Colorado web designer who refused to make same-sex wedding websites loses appeal(cnn.com)
cnn.com
Colorado web designer who refused to make same-sex wedding websites loses appeal
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/us/same-sex-wedding-website-appeals-court-trnd/index.html
41 comments
> How is such a decision possible after this ruling just three years ago?
Very easily, given the extremely narrow, case-specific procedural facts on which the Masterpiece Cakeshop case was decided.
Given the way the court has handled similar cases since Masterpiece Cakeshop, I'd not be surprised if they don't take this one up either (but, I wouldn't be too surprised if they did take it up, either.)
Very easily, given the extremely narrow, case-specific procedural facts on which the Masterpiece Cakeshop case was decided.
Given the way the court has handled similar cases since Masterpiece Cakeshop, I'd not be surprised if they don't take this one up either (but, I wouldn't be too surprised if they did take it up, either.)
IT was a rather clever tactic the supreme court used to judge in his favor but also lay down how to not have to deal with it again. Their decision was basically not that either side was right or wrong but the actions the state took were wrong. They ruled the way the state acted was hostile towards his religious beliefs which are protected that nullifies the case. i.e someone commits murder and claims it was a religious sacrifice and the party was willing then prosecution bases their case on two religious nuts with bad morals perform ritual and don't present the base evidence of murder not allowed. As long as in future cases brought up they stick to the basic laws of their state and don't throw in opinion evidence they can avoid the sc
I am not from the US but the core issue wasn't actually solved. There was also another case files against him around a similar issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
I find it hard to believe that this was a spontaneous event in light of previous events.
It worries me greatly that speech could be compelled. In the UK a very similar case was brought against bakers here and there was a decisive decision in favour of the baker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
I find it hard to believe that this was a spontaneous event in light of previous events.
It worries me greatly that speech could be compelled. In the UK a very similar case was brought against bakers here and there was a decisive decision in favour of the baker.
It's quite interesting because conservatives in the U.S. are simultaneously attempting to compel tech companies to host content against their will but at the same time they are trying to argue that these cake / flower / website makers don't need to make content against their will.
The difference is that the tech companies between them control a huge amount of online communications. The bakers, florists and small web-developers don't.
[deleted]
Given the last case, and the current make up of the Supreme Court, it’s probable this will be over turned.
> Given the last case, and the current make up of the Supreme Court, it’s probable this will be over turned.
It's worth noting that the prior decision was not about the merits of the law at issue but the conduct of the particular state officials involved in the particular case.
Going beyond the last case, its a case where expansive (or selectively pro-conservative-Christian) reading of “religious freedom” opposes the right’s usual preference on federalism, so if be cautious about any prediction based on ideology of the justices.
It's worth noting that the prior decision was not about the merits of the law at issue but the conduct of the particular state officials involved in the particular case.
Going beyond the last case, its a case where expansive (or selectively pro-conservative-Christian) reading of “religious freedom” opposes the right’s usual preference on federalism, so if be cautious about any prediction based on ideology of the justices.
That’s true, thank you for pointing that out, it was about process, but the cases are going to keep going and I think the supreme court will probably take this one up if anything to settle the issue.
In reality, how is this different than the cake guy?
It’s not all that different. The argument basically comes down to one of speech and artistic expression. Hear the government is requiring you to support a position with your speech and artistic expression. This is completely different from, say, housing. Refusing housing to someone based on their sexuality is clear discrimination. Refusing to bake a cake, to build a website, to support a position to disagree with, is government coercion of speech. I have absolutely no problem with the same sex marriage, transgender rights, any of that, but I do have a problem with the government forcing speech and expression.
It would be the same sort of coercion when government compels companies to serve black or disabled customers for creative or expressive products, regardless of any deeply held spiritual beliefs about black or disabled populations.
Incorrect. I am not a lawyer, but serving a customer is not a form of speech or expression. Making a website and decorating a cake, are forms of expression and speech.
This is correct. In both this case and "cake guy", the parties explicitly stated they had no problem serving homosexual customers, just that they refuse to design certain custom messages/art, this case being same-sex marriage.
I'm talking about services provided to the market. Services can naturally include expressive or creative products, or even literally speeches.
