Supreme Court hears arguments on Colorado case pitting free speech against LGBTQ rights | full audio
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 дек 2022
- The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis - a case involving Lorie Smith, a graphic designer in Colorado who says her religious beliefs prevent her from creating custom websites for same-sex weddings. Smith argues Colorado's public accommodation law violates her First Amendment rights and forces her to express a message she disagrees with.
#news #supremecourt #politics
CBS News Streaming Network is the premier 24/7 anchored streaming news service from CBS News and Stations, available free to everyone with access to the Internet. The CBS News Streaming Network is your destination for breaking news, live events and original reporting locally, nationally and around the globe. Launched in November 2014 as CBSN, the CBS News Streaming Network is available live in 91 countries and on 30 digital platforms and apps, as well as on CBSNews.com and Paramount+.
Subscribe to the CBS News RUclips channel: / cbsnews
Watch CBS News: cbsn.ws/1PlLpZ7c
Download the CBS News app: cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8
Follow CBS News on Instagram: / cbsnews
Like CBS News on Facebook: / cbsnews
Follow CBS News on Twitter: / cbsnews
Subscribe to our newsletters: cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Try Paramount+ free: bit.ly/2OiW1kZ
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
Denying service is your right as a creator, it is also your right to run your business into the ground.
you don't have the right to deny service for specific reasons as a business owner. it's pretty clearly spelled out
@@amino5453 but does the costumer have a “right” to ask a custom creator to create something that violates their religious tenets?
Cause the lgbtq1234lmnop group is so big and gonna ruin someone's business. It's called grt woke go broke not stay based go brokr
@@amino5453 Wrong
@@bustedloads9045 I am not sure "creators" will be thrilled if every request for service comes with,
"but before we proceed, let me interrogate you on your religious beliefs".
She has the right to not provide for the Gay Community and The Gay Community has the right to boycott her completely.
Wrong, that’s not how discrimination law works
you obviously have no idea of the history that line of thinking has taken us down before.
@Bo Bo Bo Uh no, but they should be forced to sell the FUBU clothes to any customer regardless of race. Same sex couples just want the website, they can make there own modifications.
I don’t understand why the lawyer is being asked so many questions but not allowed to answer. Just mind boggling!!! If she was allowed to fully answer the questions being presented to her, her point could have probably been made a long time ago! I like this attorney, she stands her ground while still holding her composure!😇
I wonder why Supreme Court cases aren’t shown to the public when others are. It’s a matter of transparency. Nothing should be private when deciding matters affecting the American people.
Hear hear
Federal cases are not normally allowed to be filmed.
From US Courts org
History of Cameras in Courts
Electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings in federal courts has been expressly prohibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 since the criminal rules were adopted in 1946. Rule 53 states: "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom."
Federal cases are not filmed
The fact that we have the audio is pretty transparent. We also get the transcripts right away . The opinions are issued with draft on the same day. It is all fairly transparent.RBG who I was no fan of made a good point that it makes it a lot more difficult to just have a direct back and forth with each other. Even in listening into this, I felt like some of the justices were getting extremely emotional when they are typically supposed to be somewhat stoic. So I was already questioning motive a bit without the camera. And there are already questions about the legitimacy/ integrity of the supreme Court that don't really stand up to scrutiny. I am not sure anyone is served better by a camera that shows a misplaced yawn or a prolonged blink or an awkward stare or anything that could be perceived as disrespect or bias. I don't disagree with transparency, I just don't think in this case It serves the purpose of increasing transparency and instead leads to unnecessary scrutiny and less genuine back and forths. Every branch of government has some level of secrecy and closed door meetings. For the justices. It is pretty much just the conference where they talk to each other, this is closed. Presumably so they can persuade each other and let down their guard a bit more. Besides, for that, we pretty much get updates and audio and transcripts and orders of the court every step of the way. It would be nice if the other two branches were as transparent.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
What a huge waste of tax money…
Never underestimate the left's propensity to use the force of government to force their values onto others.
THIS got to the Supreme Court!?!? That’s scary.
I’m thinking same
@Bo Bo Bo Actually, it's like the baby clothes store owner advertising baby clothes for the general public, but not for certain people's babies because the owner decides they are arbitrarily unworthy of her products.
@@lindseysummers5351 exactly!
@bobobo6960 really not the brightest bulb, are you?
The scariest part is that the Attorney General of Colorado is siding with the gay couple and believes the Christian woman MUST comply.
I love how social media can ban people for what they don't like but private businesses not named social media aren't allowed to run their business how they want.
'You must do what I say I want your services regardless if you like my ideologies or orientation'.......
Talk about slavery and oppression for real.
exactly, double standards. it’s rules for thee but not for me.
They are a public business and registered in CO. Maybe they shouldn't be in the business of making cakes supposedly for the public if they will openly and unabashedly refuse service based on their sexual orientation. No one was asking for their approval of their marriage. Right wingers can't seem to comprehend this. It called the tolerance paradox.
I don’t think Jackson understands free speech as it exists legally here
No one has absolutely freedom of speech especially at work.
@@sr2291 freedom of speech is absolute
but it exists in public or your own property
@@robinsss Then you just limited it.
@@sr2291 no
because we can endanger people
by saying certain things the founders would never make a law too protect that type of speech so freedom of speech does not include endangerment
no one has the right to endanger or libel
so these things were never protected under
freedom of speech
if you are on someone else's property
then thy control it and what ca be said on it
therefore your speech on someone else's property is not part of free speech
Glad I found this video. The news media spends zero time explaining the complexities and nuances of this issue. I was having difficulty understanding the true issue: Was it the SERVING of same-sex couples, or was it CREATING art/verbiage specific to same-sex couples that was in conflict. I think I found my answer at 0:32:25 to about x0:x36:x40. Again at 0:42:25
This is a big part of what I'm having trouble with. This is a lot harder for me to "make a ruling on" than I thought it would be. Perhaps I am a bit dense as I can't figure out based on the time stamps you provided, whether you are leaning on the side of serving or creating? What is your conclusion?
