Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Where Does Freedom of Speech End?

—

by

Dick Hall-Sizemore
in , ,

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

I have a question.

Under the recent Supreme Court case ruling that a wedding website designer could refuse to provide her services to a gay couple because to do so would require her to write something that she did not want to say, thereby violating her First Amendment right to free speech, if I were the owner of a sign shop could I refuse to make signs for Democratic candidates because I do not want Democrats to win elections and to require me to design a sign that says “Elect ______, Democrat for State Senate” would violate my freedom of speech?  What if I refused to make such signs for Black candidates because I don’t think Blacks should be elected to office?  Or women candidates?  Or Catholic candidates? Or Jewish Candidates?

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

96 responses to “Where Does Freedom of Speech End?”

  1. Bob X from Texas Avatar
    Bob X from Texas

    The free market punishes businesses that discriminate based on race by diverting funds to other business that will cater to the unserved group. No business can survive not serving 50% of their potential customers.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I doubt if gay couples would constitute 50 percent of this web designer’s customer base. Howevdr, how much of a potential customer base is involved is beside the point.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I doubt if gay couples would constitute 50 percent of this web designer’s customer base. Howevdr, how much of a potential customer base is involved is beside the point.

  2. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    It would be absurd to require a Democratic campaign consultant to work for a Republican candidate he or she opposed. As a lobbyist, I had total choice over which clients I would accept. Nobody could compel me to represent them. Why would a gay couple getting married WANT to work with somebody hostile to their union? The line can be hard to draw between “speech” and “providing a service” but when I think when actually creative effort at communication is involved, that is speech. My initial reaction to the decision was actually mixed, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized going the other way produced very ridiculous results.

  3. William Chambliss Avatar
    William Chambliss

    The decision in the case turned on the so-called web designer not being compelled to say something contrary to her religion, which apparently permits discrimination against LGBTQ persons. It was a “freedom of religion” case, not a “freedom of speech” case.

    I say so-called web designer because she was not actually in the web design business and had never been asked to create a web design for anyone, gay or straight.

    Basically, the Court took the opportunity to issue a declaratory ruling; there was not any case or controversy for it to decide….

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      You are right that, actually, it was a freedom of religion case, but the Court’s decision was couched in terms of freedom of speech. That is why I posed the questions I did. Being based on freedom of speech, the case opens up all sorts of possibilities, not related to religion.

      You are right that it was, in reality, a declaratory ruling, something the Court has said it would not issue.

      1. William Chambliss Avatar
        William Chambliss

        Justice Frankfurter rightfully called advisory opinion, “Ghosts that slay….”

      2. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        If you have followed the Masterpiece Cakeshop situation at all, then you should understand the need for a pre-enforcement challenge. Once it became known that Phillips had conscience problems creating wedding cakes for gay weddings, gay couples came out of the woodwork to provoke a lawsuit and ruin his business.

        It was inevitable that she would be placed in a similar circumstance as Masterpiece Cakeshop, so she decided to challenge the Colorado anti-discrimination law prior to being sued.

        Smith’s case was a pre-enforcement challenge, which allows people to avoid the choice between risking prosecution or giving up their freedom. Pre-enforcement lawsuits have been a hallmark of America’s tradition of civil-rights litigation for over a hundred years. And the Supreme Court has ruled on more than a dozen pre-enforcement cases in the last ten years. Pre-enforcement challenges have been brought by parties across the ideological spectrum. This includes the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, to name a few.

        https://adfmedia.org/case/303-creative-v-elenis

        That was wise, as the lawsuit against the state would not result in damages being awarded if she lost.

    2. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      there was not any case or controversy for it to decide….

      That being the case, how did it end up before the Supreme Court?

      1. William Chambliss Avatar
        William Chambliss

        They aren’t “last because they’re right; they’re right because they’re last.” In other words, whatever any 4 or 5 of them want to hear, they will hear.

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          But who asked them to hear it?

