3 ms·
Am I right in the assumption that if there were a LGB only wedding website designer they could be compelled, under this ruling, to make websites for straight we
by Akronymus 5y ago
Am I right in the assumption that if there were a LGB only wedding website designer they could be compelled, under this ruling, to make websites for straight weddings?
Or would that go against the "protecting both the dignity interests of members of marginalized groups and their material interests in accessing the commercial marketplace."?
- eesmith 5y agoI think the Reason piece gives the incorrect context for that quote. After confirming the state's "unique interest in remedying its own discrimination against LGBT", the majority continue: > As compelling as Colorado’s interest in protecting the dignitary rights of LGBT people may be, Colorado may not enforce that interest by limiting offensive speech. Indeed, the First Amendment protects a wide range of arguably greater offenses to the dignitary interests of LGBT people. ... > The Accommodation Clause is, however, narrowly tailored to Colorado’s interest in ensuring “equal access to publicly available goods and services.” ... My interpretation is that, yes, an website designer offering comparable LGBT-only services would be found in violation of CADA as that would not "equal access to publicly available goods and services" for people, based on their sexual orientation.