Her lawyers are trying to claim that art is speech and protected by the First Amendment.
@@mgm57901 'Serving' in this case. Had the clients requested art be created specific to same-sex-marriage, then I would lean toward compelled speech and 'creating'. I just think that denying access to a service based on the nature of the client is too close to discrimination, and could very easily devolve into outright discrimination as we saw under Jim Crow.
Wow, thank you for those time stamps, I had assumed this was a much more in the middle case. Now, it seems like a problem of discrimination laws vs religious rights.
Everybody creates "art". I am creating art right now with my creative RUclips comments.
Would this apply to a cake creator or website that doesn’t want to use a swastika on their product when a customer has requested it?
if the cake or website creator makes swastikas as a service to the public but refuses service to a black person that wanted one. then yes.
You have a point and I'm pretty sure one could sue over discrimination for it. But since the swastika, an ancient symbol in India, has been extremely tainted by the nazis, the debate in courts would be is it hate speech, which you can veto, or is it discrimination if the customer for race, religion, sexuality or age?
Swastikas are not protected by State Law. Sexual.Orientation is protected by Colorado Law
Listen to ABC Cakeshop case, already decided.
@@timgriffin3368 What was decided?
THE QUESTION IS NOT WHO BUT WHAT !!!
in this case, the what is inextricably tied to the who.
It is actually about the who. Three justices took great pains to demonstrate the holes in the woman's argument. Her lawyer even admitted it, while trying to say that what she's saying, is not actually what she's saying. This was some Twighlight Zone level of gaslighting.
@@amino5453
Only since the party implementing that link can't distinguish one from the other.
The what is a website for a wedding. The "for whom" seems to be the actual issue here.
There goes the neighborhood
Twitter used to ban people for their beliefs and Ideologies if it were the other way around we wouldn't even Hear about it...
You are running a business, and religion should not be brought into that business. You are blatantly discriminating against people with a different opinion. Religion is opinion based not factual.
This is the first I've seen a person use the term "discrimination" with the same reasoning that religious people have less of a right to promote who they are. The hypocrisy baffles me. A lgbt person has the right to make a lgbt business or state that they are lgbt and that may effect what kind of service is giving. A christian has the right to make christian business or state that they are a christian, and this may effect what kind of service is giving more than likely.
Discrimination against ones beliefs or religion exist u know...I think u should really read on it...maybe right an essay abt it lol
I stand by what I said. You seem to be the one with a problem. Again, if you refuse a service as a business because of your beliefs, then you are discriminating, as far as I am concerned. Get over yourself.
@@elite950 So under your warped logic. The LGBT community should have fewer rights than Christians? Doesn't sound very equal
Kagan's Questioning was lunacy...Religious freedom is an Amendment. She's bringing up Disabled people, which I do not know any religion that says disabled people, and interracial couples cannot get married.
Historically, interracial marriage has been prohibited and people did use the Bible to back up their belief. However, unlike gay marriage, there are actually examples of interracial marriage in the Bible. Also, religious freedom is protected by the constitution, but the Constitution also protects what Congress enacts. One of which was the civil Rights act. Unfortunately Gorsuch used the most chaotic reasoning to come up with a reason why orientation and sexual identity are protected. I think that is what makes the case difficult. Now that they are protected classes by extension of the constitution which allows Congress to make laws and allows the supreme Court to interpret those laws, orientation and gender identity are now protected. The problem is, so is religion. And this is what happens when those protected classes compete. Fun.
It’s such a straw man’s argument she just serves to make a viral audio. These ppl don’t understand religious freedom
This case is not being brought on the grounds of religious freedom, so they can't use that to argue their point. The grounds are free speech/compelled speech. That's why they are discussing strongly held beliefs, but not specifically or solely religious beliefs.
@@mgm57901 The problem is that sexual orientation is now a protected class, which it shouldn't be. Hormonal urges and a group of actions (e.g. homosexual acts) are NOT the same as racial characteristics.
@@musicman1eanda even more so now with people switching genders so easily.
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
Yes! Freedom hurts.
Saying No hurts peoples feelings now we can't do that anymore.
you have the right to refuse service to anyone. you do not have the right to refuse service for any reason.
@@amino5453 you have no right to refuse access to someone entering your house. You have no right to refuse food to someone entering your home. You have no right to refuse someone access to a bed in your home.
@@Honestcritic79 your house, food and bedroom are not registered with the state as a public business.
Creators have every right to go into business to sell content they want to make, and refuse to sell content they don't want to make. That is the heart of this entire case.
It totally depends if they have set up their business to be a public accommodation. If they are a public accommodation they have to follow their states laws.
@@sr2291 If a business doesn't sell a product to anyone, they can't be forced to create one. Public accommodation or not.
@@inigma_ITC really
So, if the cake maker does not like people of color she can deny them too? Wow. Welcome to America in 1930 all over again.
@@sr2291 Public accommodations offers GENERIC products and services. It is train tickets or hotels. This is about customized items. You cannot compel speech.
I don’t know if Keegan knows how a website is created…
Here is the thing. Uniform application of logic. If you are operating as a business, there are rules. If someone comes to me and asks me to cut a video for them and I refuse because they are gay-that’s discrimination. I can refuse on the basis that I don’t do wedding videos. The only basis you could argue this violates the business’s rights is if the business was incurring a financial loss (publishes site for lesbian couple, and religious clientele recoil). Damage could also come in the form of certain business benefit providers (publishes site, loses business insurance for violating TOS).
That said, this would be difficult to prove; however, the business owner just puts an indemnity agreement in their TOS and sues. This is an egregious waste of taxpayers’ money.
The big problem here is as follows. Businesses are already under assault. This Ill-conceived suit places businesses into a precarious situation that is likely to erode business rights even further.
You lost me on the last paragraph, maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but I'm not sure what you mean.
Yes, agreed, are under assault but what cones next. 'No Jews or Queers allowed' as a sign on your door. Or Black's or Cripples, etc???
