Good grief.. that’s not a new wrinkle. That’s clear in the first few paragraphs of the opinion.
Gorsuch Rocks the House—Again
- Thread starter CO. Hoosier
- Start date
Why is it limited only to same sex marriage? This was not decided on religion but on speech. Could a barber say cutting Trump's hair amount to endorsing Trump? Let's face it, someone that could do a good job on that would be a true artist.
Or are you and Gorsuch suggesting only free speech on gay marriage is protected and no other?
I don't think I said being anti gay is homophobic. But some people who are anti gay are homophobic. Just as some who may not accept Christianity are anti Christian. Heck, I have friends I would call anti Christian, we totally avoid the subject of religion as I am Christian. But their Facebook posts clearly cross a line IMHO. But not every atheist is anti Christian.
you Are missing Gorsuch’s entire and brilliant analysis. I can’t do any more.
You ought to go work for the critics. I think the point is obvious . But maybe it isn’t obvious for those who are hung up on LBGTQ+ politics instead of the right of free expression.
You can do better, why is anti-gay marriage speech the only free speech? Why exactly could a baker refuse for a multiracial couple?
I am not missing it, you are dropping out because Gorsuch did not touch it. Quote the line.
But she can if they ask her to create something she doesn't agree with. Right?
I realize you think it doesn't have anything to do with being gay, but you and I both know human nature being what it is, it can, subconsciously at least, play into it.
She wanted to know what she could, and could not, do.
It wasn't a grievance. Calm down.
Man you guys sure are doing a great job giving CO.H a migraine. Well done.
Well, in their favor, Marv, Danc et al are better about this than Sotomayor. Geeze is she ever dense. Can’t believe I thought she was a good pick.
I still don't see a specific test. Even if all it is is disagreement, why do I lose my write to free speech?
I don't know where the line is, he may be correct in this case. There is a line somewhere, the Jewish baker asked for a Hitler birthday cake crosses the line. Someone doesn't like the the fact you are Republican probably does not, but why? Why does that person lose the right to express the same 1st amendment right.
If this case were religion there would be some sort of deeply held belief standard akin to conscience objector. But it is not that. I don't see in Gorsuch why this person would lose if they just simply hated gays. No disagreement aboutarriage, they simply detest gays. Would you suggest Gorsuch would force them to make a website or bake a cake?
Let me translate COH into English for you.
Gorsuch didn't write a brilliant opinion*. Rather, all credit goes to the insanely idiotic Colorado state attorney who agreed to the facts stipulated before the court on appeal. All Gorsuch did was recite the stipulated facts, and conclude, "Well, duh, of course the web designer wins."
COH also doesn't give Sotomayor nearly enough credit. Her dissent is not really even in the same universe as Gorsuch's opinion. He was all about freedom of speech. I'm not sure she even mentions speech**. Her dissent is all about the long history and importance of public accommodation laws, dating all the way back to Merry Olde England. (Long story short: common law, and later statute, has made it clear that when you hold yourself out to the public as a professional offering some service, then you put upon yourself a duty to provide that service, whether you want to or not.)
Honestly, if you asked me before the case how it should come out, I would have responded with something like Gorsuch's opinion. It sounds right to me. The First Amendment is "first" for a reason, after all. But Sotomayor's dissent gives me pause. She makes some good points. I think if Kennedy were still on the court, this might have been 5-4, because his clear devotion to equal protection over pure libertarianism would have probably led to him being swayed by her argument.
*It wasn't bad, I'm just highlighting that he didn't really do all the work that has CO.H fawning over him. The parties did the work, and Gorsuch basically just transcribed it.
**NB: She does mention it eventually. Not counting her intro, she finally utters the word "speech" on page 19, as she begins to explain why speech is irrelevant to this case.
Thanks for your comments. I think you are right on the stipulations.
I don't necessarily think Gorsuch is wrong. He tries hard to restrict it specifically to speech, the web designer would be forced to literally write words they don't believe in.
One problem with that is the court has long held speech is far more than speaking words. Donating money to a campaign is speech, burning the flag is speech, clothing is speech. So there is no way to limit this to writing words.
That still does not make him wrong. But it is a flaw in my mind, it gives courts no guidance on these other forms of speech.
He tied it specifically to gay marriage. But why would other political concepts not be included? Gay marriage is not the only controversial subject out there.
I think it is very true that Donald Trump does not have the legal right to force Bruce Springsteen to perform live as part of a fundraiser. Mind you I think Trump has a right to play Springsteen songs even if Bruce objects so long as Trump pays licensing.
