Where is the line? What if the web designer refused to do a website for an interracial couple because her religion was against it?
The odd thing about the case is that the designer was never asked to design such a website. She sued colorado about the law preemptively, over something that never happened. No gay person wants her services.
It’s surprising it’s gotten this far with no party on the other side of the case.
Where is the line? What if the web designer refused to do a website for an interracial couple because her religion was against it?
The line is religion. What religion says anything about interracial couples? Race and being gay are two separate things.
Maurice Bessinger argued that being forced to serve non-whites at his restaurants was a violation of his religious beliefs.
One of the more common citations for justifying segregation and racial separatism is in Numbers 25, where God sets a plague on the Israelites for intermingling with the Midianites. Phineas finds a Midianite woman and an Israelite man in the throws of passion and runs a spear through them. That execution pleases God and he halts the plague.
Where is the line? What if the web designer refused to do a website for an interracial couple because her religion was against it?
The odd thing about the case is that the designer was never asked to design such a website. She sued colorado about the law preemptively, over something that never happened. No gay person wants her services.
this is like saying someone who never owned slaves shouldn’t have been an abolitionist. Some laws are just bad and need to be opposed.
The lower court decision against the web designer seems to hinge on the designer's claim of a "unique service" following from it being artistic expression. Because it is allegedly "unique" same sex couples are denied a product product being offered to other persons on the basis of gender hence CADA applies. That is, the lower court takes the "service offered" as the primary determinant for their decision.
It's widely believed that the current Supreme Court will construct a different rational such that religious freedom takes precedence, but they will have to find a way to reconcile that with the lower court's thesis.
Geez, Alito is such a freak. An absolute weirdo with no social skills...
Nonsense...You don't like him because his world veiw is different than yours...He's a brilliant jurist on the highest court in the land and you are what?
Except that it isn’t. Everyone who’s opened a book on the subject knows that fascism is a far-right ideology.
I've read many - MANY - books on the subject. Mussolini was a leftist. He even had support among American progressives before the war. Leftist academics often like to label dictators "far right" because they are nationalist. But the truth is every socialist/communist/planned economy requires a high degree nationalism to "work." They also like to label Mussolini in particular "far right" because he kicked out the Jews. But he only did this because Hitler made him. Before the war, Italy was a safe haven for Jews.
Where is the line? What if the web designer refused to do a website for an interracial couple because her religion was against it?
The line is religion. What religion says anything about interracial couples? Race and being gay are two separate things.
Except in Colorado both are protected classes under the law so they are not legally.
This whole case is strange. I have not done enough digging to see why SCOTUS took it. The woman bringing the suit was never asked by anyone to make a website she disagreed with so I am curious how she has standing on a hypothetical.
The Advisory Opinions podcast takes a look at the arguments and it is one hypothetical after another involving Santa and black Santa and JDate, etc. I have not finished the podcast yet, but the 2 folks doing it (who are center-right for sure) seem to be baffled.
This is not a free exercise of religion case. it is a free speech. You have freedom to speak. you also have freedom not to speak. government can not compel you to speak. for example gov can not force you to say pledge of allegiance. her argument is the gov is forcing her to speak by making me make web designs
Except we also have her running a business and those are considered "public accommodations" which has been handled differently. You are correct that the pledge cannot be forced, but we had states in this country that had laws on the books that forbid where certain people could eat, drink water, or poop.
This and Masterpiece are looking at coming up with a test for balancing the freedoms of two people when they come in conflict. We do this in other areas of expression. I cannot bring a bullhorn in front of your house at 2am for instance to protest your statements on letsrun.
