Supreme Court: Web designer may deny services for same-sex weddings

submitted by Drewski from (usatoday.com)

all 7 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Drewski[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The Supreme Court on Friday backed a web designer who wants to decline to create websites for same-sex weddings because of her religious beliefs – the latest legal setback for LGBTQ Americans from the high court.

Love how they frame it as a "legal setback" - no one should be forced to do business with anyone against their will. I can't believe that's become such a controversial viewpoint.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Love how they frame it as a "legal setback" - no one should be forced to do business with anyone against their will. I can't believe that's become such a controversial viewpoint.

I think there is an important legal distinction here the Justices made that is going unnoticed. I'm not going to get into whether there should or shouldn't be anti-discrimination laws, as its already in the Constitution and the job of the justices is merely to interpret existing laws, not decide what the laws should be. Given that, I think this interpretation of the law is the correct one and important.

Lets say some christians come into a gay cake shop wearing crosses and ask the gays to make a God hates Fags cake (I've reversed the roles to better illustrate my point). I think the gays would also think they should be able to refuse this request, and thats what the courts have ruled. Now lets say the same christians come in wearing crosses and ask to purchase one of the PREMADE cakes already offered for sale to everyone- at this point refusing to sell them one of the regular for sale cakes would legally be discrimination.

It ought to be the same way with a website - if a bad man came to me and said 'make me a website about stuff you think is immoral' I can refuse. However, if I am selling some preconfigured package I can't just arbitrarily refuse to sell to him because I think he will host content I think is immoral but legal

You cant make me do something I don't morally agree with, but if I've already done it of my own volition and offered it for sale, it becomes discrimination to exclude people from it. E.G. I can't make a white/gay/christian only restaurant and refuse to serve others. I think this is the legal distinction the courts are making in interpreting this law. I think given that interpreting existing law is their job, this was correctly done in setting the boundaries of what constitutes discrimination under the constitution, and more importantly, what doesn't.

[–]Drewski[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I understand the distinction, but to my knowledge there aren't any anti-discrimination laws in the constitution that apply to protected classes. Please correct me if I'm wrong. There is the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

but that just stops the state from discriminating against individuals. And I agree, as a public entity the state should not be able to discriminate against an individual or class of people. There other anti-discrimination laws such as the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, but they aren't part of the Constitution so the Supreme Court would not use them as a basis for their ruling. At least that's my understanding. Now, they would use the precedent of other cases which have come before the Supreme Court and been ruled on, but that's not set in stone and can be overturned.

My point was just that in a free society private individuals and businesses should be able to choose who they transact with for any reason regardless of whether they're performing a custom request or just offering a generic product or service. If a business gains a reputation for discriminating based on race, sexual identity, or whatever they would be shamed and boycotted. I don't think they should be compelled to do business however.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think you're right and I may be confusing the civil rights act or maybe the unpassed equal rights amendment with the 14th.

As far as this refusing service, I generally agree with you principle, but I think there are some scenarios that could make this...complicated. For example, you are in a small town, a man has a medical emergency, and there is only one doctor in town - a refusal to treat certain groups of people could be awfully problematic in terms of real world outcomes here, even if as I say, I agree with you purely on principle. I think society would have to be structured somewhat differently for this to work, i.e. people all lived in communities with their own identity group so this doesn't happen.

[–]jamesK_3rd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's a controversial viewpoint because those are ideas of a free market, and the US hasn't been a free market in a very long time, likely over a hundred years.

The fear is that we would return to such.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]UnexpectedTransmissi 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The USA were never "free market".

    It was the closest thing to a free market that ever existed.

    [–]Drewski[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    archive.today mirror | archive.org mirror