Would web designers be allowed to not work for the Catholic Church, or Baptist Church, if they disagree with their views?
I think part of my concern is the web designer suggests they poor their heart and soul into the project and totally mean everything they write. I guess it is possible, in theory, but seems highly unlikely. Getting that emotional after a hour long meeting with people they never met before and probably will never meet again? That seems likely to lead to severe mental health crisis if they start learning some of these marriages will fail. I've updated websites about how proud we are Charlie passed certification or how heartbroken we are over June's recent loss. I never seriously felt any of that. Maybe that is on me, maybe I should demand to meet and become close friends to know if I am really proud or heartbroken. Maybe when I leave the grocery store, the cashier seriously is living their lives on pins and needles on whether I have a good day or not.
If and when we find ourselves with only one remaining web designer on earth (or one of anything for that matter). You will have a good point.
As a free market capitalist I want to be able to run my business the way I choose with respect to what I produce and to whom I sell it. If I choose to limit my potential by limiting my customer base…that is my decision.
Public accommodation laws are grotesquely outdated. They have a very very limited place today e.g. if you sell water after a hurricane you can’t not sell it to Purdue fans just because they suck.
If I am a web designer and I don’t want to build a site for the Proud Boys…I don’t have to.
A baker could refuse and under the conditions you’ve laid out we’d have a completely different argument and ruling on our hands.
The ruling was free speech, via religious freedom. You are missing the point or just being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. Keep the goal post planted firmly and concentrate.
Ms. Smith is “willing to work with all people regard- less of classifications such as race, creed, sexual ori- entation, and gender,” and she “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sex- ual orientation. App. to Pet. for Cert. 184a.
She will not produce content that “contradicts bibli- cal truth” regardless of who orders it.
Take the gay out of it. Make it racism. If a KKK member comes and asks her to produce a website on kittens, she would have to make the website about kittens if she has done it for others even though the client is morally not on the same page as her. If that same client asks her to make a racist page, she could say she will not do it.
If a heterosexual came and asked her to make a Pride website for their company she would likely decline to do so. It isn't the orientation of the person doing the asking, it is the content she is being asked to create. No one can force her to create content she doesn't agree with. Same goes for the cake baker. He can bake a birthday cake for a gay person and likely did. They can't force him to bake a cake celebrating things he doesn't agree with.
This is free speech and not religion. The decision says,"First Amendment extends to all persons engaged in expressive conduct." Another quote
"Were the rule otherwise, the better the artist, the finer the writer, the more unique his talent, the more easily his voice could be conscripted to disseminate the government's preferred messages. That would not respect the First Amendment; more nearly, it would spell its demise"
Show me where he specifically says there must be a Biblical tie to refuse service.
Even if there were a Biblical tie, some believe interracial marriage violates God's Will.
But it doesn't even go that far. Here is the Federalist Society quoting it:
“But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong,” Gorsuch retorted. “Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider ‘unattractive,’ ‘misguided, or even hurtful.’ But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer.”
Note the headline in the Federalist Society article, then read it. At no point, none, do they provide a single Gorsuch quote tying this to her religious belief.
SCOTUS: Govt Can't Force Americans To Violate Religious Beliefs
'The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy,' the ruling states.
thefederalist.com
I think that quote would be there if it were in the decision.
We have tests for conscience objectors, not just anyone can claim their religion forbids killing. We have no such test for web designers.
But I still get the point Gorsuch is making, Courtsense says no one can make him create a site for the Proud Boys. I think that is a great example.
So the point returns, where is this line? I am not saying Gorsuch has this case wrong, I am saying he has opened a Pandora's Box. Leftist groups may well refuse to do work for Christians saying it violates their free speech. Eventually it may work down to employees telling their boss a project violates their free speech (similar to postman refusing to work Sundays). Some of these may be easily decided as we tend to have laws on employees. Still, if Ms Smith worked for me and I assigned her a gay couple's website, you don't think she would sue?
Show me the quotes the Federalists did not, that this only applies to gay marriage and only to deeply held religious belief.
And if it only applies to gay marriage, what the hell. Why do they, and they alone, get called out.
And if this is only for deeply held religious belief, then all the crap on free speech is a lie as only religious people could claim it, thus it is a freedom of religion question. So where is the test to know if Ms Smith is religious or just pretending to be?
