And Andy Craig’s tweets on the distinction between guaranteeing marriage equality and the overly broad application of sexual-orientation nondiscrimination laws to prosecute small business owners who, based on adherence to traditional religious beliefs, choose not to provide expressive services celebrating same-sex marriages.
Going all the way back to Obergefell and before, there’s been a concerted effort to conflate two totally distinct and independent things: civil marriage for same-sex couples and anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation.
— Andy Craig (@AndrewRCraig) November 17, 2022
Another view:. Even if you don’t think creating a wedding cake for a gay marriage is protected free speech (as I do, as expressive messaging), the case is stronger when it comes to website design.
I agree with Brad Polumbo but the difference is the state of Colorado would not prosecute the LGBTQ business owners.
Added:
I support a website designer’s legal right to refuse to design a gay wedding site, and I support this restaurant’s right to refuse to host an antigay organization https://t.co/Mh7CZAHMNG
— David Boaz (@David_Boaz) December 6, 2022
5 Comments for “Protecting Two Fundamental Rights”
posted by Edward TJ Brown on
If the right-wing has its way, marriage equality will not be a right…..
posted by agee on
If the progressive left has its way, the only allowed speech will be compelled agreement with what the progressive left is advocating at the moment.
posted by Kosh III on
I’ll believe this is a sincere attempt when a shopkeeper refuses to serve Jews, or black folks, or Puertoricans or Mormons or Baptists and the regressive right supports that.-with loud enthusiasm.
Until then, I call BS. This is just one more attempt to deny gay folks “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. “
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“I’ll believe this is a sincere attempt when a shopkeeper refuses to serve Jews, or black folks, or Puertoricans or Mormons or Baptists and the regressive right supports that.-with loud enthusiasm.”
Be patient. Stephen is no doubt preparing a post citing Polumbo, Craig and the rest of the crew loudly and enthusiastically supporting Metzger Bar and Butchery. It might take a day or two.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As I think about this, I am wondering if we are looking at this from the wrong direction.
The Court has, over the years, attempted to define the scope of religious exemption from laws of general application, wavering back and forth (for example, Yoder expanded the scope of religious exemption from laws of general application, only to have Justice Scalia pull the rug out from under in Employment Division, which in turn led Congress to step in with RFRA, restoring Yoder, followed on by Bourne, which held that RFRA could not be imposed on the states.
Whatever the Court decides in 303 Creative, the decision is almost certainly going to amount to nothing more than yet another adjustment of the ever-changing line relating to religious exemption from laws of general application. The only certain result of a decision in 303 Creative is that the decision will spawn many more cases.
That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, because the line will always be under adjustment. I’m wondering if a better solution would be to (1) exempt religious organizations and adherents from compliance with anti-discrimination laws, and (2) remove “religion” as a protected class under anti-discrimination laws. It seems to me that would solve the problem in large part. Christians would be able to discriminate at will but others would be allowed to discriminate against Christians at will.