@@timgriffin3368 If you buy into the fear mongering, yeah that is probably something to worry about. Reality says those will be far and few between. Even if businesses got a free pass on discrimination, a free market takes care of that by not tolerating a place with a no black sign.
Okay VSO, so based on your logic, Everytown for Gun Safety could come to you and say, "we want you to make a video entitled, 'Gays for Gun Control', and if you don't do it, they should be able to sue you in court for discrimination. Does that sound right? What has happened to our American freedoms that we have even gotten to this point??
@@musicman1eanda no, because that would be an organization contracting something. That said I would totally agree to make that video and charge them $2M and then do a terrible job.
1:51:26 cuts out
Colorado lost this case at 1:25:40.
Asking a question and constantly interrupting midst answer is just rude.
thank you for calling that out
Not if the questionee is wasting everybody's time by not answering the question and segwaying into nonrelevant. It's a court, not a tea time with your grandma.
Welcome to SCOTUS
Just make LGBT people a protected group, like that of race. That fixes these arguments...
They are . This is to take that away.
Colorado protects sexual orientation in its laws.
Really unfair for religion to be forced on people. Especially a cherry picked religon.
Why does this issue have to again be brought to the courts to decide personal matters, like abortion was? It's not uncommon for privately owned businesses to refuse service to someone for any number of personal, illegal reasons, i.e., "we don't like Blacks, Jews, women, Latinos, blondes, dark-haired people, overweight people, your religion, your reputation, your relatives, or just you as an individual." Instead, they'll disguise it by giving a legal reason, i.e., "we're all booked up" or "we're out of stock/discontinued that item," "it's outside our service area," "we're not taking any new clients right now," "the person who does that is out sick," "we can't get those supplies," "we're having technical issues," "we can't meet your specifications/deadline," "we're temporarily closed," etc., the excuses can be endless that enable a business to deny or urge a potential client to go elsewhere for a product or service. This case of a business openly denying service for religious reasons is just an absurd waste of time & stirs up more divisiveness in the country. They want to bring it to national attention bc what they really want is to force their religious thinking to become law, when, in fact, they have any number of other non-religious choices they could say is the reason. This is the same tactic they used about abortion, the desire to force their beliefs into law rather than people having a choice, like they did with Roe v. Wade. If the argument in this case was about artistic freedom/poetic license, where an artist was being prevented from producing a work of art, that would be a case of free speech, but this one isn't.
Good grief, this is not a comment; it's a speech ! I got sleepy midway thru it ..sorry
@@carolyn9444, That's OK, Carolyn, I didn't post it for people with their eyes closed or short attention spans. I'm a fast reader & typist & know what I want to say, so it didn't take me long to write, but probably was too long to read for someone who can't or doesn't want to focus on an important issue for a minute or two. Sorry😎
@Marie Smith I'm 67 years old and have always had difficulty focusing my attention . Even as a child, I would get sleepy if at a task more than a few minutes or in class.
So you're correct; I don't have the ability to focus on the whole comment without straying, but I attempted to.
Your sarcasm is unkind.
@@carolyn9444 , And what's your reason for not explaining that in your first reply, so I'd know before replying? Your original reply was sarcastic & now you want to make me seem "unkind." You're both sarcastic & unkind.
@Marie Smith you expect negativity; thus, that's what you see.
g'nite boo-boo.
The Supreme Court has no binding code of ethics… Think about that
the bill of rights
The amount of deception, misinformation and people moving with lies is staggering in Colorado, this is a very oppressive state.
Look at FL and TX. LOL
@@loreleilazuli8874 More like IL and CA
Resumes at 1:53:00
Thank you!!
Decency does not need to be justified, and yet religious beliefs do
Business motto im not gay but 20 bucks is 20 bucks. 🤣
Exactly. Or, you could be like the cake baker that threw away 40% of his business and had to lay people off, simply so he wouldn't have to serve "those" people. Or, if we want to harken back to an even older example, the Atlanta restaurateur who closed his establishment just so he wouldn't have to allow certain patrons. Both are or have cited their deeply held religious beliefs because they allegedly don't endorse hatred.
I’m pretty sure there are many more websites designers or w.e… if she doesn’t want too she shouldn’t be forced to do so!
Well if it's like what Colorado did with the baker they went to many web developers till they found a Christian who didn't want to participate in their wedding.
And we shouldn't be forced to sell services to blacks. Plenty of restaurants and housing developments. Personally I like to eat in peace and don't like... urban elements being introduced into my neighborhood
Couldn't agree with you more!
@@russellknippel1877 No. This lady/business filed the case before ever even opening her store.
@@camadams9149 you shouldn’t be forced to serve anyone. That’s slavery. I don’t care who it is.
@@stephanieanderson1924 But we are. So why should you get special privileges
This is such a skewed title.
Exactly! It's making the gay couple look like innocent victims when they are trying to get the woman to go against her conscience.
@@Andrew-sj9tr what gay couple...?
It is a fair title as the web-designer claims her free speech right, while the other party claims their right not to be discriminated.
@@young1736 if this was specific for gay ppl, I’d agree. But it’s not. She also won’t write specific measures for straight couples either.
@@stephanieanderson1924 You pointed out the key argument in this hearing. The web-designer said she refused due to the message. The colorado side said she refused because of the status.
This legal team is skewing the line between a business being a public accommodation and a business being free lance.
This actually could be bad for the movies or TV show industry especially Netflix, Crunchyroll, and Disney. Netflix made some rules about tolerating flims that goes against their beliefs some where similar to the issue such as this court case.
Edited: Depending on how this plays out it be could be nightmare to arts creativity industry in general.
This has nothing to do with generic, mass produced items or services. It is about FORCING a business to express, write, and celebrate your own customized message. You have no right to compel speech. If you come to my cake shop and ask me to make a custom cake and write on it "allah is the one true god" I can refuse. Because I do not have to create or celebrate a message that goes againt my beliefs.
