![]() ![]() Smith has not yet created any wedding websites or been asked to do so for a same-sex wedding, but argues Colorado's law violates her free speech rights since the state is forcing her to express a message she disagrees with. The state's law prohibits businesses open to the public from refusing service because of sexual orientation and announcing their intent to do so. In addition to wanting to design websites to express God's "design for marriage as a long-long union between one man and one woman," Smith also wants to post a message explaining why she cannot make custom websites for same-sex weddings, which states that doing so compromises her Christian beliefs and tells "a story about marriage that contradicts God's true story of marriage."īut refusing to design custom websites for a same-sex wedding, and detailing why she plans to do so, could violate Colorado's public-accommodation law. Smith started her web design business, 303 Creative, roughly a decade ago, and wants to expand to create websites for weddings. The case was brought by Smith, who said her Christian beliefs prevent her from creating custom websites for same-sex weddings. Elenis undermines that basic truth, and painfully it comes during Pride month when millions of Americans across the country join together to celebrate the contributions, resilience, and strength of the LGBTQI+ community." Smith's religious objection to same-sex weddings "The Supreme Court's disappointing decision in 303 Creative LLC v. "In America, no person should face discrimination simply because of who they are or who they love," the president said in a statement. President Biden, meanwhile, criticized the court's ruling and said he is concerned it could lead to discrimination against LGBTQ Americans. "Disagreement isn't discrimination, and the government can't mislabel speech as discrimination to censor it." "The court reiterated that it's unconstitutional for the state to eliminate from the public square ideas it dislikes, including the belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife," she said in a statement. Kristen Waggoner, who argued on behalf of Smith, cheered the decision and reiterated that Smith's decisions to create speech hinge on the message being requested, not who is making the request. The Supreme Court has now said states cannot, as forcing artists to create such speech would violate their free speech rights. It also resolves a lingering question, left unanswered since 2018, of whether states can compel artists to express messages that go against their beliefs in applying their public-accommodation laws. The decision from the justices is the latest in a string of successes for religious organizations and individuals who have sought relief from the high court and its conservative majority. "The opinion of the Court is, quite literally, a notice that reads: 'Some services may be denied to same-sex couples.'" "he decision itself inflicts a kind of stigmatic harm, on top of any harm caused by denials of service," Sotomayor wrote. The dissenting justices said the majority's decision gives businesses a "license to discriminate." Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images Members of both sides of the debate stand in front of the Supreme Court on Monday, Dec. "Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class," Sotomayor wrote. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |