3 ms·
We won't find out from this case, which was accepted for its freedom of speech rather than religion arguments.
by hirundo 4y ago
We won't find out from this case, which was accepted for its freedom of speech rather than religion arguments.
- adamredwoods 4y ago>> Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said Waggoner was on her "strongest ground when you're talking about her sitting down and designing and coming up with the graphics to customize them for the couple." Barrett questioned whether the First Amendment would still protect Smith if she wanted to decline to provide a "plug-and-play" website to a gay couple that an opposite-sex couple could buy.
- vineyardmike 4y ago> Barrett questioned whether the First Amendment would still protect Smith if she wanted to decline to provide a "plug-and-play" website to a gay couple that an opposite-sex couple could buy. This proves its about “speech” - plug-and-play is hardly the same level of speech as a unique design. More-specifically, there is a difference, legally, between “conduct” and “speech”. Eg. You can say discriminatory things, but you cannot do discriminatory things. So the question at hand.. what if you discriminate what you do, to avoid being compelled to say something you don’t want to. A Plug-and-play website might not pass the test when it comes to being “speech” the way unique artistic graphic might.