I have no doubt the Colorado law is wrong as written and Lorie will prevail but the case used to challenge the law is questionable at best. As I understand it the scenario is a wholly theoretical one that could potentially evolve under the law as written but not a real-world occurrence which makes me question the plaintiff's standing. It also frames the debate in a decidedly controversial light as free speech vs LGBTQ rights when it should have been framed as government-compelled speech vs some stance that is less commonly socially acceptable. If it was a case of hiring a Muslim caricaturist to create lewd cartoons of Mohammed the ridiculousness of the law would be more transparent and less controversial.
Are you ready
What does this mean if “free speech” loses 🙄 it shouldn’t be used to try and demean other people it’s simple. But you also can’t force someone to say certain things. You can hold them accountable for what they say, but you can’t FORCE people or COMPEL them to call a spade a spade they don’t have to
i am not going to force someone to write something, but if they commodify their speech and then refuse a message that would be available to any other person based off their immutable attributes then they can't have a business license.
You missed part of the arguments where the justices spoke of an IDENTICAL website: the hetero couple could have it, the same-sex couple could not. No changes in anything other than the persons it was sold to. Try to defend that, if you can.
@@darknightofthesoul7628 what are you even defending? What if neither group should have the site. You said I missed it then gave me no context but told me to defend it based on your side of the arguments context… I genuinely wanted to understand. Here you go, acting like I’ve already picked a side 🙄
@@amino5453 oh yea it shouldn’t be able to operate in public if you’re gonna be on some “xyz people only” that’s easy for me to understand. However there is freedom of expression amongst private entities too. So I’m just trying to see where that fine line is.
@@4rtivist the line is when they register a business with the state. they can write or not write whatever they want when they keep it as a gig for friends, not a service for the public.
Enough of the tower of babel-ing !!
Expose all brood of vipers.
I know they live and I'm all out of bubblegum !!
These reprobates keep interrupting her.
Laborer in expression of? . Payment for denied service. State constitutional. Question of construction. In harmony harm of .
People should not be forced into business transactions, whether they are the buyer or the seller. FInd someone who wants to do business with you and who you want to do business with.
Totally agree. Why not let a business decline people based on race? The free market will take care of it and they will be out of business in 5 seconds. There may be a couple of exceptions in a couple of deep south cities in very rural areas. But honestly I don't even see that going well. Instead, we get government mandates and business owners just have to pretend they care and they can deliver a less quality product or service to those they don't like.
People offering a good and services to the public has to offer those goods and services to everyone equally and not single out and deny the goods and services to a protected class.
This is easily done in this case....but what about a service with more limited availability....such as medical care, or transportation? You can see where this might lead to. Care must be used with this decision.
Anyone who can be compelled, by government force or threat of force, to provide a good or service is not free. Those people are slaves. Perhaps they are slaves to the whims of a democratic majority, but indeed they are slaves. It amazes me that we have fallen so far away from the principles of individual liberty that this is even an argument.
@AD Mashburn If you couldn't marry the person you love and be served equally in the marketplace what would that make you? Every business has a ton of laws they have to follow to stay in business so your argument is silly at best.
So many ads
Sotomayor wanted a line and a rule. It's this: Is the discrimination against a Product in a Product Line, or is the discrimination against a Customer in the Public? That is the line. Discrimination against a Customer has clear limitations supported by the Constitution and by precedent, but discrimination against providing any specific Product in a Product Line is protected by the Constitution and by precedent. That is the rule. That is what the Court should follow. If the Customer is requesting a Product that includes their name, it is still a Product. The Product is not the Customer. Just as a Customer can choose which Products to buy, a Seller can choose which Products to sell. The Government can not and should not ever compel one over the other.
Differentiating content for one product vs other is a right any creator enjoys, just as differentiating meaning of one product vs another is a right any customer enjoys, even though both creator and customer may have entirely subjectively different opinions on content and meaning. The government has no right to interfere in deciding the content or meaning of a product between subjective opinions. It only has the responsibility to ensure the same exact content that becomes a product, is the same exact product that any customer can enjoy, regardless of the meaning. When a marriage website includes different names from customer to customer, then its a unique product, no matter how slight, in each and every single case. Thus in 303's case, they only provide hetero marriage websites. They don't have a gay marriage website product. Doesn't matter who is buying, or what any customer thinks their current products mean. The website sold celebrating Bob and Sue is not the same website celebrating Sue and Sue. Two entirely different products. One 303 provides, the other 303 does not, regardless of who's buying.
Marriage is marriage. There isn't "hetero marriage" and "gay marriage" under the law. This designer wants to offer marriage websites. There isn't such thing as a "gay marriage website"... just a marriage website created for a gay couple. That's an important difference.
@@drawntowardmadness A marriage website for Mary and Jeff is not the same as a website for Mary and Matthew. It could be a website about green apples. Doesn't matter. 303 is not permitted to refuse selling any of these sites to anyone with a protected status. What the government can't do is tell 303 to create a marriage website for Alice and Tom, or a website for Greg and Steve, regardless of who's making the actual product request. You are confusing the requestor with the content. The requestor is not being refused. The content is. Just as an artist can be commissioned by anyone with a protected status, but an artist can never be compelled to make art expressing a message they don't make for anyone.
Since the whole dispute is over content, and not who is requesting the content, It doesn't even matter if the government and a customer or a producer agree or not on the definition what is expressed in the content.
The government can not simply compel any artist to make a message that the artist wouldn't make for anyone, regardless of who is commissioning the artist.
Until you realize this, you are coming across as being totally in favor of the government saying you must create a banner with your name associated with it, that says gay marriage is of the devil, simply because a religious person is requesting it.
@inigmatus if it isn't about who the couple is, explain how the content is different without mentioning the couples' sexuality or gender
@inigmatus and I wouldn't make a banner that says that regardless of who requests it - it's more like if I offered customized birthday banners but want to be able to refuse to make them for anyone over 40 because I don't believe people who are that old should celebrate birthdays - I find it distasteful and disgusting when old people have birthday parties, and I cannot provide that service to the olds without going against my beliefs. I'll make them other banners, but no birthday banners will be made for anyone I believe is too old to celebrate.
