I think this is false. Colorado was banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Yes, I can see the conflict - CO says you have to do business with everyone if you open a business. But if you don’t want to do a specific business for specific people for religious reasons, the federal law superseded CO law, and protects your 1A rights to free speech.
That’s how Sundown towns happened.
So a question of clarification:
This ruling allows a business to not produce a product or service that they feel promotes something against their beliefs. Gay marriage in this case.
It does not allow the business to not provide product or service to a gay person however if the product or service is unrelated to those beliefs, correct?
A gay couple wanting a web page for their accounting business for example, still cannot be discriminated against?
If so then I’m not sure what I think. If I was a web designer would I want the law to force me to design pages for a Trump fundraiser? I would not myself want to be forced to help promoting something against my core beliefs.
I don’t think refusing a request based on dislike of the customer him or herself is disallowed by either Colorado or the Feds. I also don’t think (although I could be wrong) that political affiliation is a protected class under Colorado or the Feds.
I see you’re composing a response, but I have to step away for a while, so if no one else responds, I’ll try to when I return.
Not quite the point of my question.
I should not be able to refuse to care for a patient on the basis of the family being Trumpers or personal dislike or whatever. That service is not furthering promotion of ideas I despise.
But if my service was designing promotional materials I should be able to refuse to provide that service promoting beliefs I disagree with.
A musician should be able to refuse to allow a neo Nazi group from using their music as their promotional theme.
Does this ruling allow a restaurant to refuse to seat a couple because they are gay? A store to refuse to sell a power washer to someone on the basis of their sexual orientation? Or is it restricted to the provision of products or services that endorse or promote a disagreed with belief/value.
I am not sure, but I think it has to do with the whole “marriage” aspect here. AIUI the web designer was planning to do business with gay people, but the “marriage” thing with gay people was too far for her. I think what happened is she can openly exclude “gay marriage” from her business activities, and not run afoul of CO law.
BTW: there is no such thing as gay marriage - it’s all just marriage. Using the term for clarity only.
Only by the government. Constitutionally, there’s nothing preventing a private business from refusing to serve Blacks. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes that illegal, but that’s a federal law, not part of the constitution, and this ruling puts that law into question.
Except religious beliefs are whatever the believer wants them to be. I mean, it’s not like the Bible actually says anything about gay marriage. If someone declares that their religion forbids them from serving gay people in their restaurant, there’s not really any way to gainsay that.
“Religious belief” just became a pass to openly discriminate as much as you want.
It needs to be said again, tragically:
wrong thread
As written, the decision is rooted in First Amendment expression. The idea is that requiring him to provide the services would be compelled speech.
So in theory the answer to your question is, correct, it does not. There has to be some expressive element to the service in order for it to constitute speech.
Exactly.
Someone could have a firmly and genuinely held religious belief that God said people of different “races” aren’t supposed to interact, but should live in entirely separate places, shop in entirely different stores, and so on.
Someone could have a firmly and genuinely held religious belief that unrelated men should neither speak nor listen to women – and could therefore obviously not serve them in the men’s place of business.
And so on. – and wouldn’t it be “compelled speech” to make them communicate with the women in any fashion, in order to enable the women to shop there?
Speech to transact a business arrangement would likely be considered commercial speech, and regulations limiting commercial speech have traditionally been held to a much lesser standard by the Supreme Court. It is not (generally, because everything in law is “generally”) considered free speech.
I don’t think the Supremes can be counted on to follow precedent.
I am still uncertain here. The slippery slope argument, the how they could interpret in the future, is not a completely invalid one, but neither is a very compelling one.
The ruling here is not hung on religious freedom, but being forced to express or aid in the expression of a belief that an individual disagrees with.
IF someone emboldened by this ruling tries to not serve a gay couple dinner at their restaurant because they have religious beliefs against homosexuality, and such is challenged, and the court indeed states that just serving dinner is forced expression (“our chef is an artist!”), or driving someone in your Uber, or proving them medical care, count as “speech” then yes this is horrifying.
But right now I am not seeing how I can be for a band refusing to play for a MAGA Moms rally and against the ability of someone refusing to provide aid in expression of beliefs I support.
8 posts were merged into an existing topic: Ivan_Denisovich Troll posts
Protestantism is a religion (or a categorization of religions). And many protestants (and many others) claim to “follow the ancient dogmas of the Church” – your claim is no more credible and special than that of any other random person on the internet.
Your assertion that state-run churches, or church-run states, have better societal outcomes than those governments with separation of church and state is laughable when one looks at history.
I wonder if the likelihood isn’t greater that the slope slips in another direction.
Only since 1967 has interracial marriage been (Federally) legal in this country. What percentage, exactly, of “Christians” have a sincerely-held belief that this, too, is wrong? What would stop their ‘artistic’ businesses from refusing to create for interracial couples?
I reject the concept of a “valid religion.”
You have basically defined “real church” as “The way my church does it”.