Does 1st Amendment rights allow the Right to discriminate?

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (66 posts)
  1. Credence2 profile image79
    Credence2posted 17 months ago

    I think that this issue coming up before the Supreme Court is very important and critical relative to our Civil and political rights.

    Background..

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/politics … index.html

    Before I go into my tirade as to where I fall on the issue, what are the thoughts of conservative forum participants here and why?

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I come down pretty solidly on the side of forcing any and all business to provide the same service to those of differing religious beliefs.  Against the graphic designer.

      But reading your link, I came across a statement from her: "There are some messages I can’t create no matter who requests them.”.  A nasty thought occurs; would we force her to make a website for a white supremist group?  For  Nazis?  The Taliban?  For Kim Jong Un, presenting North Korea?  There are lots of groups I would never require a business to aid in promoting their cause.

      Suddenly the case becomes much, much deeper and murkier.  I think I would have the same opinion, but narrow it to ONLY those cases over religious issues.  And not sure at all that that is a reasonable answer, although it IS a protected group under the law

      1. Sharlee01 profile image90
        Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

        So, simply do you feel it is appropriate to discriminate against one's religion versus one's gender?  Because ultimately if one is forced to forgo their religious values and beliefs, they have been discriminated against. The very values they believe in have been discriminated against, indicating those values to be set aside for another value. I have the same religious beliefs as this woman, and  I live by to each their own...  But, I reserve the right to keep my freedom of thought, and freedom of religion over the Government dictating what parts of my religion I can live by. 

        Guess my age is showing, I have strong values, not willing to give them up. I believe in respecting all, but I expect the same in return. I don't want homosexuality forced on me, as I am sure homosexuals don't care for religious views forced on them.   We all make choices, and we need to learn to live with our choices and respect others' choice's without abandoning our own.  (humble view)

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          "But, I reserve the right to keep my freedom of thought, and freedom of religion over the Government dictating what parts of my religion I can live by. "

          And you are more than welcome to keep those thoughts...within your own walls.  You may not, however, require others to agree with you or to accept your religious values as their own.  When you enter the public arena, they have just as much right as you do to their faith and thoughts; yours do not take priority.  Not even inside the store you have made public by operating a business out of it.

          Would you accept a store requirement for wearing a burkha in order to purchase?  Or a beard or a Yarmulke?  Would you go back to women covering up on a public beach?  Your religion is yours, and is inviolate...you may not be forced to change it.  But when you enter the public world of business you give that up, and must accept any and all religious beliefs that enter your business.  Not follow them, not take them into yourself, but you must accept that other people have other beliefs and that that is OK.

          IMO as an atheist strongly support religious rights.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image90
            Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

            What you have implied --- Someone else's belief and choices are above my own.

            "Would you accept a store requirement for wearing a burkha in order to purchase?  "

            Very simple, my common sense would dictate... Respect that person's religious tradition and either were that head scarf or shop elsewhere.

            I respect others greatly when it comes to religious belief, I demand the same respect.

            So, if I wanted a service that demanded I wear a head scarf to walk into that business, I would offer full respect and put on that scarf.

            When it comes to religion, know a day I respect anyone that practices one. And will in turn respect their beliefs?

            IMO, Government should not have the right to dictate laws that affect ones right to practice their religion.

            I do understand your view, but don't agree with it.

            1. DrMark1961 profile image97
              DrMark1961posted 17 months agoin reply to this

              Better yet, if you do not want to wear a headscarf you could just ignore the business. I agree and do not want an intrusive government stepping in and telling me who I have to take care of.

              (Just a side note here. My wife is Arab and we used to shop at a Muslim shop in Chicago as it had special things we could not find elsewhere. The owner was a fundamentalist and would not take care of my wife if she was not wearing a headscarf. She did because we wanted to shop there. I did not agree with his views but I did respect them in his store.)

              1. Credence2 profile image79
                Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                "His store" is not a viable explanation, equal access to public accommodation  is necessary to keep a lid on things in a society as diverse as America is. My nephew's restaurant required shoes and a shirt, for hygiene reasons. The proprietor of the Muslim shop is in violation by discriminating against clients and should be called to account for it.

        2. Credence2 profile image79
          Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, your age is showing and so is mine. We all have strong values, why should yours take precedence over my own?

      2. Credence2 profile image79
        Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

        "But reading your link, I came across a statement from her: "There are some messages I can’t create no matter who requests them.”.  A nasty thought occurs"

        I was thinking along the same lines. There is a dividing line, fine as it is, but there all the same.

        Sometimes, it is not a matter of won't do something as can't. When it comes to art and design and those projects we would put under a consignment rather than a mere template, I could see the conservatives side of this issue more clearly. If the graphic designers efforts are a work of art rather than merely a template design, considerably more involved than putting letters on a cake, then he or she may have a point.

