Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Another victory for the Constitution

The Supreme Court just ruled that Colorado can't force a website designer to design wedding websites for same sex marriages. The First Amendment smiles.

"The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy. In this case, Colorado
seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views
but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the
past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested
the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they
thought vital at the time. But abiding the Constitution’s commitment
to the freedom of speech means all will encounter ideas that are “misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574. Consistent with
the First Amendment, the Nation’s answer is tolerance, not coercion.
The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish,
not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise
consistent with the First Amendment. "

303 Creative v. Elenis

It's a shame that we have to have challenges to the first amendment that go to the Supreme Court but I'm glad they got it right.

Another win. Biden's Student loan forgiveness struck down. 6-3.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf

Also the other case DOE v Brown. No standing

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-535_i3kn.pdf

Those danged 'abby-normal' courts!

So she was never sued?

Not as far as I know. She sought a determination from federal courts on whether her plan to not design gay marriage websites would violate Colorado's public accommodation law before any legal action was taken by Colorado.

It's a bit unusual, as federal courts usually refuse to rule on questions prior to government action being taken (i.e., advisory opinions), but I guess there was something about the fact that Colorado has already used this law to attack the First Amendment rights of others, like cake designers, so the issue is ripe now.

So they can no longer force Christian bakeries to bake cakes with homo messages on them?

That's what the ruling SHOULD mean, but it's California Jr. (Colorado), so they'll probably try to limit this case to its facts (websites, etc.).

When the court took up the case of Christian bakers they ruled in a weird way, saying that the government entity had expressed an open hostility to religion in its deliberations, and didn't hit upon the underlying law's constitutionality. Here, the court finally addressed the competing interests of one party's religious beliefs and the state's desire to protect gays.

It's clear from the opinion, though, that the baker, website designer, etc., can't refuse to serve gays....they can only choose to not engage in expressive activity, like designing a cake or a website, if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

In other words, the baker can't bar gays from coming into his shop, nor can he refuse to sell gays cakes because the customer is gay. BUT, he doesn't have to design a cake with a message that offends his religion.

Thanks for the updates, Remsen. I promise not to bash attorneys today. You have renewed my hope for the legal profession that there are still good lawyers with good intentions. You and 6 members of the US Supreme Court. Those other 3 I still have issues with.

kwg

The Heros Act was only intended to garner votes for the midterms. There was no way in hell this was going to be supported under the US Constitution.

So pay up you silly fückers.

The sad thing is that the 3 Liberal justices who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution will always put political considerations before the oath they swore.

Love the ruling. People who wear spandex will hate it.

Biden has already asked congress to pass new laws protecting the queers in light of this ruling. Hey Joe, did you know that the only way congress can overrule the constitution is to enact a new amendment? Remember the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 70's? It never got ratified. If it had, it would be playing big in passing new pro-queer laws.

It has been an outstanding week for SCOTUS rulings. Thanks for the post and comments.

So, mean tweets and all, it would seem the New York Billionaire managed to do something for the Country.

More to come when the 9th and other Circuits rule favorably on 2A issues and the States push it to SCOTUS........................assuming the Dems don't get control of both Houses and add more Justices under their next watch.

👍👍👍

Me too, especially the latest one that was seated simply because of her/it's skin color and because she's (supposedly) a woman. Affirmative action before the SCOTUS ruled against it.