@@drawntowardmadness one single pixed removed or added, creates an entirely different product, a product/creation that is totally within the right of anyone to refuse to create or make, regardless of who is asking.
Why do ppl insist on comparing black ppl’s struggles with bigotry and racism to lgbtq issues, when not all are comparable? When black ppl were refused service or rights it was EXACTLY the same as what others were getting! A person who happens to be BLACK trying to order & be served the SAME food other males & females of a different race were able to enjoy! When it came to education, housing, & many other things it was the same too!! The only difference was skin color/race! The lgbtq ppl that want this web page designer to do their page is looking for a service the owner does NOT offer to anyone else because they want a same sex marriage communication page when the owner only offer opposite sex to any patron! I personally would make the money and not care, but this person’s conscience & religious beliefs caused her to decline the service request. If the business owner offered it to some but not others I believe the case would be more strong unless I’m missing a perspective that makes this make sense? 🤔
Discrimination and bigotry are the same
This is what they do to pass their agenda
ur missing the point that she does offer service to LGBT ppl, it's just not gonna be LGBT service tho lol
which is absolutely fine, it's her business she has the right to say what's on the menu.
It’s because they are both protected classes.
The issue about religion and public accommodations has already been decided in a court of law.
From Harvard edu
States are empowered to pass anti-discrimination laws that apply to public accommodations (and those laws can prohibit sexual orientation discrimination as well as race, sex, disability, religion, and other forms of discrimination) and those laws apply to all businesses even if those businesses have religious objections to complying with those laws. The Court takes as a given, as a background assumption based on precedent, that public accommodation owners cannot avoid complying with antidiscrimination laws because of their religious beliefs. It is of crucial importance that the Supreme Court cites Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.,390 U.S. 400, 402, n. 5, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968)(per curiam), a case that applied the 1964 public accommodations law to a restaurant owner who had religious objections to having black and white people eating together. The Supreme Court in Newman v. Piggie Park rejected the restaurant owner’s argument that his free exercise of religion rights and “contravened the will of God” justified exemption from the statute by stating that this “is not even a borderline case,” and that the claims of the owner (including his First Amendment claims) were “patently frivolous.” Id.at 403 n.5. The citation of this 1968 case affirms that religious belief cannot be a reason for a constitutionally based exemption from an antidiscrimination law and that this same truth applies to cases of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
You cannot compel a person who creates something to create it the way you want it created. If I call what I do art and it is created by me with a customers input then I can decide what I create, not the customer. You can not compel me to adopt any more or any less of what the customer desires. It is my creation and the customer can accept it or refuse it. Compelling me to accept a consignment by anyone or for anything that I object to is coercion. Consider a creative actor. You can not compel that actor to accept a role they are offended by or that would make them perform an act that could disparage their own conscious or public image.
In this case the decision was absolutely correct. The web designer can not be forced to create a website that they oppose. At the extreme, if a group of Nazis showed up and demanded a website would you compel the web designer to accommodate their request? No, no person can be compelled to do anything because that is a form of slavery and violates my liberty.
A bartender has the right to refuse any patron. Sooo if the owner felt like he or she didn’t want to create for them I see no reason to waste people time and money. Shop some where else.
A bartendeder may not serve a patron based on their asessment of the persons alcohol infuence, not because they are gay or black or whatever.
@@robinhood20253which isn't the case. the refusal is based on giving a different service rather than who the service is giving to. If the bartender was asked to do something that wasn't on the menu then it isn't about gender, race, or sexuality. It's simply because you asked for something that could not be provided because that kind of service is not giving.
ACB is Queen!!! Yaaasssss 😂
I like the chef and server hypothetical. If the server (homosexual couple) serves the chef’s (303’s) food to their customers (friends and family), that doesn’t mean the it’s not the chef’s meal that he cooked.
Why are people arguing over a hypothetical situation?
Some chick in Colorado lost her mind.
Logic
Because a grown adult is acting like a giant baby about the State of Colorado telling her she cannot provide a product for public consumption while also excluding certain people because they're "icky."
@@lindseysummers5351 You mean mean bc she would be sued by ppl who also think she is “Icky.” Even though she has gay clients, and won’t serve heterosexual couple that she too didn’t agree with particular messages.
Hypothetical situation"? Have you been living under a rock the past few years? Homosexuals have become experts at specifically targeting bakers, florists, photographers, etc. who are known to be operating under Christian principles so that they can sue them. There are PLENTY of retailers who couldn't care less about providing their services for a same-sex "marriage", but homosexuals MUST demand that Christians bow to their new morality.
Take that information to court... He needs to be in real prison
It's discrimination because she's not going to refuse straight couples that have had 4 divorces... gotta follow "the whole bible"
Remember no shoes, no shirt, no service? This is all getting so ridiculous. And so is that female Lawyers. Why do these cases only involve Christian businesses? Muslim, Buddhism and many other religions hold the same belief. Jesus said, “ they hated me and they will also hate you” hold strong brothers and sisters, it won’t be long and we will see him face to face.
Everyone in Colorado has to follow Colorado law. Perhaps those other groups are in other states.
@@sr2291 bruh
If I were to ask a business to provide me with any service any creative endeavor and they find something about me that they don't like I would rather them just tell me the truth because I don't want to spend any time or money with somebody like you especially since I would rather put my money to somebody who just appreciates having the business
I don’t agree entirely but I respect ur opinion bc honesty and maturity is quite crucial.
The issue you raise is exactly what I found so odd about the Washington florist case. She’d served a gay couple many times. They asked for original arrangements for their wedding and she said she couldn’t do it, because of her beliefs. She offered to do a standard arrangement. They wouldn’t have it. She offered to sell them loose flowers at wholesale price (so making no profit), They wouldn’t have it.