        Outside of this, I am firm in my belief that the First Amendment cannot allow the right to discriminate in regards to access to facilities and services available to the general public.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image90
          Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

          This woman creates individual websites, using her creativity to capture whatever the client hopes to project.  Her moto --

          "what separates us from the rest?
          We believe that a deeply personal relationship with our clients is essential to providing services that exceed your expectations. Larger firms require big teams to accomplish the same services that 303 creative provides. These large operations typically result in an impersonal approach, which places priority on their bottom line, instead of on you, the client. With 303 creative, you can rest assured that we are experienced in providing a customized, dedicated, and one-stop experience for every client, for every project"  https://303creative.com/

          This should not be overlooked when discussing this issue. I am glad you realized this.

          It appears she feels she can not create sentiments that would suit a website about gay marriage. She would be forced due to the law to use her personal words to create sentiments that are in conflict with her religion.

          1. Credence2 profile image79
            Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, I take your last sentence and expound upon it. It is not just what is incoflict with her religion, that is an excuse to discriminate against anyone. It is the idea that no one can force creativity, while a woman has every right to wear a burka in a restaurant and be served. As a painter, I lean toward classical art and would not know how to create a painting with an abstract style. It is not that I won't, I can't.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image90
              Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, this is what I am decerning after having a look at her website, and the information it offers about what she is trying to do in her business model.   

              It will be interesting to see where the court takes this. I do think it could open a big can of worms.

          2. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            I think you're missing the point that the Colorado law clearly states all she needs to do is entertain the gay community by letting them into her business but she has absolutely no obligation to create personalized  websites for them.  I think it appears that this woman is just a bigot and doesn't want to let them in the door to begin with which is a violation of the law.  If they want what she's selling she is obligated to offer it to them but nothing beyond.  It doesn't matter what This woman's website says it's clear she is being used to bring this case as her website has drastically changed. But the brief clearly states the woman has never created a wedding website for anyone and she's never been approached by any gay couple so why is the supreme court hearing a hypothetical?

            1. Sharlee01 profile image90
              Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

              I would think she could tell any couple that she was not able to build a website, perhaps due to just not feeling she could do their wishes justice. This certainly would be simpler than taking her case to the Supreme Court. The problem is, that her business's main objective is to create personalized websites.  If she was just selling temples, she would have no trouble. She could create and just sell temples. But she creates from scratch working with the person to give them what they want in a website.  I looked at the site, she does not sell temples.

              It is clear we are living in a tug of war. Both sides want very different things, ideologies are very different.  So, yes that woman seems to have entered a fight to change a law. I am very sure that many in Colorado are on board with the law she hopes to get rid of.  On the other hand, many will see it as a win if she can get that law changed. So who wins?

              1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                Fayetteville Fayeposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                In my opinion the law is fair. Grant access to everyone but no one can force you to create anything you don't want to create.  I can't see returning to a time where we bar folks at the door of a business based on certain criteria.  In reality, gay couples wouldn't even approach her business.   Discrimination based on protected class is not a win for this country. It's bringing it back 60 years in time.  This woman seems to have been groomed by the ADF to bring this case.   I just think it's a huge problem that this case is not ripe, the woman has no standing or injury. It will reveal a truly politicized court if they rule in her favor.  But hey if Mr. Trump becomes president and he gets rid of that pesky Constitution maybe he can rid us of this politicized Supreme court also. smile

                1. Credence2 profile image79
                  Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Gives the Supreme Court ( Right wing tribunal) the opportunity to sharpen its claws, before the prey is available.....

                2. Sharlee01 profile image90
                  Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  "In my opinion the law is fair. Grant access to everyone but no one can force you to create anything you don't want to create."

                  Correct, but they sure as hell can scream discrimination in court. And ruin a business as well as the proprietor of that business.

                  How do you know a gay person won't approach this woman to create a website?  You seem to feel this woman has an alternative motive, well in today's world so could a gay person. Many today are out there trying to prove their point.

                  1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                    Fayetteville Fayeposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    The woman has never created a wedding site for anyone let alone a gay couple like I said before she has absolutely no standing. It's a travesty that the highest court in the land would entertain such a case. The court is considering a hypothetical which is completely ridiculous. What kind of precedent does that set that because someone is worried about what may happen in the future they can drag themselves up to the Supreme Court? Or more correctly, groups like ADF can recruit them.

                    The law is set up in Colorado that she would not be sued. I've cited from the law a couple of times where it says she is perfectly within her right to deny the consignment or customization of a gay website.  Ulterior motive? Well she hasn't even been put in the situation in which her whole case is based on.  People are missing the stipulations in this law. You cannot bar access to a business but you are not bound to create anything anyone wants. Again, is her motive to bar gay people at the door. If so she is violating the law.

