5 ms·

Colorado web designer who refused to make same-sex wedding websites loses appeal

18 points by donatj 5y ago

underseacables 5y ago
Given the last case, and the current make up of the Supreme Court, it’s probable this will be over turned.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Given the last case, and the current make up of the Supreme Court, it’s probable this will be over turned. It's worth noting that the prior decision was not about the merits of the law at issue but the conduct of the particular state officials involved in the particular case. Going beyond the last case, its a case where expansive (or selectively pro-conservative-Christian) reading of “religious freedom” opposes the right’s usual preference on federalism, so if be cautious about any prediction based on ideology of the justices.
  - underseacables 5y ago
    That’s true, thank you for pointing that out, it was about process, but the cases are going to keep going and I think the supreme court will probably take this one up if anything to settle the issue.
blahyawnblah 5y ago
In reality, how is this different than the cake guy?
- underseacables 5y ago
  It’s not all that different. The argument basically comes down to one of speech and artistic expression. Hear the government is requiring you to support a position with your speech and artistic expression. This is completely different from, say, housing. Refusing housing to someone based on their sexuality is clear discrimination. Refusing to bake a cake, to build a website, to support a position to disagree with, is government coercion of speech. I have absolutely no problem with the same sex marriage, transgender rights, any of that, but I do have a problem with the government forcing speech and expression.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    It would be the same sort of coercion when government compels companies to serve black or disabled customers for creative or expressive products, regardless of any deeply held spiritual beliefs about black or disabled populations.
    - underseacables 5y ago
      Incorrect. I am not a lawyer, but serving a customer is not a form of speech or expression. Making a website and decorating a cake, are forms of expression and speech.
      - threatofrain 5y ago
        I'm talking about services provided to the market. Services can naturally include expressive or creative products, or even literally speeches.
        furgooswft13 5y ago
        Good to know. I guess Google/Facebook/Twitter will stop censoring speech on their services then.
        benjohnson 5y ago
        That's an interesting point - if indeed Facebook is providing a service, then using that logic they can't discriminate on providing that service for a protected class engaging in speech if they provide the same service to the public. If we are going to be consistent on what a service is, and what speech is allowed on a service, this could get really interesting.
      - hellisothers 5y ago
        The common thread though is this is a business and you can’t discriminate against customers. I’f you were a town crier and offerd the service of walking around town announcing weddings you should be compelled to not discriminate in offering your service despite it being literally your speech. It’s not free, you’re being paid, free is your own time.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  The “cake guy” case ended up being decided on case-specific conduct of state officials, not the merits of the law, leaving the fundamental question of the federal constititutional validity of the state law to a future case. This is (provided no case-specific issue provides an excuse to avoid that issue) potentially that future case. Also potentially not; the Supreme Court has been deflecting cases raising similar issues since Masterpiece Cakeshop, and I don't see any change (e.g., a conflict between the Circuit Courts on the issue) that would be a strong basis for believing that would change, though its also possible that the number of such cases or change on the Court could be sufficient to motivate taking this case.
dmitrygr 5y ago
Hard to pick a side here. On one hand, i believe that you can do what ever you want behind closed doors with any number of consenting adults. (aka: Freedom of association) On the other hand, I can choose whom I work for and whom I do not. (aka: Freedom of association) And a lawsuit seems like a poor way to resolve this. Do you really want the person whom you sued, who now hates, you making your website? Probably not. So it was probably "just to teach them a lesson" kind of effort... Why? Who benefits?
- threatofrain 5y ago
  The point is to force courts to build out case law.
  - dmitrygr 5y ago
    I hope both sides are satisfied with the outcome, cause in my book they both lost!
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      At this point they're both fighting a much bigger battle than themselves. Also, it is the website company who is bringing suit.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > And a lawsuit seems like a poor way to resolve this. How else do you suppose we handle a conflict between the actual application of state law and a widespread interpretation of rights under the Federal Constitution? > Do you really want the person whom you sued, who now hates, you making your website? The lawsuit brought here was a “pre-enforcement challenge” by the web design company against the State because (per the suit) they are afraid that, were they to offer wedding-related services, they would be in danger of enforcement action by the State to unless they provided services which violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs. It is not a suit by someone who wanted a website built (and if it had been, that suit would be seeking civil damages for alleged unlawful discrimination, not to have the unlawful discriminator compelled to create a website.)
miles 5y ago
How is such a decision possible after this ruling just three years ago? In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court... If the current case is also heard by the SC, the outcome seems certain.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > How is such a decision possible after this ruling just three years ago? Very easily, given the extremely narrow, case-specific procedural facts on which the Masterpiece Cakeshop case was decided. Given the way the court has handled similar cases since Masterpiece Cakeshop, I'd not be surprised if they don't take this one up either (but, I wouldn't be too surprised if they did take it up, either.)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fallenspec 5y ago
  I am not from the US but the core issue wasn't actually solved. There was also another case files against him around a similar issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Subsequent_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... I find it hard to believe that this was a spontaneous event in light of previous events. It worries me greatly that speech could be compelled. In the UK a very similar case was brought against bakers here and there was a decisive decision in favour of the baker.
  - cowvin 5y ago
    It's quite interesting because conservatives in the U.S. are simultaneously attempting to compel tech companies to host content against their will but at the same time they are trying to argue that these cake / flower / website makers don't need to make content against their will.
    - 5y ago
playguardin 5y ago
This is why those dumb rednecks didn't want marriage equality. Cuz the gays may actually form a powerful political block and impose themselves on others free will. So much for "we just want respect. Stop the hate"
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
“Refused” is misleading; “would refuse” would be most accurate. This is not a result of an enforcement action by the State or a private party because of refusal to make actual sites requested by actual customers, but a pre-enforcement challenge to anti-discrimination law by a website designer who claims that they are deterred fron offering wedding-related services by the implicit threat that they would need to do so for same-sex couples or face enforcement action.
nashashmi 5y ago
My hope is that this case goes to SCOTUS and they will decide that in the event of a participation in a ritual all paid and unpaid services must be done willfully instead of an equal standard clause. Baking a cake is fine. Baking a wedding cake means participating in the wedding. And therefore should not be compelled even when done commercially. Rituals have a certain standard. Birth, marriage, and death are the most standard rituals. quincenera and sweet 16 and bar mitzvah are also standard rituals. Anyone doing anything in these kinds of events is taking part in the event.
aaron695 5y ago
I'd hope to prove a point someone would now force a gay christian website designer to design a gay lifestyle is sinning against god website, but chances are that poor designer doesn't even support these culture wars. And this would be different to the cake incident of the three bakers who wouldn't create a cake with the message 'Homosexuality is a detestable sin' here the refusal was allowed on obscenity reasons. We need to differentiate between individuals who are the business and companies. And also between objects including digital objects and the abstractions that involve the sellers self. This is hard, but we should try.
fosshogg 5y ago
This just looks like Colorado is saying "not touching this one" in hopes that SCOTUS will settle it. Which it won't. And I get the LGBT position that they want legal protection just like POCs have but at the end of the day aren't there hundreds of other designers who would take this client? And how many other bakers would have made the wedding cake? Just seems so petty at this point...
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > but at the end of the day aren't there hundreds of other designers who would take this client? There is no client, this was a preemptive action by a web designer who doesn't yet offer the type of service at issue against the State on the basis that the State might punish them for not providing service for same sex wedding sites if they offered wedding sites in the future.