She could very easily have said ‘OK’ and provided them with an utterly bland, textbook arrangement that if they then took to court, their lawyer would have had to struggle to prove wasn’t original, but she kept telling the truth. The couple won in court.
The upshot is that this couple started put their married life by trying to coerce someone different from them, with the help of a court case to cement the coercion.
Not a great basis for a marriage-marriage, which is all about getting along with someone who at the end of the day, by any criterion, is not you. How annoying that human beings are all different. I wonder if that couple is still married.
The lawyer for the website owner doesn’t sound very smart. 😂
Considering the subject matter at hand and the argument she put forth, that is a mighty tall order. I mean, hey, it takes a great deal of intelligence to graduate law school and pass the Bar, but she's not a miracle worker.
She's from a hate group which is known to make very nonsensical claims.
It’s her own private business. The government can’t force one to go against their beliefs that are protected under the 1st amendment.
No it is not her private business. She works for an employer who stated in court that his business is a Public Accommodation
@@sr2291 no that’s not true. It’s her own business
@@sebastianorozco1114 regardless, she is commodifying her services and speech as a business open to the public. if they have strong opinions or religious conviction which do not allow them to impartially provide because of an aversion to a protected status, then they need to change their business. the what and the who are inextricably tied in this scenario.
@@sebastianorozco1114 exactly it’s her business, period. she doesn’t have accommodate her hard work to fit everyone’s needs.
No one is forcing her to do anything, other than offer her services, which she wants to offer, to the ENTIRE public. Her argument in this case is so astonishing it made me go cross-eyed. She is asking the government to say it is okay for her to withhold her services from a portion of the population because of who they are, while also contending that she is not withholding her services from a portion of the public because of who they are.
Shameful decision today.
The better better question is whether freedom of religion can influences certain commercial events.
Posted on doctrine not religious. Religious Freedoms. In uses words form of identity. Type identity. Story. Religion
Person view on personal story person. People indentity that is represented in form say in speech censorship and applicable part's of . Question role or particular is the question
Can anyone say ethics?
Instead of Julie edison or cornelius rickman
Where is the press release business that is open to the public?
she’s a christian with tatts isnt that in the bible ur not suppose to mark up your body so a tatt artist can do her the same
she goes in a tatt shop
and that workers says im protecting u and what u believe and live by it says ur not suppose to mark up your body and im respecting your religeon and i can not do your tatt
💜🙏💜
If you offer a service you cannot pick and choose clients
She is discriminating against same sex Marriage
She absolutely wants to do that, discriminate against people, while arguing that she's not trying actively to discriminate against people.
so the issue around compelled speech went over your head it would seem.
She's looking for attention. It's obvious
@10:29. Wow. She's a Justice?
@11:19 . Thanks for cleaning that up Mrs. Wagner. You are amazing and they know it
😂
What are you referring to?
Lorie Smith Fame Seeker
What about “no shoes no shirt no service?” It’s funny these situations never pop up at a Muslim business….
Should American citizens /really/ have the freedom to make their own choices? What if someone gets offended!
Mark Stoddard, I agree. I unsubscribed to Yahoo comments bc of their "your language might offend someone, so your comment can't be published' policy. What's truly offensive about the policy is their unfair, biased enforcement of it, allowing people to be as offensive as they want as long as they disguise the words with misspelling or symbols, when it's obvious what they mean, but censoring a comment that spells the word accurately.
The lawyer is destroying their questions
Hope you're not talking about the first one, she's too defensive.
@@timgriffin3368Seriously. That first lawyer was absolute trash, can't believe she's tried multiple cases at the Supreme Court. And her answers sounded more like she was failing at a Press Conference rather than trying a case in a court of law. Embarrassing.
Meanwhile, some folks elsewhere in the world are chuckling over this new little attack on christendom.
Ads on this were killer…. CBS is given the privilege to this information and has to make sure they get their moneys worth 🤑
fr it's disgusting
RUclips premium!!!
While I disagree with turning down the gay couple I’m trying to turn this around. What if the owner was a gay person and someone went to them wanting a homophobic message in a customized website? Should the gay owner be compelled to do it?
Not if they wouldn't create that sort of content for any customer. The difference here is she wants to offer wedding websites, just not for weddings between two men or two women. They are all wedding websites however. The content is the same, the difference is who it is made for. Her argument is that the content is not the same because, to her, a gay wedding is not *by definiton* a wedding. The law doesn't support that, however, and she's offering wedding websites to the public.
She's not turning away gay people she's saying she will not create a product that condones gay marriages.
Talking about preaching about loving one another yet MR Alito might publicly leak that he don’t care for the L.G.B.T.Q plus Community smh really trying hard to find a loop whole.
He already has made his feelings quite clear through his public comments. He just has to be very careful to use coded language so as to keep up the facade of being nonbiased.
🎶 Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells , Santa's coming soon. Oh what fun it is to watch two & a half hours of an empty Supreme Court room hey ! Jingle Bells, Jingle bells...🎶
The he/she bs needs to go
Just respect people for who they are instead of your opinions.
@@robinhood20253 who said I’m Not respecting them, I’m saying don’t force us to use different words when I’m associating with you based on how you look not how tf you feel.
@@adamalomair why not just use the pronoun they ask? Why is this a big deal to people . does this force extra work on you
@@robinhood20253 because it’s a gateway to limit free speech,
@@adamalomair What? If someone asks you to use their pronouns you think it's a gross violation of free speech? You're ridiculous
Attractions and sexual actions should NOT be protected classes! 🤦♂️
there should be no classes protected against private sector discrimination
private companies have the right to discriminate
What if I asked you to make wedding cards for a guy that I know is sleeping with every girl around town but you're getting married to him and I know that
I don't care. I am not here to be your friend, your judge, or your counselor. If I am in business to make wedding stationary, tell me what you want, pay my fee, and you'll have it. Do with it what you like.