                    Again..Colorado law does not compel her  to create a wedding website for a same-sex couple, or for ANYONE else. It only insists that once Smith has designed a wedding website, she must allow same-sex couples to purchase that product. In essence, Colorado says she must sell her website template to all customers, regardless of their identity. She need not create a new template or “speak” in support of any marriage.

                    As Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson acknowledged, she could even make a template that (for some reason) that  condemned same-sex marriage. This speech is permitted. Colorado targets only the conduct of refusing to sell that product to gay people.

                    So let her  shout her Christian faith and good values loud and proud and make hate websites...

        2. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          When it comes to art and design and those projects we would put under a consignment rather than a mere template,

          This is the absolute crux of the case.  The Colorado public accommodations law requires her to offer templates not personal consignment.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image90
      Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I am with the conservative justices who viewed the case through the lens of free speech and suggested that an artist or someone creating a customized product could not be forced by the government to express a message that violates her religious beliefs. 

      I look at religion as being just as important as Gender choice. We that value a given religion have rights too, and individual religious beliefs are equally as important as gender rights.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        I see a business, operating in the public sector (as opposed, perhaps, to operating from the church pulpit) as providing a service to ALL people.  Bake a wedding cake for one couple, do it for all couples.  Build a web site for one person of your faith, do it for ALL people.  You do not get to discriminate against people for their (or your) religious beliefs.  Religious beliefs do not trump discriminatory actions.  IMO, of course.

        You cannot discriminately hire only within your faith; you should not be able to sell only within your faith.  Once you enter the public marketplace you lose the right to do only what your religious faith allows.

      2. Credence2 profile image79
        Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Thanks for your input..

        Do we really want to have a society where only Catholics are served at restaurants and deny service to Protestant s because they are not Catholic? Careful, that you don't open a bucket of worms, the example you give can be used by anybody as an excuse to discriminate against anyone.

        There are religions whose tenets would deny blacks, Jews service if they were allowed to.

    3. Jean Bakula profile image91
      Jean Bakulaposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I've been thinking about this one too. You should be able to serve who you want in your business. But shouldn't we all have the same Civil Rights and Human Rights? I do not identify as Christian, so feel they shouldn't impose their beliefs on me. But when I ask them if they would like to be taken over by, say, Sharia Law, they are shocked! THEY don't want someone else's religious beliefs imposed on them. I am sickened by the hate and misinformation spewed on certain media outlets regarding LGBTQ folk too. They are already vulnerable, had a tougher journey than a straight person, and the climate is more dangerous now.

      Another thought about this Supreme Court: Should it really be a lifetime appointment anymore? I understand it's so because the Court was not to be swayed by fads and trends. But life moves at a much faster rate as each new generation comes along. Maybe it's time to change? Thoughts?

      1. Credence2 profile image79
        Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Nice to see you again Jean, how is every little thing?

        The contradictions of many conservatives point to the fact that the only valid religion is Judeo-Christianity, any other brought to the forefront is "imposition".

        Jean, I once considered the lifetime tenure of justices as an ensurance that they could remain impartial and impervious to political and public pressure and adhere to the letter of the law when making its rulings. As of late, I am beginning to see that the court can and has been politicized, and it is dangerous, because their rulings can well supersede the wishes of the popular majority. I guess that is what it was designed to do. The times are such that I look upon the Court and its members with more suspicion in acquiring too much power to itself, than I did in the past. Terms limits may well be needed here as in other branches of government to avoid the smug entrenchment of those that believe that they can operate beyond accountability.

        1. Jean Bakula profile image91
          Jean Bakulaposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          Nice to see you too, Credence! I do "stop by" every now and then. We are sure living in some crazy times. I feel like all the social changes I saw in the last 50 years are being reversed, and it's so sad to see our society going backwards.

          Take care.

    4. tsmog profile image84
      tsmogposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Frankly, I am a little lost ha-ha From what I understand while open to correction the issue kind of is a creative license up for sale as a business venture specific to weddings, yet only for traditional marriages due to violating the 'artist's' religious beliefs of same-sex marriages. I didn't see anything regarding a specific religion. And, the creative license is viewed as free speech? Do I have that right?

      I think life is just getting too darn hard to live these days ha-ha Playing devil's advocate . . . I don't know if this is a parallel or not. I see it as the same thing as if I was going to open an auto shop to tune and build Chevrolet Camaro engines, but I darn well will only work on Chevrolet Camaros and to hell with everything else. Could I do that today?

      In other words, being a 'devout and reverent' Camaro enthusiast while having religious fervor for them don't bring me a Ford Mustang. Yeah, yeah, yeah I just  happen to be the best engine tuner this side of Mississippi River too. But, I just work on Camaros.

      As can be seen, I am blatantly discriminating. In my mind, there is a religious context to it. Unsure of free speech except in saying Chevrolet Camaros rule supreme.