          You said there was not any case for [SCOTUS] to decide, yet there was a case and it was heard by a Colorado District court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th District.

          1. William Chambliss Avatar
            William Chambliss

            One can always find a sympathetic Federal District Court judge to embrace a particular cause…..

    3. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      “It was a “freedom of religion” case, not a “freedom of speech” case.”

      That’s nice, you can have your opinion as can we all.

      That is not what the court ruled. Its opinion was that the essential issue was compelled speech, not religion.

      The religious angle would make it a twofer, rejected under the establishment clause too. But that was not the basis of the decision.

      1. William Chambliss Avatar
        William Chambliss

        From the majority opinion:

        The government could require “an
        unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message,” or “an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal,” so long as they would make films or murals for other members of the public with different messages. Id., at 1199. Equally, the government could force a male website designer married to another man
        to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage. See Brief for Petitioners 26–27. Countless other creative professionals, too, could be
        forced to choose between remaining silent, producing speech that violates their beliefs, or speaking their minds
        and incurring sanctions for doing so. See, e.g., Brief for Creative Professionals et al. as Amici Curiae 5–10; Brief for
        First Amendment Scholars as Amici Curiae 19–22. As our precedents recognize, the First Amendment tolerates none
        of that.

        When the Court protects “beliefs” I don’t think it is referring to secular matters. YMMV.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          It does vary. From your citation:

          “forced to choose between remaining silent, producing speech that violates their beliefs”

          Beliefs period, not religious or any other qualifier.

          1. William Chambliss Avatar
            William Chambliss

            https://adflegal.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/303-Creative-v-Elenis-Stipulated-Facts.pdf

            Read the stipulated facts of the case and see if you can discern a non-religious “belief” that Plaintiff’s case turned on.

      2. William Chambliss Avatar
        William Chambliss

        And further:

        The parties agree that Ms. Smith “will gladly create custom graphics and websites for gay, lesbian, or bisexual clients or for organizations run by gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons so long as the custom
        graphics and websites” do not violate her beliefs        . App. to Pet. for Cert. 184a. That is a condition, the parties acknowledge, Ms. Smith applies to “all customers.” Ibid. Ms. Smith stresses, too, that she has not and will not create expressions that defy any of her beliefs for any customer, whether that involves encouraging violence, demeaning another person, or promoting views inconsistent with her religious commitments.

      3. William Chambliss Avatar
        William Chambliss

        And then this passage, from the dissent:

        303 Creative has never sold wedding websites. Smith now believes, however, that “God is calling her ‘to explain
        His true story about marriage.’” Brief for Petitioners 7 (quoting App. to Pet. for Cert. 188a). For that reason, she says, she wants her for-profit company to enter the wedding website business. There is only one thing: Smith would like her company to sell wedding websites “to the public,” App.to Pet. for Cert. 189a; Colo. Rev. Stat. §24–34–601(1), but not to same-sex couples. She also wants to post a notice on
        the company’s website announcing this intent to discriminate. App. to Pet. for Cert. 188a–189a. In Smith’s view, it
        would violate [her] sincerely held religious beliefs         to create a wedding website for a same-sex wedding because, by doing so, [she] would be expressing a message celebrating and promoting a conception of marriage that [she] believe[s] is
        contrary to God’s design.” Id., at 189a.
        Again, Smith’s company has never sold a wedding website to any customer.

    4. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      “I say so-called web designer because she was not actually in the web design business and had never been asked to create a web design for anyone, gay or straight.”

      Who told you that? It’s not true, as stipulated by both sides in court. Smith incorporated 303 Creative in 2012, four years before the lawsuit was filed. She has a website design business, and decided to expand services to include weddings.

      https://303creative.com/websites/

      Smith’s case was a pre-enforcement challenge, but after the case was filed she did in fact get requests for custom web site designs for weddings.

