Kudos to the Supremes Part 2 - Supreme Court rules for web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings

[berryberry]

Sanity prevails again

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of an evangelical Christian web designer from Colorado who refuses to work on same-sex weddings in a decision that deals a setback to LGBTQ rights.

The justices, divided 6-3 on ideological lines, said that Lorie Smith, as a creative professional, has a free speech right under the Constitution’s First Amendment to refuse to endorse messages she disagrees with. As a result, she cannot be punished under Colorado’s antidiscrimination law for refusing to design websites for gay couples, the court said.

[berryberry]

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, which said that, "In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance."

"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 continued.

"But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed," he concluded.

[berryberry]

A great win for religious liberty and free speech

This should have been 9-0. It's unAmerican for a state to force anyone to make a statement violating her beliefs.

[El-mo]

Help me understand something here. When the colleges and universities wanted to give some people special consideration, you said that it was discrimination and very very bad. You were head over heels that the Supreme Court put an end to what you view as a discriminatory practice. Do I understand that correctly?

Yet, here, you seem to be celebrating a supreme court ruling saying that it’s okay to discriminate? This is not seem to be a lot of integrity or moral consistency to your stance. If I didn’t know any better, I would say the only constant is a commitment to making the lives of your perceived enemies more difficult.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by El-mo

Help me understand something here. When the colleges and universities wanted to give some people special consideration, you said that it was discrimination and very very bad. You were head over heels that the Supreme Court put an end to what you view as a discriminatory practice. Do I understand that correctly?

Yet, here, you seem to be celebrating a supreme court ruling saying that it’s okay to discriminate? This is not seem to be a lot of integrity or moral consistency to your stance. If I didn’t know any better, I would say the only constant is a commitment to making the lives of your perceived enemies more difficult.

So are you saying that you don't understand the difference between one case being a 1st Amendment, freedom of speech, issue and the other case being a 14th Amendment issue? Because your question implies you don't understand the difference.

How about taking a shot and trying to explain the difference between the two? Perhaps if you could, you would see why your questions and premise are not only faulty but laughable.

[El-mo]

Originally Posted by berryberry

So are you saying that you don't understand the difference between one case being a 1st Amendment, freedom of speech, issue and the other case being a 14th Amendment issue? Because your question implies you don't understand the difference.

How about taking a shot and trying to explain the difference between the two? Perhaps if you could, you would see why your questions and premise are not only faulty but laughable.

This is not a first amendment case, because it does not deal with anyone’s freedom of speech, religion, association or assembly. There is no religion on earth that prohibits its faithful from providing business to any other group.

The court has ruled, however that gay rights are protected under the 14th amendment in Obergefell v. Hodges. So, actually the case you were celebrating is a direct attempt to violate 14th amendment rights by pretending one party’s
first amendment rights are being infringed upon.

You either care about the 14th amendment, or you don’t. The other option is that you have a political agenda that doesn’t adhere to any consistent interpretation of the law.

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by El-mo

Help me understand something here. When the colleges and universities wanted to give some people special consideration, you said that it was discrimination and very very bad. You were head over heels that the Supreme Court put an end to what you view as a discriminatory practice. Do I understand that correctly?

Yet, here, you seem to be celebrating a supreme court ruling saying that it’s okay to discriminate? This is not seem to be a lot of integrity or moral consistency to your stance. If I didn’t know any better, I would say the only constant is a commitment to making the lives of your perceived enemies more difficult.

They’re both about discrimination, and both correctly adjudicated to stop the practice. I’m not seeing how anyone could disagree with either decision, unless they wear their bigotry as a badge of honor.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by El-mo

This is not a first amendment case, because it does not deal with anyone’s freedom of speech, religion, association or assembly. There is no religion on earth that prohibits its faithful from providing business to any other group.

Thanks for confirming you have no clue what the case is about. It is 100% a 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech case. Try reading the case and decision

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...1-476_c185.pdf

The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy. In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they thought vital at the time. But abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all will encounter ideas that are “misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574. Consistent with
the First Amendment, the Nation’s answer is tolerance, not coercion. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by El-mo

This is not a first amendment case, because it does not deal with anyone’s freedom of speech, religion, association or assembly.

OOOPS

[berryberry]

We shouldn't normalize the fact that not a single liberal justice joined the conservative majority in affirmative action, freedom of speech, or student loan bailout decisions.

These should have all have been 9-0. They weren't even close.

The left has gone completely off the rails.