Ps. there are some clients one should be able to avoid ... one is people intimidating one to work by threat of suit. Turned down photos of Trump years ago because he is awful to be around and will sue for anything that serves his purpose. Will the official oil paintings for the supreme court be coerced? Any one who willingly works under the threat of suit is out of their mind. Again, are there compatible others willing to do the work? Authoritarians should not have given rights. I agree. How is this different? Among the stupid stretches could be does one have the right not to advocate for a "gay" fascist? This is different than a restaurant, the house painters who will do the official Supreme Court Oil portraits, or the bicycle mechanic who is forced to work on the supreme courts family BMWs. If the work is discernibly from the work of other ... and it must be to go to this trouble rather than simply go elsewhere . At what point must one be forced work for the same rates as everyone else ... for "equality"?
Would 303 make a gay marriage website, if a straight person asked them? If not, then how is this a matter of discrimination of customer status? 303 simply does not provide a gay marriage website product. To anyone. They only offer a hetero marriage website product. This is a clear case of the government wanting to compel someone to make something they don't provide, and ascribe their name to a message they do not support.
How odd
But she wants to provide wedding websites. How does the law distinguish between opposite sex and same sex weddings? I don't believe it does - they are all weddings. If she so strongly disagrees with that, perhaps offering wedding websites to the general public isn't the right move for her.
@@drawntowardmadness The government could call the sky green if it wanted to. Yet you as a person have every right to make and sell products that say the sky is blue, and refuse to sell or create any product that communicates that the sky is green. No matter who is asking to buy such. Even if the buyer has a protected status.
Otherwise, you're greenlighting the following:
Just because you're Catholic, you can sue a Jewish bookstore owner for refusing to sell Catholic bibles.
Just because you're disabled, you can sue a bike shop for refusing to carry a tricycle product line.
Just because you're a Republican, you can sue the Democratic sign maker for refusing to make and sell you a sign that says Make America Great Again.
Just because you're a man, you can sue a Women's Liberation group that sells engraved greeting cards, for refusing to engrave the message "men deserve equal treatment before the law, especially in custody cases."
To think you support a government that threatens to punish people if they don't speak government approved messages, and only sell products with such approved messages, or else not sell anything at all, is abhorrent to the very nature of free speech, freedom, and liberalism.
The government has no right to abridge or restrict the freedom of speech. Even in commerce.
As a Coloradoan, and a web developer, I have the right to refuse to create any website whose message I disagree with. I just don't have the right to refuse my service as a web developer to someone based on their protected identity.
What you are doing is confusing the person requesting the message, with the message being requested. They are two entirely different things before the law. I have every right as a citizen of the United States, to refuse to create any message I don't want to. I am sorry. I only provide websites describing married men and women. That's my product. Are you going to sue me for not offering any other product?
I also only make websites describing Jewish marriages. My iconography is Jewish. You have no right to tell me to make any other kind. I of course, sell what I make, to anyone. Even if they are Catholic. But my product remains the same: a Jewish marriage website. No matter who you are, I can sell you a Jewish website. I just don't make Catholic ones.
So too 303 will be happy to sell you or to ANYONE a website describing a marriage between a man and woman, even if its just the name of a male and the name of a female. But they do not offer a website where they will put male name and a male name, or a female name and a female name. Even a gay person can request a website for a male and a female. Got it? Doesn't matter who is requesting, 303 will not write the name of two males on a website product. Ever.
So tell me, knowing the above, where is the discrimination? Is it discrimination against the customer? Heck No! It's discrimination of the content. Always was. Even in the Master Cake case.
Until you realize you are confusing the customer with the content, you will not see this until it's your turn to make content you don't want or else get sued.
@@inigma_ITC false equivalencies
@@drawntowardmadness
Even if a straight person requested a marriage website that listed their friend Steve and his friend's partner Matt, 303 would have the right to refuse. Is this discrimination against the customer or is this discrimination against the content?
If against the content, then since when does the government have the right to determine what content a producer can or can not make?
Until you realize you are confusing the message with the one requesting the message, you will be totally in favor of the government forcing people to make content they have a constitutional right to refuse to make. Even if that government were to force a leftist hat maker that only sold leftist hats, to create MAGA hats anytime a Trump supporter wanted one.
Govt needs to exit the marriage business. The insurance companies are the only business that pushes this.
Marriage is a matter of civil contract between parties so government CANNOT "exit the marriage business". In any case, the issue before the court was not about marriage.
Nobody goes to a wedding service provider (caterer, website designer, invitation printer, venue operator, etc) and asks for their blessing for their wedding. They’re providing a service. That service does not include their opinion on the wedding, that’s not what I’m paying them for. Her speech is not included. If you don’t want to serve clients based on protected characteristics, don’t have a business. Grow up and get over yourself.
Nobody hires a wedding service provider with the expectation that wedding service provider is explicitly providing their own commentary on the wedding, nobody seeking those services or hiring those services see it that way at all.
By the way, this is textbook using the court for activism. I know that’s how the conservatives painted Obergefell but there were actually materially aggrieved plaintiffs that could show exactly how when the law was applied to them, it was in a discriminatory way with evidence by way of what had actually happened in reality. This is a plaintiff that isn’t even operating in the capacity she’s suing over, has not rendered services to anyone yet in the capacity she’s suing over, there is no action that’s taken place to argue against. There are zero facts of the case. This case and the way it came about is exactly what conservatives argue against and what they accuse their opponents of doing all the time. It’s an unripe hypothetical case by an activist group that’s been artificially manufactured from the ground up and conservatives are cheering for it. Absolutely zero principles.
Thank you. Nobody seems to grasp the concept of why discrimination cant be allowed. Or that this is just one more step in their plan to priviledge white christians
bruh no one goes to a CHRISTIAN BUSINESS aka even a school and start demanding them to do things that are against their faith. Well at least no dumb person would do that. Only ones who do, they're just out to instigate a problem.
@@elite950 And no one did here either. She didn’t even start publicly identifying as a Christina business until after litigation began. You can pull her website on the Wayback machine and she she added that she’s a devoted Christian after the ADF crafted her case and started suing the state. She hasn’t had a client for wedding website designing, she hasn’t even launched that part of her business yet.
