Supreme Court rules for web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by joe@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a web designer can refuse to create websites for same-sex weddings on religious grounds. The case involved a Colorado web designer named Lorie Smith, who refused to create a website for a same-sex couple's wedding. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, alleging that Smith's refusal violated their civil rights.

all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] VictoriousStalemate@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Another good SCOTUS ruling.

What about the web designers civil rights? It doesn’t seem right to force someone to perform work that is at odds with their religious beliefs.

While I disagree with the web designer, the same-sex couple is free to find another developer.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

What if instead of a web designer, it's a grocery store? And it's the only grocery store in town?

Still a good ruling?

[-] Pyrozo007@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

If you refuse to make the same product for someone because they're gay, that should be illegal.

If you refuse to make a product because it's gay, that should be within your rights. However much of a terrible person that makes you.

If a Christian asked me to make a Christian website, I'd say no and that should be within my rights. If a Christian asked me to make a hobby photography website similar to one I made for someone else, I should not be allowed to refuse on the grounds that they are Christian.

[-] joe@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Weddings aren't gay; it's just a wedding in which the people involved are gay. Refusing to make a wedding website solely because the people getting married are gay is exactly what you claim should be illegal.

[+] Kantiberl@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

[deleted]

[-] Nepenthe@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

That would be because it implicitly leads to instantaneous segregation of some kind. The idea is nice, but it never goes well.

Don't like X at your restaurant? There are other restaurants. What about when none of them will serve you either, because it's a small town and the owners are all friends? Can't eat takeout if you're the wrong ethnicity now?

What if the career you're trying to break into is a hard one and they have other candidates that fit the company better, despite being far less qualified (they are straight)? There are laws in place against this, but they're the same ones that got affirmative action overturned because it was ruled that favoring against the majority was still oppression. That could logically make it to the floor if the first one did.

Naturally, this would extend to education. It is their strongly held belief that they shouldn't have to teach and learn alongside others whose ideals or status they disagree with. Disruptive to the atmosphere. They can always just...set up schools specifically for them, if they're bothered.

[-] root@precious.net 0 points 1 year ago

this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023

2 points (75.0% liked)

politics

19072 readers

3834 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News