18 points by donatj 5y ago

underseacables 5y ago

Given the last case, and the current make up of the Supreme Court, it’s probable this will be over turned.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Given the last case, and the current make up of the Supreme Court, it’s probable this will be over turned. It's worth noting that the prior decision was not about the merits of the law at issue but the conduct of the particular state officials involved in the particular case. Going beyond the last case, its a case where expansive (or selectively pro-conservative-Christian) reading of “religious freedom” opposes the right’s usual preference on federalism, so if be cautious about any prediction based on ideology of the justices.
- underseacables 5y ago
  That’s true, thank you for pointing that out, it was about process, but the cases are going to keep going and I think the supreme court will probably take this one up if anything to settle the issue.

blahyawnblah 5y ago

In reality, how is this different than the cake guy?

underseacables 5y ago
It’s not all that different. The argument basically comes down to one of speech and artistic expression. Hear the government is requiring you to support a position with your speech and artistic expression. This is completely different from, say, housing. Refusing housing to someone based on their sexuality is clear discrimination. Refusing to bake a cake, to build a website, to support a position to disagree with, is government coercion of speech. I have absolutely no problem with the same sex marriage, transgender rights, any of that, but I do have a problem with the government forcing speech and expression.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  It would be the same sort of coercion when government compels companies to serve black or disabled customers for creative or expressive products, regardless of any deeply held spiritual beliefs about black or disabled populations.
  - underseacables 5y ago
    Incorrect. I am not a lawyer, but serving a customer is not a form of speech or expression. Making a website and decorating a cake, are forms of expression and speech.
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      I'm talking about services provided to the market. Services can naturally include expressive or creative products, or even literally speeches.
      - furgooswft13 5y ago
        Good to know. I guess Google/Facebook/Twitter will stop censoring speech on their services then.
        benjohnson 5y ago
        That's an interesting point - if indeed Facebook is providing a service, then using that logic they can't discriminate on providing that service for a protected class engaging in speech if they provide the same service to the public. If we are going to be consistent on what a service is, and what speech is allowed on a service, this could get really interesting.
    - hellisothers 5y ago
      The common thread though is this is a business and you can’t discriminate against customers. I’f you were a town crier and offerd the service of walking around town announcing weddings you should be compelled to not discriminate in offering your service despite it being literally your speech. It’s not free, you’re being paid, free is your own time.
dragonwriter 5y ago
The “cake guy” case ended up being decided on case-specific conduct of state officials, not the merits of the law, leaving the fundamental question of the federal constititutional validity of the state law to a future case. This is (provided no case-specific issue provides an excuse to avoid that issue) potentially that future case. Also potentially not; the Supreme Court has been deflecting cases raising similar issues since Masterpiece Cakeshop, and I don't see any change (e.g., a conflict between the Circuit Courts on the issue) that would be a strong basis for believing that would change, though its also possible that the number of such cases or change on the Court could be sufficient to motivate taking this case.