Restaurant denies Christian group service over its anti-abortion and LGBTQ stances
Family Foundation called the move "alarming and disgraceful," while restaurant said it was about preserving its staff's "dignity."
www.google.com
Already happened
Gorsuch adopted the religious standards to all speech. He said the speech has to be a matter conscience about a matter of major significance. Yeah, that’s squishy, but all questions are fact are like that. I think the test is sufficient to weed out those who use free speech as a mere pretext to refuse servic.This is free speech and not religion. The decision says,"First Amendment extends to all persons engaged in expressive conduct." Another quote
"Were the rule otherwise, the better the artist, the finer the writer, the more unique his talent, the more easily his voice could be conscripted to disseminate the government's preferred messages. That would not respect the First Amendment; more nearly, it would spell its demise"
Show me where he specifically says there must be a Biblical tie to refuse service.
Even if there were a Biblical tie, some believe interracial marriage violates God's Will.
But it doesn't even go that far. Here is the Federalist Society quoting it:
“But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong,” Gorsuch retorted. “Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider ‘unattractive,’ ‘misguided, or even hurtful.’ But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer.”
Note the headline in the Federalist Society article, then read it. At no point, none, do they provide a single Gorsuch quote tying this to her religious belief.
SCOTUS: Govt Can't Force Americans To Violate Religious Beliefs
'The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy,' the ruling states.
I think that quote would be there if it were in the decision.
We have tests for conscience objectors, not just anyone can claim their religion forbids killing. We have no such test for web designers.
But I still get the point Gorsuch is making, Courtsense says no one can make him create a site for the Proud Boys. I think that is a great example.
So the point returns, where is this line? I am not saying Gorsuch has this case wrong, I am saying he has opened a Pandora's Box. Leftist groups may well refuse to do work for Christians saying it violates their free speech. Eventually it may work down to employees telling their boss a project violates their free speech (similar to postman refusing to work Sundays). Some of these may be easily decided as we tend to have laws on employees. Still, if Ms Smith worked for me and I assigned her a gay couple's website, you don't think she would sue?
Show me the quotes the Federalists did not, that this only applies to gay marriage and only to deeply held religious belief.
And if it only applies to gay marriage, what the hell. Why do they, and they alone, get called out.
And if this is only for deeply held religious belief, then all the crap on free speech is a lie as only religious people could claim it, thus it is a freedom of religion question. So where is the test to know if Ms Smith is religious or just pretending to be?
There is another related aspect of the opinion that hasn’t gotten much attention Is public accommodations creep. Public accommodations law is intended to mean what you would think; you can’t exclude protected classes from hotels, restaurants, movies, etc. Accomodations now means providing services. some of that is expecte.d, like barber shops, but I read Gorsuch as saying accommodations law will not apply to one who is commissioned to produce a one-of-a-kind product.
BoomThis is free speech and not religion. The decision says,"First Amendment extends to all persons engaged in expressive conduct." Another quote
"Were the rule otherwise, the better the artist, the finer the writer, the more unique his talent, the more easily his voice could be conscripted to disseminate the government's preferred messages. That would not respect the First Amendment; more nearly, it would spell its demise"
Show me where he specifically says there must be a Biblical tie to refuse service.
Even if there were a Biblical tie, some believe interracial marriage violates God's Will.
But it doesn't even go that far. Here is the Federalist Society quoting it:
“But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong,” Gorsuch retorted. “Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider ‘unattractive,’ ‘misguided, or even hurtful.’ But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer.”
Note the headline in the Federalist Society article, then read it. At no point, none, do they provide a single Gorsuch quote tying this to her religious belief.
SCOTUS: Govt Can't Force Americans To Violate Religious Beliefs
'The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy,' the ruling states.
I think that quote would be there if it were in the decision.
We have tests for conscience objectors, not just anyone can claim their religion forbids killing. We have no such test for web designers.
But I still get the point Gorsuch is making, Courtsense says no one can make him create a site for the Proud Boys. I think that is a great example.
So the point returns, where is this line? I am not saying Gorsuch has this case wrong, I am saying he has opened a Pandora's Box. Leftist groups may well refuse to do work for Christians saying it violates their free speech. Eventually it may work down to employees telling their boss a project violates their free speech (similar to postman refusing to work Sundays). Some of these may be easily decided as we tend to have laws on employees. Still, if Ms Smith worked for me and I assigned her a gay couple's website, you don't think she would sue?
Show me the quotes the Federalists did not, that this only applies to gay marriage and only to deeply held religious belief.
And if it only applies to gay marriage, what the hell. Why do they, and they alone, get called out.
And if this is only for deeply held religious belief, then all the crap on free speech is a lie as only religious people could claim it, thus it is a freedom of religion question. So where is the test to know if Ms Smith is religious or just pretending to be?