      Undisputed facts are in the opinion itself.

      https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

    5. vicnicholls Avatar
      vicnicholls

      Still wrong: https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/colorado-web-designer-hits-back-against-claim-same-sex-marriage-request-was

  4. M. Purdy Avatar
    M. Purdy

    This was actually one of the least surprising outcomes of the term, and sadly has been overtly politicized. Bottom line – the law cannot compel speech, and the Court has said that the creative endeavor, such as designing nice wedding cakes or designing websites, qualifies as speech. Mind you, it does not mean that you can refuse to serve gays or minorities in your store, which is commercial in nature. The one thing that may be problematic with the ruling, however, is if the actual controversy involved has been fabricated. There’s growing evidence that it may have been, in which case there’s a very serious question about whether the ruling must be vacated.

    1. William Chambliss Avatar
      William Chambliss

      It absolutely was. The plaintiff was not, in fact, a web designer at all.

      1. M. Purdy Avatar
        M. Purdy

        Wasn’t it the person the web designer claimed had asked her to design the website who was fraudulent? Sort of crazy that it made it this far if true.

        1. William Chambliss Avatar
          William Chambliss

          No, the man that she claimed asked for the website was already married, to a woman, and denied ever making the request. She made it all up.

          1. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            Yes, we’re saying the same thing. And if that’s the case, then I think there is a real question about whether the decision needs to be vacated.

      2. vicnicholls Avatar
        vicnicholls

        Can you back that up with facts? https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/colorado-web-designer-hits-back-against-claim-same-sex-marriage-request-was

    2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      Where were Colorado’s lawyers at the trial stage? They had access to discovery and cross examination. And if you don’t make a challenge to the trial court’s findings of fact when required, you cannot challenge them later.

      Once again, America’s journalists display their ignorance of darn near everything.

      1. vicnicholls Avatar
        vicnicholls

        The major perps of all the misinformation out there are at again. https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/colorado-web-designer-hits-back-against-claim-same-sex-marriage-request-was

      2. M. Purdy Avatar
        M. Purdy

        “And if you don’t make a challenge to the trial court’s findings of fact when required, you cannot challenge them later.” Just like everything in law, there are exceptions. In any event, I don’t think the request, real or not, was central enough to the case to warrant any action.

    3. vicnicholls Avatar
      vicnicholls

      https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/colorado-web-designer-hits-back-against-claim-same-sex-marriage-request-was

  5. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    So Dick cam a minister and his church be forced to marry gay couples yes or no?

    1. John Harvie Avatar
      John Harvie

      I sure hope not.

    2. William Chambliss Avatar
      William Chambliss

      The answer to that is No

  6. Tom B Avatar
    Tom B

    Who makes it political, the requestor or the requestee? Is it your request for a political slogan, or his refusal? You have the right to free speech, does he have to provide it? Does the NYT have to carry news articles provided by Q-Anon to be in compliance with free speech?

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      By the true definition of a right, the requester is the one making it political.

      If exercising one of your “rights” requires action on the part of another person or persons, then it is not really a right.

      To define rights otherwise is to promote indentured servitude at best, or slavery at worst.

  7. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    It is my understanding of the recent case that the designer did not object to providing “standard” products that were offered for sale to everyone. Where the line was drawn was compelling creative work (speech) for specific things the designer objected to. That is, compelling speech.

    Thus a generic Elect Joe Blow, Dem would be required whereas designing a web site or media campaign involving creative work (speech) would not be. Equally, public accommodations require serving all citizens from the menu, while requiring preparation of specific esoteric foods would not be compelled.

    Seems pretty simple and straight forward if one is not trying to confuse the issue or to be offended.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      What if I were asked to use my creative talents to design a website for a Jewish synagogue? Could I refuse because I do not believe in the tenets of the Jewish religion and to make me create such a website would violate my freedom of speech?

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        Sure, if that was not on your list of offered products. Compelling that speech is what is out of bounds.

