was forced to make a website would the couple have any recourse if she did a worse job/delivered late?

I'd like to believe so but I imagine she could just say she was too bogged down to do a good job which I'm not sure is a better scenario.

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

If you refuse to make the same product for someone because they're gay, that should be illegal.

If you refuse to make a product because it's gay, that should be within your rights. However much of a terrible person that makes you.

If a Christian asked me to make a Christian website, I'd say no and that should be within my rights. If a Christian asked me to make a hobby photography website similar to one I made for someone else, I should not be allowed to refuse on the grounds that they are Christian.

[-] joe 1 points 10 months ago

Weddings aren't gay; it's just a wedding in which the people involved are gay. Refusing to make a wedding website solely because the people getting married are gay is exactly what you claim should be illegal.

[-] darthfabulous42069 1 points 10 months ago
[-] joe 9 points 10 months ago

Drag the idea of stacking the SCOTUS into the mainstream so that we can unfuck the court? Drink? A little from column A and a little from column B?

[-] darthfabulous42069 1 points 10 months ago

What's going to happen when the right wing puts measures into place (aside from blatant gerrymandering) to stop Democrats from getting their candidates elected, making stopping them impossible legally? 🤔

[-] joe 2 points 10 months ago

I suppose we'll have to cross that bridge when we get there. For now, though, this is not the case. Vote as if it is the last chance you'll ever get, every election.

[-] darthfabulous42069 1 points 10 months ago

Oh, make no mistake, we should definitely vote straight-blue tickets or organize our own 3rd party from now on.

But this is a blatant setup for genocide. You ever read the 10 stages of genocide? If not, go hit up Human Rights Watch and read it. We're a hard Stage 7 right now, and that means we need to start preparing for violence now. We can't wait until the threat is imminent to prepare because by then it'll be too late.

[-] joe 1 points 10 months ago

I don't want to set you up for moderator action, but I'm curious as to what "start preparing for violence" looks like to you. Hypothetically speaking.

[-] darthfabulous42069 1 points 10 months ago

Like buying bulletproof vests to protect themselves from violence that will be coming as a result of this, talking with families and loved ones, having an escape plan in place when things get ugly, arranging to have some place to go to. Like Canada

[-] joe 1 points 10 months ago

I don't think it's quite so dire as all that, but if it makes you feel better it can't hurt.

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

Sounds like Civil Rights Movement 2: Electric Boogaloo, except nobody is protesting yet.

[-] FlyingSquid 1 points 10 months ago

Well... that didn't take long. I wonder how full the leopards are after that face-eating?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
43 points (93.9% liked)

politics

17788 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