Good to know. I guess Google/Facebook/Twitter will stop censoring speech on their services then.
That's an interesting point - if indeed Facebook is providing a service, then using that logic they can't discriminate on providing that service for a protected class engaging in speech if they provide the same service to the public.
If we are going to be consistent on what a service is, and what speech is allowed on a service, this could get really interesting.
If we are going to be consistent on what a service is, and what speech is allowed on a service, this could get really interesting.
The common thread though is this is a business and you can’t discriminate against customers. I’f you were a town crier and offerd the service of walking around town announcing weddings you should be compelled to not discriminate in offering your service despite it being literally your speech. It’s not free, you’re being paid, free is your own time.
So a LGBT cake shop should be forced to write anti-gay bible verses on cakes? Religion is also a protected class.
Splitting services into speech and non-speech isn't a perfect solution, but it seems like a decent compromise compared to the alternatives.
Splitting services into speech and non-speech isn't a perfect solution, but it seems like a decent compromise compared to the alternatives.
By this reasoning, a Jewish baker should be compelled by the government to bake a cake with a swastika on it.
Do you mean more like compelling a supporter of Nazism to bake a Jewish wedding cake? The donning of Nazi political symbols is not a religion, but it could be considered a political position.
How bout compelling a gay owned bakery to bake a cake saying "homosexuality is a sin"? Note GP did not distinguish between political or religious speech, not that there's a material difference IMO.
Correct and it is a good thing, this is america not israel, it's why america is exceptional. Plus god is not real.
The “cake guy” case ended up being decided on case-specific conduct of state officials, not the merits of the law, leaving the fundamental question of the federal constititutional validity of the state law to a future case.
This is (provided no case-specific issue provides an excuse to avoid that issue) potentially that future case.
Also potentially not; the Supreme Court has been deflecting cases raising similar issues since Masterpiece Cakeshop, and I don't see any change (e.g., a conflict between the Circuit Courts on the issue) that would be a strong basis for believing that would change, though its also possible that the number of such cases or change on the Court could be sufficient to motivate taking this case.
This is (provided no case-specific issue provides an excuse to avoid that issue) potentially that future case.
Also potentially not; the Supreme Court has been deflecting cases raising similar issues since Masterpiece Cakeshop, and I don't see any change (e.g., a conflict between the Circuit Courts on the issue) that would be a strong basis for believing that would change, though its also possible that the number of such cases or change on the Court could be sufficient to motivate taking this case.
Hard to pick a side here. On one hand, i believe that you can do what ever you want behind closed doors with any number of consenting adults. (aka: Freedom of association) On the other hand, I can choose whom I work for and whom I do not. (aka: Freedom of association)
And a lawsuit seems like a poor way to resolve this. Do you really want the person whom you sued, who now hates, you making your website? Probably not. So it was probably "just to teach them a lesson" kind of effort... Why? Who benefits?
And a lawsuit seems like a poor way to resolve this. Do you really want the person whom you sued, who now hates, you making your website? Probably not. So it was probably "just to teach them a lesson" kind of effort... Why? Who benefits?
> And a lawsuit seems like a poor way to resolve this.
How else do you suppose we handle a conflict between the actual application of state law and a widespread interpretation of rights under the Federal Constitution?
> Do you really want the person whom you sued, who now hates, you making your website?
The lawsuit brought here was a “pre-enforcement challenge” by the web design company against the State because (per the suit) they are afraid that, were they to offer wedding-related services, they would be in danger of enforcement action by the State to unless they provided services which violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs.
It is not a suit by someone who wanted a website built (and if it had been, that suit would be seeking civil damages for alleged unlawful discrimination, not to have the unlawful discriminator compelled to create a website.)
How else do you suppose we handle a conflict between the actual application of state law and a widespread interpretation of rights under the Federal Constitution?
> Do you really want the person whom you sued, who now hates, you making your website?
The lawsuit brought here was a “pre-enforcement challenge” by the web design company against the State because (per the suit) they are afraid that, were they to offer wedding-related services, they would be in danger of enforcement action by the State to unless they provided services which violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs.
It is not a suit by someone who wanted a website built (and if it had been, that suit would be seeking civil damages for alleged unlawful discrimination, not to have the unlawful discriminator compelled to create a website.)
