8 ms·

>But in a brief order issued Tuesday, the court said it would limit the issue to free speech and decide “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel a

by syrrim 5y ago

>But in a brief order issued Tuesday, the court said it would limit the issue to free speech and decide “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment.” >A decision in favor of the web designer could have a significant impact in California and 19 other states that forbid businesses from discriminating against LGBTQ customers. It could give business owners an exemption based on their religion to refuse to provide flowers, photography or other products or services for a same-sex marriage. The two paragraphs seem to contradict. The court is supposed to be ignoring religion, and focusing squarely on free speech. So the question isn't whether someone can be compeled to speech counter to their religion, but rather whether an artist can be compeled to make any art at all. The latter seems to have much broader implications, applying to any political or aesthetic position, not just one prefered by a major religion. The very fact that this is being taken up by the supreme court seems to suggest a reasonable chance of winning as well.

xyzzyz 5y ago
> The court is supposed to be ignoring religion, and focusing squarely on free speech. Sorry, why is court supposed to be ignoring religion?
- rayiner 5y ago
  When the Court grants cert (chooses to hear a case), it takes up one or more specific “questions presented.” Here, the Court indicated in granting cert that it would only address the free speech issue.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  >> But in a brief order issued Tuesday, the court said it would limit the issue to free speech and decide “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment.”
- ykevinator2 5y ago
  Isn't this obvious?
temp8964 5y ago
Good point. As a man, I am not comfortable watching gay porn or even two men kissing each other, even though I totally have nothing against them and I wish them the best and I am a totally atheist. I don’t think I need religion as a reason for me to not take photos which make me uncomfortable. Religion is really irrelevant here. Further, I think creative speech is also irrelevant. I don't think it is a speech issue at all, even though compelled speech can be used as a reasoning for defending the creator's right. But what if I am just a waiter for a party, do I have to serve a gay wedding party, where lots of gay couples kissing and hugging each other? So a photographer has a reason to not be forced to serve a gay wedding party, but a waiter can not? I don't think it is fair. I wish a society based on good faith and people are tolerate with each other.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
not2b 5y ago
Back in the 1960s there were some prominent Christian ministers in the American South who insisted that interracial marriage was against God's will. Will business owners be allowed to discriminate against multiracial couples as well? Doubt it. They will treat gay people differently, because there's only one kind of religious belief they seek to protect.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  Ministers can still choose what marriages to perform or not, there's no law or court ruling that forces them to perform mixed-race marriages. The fact that this isn't an issue (nobody is refusing to do so) actually speaks against your point, not for it.
  - not2b 5y ago
    Yes, but a minister isn't bringing this case.
- azth 5y ago
  Homosexuality is literally prohibited by Christianity, not so inter racial marriage. And I know this as a non Christian.
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    So what? Many things are written in many bibles that are recognized as uncivilized, unethical, immoral, and ultimately illegal. Whatever tennets of a religion that say to harm a other, fall outside of any freedom of religion protection, and are just as illegal for the practitioners as for anyone else. The case will merely decide if this sort of discrimination constitutes harming another. Think the store mysteriously always being out of flour for the black family. I think if you want to be selective in who you work for, you have the right not to operate a business. You can bake cakes for your friends all you like. But if you want to operate a business then you have no right to discriminate. A customer only needs to bring legal tender and not cause problems in any way that the law recognizes as a problem, applying equally to anyone anywhere. If the law of the land does not recognize gayness as illegal or harmful, then neither do any businesses. Although this case sounds like they are trying to make a finer point that they don't want to produce a message they don't agree with. IE, they claim they would service a gay customer if the work didn't happen to promote a gay message. That will probably be a bit messier. I'm no lawyer or judge so maybe this distinction is no great "gotcha" for a professional. But it seems to me like that idea opens up a lot of hard to argue grey areas, like how they are trying to invoke both violence and homosexuality in the same complaint. I can think of lots of examples of things that are not illegal that I would not like to participate in. I can think of lot's of legal businesses that I would not like to help with their IT or web site. I just happen to be revolted by other things than gay people.
parsimo2010 5y ago
Any business that can call their product/service “speech” would have federal protection letting their business to discriminate against anyone, even in the 19 states that have anti-LGBT discrimination laws on the books (the state laws would be overruled by the supremacy clause). So even though the court is ignoring the religious aspect of the case, the outcome will very much matter to religious business owners.

