Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 06/30/2023 View Thu 06/29/2023 View Wed 06/28/2023 View Tue 06/27/2023 View Mon 06/26/2023 View Sun 06/25/2023 View Sat 06/24/2023
1
2023-06-30 -Great Cultural Revolution
BREAKING: Supreme Rules in Favor of Designer Who Refused to Create Same-Sex Wedding Websites
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by DarthVader 2023-06-30 10:40|| || Front Page|| [11136 views ]  Top

#1 Notice in these cases how they don't go after Muslims, just Christians. Now that Muslim communities are pushing back, we'll see if they act the same.
Posted by Procopius2k 2023-06-30 11:44||   2023-06-30 11:44|| Front Page Top

#2 The gay mafia keeps losing these cases but they keep doing the same thing.
Posted by Glenmore  2023-06-30 11:50||   2023-06-30 11:50|| Front Page Top

#3 ^ The process is the punishment. Time for loser pays laws on these sorts of lawsuits.
Posted by M. Murcek 2023-06-30 11:52||   2023-06-30 11:52|| Front Page Top

#4 At the very least, it's shaping up to be a festive Independence Day.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2023-06-30 12:44||   2023-06-30 12:44|| Front Page Top

#5 Actually there wasn't a "gay mafia" sueing. It was a Christian designer who didn't want to be forced to create websites with content she didn't agree with. Rightfully so, and the Supreme Court decision was correct.

The question is: Did that Colorado law actually force the designer to create website content she didn't agree with? Seems doubtful to me, but I would need to see the exact wording.

It's one thing if a public business refuses service to a certain class or minority of people. Think of a baker who refuses to sell bread to a gay/black/Jewish/female person and even publicly announcing that he's doing so.

The issue here was not WHO could be denied service, but what kind of service. The designer did not want to have the State of Colorado confirm that she did not have to create websites for gay clients, but she wanted assurance that she did not have to create a website whose content contradicted her beliefs. Since the State of Colorado refused to give her that affirmation, the lawsuit (and the judgment) was justified.

Posted by European Conservative 2023-06-30 12:59||   2023-06-30 12:59|| Front Page Top

#6 How does this affect past cases of people who bake cakes for example?
Posted by NoMoreBS 2023-06-30 13:01||   2023-06-30 13:01|| Front Page Top

#7 It doesn't.
You may not refuse to sell a baked cake in your store to a gay/black/Jewish or female person.

But of course you may not be forced to bake a cake that celebrates gay marriage.
Posted by European Conservative 2023-06-30 13:04||   2023-06-30 13:04|| Front Page Top

#8 Masterpiece Cakes is still being sued. Again. Trans mafie this time.
Posted by Hupolunter de Medici7308 2023-06-30 13:05||   2023-06-30 13:05|| Front Page Top

#9 Didn't know that. I guess this ends the case.
Posted by European Conservative 2023-06-30 13:07||   2023-06-30 13:07|| Front Page Top

#10 What will next week bring?

Supreme Court rules against Biden student loan debt handout
Posted by Skidmark 2023-06-30 13:33||   2023-06-30 13:33|| Front Page Top

#11 IIUC today is the end of decision releases from 2022
Posted by Frank G 2023-06-30 13:37||   2023-06-30 13:37|| Front Page Top

#12 I suppose that was the plan all along. Biden knew that he didn't have the power to do that, but it got him votes. Now he can blame it all on the Supreme Court.
Posted by European Conservative 2023-06-30 13:38||   2023-06-30 13:38|| Front Page Top

#13 The Colorado case is more interesting than I thought.
From the Supreme Court's decision:

As the Tenth Circuit observed, if Ms. Smith offers wedding websites celebrating marriages she endorses, the State intends to compel her to create custom websites celebrating other marriages she does not. 6 F. 4th 1160, 1178. Colorado seeks to compel this speech in order to “excis[e] certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 633, 642. Indeed, the Tenth Circuit recognized that the coercive “[e]liminati[on]” of dissenting ideas about marriage constitutes Colorado’s “very purpose” in seeking to apply its law to Ms. Smith. 6 F. 4th, at 1178.

But while the Tenth Circuit thought that Colorado could compel speech from Ms. Smith consistent with the Constitution, this Court’s First Amendment precedents teach otherwise.
Posted by European Conservative 2023-06-30 14:28||   2023-06-30 14:28|| Front Page Top

#14 If these alternative lifestyle choices are so superior, why do they need gummint-enforced validation of them by all and sundry?
Posted by M. Murcek 2023-06-30 14:39||   2023-06-30 14:39|| Front Page Top

#15 What is it with Colorado? Why do all the violently anti-Christian cases come from there?
Posted by Tom 2023-06-30 14:46||   2023-06-30 14:46|| Front Page Top

#16 And once again, THANK YOU, President Trump, for giving us justices who actually pursue justice rather than the political fashion du jour.
Posted by Tom 2023-06-30 14:46||   2023-06-30 14:46|| Front Page Top

#17 #12 Spot on, EC. Blame it on the SC, and then call for packing it.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2023-06-30 15:03||   2023-06-30 15:03|| Front Page Top

#18 Why do all the violently anti-Christian cases come from there?

Airs thin.
Posted by Skidmark 2023-06-30 17:45||   2023-06-30 17:45|| Front Page Top

#19 The Puritans fled religious persecution and established colonies in lightly inhabited lands. I guess that means Wyoming or the Dakota’s.
Posted by Super Hose 2023-06-30 18:08||   2023-06-30 18:08|| Front Page Top

#20 Blame it on the SC, and then call for packing it.

The Donks will make SCOTUS the bogyman to activate the base for 2024. The stupid Trunks won't push it harder as an attack fully upon the Constitution. Make it a clear choice between the Constitution or rule by mob/dictatorial fiat.
Posted by Procopius2k 2023-06-30 19:31||   2023-06-30 19:31|| Front Page Top

#21 EVERYTIME the left starts going after Alito etc like they have the past month the justices immediately fire back hard with decisions such as these.
Posted by Slats Snore5077 2023-06-30 20:36||   2023-06-30 20:36|| Front Page Top

#22 The contrast between Thomas' brilliant opinion in the AA case contrasted to Jackson-Smith's incoherent babbling should be a source of shame for the left. But they have none.
Posted by M. Murcek 2023-06-30 20:54||   2023-06-30 20:54|| Front Page Top

#23 The contrast between Thomas' brilliant opinion in the AA case contrasted to Jackson-Smith's incoherent babbling

That alone stands as an argument against racial preferences which is what I think we called it before it was re-branded as "affirmative action"
Posted by SteveS 2023-06-30 21:33||   2023-06-30 21:33|| Front Page Top

23:04 ed in texas
21:33 SteveS
21:21 trailing wife
21:06 trailing wife
20:59 trailing wife
20:54 M. Murcek
20:48 Slats Snore5077
20:36 Slats Snore5077
19:57 Besoeker
19:39 Silentbrick
19:31 Procopius2k
19:15 Regular joe
19:14 Mullah Richard
18:55 Skidmark
18:46 Frank G
18:39 Skidmark
18:19 Skidmark
18:17 SteveS
18:08 Super Hose
18:06 SteveS
18:05 Super Hose
18:00 M. Murcek
17:59 SteveS
17:45 Skidmark









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com