      Help me to understand the difference. If the above does not make sense then please ignore it.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        In today's world we all specialize.  Whether working only on Camaro's or only building web sites. 

        A better scenario, though, might be that you get a customer with a beautiful red Camaro that needs engine work.  But they also drive a pickup truck, so suddenly you only work on blue camaro's and therefore turn that nasty truck driver down.

      2. Credence2 profile image79
        Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Hi, TSmog, how is everything in Sunny Southern California, these days?

        Yes, if your service involves Chevy Camaroes, then you are willing to make such repairs on any Camero regardless of who brings it in. You are not required to include other makes and models beyond that which you state that you repair.

    5. abwilliams profile image69
      abwilliamsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      The web designer is the one being discriminated against right now. Just as poor, Jack the Baker has been for nearly a decade.
      The Bible doesn't recognize same sex relationship, much less same sex marriage. Those of us who proclaim Christianity, can't go though life claiming the Bible as our instruction manual, all while caving to increased pressure and demands of the secular world.

      If these business owners were being abusive toward any individual seeking their services, that's a different story altogether, but that hasn't happened. There is no evidence of that.

      There are plenty of businesses which cater to the gay community, and that's who gay couples should seek out. They need to cease and desist in making a mockery of the faith of these business owners, because each time they do, they are discriminating and infringing upon their Civil Rights.

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        How is she being discriminated against?  Let me remind you that this woman hasn't created any wedding sites for anyone including those seeking gay marriage. Federal courts are not in the business of deciding hypothetical cases. But since this highly politicized Supreme Court seems absolutely determined to hear these cases brought by conservative religious groups let's look at the actual Colorado law.

        As Colorado explains in its brief, this law “does not turn on what a business chooses to sell. It simply requires that, once a business offers a product or service to the public, the business sells it to all without regard to a customer’s protected characteristic.” That is, Smith has an absolute right to say that she is not in the business of making websites that celebrate same-sex marriage. What she cannot do is sell a particular website to straight customers and then refuse to sell it to gay customers.

        Not sure what she's complaining about.
        If, at some point in the future, a customer asks Smith to design a particular website, she refuses, and then Colorado attempts to sanction her for that refusal, then she may very well have a valid First Amendment claim. But the current law isn't even set up for any such sanction.
        It's pretty much a nonsense that This woman's case has made its way to the Supreme Court

        1. abwilliams profile image69
          abwilliamsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          She is currently weighing the cost!

      2. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        "The Bible doesn't recognize same sex relationship"

        But the law does.  Keep your bible inside your home while the law rules outside your home.  Unless you would prefer to have Sharia Law, or perhaps human sacrifice (or some other noxious religious belief) be in charge outside?

        1. abwilliams profile image69
          abwilliamsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          So in your view, Christian Business Owners {which are ALWAYS the ones picked on in EVERY single one of these cases; from the photographers to the baker to the flower lady to the web designer} simply need to stay out of the town square,  and run their business from their own homes, correct?
          Their home, their rules!
          As long as you don't have to see them or know they exist, you're good with that?

      3. Jean Bakula profile image91
        Jean Bakulaposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        There was no real gay couple here. It's a hypothetical brought about to test the Court and see how it would rule.

        But if there WAS a real couple, they ARE being abused. It's discrimination because they don't share this so called web designer's religious beliefs. It's just a cake, bake the thing. What next? She doesn't like the names of the people that  need to be printed on the cake, or the color or flavor of icing? This is a bad business model. When I shop, I don't want to hear someone's religious beliefs, nor do I impose mine on them.

        What ever happened to the separation of Church and State? I hear people even saying it's not in the U.S. Constitution, which is false.

        You can find a bible scripture to support any position you want, no matter how vile. Jesus did accept everyone, as I recall from early religious instruction. It seems Bible meanings get more and more twisted to support hate speech and discrimination.

        We all deserve Equal Rights, not just some of us. It's the law, until this crazy Court changes that.

        1. DrMark1961 profile image97
          DrMark1961posted 17 months agoin reply to this

          That hypothetical couple can shop around. Why should they support a business that does not want them?

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Something needs to be done about our politicized Supreme Court before they cause real damage to this country. 

            Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said there was a difference between discrimination based on race versus sexual orientation, asking whether “it’s fair to equate opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition to interracial marriage.” . Really? He is joking?

            1. DrMark1961 profile image97
              DrMark1961posted 17 months agoin reply to this

              You or I may not support this persons position, but does not she have the right to ask the supreme court to examine this issue? Doesnt that justice have the right to ask that question?

              If they make really bad decisions I hope someone will come along later and fix it. After all, the supreme court said that it no state could make a law forbidding a woman to kill her children, but a more level-headed supreme court came along later and said this was a decision to be made in each state.

              1. Readmikenow profile image94
                Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                I think it is amazing how the left in the United States is so focused on Christians.

