SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Web Developer's Free Association

[CaptUSA]

Making liberal heads explode again! At some point, these people are going to have to realize that they're really just opposed to freedom.

The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn’t want to make wedding websites for gay couples

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-website-designer-aa529361bc939c837ec2ece216b296d5

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.

The court ruled 6-3 for designer Lorie Smith despite a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender and other characteristics. Smith had argued that the law violates her free speech rights.

Smith’s opponents warned that a win for her would allow a range of businesses to discriminate, refusing to serve Black, Jewish or Muslim customers, interracial or interfaith couples or immigrants. But Smith and her supporters had said that a ruling against her would force artists — from painters and photographers to writers and musicians — to do work that is against their beliefs. <more at link>

 

[PAF]

While I agree with the decision, what does that do for states rights advocates?

 

[CaptUSA]

While I agree with the decision, what does that do for states rights advocates?

So, my take is that it prevents states (at least in this case) from interfering with individual rights. That's kinda what the Bill of Rights is all about. States also don't have the ability to violate the 2nd Amendment or any other amendments, either.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

 

[Occam's Banana]

In a defeat for gay rights privileges, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.

Fixed.

 

[Ender]

So, my take is that it prevents states (at least in this case) from interfering with individual rights. That's kinda what the Bill of Rights is all about. States also don't have the ability to violate the 2nd Amendment or any other amendments, either.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Exactly.

 

[jmdrake]

So, my take is that it prevents states (at least in this case) from interfering with individual rights. That's kinda what the Bill of Rights is all about. States also don't have the ability to violate the 2nd Amendment or any other amendments, either.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Okay. Here's another question. How is SCOTUS telling Harvard it can't use race as a factor in admissions in order to prormote diversity not an infringement on the right of private businesses to do whatever it is they want? I mean, Ron Paul's position against the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not "segregation is good" but rather "the federal government shouldn't tell private business what to do." So...from a consistency point of view.....?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Okay. Here's another question. How is SCOTUS telling Harvard it can't use race as a factor in admissions in order to prormote diversity not an infringement on the right of private businesses to do whatever it is they want? I mean, Ron Paul's position against the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not "segregation is good" but rather "the federal government shouldn't tell private business what to do." So...from a consistency point of view.....?

The SCOTUS decision on affirmative action applies to universities that receive federal funding.

As far as I know, the ruling does not apply to universities that are actually "private" (assuming there are even any of those still around).

FTA: https://verdict.justia.com/2022/09/...e-action-in-private-colleges-and-universities

[...]

State Action and Title VI

Except for the Thirteenth Amendment, the Constitution constrains government and its agents, not private actors. Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause does not impose any limits on Harvard or other private colleges and universities.

Why, then, was Harvard sued? Although the Constitution does not apply to private actors, Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does. It forbids discrimination “on the ground of race, color, or national origin” by entities that receive federal funds. Because of the pervasive role of the federal government in funding research and financial aid, Title VI covers nearly every private college and university in the country. And since the Supreme Court’s 1978 Bakke ruling, the case law has treated the limits imposed by Title VI as coextensive with those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause on state colleges and universities.

[...]
​

 

[CaptUSA]

The SCOTUS ruling on affirmative action applies to universities that receive federal funding.

Was just going to type that. THanks,

 

[jmdrake]

The SCOTUS decision on affirmative action applies to universities that receive federal funding.

As far as I know, the ruling does not apply to universities that are actually "private" (assuming there are even any of those still around).

FTA: https://verdict.justia.com/2022/09/...e-action-in-private-colleges-and-universities

[...]

State Action and Title VI

Except for the Thirteenth Amendment, the Constitution constrains government and its agents, not private actors. Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause does not impose any limits on Harvard or other private colleges and universities.

Why, then, was Harvard sued? Although the Constitution does not apply to private actors, Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does. It forbids discrimination “on the ground of race, color, or national origin” by entities that receive federal funds. Because of the pervasive role of the federal government in funding research and financial aid, Title VI covers nearly every private college and university in the country. And since the Supreme Court’s 1978 Bakke ruling, the case law has treated the limits imposed by Title VI as coextensive with those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause on state colleges and universities.

[...]
​

Okay. So when they finally decide to quit honoring the religious excemption on Title IX.....

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1675033962824228864

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1675033962824228864

https://twitter.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1676023577857126401