        That would be a twofer, government compelling that Jewish religious speech would also run afoul of the establishment clause.

      2. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        Sure, if that was not on your list of offered products. Compelling that speech is what is out of bounds.

        That would be a twofer, government compelling that Jewish religious speech would also run afoul of the establishment clause.

      3. VaPragamtist Avatar
        VaPragamtist

        What if you were a devout Jew–should you be compelled to create a website for a neo-nazi organization, the purpose of which is to “disprove” the Holocaust?

        Or if you’re a devout Muslim–do you have the right to refuse designing a website commissioned by an ultra-conservative, non-denominational Christian church that promotes blasphemous cartoons featuring images of the prophet Muhammad?

        We can’t go cherrypicking the beliefs we allow under First Amendment protections. It’s all or nothing, regardless of how much we agree or adamantly disagree with them.

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          No. Yes.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Ironically in Russian there is a phrase that would apply.

            “Da nyet”

      4. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        What if a conservative billionaire had purchased The Atlantic and demanded that Ta-Nehisi Coates write an article that examined the positive aspects of White Supremacism?

        You can’t compel speech.

  8. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    It would be absurd to require a Democratic campaign consultant to work for a Republican candidate he or she opposed. As a lobbyist, I had total choice over which clients I would accept. Nobody could compel me to represent them. Why would a gay couple getting married WANT to work with somebody hostile to their union? The line can be hard to draw between “speech” and “providing a service” but when I think when actually creative effort at communication is involved, that is speech. My initial reaction to the decision was actually mixed, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized going the other way produced very ridiculous results.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Assume that the customer provides the language (the words) to used on the website and the designer’s job is create an attractive website that has specified functions, such as RSVP, etc. In such a case, would the website designer’s creative effort be classed as “communication” protected by the First Amendment?

      This case is a lawyer’s dream.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        “the designer’s job is (to) create”

        That’s where you cross the line into protected speech. C’mon Dick this is not a difficult concept.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          Therefore, although I have a public business, I can refuse to “create” something just because I disagree with the customer?

          Another example, a Black couple goes into a restaurant and orders a fancy meal. Can the chef refuse to use his “creative” cooking talents to prepare that meal because he disagrees with the idea of “Black Lives Matter”?

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Yes, as a business you offer products for sale, they must go to anyone who wants to buy (with some exceptions, think liquor stores and drunks). You cannot be compelled to create a product just because someone asks you to. This is really simple, don’t over think it.

            If that meal is on the menu and is offered for sale the answer is no he cannot refuse (see my response to you below). He (repeating your sexist assumption) can refuse to create an ethnic entree for the BLM wastrels.

          2. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Real life situation occurred in 2018 when the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington refused to serve Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family because of her service in the Trump Administration.

          3. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            My understanding is that Virginia allows denial of service based on political beliefs. The reasons under which you must serve somebody are specific – race, religion, etc. However, business owners have the right to deny service for any reason other than those enumerated in the law. You certainly can deny service based on how somebody is dressed. I also believe that DC has specifically legislated that you cannot deny service based on political beliefs.

            Maybe Virginia should follow DC’s lead.

          4. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Certainly was the way it worked in Lexington, and remember the “No shirt, no shoes, no service” signs?

            Seems likely that Virginia’s law is left over from the bad old days of segregation, and that it has been patched with a couple of exceptions to cover its worst warts.

            After this ruling it likely needs more specific limits to pass muster.

          5. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Yep. That was wrong then and it would be wrong now under this decision.

          6. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Conservative and businesses important to conservatives are denied service without repercussion.

            https://www.foxnews.com/us/us-banks-financial-institutions-severing-ties-gun-industry

            LGBTQ activists don’t want to be treated like everyone else, they want to be given special treatment as oppressed minorities. Their views and lifestyle can’t just be allowed, they must be celebrated, and promoted. Any opposition must be crushed.

          7. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            The meal is on the menu, but the chef has to use his/her creative talents to produce the meal.