                When there was an issue with Christians not baking a gay wedding cake, a group of gays tried to get a gay wedding cake from a Muslim baker.  He threw them out of his store.  It was all caught on video.  The left has done nothing about it except to ignore the video and work to throw it way down on the search engine.

                The left is not consistent on any issue.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image90
                  Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  It all boils down to an odd mindset.  Respect one religion, such as the Muslim religion but not the one that the majority of Americans worship. Go figure...

            2. Readmikenow profile image94
              Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              They are two very different things.

              Thousands of people leave the "gay lifestyle" every year.  The debate rages if it is a choice or if people are born gay.  If a person is born gay, none of them would be able to stop living the gay lifestyle.

              People of a particular race cannot leave their race no matter what they do.  I will always be a white person.  I cannot leave the "white" lifestyle.  This is how my genetics have structured me.

              So, opposition to same-sex marriage is different from being opposed to interracial marriage.

              1. Credence2 profile image79
                Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                There are a lot of things that I don't agree with, but I see bigotry in denying the Right for anyone to access goods or services without any justification except for the fact that you don't like them...

                It was not so long ago that opposition to same sex marriage was the same as opposition to interracial marriage. What is it with conservatives? Of what concern of yours is it in regards to who marries who?

          2. Credence2 profile image79
            Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

            There is an ancient publication called the Green Book. This was a published guide that Black travelers had to use when traveling across the South to determine in advance where they could rent a motel or even where they could get gas or relieve themselves.

            That is why the "hypothetical couple" scenario won't work.

      4. Credence2 profile image79
        Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Good that you can drop by, AB.

        Not everyone subscribes to the Bible and it tenets.

        A secular world is the compromise between everyone and everybody having a particular religion to impose on someone.

        Everyone has a right to be served regardless of race, religion of sexual preference. I don't care who rents my apartment or eats at my restaurant as long as they pay.

        I am old enough to recall the Woolworth lunch counters in North Carolina back in 1960, blacks were explicetely denied service, because they were the wrong color. Whose civil rights were violated?

  2. peeples profile image91
    peeplesposted 17 months ago

    Federal law already allows for discrimination against the lgbtq community. This is a listed job on indeed right now from the town I moved my children from. It's a religiously ran business,  thrift store. (They also only pay $9 an hour)

    I won't even get started on how there are laws in place to keep Jews, interracial couples, and LGBTQ couples from adopting kids from foster care still.

    As someone who is part of the LGBTQ community I am 100 percent ok with this. Actually I wish all businesses would advertise their views. Why would anyone want to give their time or money to a business that hates who you are?

    Outside of life saving type care, adoption, or human services, I think it's perfectly acceptable for bigots to announce their bigotry.

    https://hubstatic.com/16263145_f1024.jpg

    1. DrMark1961 profile image97
      DrMark1961posted 17 months agoin reply to this

      "As someone who is part of the LGBTQ community I am 100 percent ok with this. Actually I wish all businesses would advertise their views. Why would anyone want to give their time or money to a business that hates who you are?"

      I have to agree with you here. We recently elected a socialist president here in Brazil and the 50% of the country that are conservative have stopped supporting those businesses that helped elect the president that wants to destroy nuclear families. They are complaining since they are losing out on the conservative spending, but shoudnt those businesses that support the criminal that they elected president let everyone know so that consumers can choose whether or not to support them?

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        You would rekindle the massive, horrible discrimination of years past all over again?  You would make it common and acceptable to shout it out to the heavens, to make it a part of how you treat others?

        I would, very highly, disagree.  Keep your racism and hatred behind closed doors; we neither need, want nor have any use for it in public.

        1. DrMark1961 profile image97
          DrMark1961posted 17 months agoin reply to this

          Not sure Where your nasty words and hatred are coming from but if I choose not to use a business because the owner does not agree with me that is my choice.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Perhaps I misunderstand.  I took your post to mean that you would like businesses to make plain their racism, their dislike (hatred) of anything or anyone different than they are.  You would prefer that it be shouted out in plain language so everyone knows.

            I highly disagree with that concept; we've gone through it in the past and it did not serve the country well.

            1. DrMark1961 profile image97
              DrMark1961posted 17 months agoin reply to this

              I was agreeing with Peeples comment "As someone who is part of the LGBTQ community I am 100 percent ok with this. Actually I wish all businesses would advertise their views." If someone is a socialist and agrees that big government should be responsible for us from birth to death, I want to know about it. If they are a socialist or a member of the communist party I want them to advertise their views so that I can refrain from shopping there. To me it is even worse when someone "virtue signals" and claims to support a cause just becuase it is good for their business.

              I would hope that a business that announces it is racist would lose their white customers as well as the blacks they do not want to serve. You may be right in that it is taking us down a dark path but I do not agree that the government should interfere in private businesses.