Great, paste in the exact quote you see Gorsuch saying that, I must have missed it.
That is what I want to avoid, let's only associate with people we agree with is a horrible, horrible idea.Restaurant denies Christian group service over its anti-abortion and LGBTQ stances
Family Foundation called the move "alarming and disgraceful," while restaurant said it was about preserving its staff's "dignity."
Already happened
If this group came in and behaved poorly, throw them out. The employees deserve not to be insulted. But if they were behaving themselves, what they believe outside the restaurant matters not. Yes, even Nazis deserve to eat if they are following the same rules as everyone else.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
It is odd, though, the deference some judges give clearly lawyer-driven litigation when it fits their judicial or political philosophy, while others they go out of their way to criticize in their opinions.
Just say no.
Exercise free will.
No one is entitled to an explanation.
Nothing else matters.
I see no brilliance in this opinion. It does little to explain the rights of either web sites or of same sex couples that wish a web site to promote their marriage.
Gorsuch engages in vague generalities and indecipherable gobbledygook, as follows.
According to Gorsuch, Ms. Smith's websites "will discuss how the couple met, explain their backgrounds, families, and future plans, and provide information about their upcoming wedding." (Pp. 1-2).
According to Gorsuch, Ms. Smith "worries that, if she enters the wedding website business, the State will force her to convey messages inconsistent with her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman." (P. 2).
Nonetheless, with no elaboration, Gorsuch accepts Ms. Smith's promise that "her websites will provide couples with text, graphic arts, and videos to “celebrate” and “conve[y]” the “details” of their “unique love story.” (P. 1).
So, Ms. Smith claims she will produce web sites for gay couples describing their love, how they met (at a gay bar perhaps?), with graphic arts and videos showing their love ( holding hands? kissing? embracing ?) and information about the upcoming wedding (so readers definitely know the web site concerns a same-sex marriage), but at the same time she dubiously claims none of this contradicts "her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman."
A website that promotes a gay marriage as she promises to do cannot help but be inconsistent with her belief that marriage is only between a man and woman.
This issue is far from over.
That's wrong, I think.
Gorsuch specifically acknowledged Ms. Smith was promising to include the couple's "unique love story" in the web site -- to do that, she would have to know "who the customer is."
I don’t disagree this is free speech, it plainly states this much. In this instance, it is rooted in religion, it was the vehicle that lead us to this point.This is free speech and not religion. The decision says,"First Amendment extends to all persons engaged in expressive conduct." Another quote
"Were the rule otherwise, the better the artist, the finer the writer, the more unique his talent, the more easily his voice could be conscripted to disseminate the government's preferred messages. That would not respect the First Amendment; more nearly, it would spell its demise"
Show me where he specifically says there must be a Biblical tie to refuse service.
Even if there were a Biblical tie, some believe interracial marriage violates God's Will.
But it doesn't even go that far. Here is the Federalist Society quoting it:
“But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong,” Gorsuch retorted. “Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider ‘unattractive,’ ‘misguided, or even hurtful.’ But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer.”
Note the headline in the Federalist Society article, then read it. At no point, none, do they provide a single Gorsuch quote tying this to her religious belief.
SCOTUS: Govt Can't Force Americans To Violate Religious Beliefs
'The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy,' the ruling states.
I think that quote would be there if it were in the decision.
We have tests for conscience objectors, not just anyone can claim their religion forbids killing. We have no such test for web designers.
But I still get the point Gorsuch is making, Courtsense says no one can make him create a site for the Proud Boys. I think that is a great example.
So the point returns, where is this line? I am not saying Gorsuch has this case wrong, I am saying he has opened a Pandora's Box. Leftist groups may well refuse to do work for Christians saying it violates their free speech. Eventually it may work down to employees telling their boss a project violates their free speech (similar to postman refusing to work Sundays). Some of these may be easily decided as we tend to have laws on employees. Still, if Ms Smith worked for me and I assigned her a gay couple's website, you don't think she would sue?
Show me the quotes the Federalists did not, that this only applies to gay marriage and only to deeply held religious belief.
And if it only applies to gay marriage, what the hell. Why do they, and they alone, get called out.
And if this is only for deeply held religious belief, then all the crap on free speech is a lie as only religious people could claim it, thus it is a freedom of religion question. So where is the test to know if Ms Smith is religious or just pretending to be?
With that being said, it doesn’t have to be as the theme is whether a state/government can force, demand a person or business to express language/speech they don’t believe in.