@elite950 he's got you there on religion. Learn the facts And listen to the entire case before stating something so stupid. Her attorney even opposed the religious slant. You are exactly what's wrong with the USA.
@@danimalthebruce2569
So she had to bring up her creed from the get-go in order to have a case?
Good thing everything under the sun isn't as blatant as what the ADF has implemented, then.
798 years on welfare
2000+
This case is based on refusal to create product with same sex based content due to company-creator's personal beliefs.
If the LGBT owner of a company was asked to create a product with religious or conservative political based content such as " Vote Conservative"
Should they have the right to refuse without legal retribution ?
It should work both ways. Compelled speech is not free speech.
One is a protected class. She she be allowed to refuse interracial marriages?
@Lawyer LaLima she should not be forced to create a product that promotes a subject that violates her personal beliefs.
Yes
@Crispin Fornoff and, there are other companies that would do as the client wishes.
This seems more like lawsuit happy persons or promotion of a political statement/idea protest.
Judge Sotomayor I know we don’t get along, or have the same views, religiously, politically, philosophical opinions . With that said you will agree with my client in the affirmative, you will write, type and place what ever opinion my client holds, and you will check the win box 1-0. I will tell you how to write your creative response and publish it. If you dissent. 🤔. (It does feel like compelled speech doesn’t it.
that lawyer is either super young or inexperience...
She sounds young, but doesn’t sound inexperienced.
More. Wasted. Tax. Dollars.
I don't think hate is Christian.
Hating Christians is definitely a liberal thing. How dare they believe they still deserve religious freedom?
i don't think hate is Jainist. not sure i could say the same about christianity
Your point?
There is no stronger hate than Christian love
How would this cover translators?
If anyone wants to understand freedom of speech read Noam Chomsky from the 1970s and 80s
You see his connections to Epstein? They were island hopping pals!
IMHO, our First Amendment Right of Free Speech is non negotiable in any terms. I dont agree with nor condone anything that is obviously reprehensible, ignorant, offensive, demeaning, dehumanizing etc..... an example of racial prejudice(which is easily a "default" argument) is just one among countless others.
Its also MHO that a free society that strives to be "more perfect", requires to uphold a persons right to express such views and beliefs just the same. Without it would prevent/undermine the organic maturity/experience/growth necessary to progress towards the "ultimate goal" of a society.
It's only through having been exposed to all things "good and bad" and learning to distinguish between them, that will lead to ultimately realizing what is truly good and bad, right and wrong.
Why did you include/ qualify yourself " IMHO", in your reply ?
Pretty interesting that the courts legitimacy is in question because of the conservative bias, but the emotion and anger is all coming from the liberal bloc. Kagan isn't great but better than the other two. Sotomayor is aggressive and demeaning in her questioning. Jackson sounded like her voice was cracking from stress or anger for about a minute straight at one point. And they don't even pretend to hide their bias. I am fairly certain I know how Alito and Thomas will vote but they were not overly biased in their question. As for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Robert... I could predict how they will vote but they honestly seem like toss ups. The problem is not that the court leans too far one way. It is that for the first time we have a majority that is concerned with the Constitution as opposed to popularity.
This isn't the firsmajority. Roe V Wade was ruled in 1973 court was 6 Republicans and 3 democrats. Five Republicans ruled in favor of roe.
Destroying church state separation and allowing religion to influence government is unconstitutional. Allowing unlimited dark money is unconstitutional. Ruling for corporate interests is unconstitutional. Allowing erosion of public education is unconstitutional. Voter suppression is unconstitutional. Having a sexual predator on the court is unconstitutional. Appointing justices based on religious and political ideology is unconstitutional.
What happened to these So called Christians word of God, "Judge Not and Ye Shall Not be Judged Or "Vengeance is Mine. Saith the Lord." "Love Other's as you Love Yourself. "
Only do these people Use God's Name in Vain when it fits their own Agendas. Why Didn't that Photographer just Decline without her Shameful Public Discrimination?
Just another Christian Hypocrite when they Can't Trust their Own God to Leave the Judgement up to him or Maybe God Won't make the Right Judgement they see Fit?😆
I recommend actually reading the WHOLE bible and actually siting the scripture you promote. Because then you would get the understanding that accomodating sin is still a sin. You hate the sin not the person. In all honesty I'm not very christian but I apply the same logic in all perspectives. If a atheist did not want to engage in a christian activity, they have every right to decline. no matter if this was in a business setting or school setting.
A person can decline your request for service if said service is not on the menu. And in this case, I'm hella sure it wasn't.
the web designer is actually the one being discriminated against on behalf of her beliefs. with everything being needlessly escalated, discrimination against ones beliefs or religion is a thing u know despite ur acknowledgment.
TWITTER FILES RELEASED!!!!!
Walking around saying they're racist and ignant
Ignant? Wow. Look in the mirror 🪞
As a gay person I want to know all the places willing to discriminate so I can never go there.
Casey, and tell all of your straight friends, too. Boycotting is one of the best forms of protest and can be very effective. I have the feeling that Lorie Smith may be doing more harm to her business through exclusion.
Not how this works. You need to go to every business till you find one that does't want to create art for sexual debauchary and that is the business you insist on wanting to use.
That’s what I was thinking; like why give them your hard earned money if they don’t want your business to begin with?
As gay guy I wouldn’t care to make a religious service to y’all but if you don’t want to make me one I’ll respect it.
Thomas should have gone to prison for raping Anita Hill
Hopeful short-sided people on the right never realized how bad this would work for them if an ambulance driver or someone working in the nursing home decides to look at your social media before they decide whether to save your puny life
trump haters would probably do that to trump supporters in all honesty and claim it to be in the name of love and tolerance lol
Kagan, Jackson and Sotomayor = Curly, Moe and Larry 🤡
Justice Kagan is far too dense to represent the people and the Constitution.