              1. Credence2 profile image79
                Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                I know you don't like "big government" but is anarchy better?You have  a choice of where you shop, but those Shop keepers in the public domain that provide goods and services must provide them to all equally.

                As a black man, I have had enough of segregated hospitals, graveyards, restaurants, etc. it has been proven without a doubt that separate is inherently unequal. I can't speak  for Brazil, but that has been the truth here. You discriminate and you are either fined/ and or lose your licenses and then you can sell your food to your first cousins.

                Government always interferes, I want and get inspections of the "greasy spoons" in my town regularly, to make sure that cleanliness and sanitary standards are maintained. I have been hit with city taxes as a bargaining chip to get certain businesses to relocate and provide jobs. So, there is no such thing as government and business as separate entities.

    2. Credence2 profile image79
      Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Discrimination is not justified toward anyone merely because they look, or have think/believe differently.

      Thanks for your input.

  3. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 17 months ago

    This is probably the most political Court we have ever had. It's Crystal clear even in the cases they choose to accept.
    The woman bringing the current case has never designed a wedding website, not for anyone. It's beyond my reasoning that they would even accept such a case based on her potentiality for feeling violated by being asked to design a wedding site for a gay couple?

    Before this litigation, Lorie Smith appeared to be a normal website designer who advertised her services to all potential customers. In 2016, after ADF took her on as a client, she rebranded as a conservative Christian who channeled her faith in God through her work. Indeed, her revamped website included language seemingly finessed to transform her into a First Amendment test case, explaining that her “expressive content … communicate[s] ideas or messages.” Also worth noting:  No same-sex couple has ever asked Smith to make them a wedding website; in fact, she has never made a wedding website for anyone. "Her work to date focuses on local politicians, dog breeders, contractors, and houses of worship—not celebrations of life events."

    It Also seems that Colorado law does not compel her  to create a wedding website for a same-sex couple, or for anyone else. It only insists that once Smith has designed a wedding website, she must allow same-sex couples to purchase that product. In essence, Colorado says she must sell her website template to all customers, regardless of their identity. She need not create a new template or “speak” in support of any marriage. At most, if she makes a wedding website for Henry and Fiona, she must sell the same template to Henry and Frank. As Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson acknowledged, she could even make a template that (for some reason) condemned same-sex marriage. This speech is permitted. Colorado targets only the conduct of refusing to sell that product to gay people."
    Its interesting that Lorie Smith brought a case to the US Supreme Court WITH NO STANDING OR INJURY. As in, it’s all hypothetical, nobody did anything or made her do anything. All for the sole purpose of giving 6 right wing justices an excuse to *preemptively* allow discrimination against LGBTQ folks.

    It seems to me that the case was brought prematurely and should therefore be dismissed. But the Court’s GOP-appointed majority is very eager to decide cases brought by religious conservatives, .

    1. Sharlee01 profile image90
      Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

      "This is probably the most political Court we have ever had. It's Crystal clear even in the cases they choose to accept.
      The woman bringing the current case has never designed a wedding website, not for anyone. It's beyond my reasoning that they would even accept such a case based on her potentiality for feeling violated by being asked to design a wedding site for a gay couple?"

      I would think we all realize and have for decades that we have conservative judges, and liberal judges, period. Both certainly use their own beliefs, values, and ideologies to judge a given case. It would seem you think that due to this case being a case of Conservative values it should not even be heard. This woman has stepped up possibly to avert problems in her business venture. I would think concerned about investing money in a private business and having the Government dictate her right to conduct her business without the problems that could occur due to her religious beliefs.

      From what I gathered she is a graphic designer and would have problems using her artistic abilities to create anything involved in same-sex marriage. And, It would seem Colorado does cover this form of what they believe is discrimination against the Gay community. So, her only recourse would be a court of law or compliance with her state's laws. She chooses to have the law changed.

      I would do as she has done to make sure before spending funds to set up my business,  I could even do business comfortably in the state I set up shop in. Why in the world start a business that would fail due to state laws conflicting with one's values? She has clearly stated in all good conscience she will not use her creative skills to promote a lifestyle she feels impinges on her own religion.

      Hey, if she loses she must follow the state laws or just open her business somewhere else that the laws fit into her religion or just not pursue her desired business. It all seems very clear-cut.

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        "It would seem you think that due to this case being a case of Conservative values it should not even be heard.

        No. I stated that her case should be dismissed because she has no standing or injury.  I've looked at the filing and it has been clearly stated that this woman has never created a wedding website designed for anyone let alone a gay couple.

        In terms of Colorado law it's also crystal clear.

        As Colorado explains in its brief, this law “does not turn on what a business chooses to sell. It simply requires that, once a business offers a product or service to the public, the business sells it to all without regard to a customer’s protected characteristic.” That is, Smith has an absolute right to say that she is not in the business of making websites that celebrate same-sex marriage. What she cannot do is sell a particular website to straight customers and then refuse to sell it to gay customers.