by syrrim 5y ago

xyzzyz 5y ago

> The court is supposed to be ignoring religion, and focusing squarely on free speech. Sorry, why is court supposed to be ignoring religion?

rayiner 5y ago
When the Court grants cert (chooses to hear a case), it takes up one or more specific “questions presented.” Here, the Court indicated in granting cert that it would only address the free speech issue.
dahfizz 5y ago
>> But in a brief order issued Tuesday, the court said it would limit the issue to free speech and decide “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment.”
ykevinator2 5y ago
Isn't this obvious?

temp8964 5y ago

Good point. As a man, I am not comfortable watching gay porn or even two men kissing each other, even though I totally have nothing against them and I wish them the best and I am a totally atheist. I don’t think I need religion as a reason for me to not take photos which make me uncomfortable. Religion is really irrelevant here. Further, I think creative speech is also irrelevant. I don't think it is a speech issue at all, even though compelled speech can be used as a reasoning for defending the creator's right. But what if I am just a waiter for a party, do I have to serve a gay wedding party, where lots of gay couples kissing and hugging each other? So a photographer has a reason to not be forced to serve a gay wedding party, but a waiter can not? I don't think it is fair. I wish a society based on good faith and people are tolerate with each other.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

not2b 5y ago

Back in the 1960s there were some prominent Christian ministers in the American South who insisted that interracial marriage was against God's will. Will business owners be allowed to discriminate against multiracial couples as well? Doubt it. They will treat gay people differently, because there's only one kind of religious belief they seek to protect.

bpodgursky 5y ago
Ministers can still choose what marriages to perform or not, there's no law or court ruling that forces them to perform mixed-race marriages. The fact that this isn't an issue (nobody is refusing to do so) actually speaks against your point, not for it.
- not2b 5y ago
  Yes, but a minister isn't bringing this case.
azth 5y ago
Homosexuality is literally prohibited by Christianity, not so inter racial marriage. And I know this as a non Christian.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  So what? Many things are written in many bibles that are recognized as uncivilized, unethical, immoral, and ultimately illegal. Whatever tennets of a religion that say to harm a other, fall outside of any freedom of religion protection, and are just as illegal for the practitioners as for anyone else. The case will merely decide if this sort of discrimination constitutes harming another. Think the store mysteriously always being out of flour for the black family. I think if you want to be selective in who you work for, you have the right not to operate a business. You can bake cakes for your friends all you like. But if you want to operate a business then you have no right to discriminate. A customer only needs to bring legal tender and not cause problems in any way that the law recognizes as a problem, applying equally to anyone anywhere. If the law of the land does not recognize gayness as illegal or harmful, then neither do any businesses. Although this case sounds like they are trying to make a finer point that they don't want to produce a message they don't agree with. IE, they claim they would service a gay customer if the work didn't happen to promote a gay message. That will probably be a bit messier. I'm no lawyer or judge so maybe this distinction is no great "gotcha" for a professional. But it seems to me like that idea opens up a lot of hard to argue grey areas, like how they are trying to invoke both violence and homosexuality in the same complaint. I can think of lots of examples of things that are not illegal that I would not like to participate in. I can think of lot's of legal businesses that I would not like to help with their IT or web site. I just happen to be revolted by other things than gay people.

parsimo2010 5y ago

Any business that can call their product/service “speech” would have federal protection letting their business to discriminate against anyone, even in the 19 states that have anti-LGBT discrimination laws on the books (the state laws would be overruled by the supremacy clause). So even though the court is ignoring the religious aspect of the case, the outcome will very much matter to religious business owners.