Supreme Court 6-3 decision on LGBTQ and business owners’ rights. [June 30]

[Susan R]

In a 6-3 Supreme Court decision 303 CREATIVE LLC ET AL. v. ELENI on Friday ruled in favor of a Christian web designer in Colorado who cited religious objections in refusing to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) backed the Christian web designer in this case which is the same backer who assisted in the recent Supreme Court overturn of Roe vs. Wade.

 

Main Implication: This could empower businesses to legally discriminate against LGBTQ customers and other minority groups.

 

A very good and brief description of this ruling by Trav on the queerency Tik-Tok. They discuss the ramifications of 303 CREATIVE LLC ET AL. v. ELENI in better detail.

 

 

[awkward-yet-sweet]

I realize I'm going against the grain, but I support the court's decision.  I don't feel like the government should be able to force private businesses to serve anybody they don't want to.   

 

That said, I will be VERY happy to see the consequences of the free market change business owners' minds.  Money is green no matter whose wallet it comes from, and turning down customers is a mighty poor business model.  The market abhors a vacuum, and there's always a competitor willing to take the job.  These things are as true and certain as water's wetness.  

[Madison_1990]

12 minutes ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

I realize I'm going against the grain, but I support the court's decision.  I don't feel like the government should be able to force private businesses to serve anybody they don't want to.   

 

I just worry this means if a business doesn't want to serve a black patron, that's fine now.  If they don't want to serve people of a particular religion, or of a particular ethnicity, this says they are free to do so.  Everybody is a target now.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

53 minutes ago, Madison_1990 said:

 

I just worry this means if a business doesn't want to serve a black patron, that's fine now.  If they don't want to serve people of a particular religion, or of a particular ethnicity, this says they are free to do so.  Everybody is a target now.

Yep, I agree that's a risk.  It can be a slippery slope...but nobody said that liberty was easy or 100% safe.   In this patriotic season, I recall that George Washington said it best,

 

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force!  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

 

I disagree with the idea that government should be (or can be) asked to do appropriately what the people are able to do for themselves.  Recall that much of the discrimination and evil of the past was caused by, encouraged by, and enforced by government.  Slavery was codified....the plantation owners never would have been able to keep their workforce in chains if the government hadn't caught escapees and returned them.  Post slavery,  "Jim Crow" was a set of laws and segregation was enforced by police and military troops.  As society changed, people used a new set of laws to get rid of the old.  But what if people had truly taken the ideas of liberty to heart, and the original bad laws had never happened in the first place? 

 

While perhaps government can be used to tell people not to discriminate, the very same rules can be used against you.  Say, for example, that a Brownshirt wants a Jewish baker to bake an Adolf cake?  Or the Christian web designer gets forced to make a website for a Satanic temple?  Or perhaps Muslim and Jewish chefs get forced to make dishes using pork?  If those things were to be banned, then we get into the realm of government deciding what is "offensive" and what is not, and there's the very real potential of selective/unequal enforcement.  Dangerous ground.  Even when rules are meant well, they can always be a blade that cuts both ways.  I'm a bit surprised at the court's ruling, as usually government likes to grab as much power as possible. 

 

In principle, I trust that an unbiased market free from government meddling will generally serve the needs of all groups, and that commercial competition serves as a force of equality.  Granted, this won't prevent inconvenience or offense at times, but I feel like those risks are much preferable to the risks involved in using government force.  I prefer to trust people's freedom of conscience and choice...and when that fails, financial avarice often accomplishes the same goal.😏

 

 

 

[SamC]

Sick decision by a corrupt, biased court.  How is this different from allowing housing discrimination against African Americans, which was outlawed decades ago?

[Vidanjali]

Reporting has revealed that this case may have been about a hypothetical "what if" scenario. Evidently, the individual whom the web designer claims requested her service in designing a same sex wedding website is a straight man who is married to a woman and who claims no knowledge of how or why his name and contact information and story about fiancé "Mike" were part of this case. Moreover, the creation of wedding websites is not the purview of the web designer's business. Very strange. 

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

[Sally Stone]

Clearly, the Supreme Court got this one wrong (not so supreme in my humble opinion).  If as a business owner, you want to profit from the public sale of goods or services, you must be willing to sell to any and all patrons.  Sad, sad ruling.

[Ivy]

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/07/hair-salon-bans-trans-folks-after-supreme-court-ruling-endorsing-discrimination/

 

"While some have argued that the decision narrowly applies to businesses that provide “expressive services” and does not provide carte blanche protection for any businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, many have predicted that anti-LGBTQ+ business owners inclined to discriminate would interpret the ruling as a license to do so, despite state laws banning anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination."

 

"Geiger responded to outrage over her initial post by claiming that she has “no issues with LGB. It’s the TQ+ that I’m not going to support.” She went on to falsely claim that the TQ+ in the acronym refers to pedophiles."

 

I guess this was inevitable.