            That was the situation in Colorado. The wedding website was on the “menu”, in that the website designer advertised that she created such websites for customers.

            It seems that, if the website designer can refuse to use her creative talents to design a website because she objects to the message that the customer of the website sends, a chef could refuse to use his talents to create a fancy meal for a customer whose viewpoints he disagrees with, on the grounds that his doing so could be interpreted as his being in agreement with his customer, thereby violating his freedom of speech.

          8. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Again, the customer did not want the product offered. The customer wanted a product customized to his/her/its specifications that conflicted with the designer’s beliefs. Compelling the creative speech was what crossed the line.

            For creative work in general, and food in particular, I would strongly advise against trying to compel a creative vendor I disagreed with.

            Montezuma’s revenge can be ugly. The point being that creative people can be creative in a variety of ways when you twist their arms.

          9. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I agree. Only a crazy person or an idiot would demand that someone who dislikes/hates them prepare food for them to eat.

          10. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            “The meal is on the menu, but the chef has to use his/her creative talents to produce the meal.”

            Very little creative talent involved in cooking the meal.

            One meal (of a given type) is (or should be) pretty much identical to the other, unless the chef screws it up.

            Where the creative talents were involved was when the meal was designed; and that work was done before it went on the menu.

          11. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Here’s another example. Years ago I had a customer who wanted to pay bonuses to employees. He wanted a $1K bonus to put $1k in the employee’s hand, not $787.23 after withholdings. The IRS has strict rules on supplemental pay. Although he was ready to pay me for the work I refused to write (create) code that would let him break the rules if he chose to. That was not speech I was willing to utter. Code that implemented standard withholding was a feature of our product. It went to anyone who wanted to lease it from us.

          12. William Chambliss Avatar
            William Chambliss

            Nope, race IS a protected class, as is gender and, in Colorado, sexual orientation.

          13. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            I think that is why the plaintiff’s attorneys framed this as a freedom of speech case. The question now becomes how far will the courts allow discrimination based upon freedom of speech go.

          14. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            As Lefty told you earlier, Dick, the ruling does not present a difficult concept. If the product requires tailored creative effort, it cannot be compelled. If it is a standard product, it must be available to every customer.

          15. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            OK. Let’s go back to the web design. Could I refuse to create a website for a Catholic parish because of the church’s teachings regarding birth control?

          16. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            “Could I refuse to create a website for a Catholic parish because of the church’s teachings regarding birth control?”

            Mr. Hall-Sizemore

            You are misreading the case and the ruling.

            The web designer has not refused service to any individual or group. Her objection was to not create a message which contradicted Biblical teaching.

            Both sides agreed that she would have created a web site for a gay or trans person who wanted to honor Jesus for example.

          17. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            The essential word is “create”. While you twiddle with some of the rest of the wording, in each iteration “create” is the crucial word that does not change.

            You keep asking the same question. Do you think you are going to get a different answer just because you twiddle with the collateral wording a little? That is Einstein’s definition of insanity.

            Once again, as explained to you previously, in framing the issue as one of religion, rejection on 1st Amendment grounds is a twofer. First by compelling speech and second by violating the establishment clause that prohibits government mandating religious expression. Note, the decision was based on compelling speech, not the religious content.

          18. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            It’s the whole “no one told me what to call a firearm” routine over again.

            As you simply stated, you cannot compel someone to create a non-standard offering for you.

          19. William Chambliss Avatar
            William Chambliss

            I dont think you are totally correct here, James. This decision held that speech abhorrent to the intended speaker’s religious beliefs cannot be compelled.

          20. William Chambliss Avatar
            William Chambliss

            I dont think you are totally correct here, James. This decision held that speech abhorrent to the intended speaker’s religious beliefs cannot be compelled.

