SCOTUS: 303 CREATIVE v. ELENIS - SCOTUS rules for website designer in case involving free speech, LGBTQ+ protections

Issue before or regarding the Supreme Court of The United States

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

searcher

morning
Moderator
Benefactor
Messages
12,636
Reaction score
2,685
Points
238

SCOTUS rules for website designer in case involving free speech, LGBTQ+ protections​

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled for an evangelical Christian website designer in a case involving whether creative businesses can refuse to serve LGBTQ+ customers because of First Amendment free speech rights.

In a 6-3 decision for the conservative majority written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court said wedding websites are a form of speech and Colorado and its anti-discrimination law cannot force a designer to express something she does not wish to express.

"The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy," Gorsuch wrote. "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."

More:

 
Excellent.


I see that the fat, "wise" Latina embarrassed herself with her dissent. What a completely ignorant waste of skin she turned out to be.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent that was joined by the court’s other liberals. “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” Sotomayor wrote.


Apparently, the "wise" Latina doesn't consider anyone with a different opinion from hers a "protected class".
 
Ideally there should be no protected classes. The best society should have their best people based on merit running operations.

Anything supported by specs other than merit risk falling to the lowest denominator instead of peaking with the highest.
 
Ideally there should be no protected classes. The best society should have their best people based on merit running operations.

Anything supported by specs other than merit risk falling to the lowest denominator instead of peaking with the highest.


Liberal democrats claim that practice is "racist" so they invented Affirmative Action. Which, frankly, is pretty damn demeaning to the recipients. But blacks swallow their pride and accept it because it allows them to skate by without putting any effort into it. And liberal democrats get a warm fuzzy feeling that they have done something good, when all they have done is drain the harbor and left all the boats stranded in the mud because no matter how hard they tried, some of those damn boats simply wouldn't rise with the tide.

It's really no different than what they are doing in high schools. Teaching to the lowest common denominator because of "equity". The smart kids get cheated out of an education. If this practice were applied to basketball, all hoops would be four feet off the ground so that everybody could dunk the ball. I don't know why liberals are too stupid to see just how destructive this practice is.
 

Report suggests Supreme Court opened door to anti-gay discrimination based on fake case​

Jul 1, 2023


7:41

Melissa Gira Grant, staff writer for The New Republic, talks about her interview with the person supposedly at the heart of the 303 Creative v. Elenis case and her reporting that suggests there is no basis in reality for the case that has become the vehicle for the conservative Supreme Court to allow discrimination against LGBTQ people.
 
From the link:

Stewart was working on his couch in his Portland, Ore., home last week when he received a text from a New Republic reporter that left him “flabbergasted.”

A request he appeared to have made in 2016 to a Colorado artist to create designs and possibly a website for his same-sex wedding was now part of a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the reporter told him.

Except Stewart — who didn’t want his full name used out of fear of being harassed — is not gay. In fact, he has been married to a woman for 15 years, and he’s a web designer himself.

 
Sounds like one of the legal teams did some real crack investigative work on this case before it reached the SCOTUS. (or perhaps that testimony was superflous/meaningless)
 
Back
Top Bottom