The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#9,576
#9,576
zeppelin128 said:
She's providing a service to the public though; just because you provide a service to someone doesn't mean you support them. And the colorado.gov is not compelling speech or acceptance. Just equal access for everyone.

I wonder how this case would be viewed if we replace gay marriage with interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

everyone has access. She will do business with gay people. She won’t do business with them promoting certain ideas. But she would apply this to heterosexuals also.
 
#9,579
#9,579
volfanhill said:
It's an interesting distinction they are making IMO. Not one I had previously considered
Click to expand...
zeppelin128 said:
She's providing a service to the public though; just because you provide a service to someone doesn't mean you support them. And the colorado.gov is not compelling speech or acceptance. Just equal access for everyone.

I wonder how this case would be viewed if we replace gay marriage with interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

The constitution doesn’t prevent her from discriminating. That has to be accomplished by a statute.

Those statutes have to remain within the scope of constitutional power.

The constitution prevents the government from compelling speech.

So to the extent a state seeks to use an anti-discrimination law to compel speech, it’s going to be unconstitutional.

Legally, it shouldn’t be different with interracial marriage but same-sex marriage hasn’t been as widely accepted, yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher
#9,580
#9,580
zeppelin128 said:
Seems like that is how SCOTUS is going to rule, judging from their comments today. What about necessary services like grocery stores, pharmacies, things like that. Is it still okay to deny a group of people from buying food or medicine?
Click to expand...

Sure, they would be out of business pretty quick.
 
#9,581
#9,581
allvol123 said:
everyone has access. She will do business with gay people. She won’t do business with them promoting certain ideas. But she would apply this to heterosexuals also.
Click to expand...
Not really. She is turning them away at the door.

Well, she won't have to worry about doing any business with gay folks after this. Is she going to start asking questions about former marriages, divorces, and affairs as well? Something tells me she doesn't care about those issues when it comes to her "faith".
 
#9,583
#9,583
zeppelin128 said:
Not really. She is turning them away at the door.

Well, she won't have to worry about doing any business with gay folks after this. Is she going to start asking questions about former marriages, divorces, and affairs as well? Something tells me she doesn't care about those issues when it comes to her "faith".
Click to expand...

Who has she turned away? She will do business with them. She won’t be enslaved to doing any request they demand. Homosexual, heterosexual, etc.
 
#9,586
#9,586
RockyTop85 said:
The constitution doesn’t prevent her from discriminating. That has to be accomplished by a statute.

Those statutes have to remain within the scope of constitutional power.

The constitution prevents the government from compelling speech.

So to the extent a state seeks to use an anti-discrimination law to compel speech, it’s going to be unconstitutional.

Legally, it shouldn’t be different with interracial marriage but same-sex marriage hasn’t been as widely accepted, yet.
Click to expand...
Does this not throw out all equal protections then?
 
#9,588
#9,588
volfanhill said:
If I understand Rocky correctly, and I think I do, it's this specific type of work. She is arguing her work is speech and not a service . Therefore governments can't compel it.
Click to expand...
Her work is not art. She is providing a service to folks, much the same as a photographer, caterer, or the gas station down the road.
 
#9,589
#9,589
zeppelin128 said:
Her work is not art. She is providing a service to folks, much the same as a photographer, caterer, or the gas station down the road.
Click to expand...
That's the point of the suit. She claims it's speech/art. Do you think a photographer wouldn't define them self as an artist? That's why this is an interesting case.
 
#9,590
#9,590
volfanhill said:
That's the point of the suit. She claims it's speech/art. Do you think a photographer wouldn't define them self as an artist? That's why this is an interesting case.
Click to expand...
I think the difference is providing a paid service to people as opposed to art.

In her case, she hasn't even started to practice her "art", because she was too busy getting a case to the SCOTUS so she could openly be a bigot.
 
#9,591
#9,591
zeppelin128 said:
I think the difference is providing a paid service to people as opposed to art.

In her case, she hasn't even started to practice her "art", because she was too busy getting a case to the SCOTUS so she could openly be a bigot.
Click to expand...
Yea I am not interested in defending her. I am simply asking is her art "speech?" If so she's right. The gov can't compel her. Just my opinion. Legit SC case
 
#9,593
#9,593
zeppelin128 said:
Does this not throw out all equal protections then?
Click to expand...

No, because the equal protection clause limits the government.

Anti-discrimination statutes, like the civil rights act and state laws apply the same or similar limitations to most dealings between private persons, It often sounds similar because the protections are similar and get discussed in similar ways by media.

IIRC, one of the controlling facts in masterpiece cake shop was that guy said he would sell them one of his standard cakes, he just refused to do the decorating. So he wasn’t denying them all service, just the particular aspect that involved his art. I don’t know if this lady is trying to say that all of her work is expressive or not. It’s hard to imagine a cookie cutter website that would be able to be resold and still have value since most of those sites contain biographical information.

I’m not saying I buy the idea that her work is speech or expression. I don’t know enough about the business or the case to really say. I could see how it might be in some contexts, but mostly it seems like it would be the speech of the couple and she’s just a scrivener. I don’t know whether that’s the question they’re answering or whether it is a fact determination that’s already been made. I’m not sure it matters because this court has shown a willingness to rewrite the facts when it suits them, as they did with the football coach case.
 
#9,594
#9,594
zeppelin128 said:
I think the difference is providing a paid service to people as opposed to art.

In her case, she hasn't even started to practice her "art", because she was too busy getting a case to the SCOTUS so she could openly be a bigot.
Click to expand...
Photographers don’t get paid?
 
#9,600
#9,600
RockyTop85 said:
Idk about that guy but by-in-large people would not be fine with it. FOX News threw a years-long hissy fit over “Happy Holidays,” FFS. May still be going on for all I know.
Click to expand...
I'd hope she goes out of business and loses everything. But she will be rewarded by her cult and keep on keeping on.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top