          21. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Here’s another example. Years ago I had a customer who wanted to pay bonuses to employees. He wanted a $1K bonus to put $1k in the employee’s hand, not $787.23 after withholdings. The IRS has strict rules on supplemental pay. Although he was ready to pay me for the work I refused to write (create) code that would let him break the rules if he chose to. That was not speech I was willing to utter. Code that implemented standard withholding was a feature of our product. It went to anyone who wanted to lease it from us.

          22. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            That is a different question. There was no law saying that you had to do what your customer wanted, i.e. break the law.

          23. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Nope, I was not breaking the law. What I would have done is to enable him to break the law, if he chose to. It would not have required him to.

            He wanted to be able to employ my creative effort in a way I objected to, so I declined to do it. He continued to use the rest of my product as offered to all. But he was not a happy camper.

          24. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Is the fancy meal on the restaurant’s menu?

            EDIT – Oops, you already answered that.

          25. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Can the chef refuse to use his “creative” cooking talents to prepare that meal because he disagrees with the idea of “Black Lives Matter”?

            However creative the meal is, it doesn’t carry a message unless the customer demands that something be written on it.

    2. William Chambliss Avatar
      William Chambliss

      A campaign consultant cannot be compelled to work for an opposing party. Political affiliation is not a protected class, thank God.

      1. vicnicholls Avatar
        vicnicholls

        Some days that would be a good idea.

  9. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    Can the Washington Post be compelled to publish op-ed pieces that contradict its editorial positions or a “rebuttal news piece” that provides facts not published by the Paper? The First Amendment’s Free Speech and Freedom of the Press clauses include the right not to speak.

    The D.C. bar, a mandatory association for anyone licensed to practice law in the District, regularly violates this right by taking positions on public policy. So do many other mandatory bars. It’s time for SCOTUS to stop this. Or do like the Nebraska bar did, make membership in the association voluntary.

  10. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Dick, to pick up on your question, if I asked a graphic artist to design a brochure for the Jefferson Council, and the artist said he totally disagreed with everything I stand for and didn’t want my business, my first instinct would be to think, “bite me,” but my second instinct would be to say, “fine, I’ll find another designer.” It would never occur to me to compel someone who dislikes me or my views to perform a service for me.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Didn’t the UVa Alumni Association Magazine refuse to print a “paid for” ad from The Jefferson Council?

      Should redstate.com be required to push ads for “abortion on demand”?

      Should the Washington Post be required to print an ad for a “Unite the Right” rally?

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        Anyone think that the State of Colorado would prosecute a Muslim web designer who refused to create a website for a person or group that wanted the site to claim all Muslims were responsible for 9-11? No, and no state entity should do so. But I suspect the Mountain High woke have different rules for conservative Christians than they do for conservative Muslims. Just like the media.

        1. William Chambliss Avatar
          William Chambliss

          Well, what do you think the Suprreme Court would do with that?

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Yeah, and methinks Jim’s tune was a tad different about that ad…

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Well, if some of our great-great-grandfathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, had felt that way, this certainly would have been a better nation, and the TJC would be a different animal.

  11. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Dick, to pick up on your question, if I asked a graphic artist to design a brochure for the Jefferson Council, and the artist said he totally disagreed with everything I stand for and didn’t want my business, my first instinct would be to think, “bite me,” but my second instinct would be to say, “fine, I’ll find another designer.” It would never occur to me to compel someone who dislikes me or my views to perform a service for me.

  12. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    There is a conflict between the civil rights laws and free association.
    But totalitarians need to shave off their Hitler mustaches…
    Can I make the Jewish deli serve bacon? The Muslim restaurant serve me ham?
    Can I force the mega law firm to take my pro bono anti-gay case?
    It’s a free country. At least it used to be and that is what we are fighting for.
    Christians were “tolerant” for 60 years, and it was clearly misbegotten because the tolerance is not reciprocated.

    1. M. Purdy Avatar
      M. Purdy

      Your rhetoric is adolescent.

