3 ms·

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 a

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.)
- dmitrygr 5y ago
  There is a body of people who do this: 535 of them. We elect them. Their job is to write laws that set up what can and cannot be done. Write to them.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > There is a body of people who do this: 535 of them. We elect them. Their job is to write laws that set up what can and cannot be done. The law (state law, the federal constititution, and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act) already exists, the question is resolving a dispute about what the laws that exist, taken together, allows. If the solution to every dispute about the law is to defer to more lawmaking, then there is no enforceable law.
  - verdverm 5y ago
    They can write laws which are still overturned by SCOTUS on the grounds they violate the construction. An amendment is a much bigger thing to get through the process

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.)

dmitrygr 5y ago
There is a body of people who do this: 535 of them. We elect them. Their job is to write laws that set up what can and cannot be done. Write to them.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > There is a body of people who do this: 535 of them. We elect them. Their job is to write laws that set up what can and cannot be done. The law (state law, the federal constititution, and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act) already exists, the question is resolving a dispute about what the laws that exist, taken together, allows. If the solution to every dispute about the law is to defer to more lawmaking, then there is no enforceable law.
- verdverm 5y ago
  They can write laws which are still overturned by SCOTUS on the grounds they violate the construction. An amendment is a much bigger thing to get through the process