        Where is the problem here?  Colorado law clearly does not compel her to make websites for gay couples.
        What am I missing here? If the Supreme Court sides with this woman it's an absolute sham.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image90
          Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

          Her case  ---  Lorie Smith claims Colorado’s anti-discrimination law violates her right to free speech over same-sex marriages, which she maintains are antithetical to her Christian values.

          She is trying to fight the Colorado law, have it clearly looked at by the Supreme Court, and ascertain if such a law interferes with her Constitutional rights. If she wins her case I would think the Colorado law will no longer be a law. She could have the right to refuse to be forced to create wedding websites for gay couples.

          Smith claims Colorado’s anti-discrimination law violates her right to free speech over same-sex marriages, which she maintains are antithetical to her Christian values.

          I am sure the Supreme Court will be fair.

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            The law doesn't interfere with her rights though?? All the law says is in the brief from Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson is that  a business can sell any service it wishes, but that service has to be available to everyone. A website can include Christian biblical passages, and a Christmas shop can sell Christmas trees, but neither can refuse to sell their product to Jews, or, as in this case, same-sex couples, because that would be discrimination based on racial or religious status.

            She needs only to make her business available to everyone but she does not have to provide services she does not provide. That is what the law states.  It's so clear-cut.  Nothing in the law dictates what services must be provided.
            How is the law violating her right? And again the woman has never provided any website for anyone.  A little strange that the court is considering a hypothetical situation isn't it?

            1. abwilliams profile image69
              abwilliamsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              But that IS the point, it does interfere. She shouldn't be forced to design a webpage for something that she is adamantly opposed to, as a condition... for her to be able to chase her American dream!
              Why must her rights end, where a gay couple's begin?

              1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                Fayetteville Fayeposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Where are you reading in this law that she is forced to do anything?? She cannot bar  people from her business because they are gay or black or Jewish or any other protected class. That being sad the law does not force her to create anything she does not want to create. I don't know how to State it more plainly and clearly. She cannot bar them access but she does not have to provide for them anything they wish.
                Her wedding design service whenever she chooses to open it has to be available to everyone but it does not mean in any manner whatsoever it has to include services she does not provide.

                1. abwilliams profile image69
                  abwilliamsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  My response was to your comment.

                  "The law doesn't interfere with her rights though?? All the law says is in the brief from Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson is that  a business can sell any service it wishes, but that service has to be available to everyone."

            2. Sharlee01 profile image90
              Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

              The law as it stands does purpose a problem for Smith --- Lorie Smith, the owner of 303 Creative LLC, a designer of websites and graphics based in Littleton, Colorado. Smith is a devout Christian who believes that marriage “is only between one man and one woman.” So although Smith wants to expand her business to include wedding websites, she does not want to design websites for same-sex weddings, and she wants to post a message on her own website to make that clear. She wants to refuse service gay's period.

              In 2016, Smith went to federal court in Colorado, seeking a ruling that Colorado could not enforce its public-accommodations law, known as the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, against her because it would violate her First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit rejected her arguments, Smith came to the Supreme Court. The justices agreed in February to take up her case – but only on the free speech question, not on the free exercise issue.

              The Law  --   https://one-colorado.org/lgbtq-resource … 0ancestry.

              1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                Fayetteville Fayeposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                The public accommodations law only says she needs to Grant access to all to her business. It does not by any means dictate the services she must provide.
                So are you trying to say that she wants to bar these people access to her business completely? Yes that would be against their public accommodations law. The law is only stating that these people must be let through the door. Nowhere does it say You must accommodate all of their wishes. I've read the law and the brief
                And she has no business before The Supreme court. She's never created a wedding website for anyone. Her case is completely hypothetical. She has no standing, no injury. At its most basic form the law says she can't hang a sign on the door that says "gay is not welcome here"

                If the woman doesn't want to allow gay people into her nonexistent business to purchase the services she does provide then she's a bigot plain and simple.  And the law should not accommodate that.

            3. Sharlee01 profile image90
              Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

              The law is very clear, and it prevents her from refusing Gays her services.
              https://one-colorado.org/lgbtq-resource … 0ancestry.

              "Public Accommodations
              In Colorado, it is illegal for places of public accommodation to discriminate against protected classes of people. Places of public accommodation include a restaurant, hospital, hotel, retail store, and public transportation, among others.

              Prohibited discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation include these adverse actions: denial of service, terms and conditions, unequal treatment, failure to accommodate, and retaliation.

              Protected classes for places of public accommodation are: race, color, disability, sex, sexual orientation (including transgender status), national origin/ancestry, creed, marital status, and retaliation.