      1. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        Just bringing it down to Leftist levels then… Totally unintentional…

  13. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    Many seem confused about the facts of the case:

    Before the district court, Ms. Smith and the State stipulated to a number of facts:

    Ms. Smith is “willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender” and “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sexual orientation; she will not produce content that “contradicts biblical truth” regardless of who orders it; Ms. Smith’s belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is a sincerely held conviction; Ms. Smith provides design services that are “expressive” and her “original, customized” creations “contribut[e] to the overall message” her business conveys “through the websites” it creates; the wedding websites she plans to create “will be expressive in nature,” will be “customized and tailored” through close collaboration with individual couples, and will “express Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s message celebrating and promoting” her view of marriage; viewers of Ms. Smith’s websites “will know that the websites are her original artwork;” and “[t]here are numerous companies in the State of Colorado and across the nation that offer custom website design services.”

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

    The State of Colorado had not thought through the implications of their position.

    And Gorsuch warned that Colorado’s position could lead to “dangerous” consequences. As Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich noted in his dissent from the 10th Circuit’s decision, Gorsuch wrote, “governments could force ‘an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message,’ they could compel ‘an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal,’ and they could require a gay website designer to create websites for a group advocating against same-sex marriage, so long as these speakers would accept commissions from the public with different messages.”

    https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-rules-website-designer-can-deny-same-sex-couples-service/

  14. Ronnie Chappell Avatar
    Ronnie Chappell

    After much thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that we should restore the right of everyone to discriminate against anyone for any reason. This means Harvard can engage in all the affirmative action it desires, that other schools can keep biological males from competing on its women’s sports teams and that Christian landlords can keep unmarried couples out of their rental units. The economy is so big that everyone can find someplace where their presence, skills and commerce are welcome.

    1. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      Harvard is a private university. If it were to stop taking government money, they would have more freedom, and the Supreme Court decision would not apply.

      Hillsdale is a conservative college that doesn’t accept government funding of any kind.

      “Hillsdale’s educational mission rests upon two principles: academic excellence and institutional independence. The College does not accept federal or state taxpayer subsidies for any of its operations.”

      https://www.hillsdale.edu/about/

  15. WayneS Avatar
    WayneS

    What if I refused to make such signs for Black candidates because I don’t think Blacks should be elected to office? Or women candidates? Or Catholic candidates? Or Jewish Candidates?

    Or republican candidates? Or white candidates? Or Christian candidates? etc.?

    As long as it cuts both, no all, ways I’m okay with it. I don’t like it – but I can live with it.

    However, I think businesses which choose to discriminate should be required to prominently display signs on their storefronts and notices on their websites which list all the persons and groups they choose not to serve. Such a requirement would most likely seriously reduce the number of businesses which choose to engage in such discrimination.

  16. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    People refuse service all the time, but Mr. Hall-Sizemore seems unaware and unconcerned unless it’s conservative Christians.

    For example, many Muslim bakers have refused to bake cakes honoring gay marriage, but people have the good sense not to require it. Why not just leave other people alone and have someone else bake the cake or create the website?

    Muslim bakers on film:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

    The real question is: “Why are progressives so determined to compel Christians to endorse their lifestyle?”

    1. John Harvie Avatar
      John Harvie

      And also how about “No Shoes No Shirt No Service”?

      That’s been around for ever.

      1. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        And: “No Biker Attire”, which has also been around a long time.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          Hey, colors are special.

      2. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        I believe the need for shoes is a health department concern.

  17. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    A better question would be, “When will freedom of speech begin?”

  18. vicnicholls Avatar
    vicnicholls

    I see those who are engaging in maligning a verdict they don’t like and a person they hate also. https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/colorado-web-designer-hits-back-against-claim-same-sex-marriage-request-was If the request was fake, the lawsuit would have gotten shot down a long time ago. Simple logic is beyond people when cognitive dissonance about not getting their way any longer comes to the fore.

Leave a Reply

Read More