3 ms·

>> She preemptively sued Colorado's civil rights commission and other state officials in 2016 because she feared she would be punished for refusing to serve ga

>> She preemptively sued Colorado's civil rights commission and other state officials in 2016 because she feared she would be punished for refusing to serve gay weddings. I know little of this case. She preemptively did this without a specific incident? How did this even make it to the SCOTUS? I feel anyone can refuse to work for someone else on any unsaid basis. It's when it is definable why they denied a customer, or work, then we can explore the implications. Preemptive fears are baseless in this circumstance, IMO.

sieabah 4y ago
The bakery incident really made people wonder whether you can deny anyone and stay in business.
- adamredwoods 4y ago
  Suppose I was a freelance website developer and one day a Christian came to my work and asked me to write out Leviticus 18 with a big fat logo for their website, I'd say my hand hurt and ask they go somewhere else to do it. Even if it was later discovered that I am a card-carrying Atheist, will I be shut down? Could anyone prove my intentions? Doubtful.
  - gsinclair 4y ago
    In that situation I would take the job and do the best I could to satisfy the customer. But I would insist on my company name not being associated with it, or maybe one step further: a statement appearing on the website disclaiming my company’s endorsement of the content. They might not accept that condition, and I’d be happy not to take the job. This applies in many cases across many fields. Like in Australia we recently had a kerfuffle in which the National women’s netball team protested a particular sponsorship (on pretty stupid grounds, but anyway…). Why not accept the sponsorship but say your piece? Constructive debate is much better than virtue signalling.
Natsu 4y ago
It's a bit more complicated than that, they're suing to test the constitutionality of the law because it barred them from doing something they would've otherwise done: === https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis === Before implementing the notice, Smith discovered that such a notice would violate the Colorado anti-discrimination state laws that were amended in 2008, which prevents public businesses from discriminating against gay people as well as making statements to that effect. Smith, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, sued Colorado in 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, seeking to block enforcement of the anti-discrimination law. The district court waited for the result of the Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission which dealt with the same anti-discrimination law. As Masterpiece was ruled in 2018 on more narrow procedural grounds, the district court ruled against Smith in 2019, as Colorado had yet to investigate Smith and thus there was no evidence that she had engaged in discrimination.[4][5] Smith appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which upheld the district court decision in a 2–1 ruling. In the majority ruling, the Tenth Circuit held the anti-discrimination law satisfied strict scrutiny under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, deepening a circuit split with decisions issued by the Arizona Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[6] Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich dissented in the Tenth's decision, writing "the majority takes the remarkable — and novel — stance that the government may force Ms. Smith to produce messages that violate her conscience."[3]
- adamredwoods 4y ago
  Thank you for this. It seems the case made it because of a "writ of certiorari" and the SCOTUS decided to hear it. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1 https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    That is true for all supreme court cases.
  - 4y ago

sieabah 4y ago

The bakery incident really made people wonder whether you can deny anyone and stay in business.

adamredwoods 4y ago
Suppose I was a freelance website developer and one day a Christian came to my work and asked me to write out Leviticus 18 with a big fat logo for their website, I'd say my hand hurt and ask they go somewhere else to do it. Even if it was later discovered that I am a card-carrying Atheist, will I be shut down? Could anyone prove my intentions? Doubtful.
- gsinclair 4y ago
  In that situation I would take the job and do the best I could to satisfy the customer. But I would insist on my company name not being associated with it, or maybe one step further: a statement appearing on the website disclaiming my company’s endorsement of the content. They might not accept that condition, and I’d be happy not to take the job. This applies in many cases across many fields. Like in Australia we recently had a kerfuffle in which the National women’s netball team protested a particular sponsorship (on pretty stupid grounds, but anyway…). Why not accept the sponsorship but say your piece? Constructive debate is much better than virtue signalling.

Natsu 4y ago

It's a bit more complicated than that, they're suing to test the constitutionality of the law because it barred them from doing something they would've otherwise done: === https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis === Before implementing the notice, Smith discovered that such a notice would violate the Colorado anti-discrimination state laws that were amended in 2008, which prevents public businesses from discriminating against gay people as well as making statements to that effect. Smith, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, sued Colorado in 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, seeking to block enforcement of the anti-discrimination law. The district court waited for the result of the Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission which dealt with the same anti-discrimination law. As Masterpiece was ruled in 2018 on more narrow procedural grounds, the district court ruled against Smith in 2019, as Colorado had yet to investigate Smith and thus there was no evidence that she had engaged in discrimination.[4][5] Smith appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which upheld the district court decision in a 2–1 ruling. In the majority ruling, the Tenth Circuit held the anti-discrimination law satisfied strict scrutiny under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, deepening a circuit split with decisions issued by the Arizona Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[6] Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich dissented in the Tenth's decision, writing "the majority takes the remarkable — and novel — stance that the government may force Ms. Smith to produce messages that violate her conscience."[3]

adamredwoods 4y ago
Thank you for this. It seems the case made it because of a "writ of certiorari" and the SCOTUS decided to hear it. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1 https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  That is true for all supreme court cases.
- 4y ago