The “Seller” can refuse their goods and services for any and all reasons, or for no reason at all. They bear no responsibility to explain why they refuse. In this instance, they did. . The “Buyer” can refuse to purchase goods or services. It’s amazing how this works.
It amazes how far away from each other we are in this matter. You interpret the situation as “opening Pandoras Box”. I see it as limiting government control over speech which protects everyone.
There is always a line, the line sometimes blurs. When it blurs (If it’s racist, violent or otherwise) ramifications will follow to include, but not limited to legal consequence. At the very least, “Buyer” is viewed in bad light, capitalism takes over and they go out of business, natural selection.
I just don’t think it’s difficult and it feels that you are trying to think of any and all scenarios, to conflate matters and make this as complex as you possibly can.
Do you think in every town in America, a business practicing racism will be economically harmed?
Wasn't it 48 Hours the movie that had Nolte and Murphy walk into bars where the other was decidedly unwelcome? If I had a bar that did great business and all my customers were of a race like those bars were portrayed, what incentive is there?
Because we are segregated in our housing, mostly, a bar unwelcoming in Carmel or Haghville wouldn't suffer too much unless it's patrons cared enough to stop going. But we call that cancel culture and it isn't allowed.
No, I don’t.
Incentive for what? To do the right thing?
People have the right to be racist. I think it’s wrong, hurtful, harmful, all of the above. I, nor can you fix all the wrongs of the world.
If you owned a business and a racist walked in and asked you to make a website explaining the only worthy people of the world are white and all others should die, would you do it? Furthermore, how would you feel when the state of Indiana came in and ruled that you “must” create the content?
I’m white, if I walked into an all white biker bar, they are gonna stop, look at me, and probably tell me to GTFO.
Birds of a feather doesn’t always equal segregation, gentrification or racism.
This already happens the other way, right? We allow people to boycott, and I know on Facebook many people boycotting various entities for various reasons.
I have always held that mostly this is wrong. Mostly. Yes, I get Chick-fil-A gives money to conservatives. I don't care. I get I don't like Ron DeSantis, but to me that doesn't mean don't go to Florida.
Maybe I am naive, maybe I should join the rest of you that we are at war. If businesses are going to be able to tell me they don't serve anyone but conservatives, I should jump on the wagon too.
But I don't want to. I want to disassociate politics from every day life. Slightly different, I had a boss really get angry with me over something, as he finished telling me off, he said, "I will be 15 minutes late to tennis". After he left, coworkers were aghast, how could I possibly play tennis with him in 90 minutes. I said that it was easy, one was business and the other personal.
So maybe I should stop being that way and join the crowd, business, personal, politics are all the same.
BTW, the designer is in Denver. Like most cities, fairly Democratic. Young people with money, ie college graduates probably, are her target audience and that group skews "woke" more than other groups. If economic interests were a deciding factor she never would have brought the suit.
I do get boycotts in limited situations. If a Nazi or communist group ran a restaurant, I don't think I would go. If the restaurant banned racial or religious groups, I wouldn't go. That restaurant crazy linked that wouldn't serve the Christian conservatives, I probably would boycott. I don't want to see us get to the point that, "Are you now or have you ever been" is a standard question. You and I probably disagree on everything, I still don't want you thrown out of places, banned, etc. DANC mentioned somewhere he has thought of coming to a women's game, if he does I hope he lets me know as I would love to meet him. We disagree on everything this side of Ukraine, but I bet he's a good guy that would be great to meet. CO has irritated the hell out of me for several years, but we have met, had a good meal, and if I am out that way would gladly do it again.
I thought we were passed "X not served here" but maybe we aren't. Maybe we all should decide which groups we hate and stay away from them. But I am saddened greatly that anyone thinks that is a good idea.
I just don’t see it as being that deep. Media sensationalism would have you believe this is happening on every street corner in the U.S., every minute of the day. I believe “the less than one percent” receive 99% of the coverage.
I travel a lot, most always within the U.S. it’s everyday business out there, nothing to see, people living their lives in peace and harmony (mostly), businesses operating per usual. There are certainly assholes everywhere, but I don’t confuse an asshole for a racist unless they give me good reason to think otherwise.
It’s funny you say and openly admit I don’t post here regularly, but I said something similar about you to my wife while eating breakfast this morning. I don’t know you, but there is this version of you that I think I know. I don’t think you lean as far left as you appear to on this message board, who knows, maybe you are an extreme radical?
We can agree to disagree. We can still wake up, go to work or play tennis together even if we disagree or we’ve had a difficult conversation. I subscribe to that belief, always have. .