dmitrygr 5y ago

Hard to pick a side here. On one hand, i believe that you can do what ever you want behind closed doors with any number of consenting adults. (aka: Freedom of association) On the other hand, I can choose whom I work for and whom I do not. (aka: Freedom of association) And a lawsuit seems like a poor way to resolve this. Do you really want the person whom you sued, who now hates, you making your website? Probably not. So it was probably "just to teach them a lesson" kind of effort... Why? Who benefits?

threatofrain 5y ago
The point is to force courts to build out case law.
- dmitrygr 5y ago
  I hope both sides are satisfied with the outcome, cause in my book they both lost!
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    At this point they're both fighting a much bigger battle than themselves. Also, it is the website company who is bringing suit.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> And a lawsuit seems like a poor way to resolve this. How else do you suppose we handle a conflict between the actual application of state law and a widespread interpretation of rights under the Federal Constitution? > Do you really want the person whom you sued, who now hates, you making your website? The lawsuit brought here was a “pre-enforcement challenge” by the web design company against the State because (per the suit) they are afraid that, were they to offer wedding-related services, they would be in danger of enforcement action by the State to unless they provided services which violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs. It is not a suit by someone who wanted a website built (and if it had been, that suit would be seeking civil damages for alleged unlawful discrimination, not to have the unlawful discriminator compelled to create a website.)

miles 5y ago

How is such a decision possible after this ruling just three years ago? In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court... If the current case is also heard by the SC, the outcome seems certain.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> How is such a decision possible after this ruling just three years ago? Very easily, given the extremely narrow, case-specific procedural facts on which the Masterpiece Cakeshop case was decided. Given the way the court has handled similar cases since Masterpiece Cakeshop, I'd not be surprised if they don't take this one up either (but, I wouldn't be too surprised if they did take it up, either.)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fallenspec 5y ago
I am not from the US but the core issue wasn't actually solved. There was also another case files against him around a similar issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Subsequent_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... I find it hard to believe that this was a spontaneous event in light of previous events. It worries me greatly that speech could be compelled. In the UK a very similar case was brought against bakers here and there was a decisive decision in favour of the baker.
- cowvin 5y ago
  It's quite interesting because conservatives in the U.S. are simultaneously attempting to compel tech companies to host content against their will but at the same time they are trying to argue that these cake / flower / website makers don't need to make content against their will.
  - 5y ago

playguardin 5y ago

This is why those dumb rednecks didn't want marriage equality. Cuz the gays may actually form a powerful political block and impose themselves on others free will. So much for "we just want respect. Stop the hate"

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 5y ago

“Refused” is misleading; “would refuse” would be most accurate. This is not a result of an enforcement action by the State or a private party because of refusal to make actual sites requested by actual customers, but a pre-enforcement challenge to anti-discrimination law by a website designer who claims that they are deterred fron offering wedding-related services by the implicit threat that they would need to do so for same-sex couples or face enforcement action.

nashashmi 5y ago

My hope is that this case goes to SCOTUS and they will decide that in the event of a participation in a ritual all paid and unpaid services must be done willfully instead of an equal standard clause. Baking a cake is fine. Baking a wedding cake means participating in the wedding. And therefore should not be compelled even when done commercially. Rituals have a certain standard. Birth, marriage, and death are the most standard rituals. quincenera and sweet 16 and bar mitzvah are also standard rituals. Anyone doing anything in these kinds of events is taking part in the event.

aaron695 5y ago

I'd hope to prove a point someone would now force a gay christian website designer to design a gay lifestyle is sinning against god website, but chances are that poor designer doesn't even support these culture wars. And this would be different to the cake incident of the three bakers who wouldn't create a cake with the message 'Homosexuality is a detestable sin' here the refusal was allowed on obscenity reasons. We need to differentiate between individuals who are the business and companies. And also between objects including digital objects and the abstractions that involve the sellers self. This is hard, but we should try.

fosshogg 5y ago

This just looks like Colorado is saying "not touching this one" in hopes that SCOTUS will settle it. Which it won't. And I get the LGBT position that they want legal protection just like POCs have but at the end of the day aren't there hundreds of other designers who would take this client? And how many other bakers would have made the wedding cake? Just seems so petty at this point...

dragonwriter 5y ago
> but at the end of the day aren't there hundreds of other designers who would take this client? There is no client, this was a preemptive action by a web designer who doesn't yet offer the type of service at issue against the State on the basis that the State might punish them for not providing service for same sex wedding sites if they offered wedding sites in the future.