There is a body of people who do this: 535 of them. We elect them. Their job is to write laws that set up what can and cannot be done. Write to them.
> There is a body of people who do this: 535 of them. We elect them. Their job is to write laws that set up what can and cannot be done.
The law (state law, the federal constititution, and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act) already exists, the question is resolving a dispute about what the laws that exist, taken together, allows.
If the solution to every dispute about the law is to defer to more lawmaking, then there is no enforceable law.
The law (state law, the federal constititution, and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act) already exists, the question is resolving a dispute about what the laws that exist, taken together, allows.
If the solution to every dispute about the law is to defer to more lawmaking, then there is no enforceable law.
They can write laws which are still overturned by SCOTUS on the grounds they violate the construction. An amendment is a much bigger thing to get through the process
The point is to force courts to build out case law.
[deleted]
I hope both sides are satisfied with the outcome, cause in my book they both lost!
At this point they're both fighting a much bigger battle than themselves. Also, it is the website company who is bringing suit.
This is why those dumb rednecks didn't want marriage equality. Cuz the gays may actually form a powerful political block and impose themselves on others free will. So much for "we just want respect. Stop the hate"
[deleted]
“Refused” is misleading; “would refuse” would be most accurate.
This is not a result of an enforcement action by the State or a private party because of refusal to make actual sites requested by actual customers, but a pre-enforcement challenge to anti-discrimination law by a website designer who claims that they are deterred fron offering wedding-related services by the implicit threat that they would need to do so for same-sex couples or face enforcement action.
This is not a result of an enforcement action by the State or a private party because of refusal to make actual sites requested by actual customers, but a pre-enforcement challenge to anti-discrimination law by a website designer who claims that they are deterred fron offering wedding-related services by the implicit threat that they would need to do so for same-sex couples or face enforcement action.
My hope is that this case goes to SCOTUS and they will decide that in the event of a participation in a ritual all paid and unpaid services must be done willfully instead of an equal standard clause.
Baking a cake is fine. Baking a wedding cake means participating in the wedding. And therefore should not be compelled even when done commercially.
Rituals have a certain standard. Birth, marriage, and death are the most standard rituals. quincenera and sweet 16 and bar mitzvah are also standard rituals. Anyone doing anything in these kinds of events is taking part in the event.
Baking a cake is fine. Baking a wedding cake means participating in the wedding. And therefore should not be compelled even when done commercially.
Rituals have a certain standard. Birth, marriage, and death are the most standard rituals. quincenera and sweet 16 and bar mitzvah are also standard rituals. Anyone doing anything in these kinds of events is taking part in the event.
I'd hope to prove a point someone would now force a gay christian website designer to design a gay lifestyle is sinning against god website, but chances are that poor designer doesn't even support these culture wars.
And this would be different to the cake incident of the three bakers who wouldn't create a cake with the message 'Homosexuality is a detestable sin' here the refusal was allowed on obscenity reasons.
We need to differentiate between individuals who are the business and companies. And also between objects including digital objects and the abstractions that involve the sellers self. This is hard, but we should try.
And this would be different to the cake incident of the three bakers who wouldn't create a cake with the message 'Homosexuality is a detestable sin' here the refusal was allowed on obscenity reasons.
We need to differentiate between individuals who are the business and companies. And also between objects including digital objects and the abstractions that involve the sellers self. This is hard, but we should try.
This just looks like Colorado is saying "not touching this one" in hopes that SCOTUS will settle it. Which it won't.
And I get the LGBT position that they want legal protection just like POCs have but at the end of the day aren't there hundreds of other designers who would take this client? And how many other bakers would have made the wedding cake? Just seems so petty at this point...
> but at the end of the day aren't there hundreds of other designers who would take this client?
There is no client, this was a preemptive action by a web designer who doesn't yet offer the type of service at issue against the State on the basis that the State might punish them for not providing service for same sex wedding sites if they offered wedding sites in the future.
There is no client, this was a preemptive action by a web designer who doesn't yet offer the type of service at issue against the State on the basis that the State might punish them for not providing service for same sex wedding sites if they offered wedding sites in the future.
In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court...
If the current case is also heard by the SC, the outcome seems certain.