              Individuals who believe they have been subject to discrimination in a place of public accommodation based on their protected class status have SIXTY (60) DAYS from the date of discrimination to file a complaint. Complete a Complaint Intake Form if you believe you were discriminated against in a place of public accommodation based on a protected class.

              In public accommodation complaints, you must file your formal complaint/charge within SIXTY (60) DAYS of the date that you are alleging you experienced discriminated based on one of the protected classes. (Filing the complaint intake packet does not constitute filing of the formal complaint/charge; therefore, remember to submit the complaint intake packet well before the SIXTY (60) DAY time limit to allow time for the charge to be drafted, signed, and returned to the Division.)


              One Colorado is the state’s leading advocacy organization dedicated to advancing equality for (LGBTQ) Coloradans and their families. We are working together for a fair and just Colorado.

              Getting in Touch
              303 E. 17th Ave, Suite 400
              Denver, CO 80"

              Smith has clearly stated her feelings clearly --  "Enter Lorie Smith, the owner of 303 Creative LLC, a designer of websites and graphics based in Littleton, Colorado. Smith is a devout Christian who believes that marriage “is only between one man and one woman.” So although Smith wants to expand her business to include wedding websites, she does not want to design websites for same-sex weddings, and she wants to post a message on her own website to make that clear."

              If she hopes to post a message, her own words (free speech) that she will not service Gay couples.  As the law stands she will be breaking it.

              In 2016, Smith went to federal court in Colorado, seeking a ruling that Colorado could not enforce its public-accommodations law, known as the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, against her because it would violate her First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit rejected her arguments, Smith came to the Supreme Court. The justices agreed in February to take up her case – but only on the free speech question, not on the free exercise issue.

    2. Credence2 profile image79
      Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

      But the Court’s GOP-appointed majority is very eager to decide cases brought by religious conservatives,

      That is pretty much on target....

  4. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 17 months ago

    Of course you cannot bar selling your services to protected groups of people that's a given. Why on Earth would anyone think that this is okay. If a gay couple wants to come and buy her non-existent wedding website services why should they be prevented from doing so? The point is being made though far too many times that people believe this woman would be forced to create products beyond what she already produces to meet the needs of certain groups or present specifically gay endorsing commentary and that is just not the case.
    Do people really want the Supreme Court to allow this woman to hang the "gays not welcome here" sign in her window? I mean if she ever even gets a business off the ground?
    The Supreme Court is dragging us backward. What's next? The return of the" blacks not allowed" sign?
    It's already been well established that discrimination based on protected class is not allowed in this country, what does this woman not understand?

    Do you view her argument as more based on the fact she does not want to deal with gay people in any manner whatsoever even in purchasing her available products? Or is it that she does not want to enter into making products they ask for that may cause her to express or create things she doesn't agree with and aren't a part of her repertoire?

    It seems to be that the argument is that she does not want to be forced to create things that gay people may ask her to but the law certainly does not compel her to do that.

    U.S.  solicitor general Brian Fletcher clarified that Smith would not violate the law if she refused to create any website that said something like “Gay marriages are great.” The problem is that her concern centers on the sexual orientation of customers, rather than on a message being conveyed.

    Seems a little like BS lunacy that the Supreme Court is considering making a decision that could potentially roll back civil rights protections for a woman who doesn't even have a business.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image90
      Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Have you visited her website? She is offering custom websites, websites that are personalized by the people that pay for her service.

      Here is her business concept ---
      "We believe that a deeply personal relationship with our clients is essential to providing services that exceed your expectations. Larger firms require big teams to accomplish the same services that 303 creative provides. These large operations typically result in an impersonal approach, which places priority on their bottom line, instead of on you, the client. With 303 creative, you can rest assured that we are experienced in providing a customized, dedicated, and one-stop experience for every client, for every project."   https://303creative.com/about/

      "If a gay couple wants to come and buy her non-existent wedding website services why should they be prevented from doing so?"

      her websites are created per client, they are not sitting there one size fits all"...

      As the Colorado state law stipulates she can not refuse her service, It is very clear she feels she can not supply a Gay couple with what they might desire. In regards to text, photos, or sentiments. Due to her religion, she is not willing to be a part of promoting Gay marriage with her service.

      It is more than apparent she does not want to be open to a gay couple suing her for breaking the current law that is on the books.

      My opinion matters little as does anyone else here. She has the right to approach the courts on what she feels is a problem that is impinging on her freedom of speech. Her words are her craft, she is not willing to create a website that promotes gay marriage.

      I don't feel the  Government has a right to demand she create what she feels goes against her religious values.

      You claim she can just refuse... But due to the current law, she can be sued for designating against Gay people. 

      You need to have a look at her website, and I think you might realize what she offers. The websites are personally created for clients, and she works with clients to make sure they are relevant to their needs.

      I feel she has every right to approach the courts. This is America, and we all share the freedom to approach the courts to help with difficult problems.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)