Wedding cakes and websites, hairdos? Not so much. If they can make you do a gay wedding website, they can make you do a Klan rally website.
How many times does the above bullshit need to be refuted?
Yeah, seems I might need to add the list of protected classes to my signature for this discussion. Neither the Nazis nor the KKK made the list. Yet.
In the instance of the bigoted web site designer, and the pretend gay couple, there is a conflict between two rights: freedom of expression vs freedom from discrimination.
To clarify, the conversation at hand does not revolve around a virtuous individual exercising their right to free expression privately, either domestically or overseas, or within their religious community, who is then unjustly punished by the government.
By examining the historical context of freedom from discrimination, which has its roots in a deeply disturbing past where religion served as a tool for slavery and subsequently inspired Jim Crow laws, one could argue that the government has a persuasive case for preserving the freedom from discrimination.
Nonetheless, when it comes to this particular web designer, the government's case for infringing upon an individual's freedom from discrimination appears weaker. Their argument is especially unconvincing when it tries to respond to an imagined offense so that a web designer can justify his own discriminatory actions. This web designer is the Jussie Smollett of the 1st Amendment, for faking it.
It is rather enlightening to see this incident unfold, as it reveals the number of individuals willing to attempt to characterize discrimination as an embodiment of fairness.
Prior to slavery practiced in the US, people left Europe because they were persecuted for their religion.
SCOTUS has drawn a very bright line protecting religion in many, many different ways, including affirming Hobby Lobby's right to refuse to allow their insurance coverage to include routine gynecological care to female employees. We're all good here boycotting Hobby Lobby, right? We all think that's as far as we can take that particular issue, right?
Some more recent SCOTUS rulings affirming religious freedom:
The ruling says employers must accommodate a worker's religious needs unless it would lead to “substantial increased costs” for the business.
rollcall.com
No one here is suggesting the postal worker just find a different job.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/religion/ Bunch of recent cases
This recent case of the fake issue with the Colorado webdesigner is consistent with other rulings.
The Hobby Lobby case wasn't about First Amendment protections. Thus, categorizing it as a 'consistent ruling' might be a misinterpretation. The postal case? That was a situation involving a citizen versus the government, which aligns with the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment: safeguarding citizens from governmental interference. Neither case supports your claim that
This recent case of the fake issue with the Colorado webdesigner is consistent with other rulings.
It’s still consistent and if you follow the link, there are multiple cases. That was one quick search.
Hobby Lobby IS about freedom of religion, although the proximal law is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act:
In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;
[5] therefore, the Act states that the "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."
[6]
Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...s-supreme-court-decision-lgbtq-rights/Justice Neil M. Gorsuch,
writing for the majority, said that because Lorie Smith’s designs are recognized as speech, the state cannot compel her to create a message she does not believe in, even if she offers her talents for hire.Story continues below advertisement
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch,
writing for the majority, said that because Lorie Smith’s designs are recognized as speech, the state cannot compel her to create a message she does not believe in, even if she offers her talents for hire.
Were the rule otherwise, the better the artist, the finer the writer, the more unique his talent, the more easily his voice could be conscripted to disseminate the government’s preferred messages,” Gorsuch wrote. “That would not respect the First Amendment; more nearly, it would spell its demise.”
Let's dive into the web designer's case once again, shall we? It stands apart from others, as it ventures to employ the First Amendment, which traditionally shields Citizens from government intervention, in a bold endeavor to safeguard a citizen from the actions of another fellow citizen. Now, I recall us discussing this very point previously, but it seems you may have overlooked my central argument. Instead, you appear keen on suggesting that I'm asserting this case has nothing to do with religion. Fascinating!
This thread has been extremely contentious and from time to time, I take breaks from it, intending to simply quit contributing. So sure, I've missed some, perhaps a lot of posts. I don't think at this point I'm contributing productively.
We see this issue differently: I see it as the fundamental conflict between two rights: the right to be treated equally under the law (although the ERA amendment has yet to pass so it obviously does not apply to women. See recent laws enacted to prevent women from obtaining appropriate and sometimes lifesaving healthcare) VS the right of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
For me, freedom of speech is primary and essential to all other rights we hold. We can hold people equal, without freedom of speech, with all equally subjugated under the rule of law that coerces speech, dictates religion and political speech--something that neither of us wants. Or we can uphold freedom of speech/religion and allow everyone the right to protest, to worship or not, in the matter they choose, to write, to speak freely in support of or in protest against government at all levels. This must include accepting abhorrent speech and refusal to speak or write or create something that the creator does not wish to create.
That's how I see it. I realize that no one's mind is being changed on this.
