SCOTUS Strikes Again!

I love Chik-Fil-A spicy chicken deluxe sandwiches. My GF refuses to set foot on any Chik-Fil-A property. Different strokes for different folks. She’s the LGBTQ activist and I’m the quiet girl who stands beside her and no longer buys from Chik-Fil-A (eh, my spicy chicken cravings usually came on Sunday’s anyway 🙄).

So as you can imagine, our opinions on the recent news that SCOTUS will be hearing another LGBTQ-related case are quite divergent.

Back in 2018 the Court decided that while a Colorado baker could not refuse to serve LGBTQ clientele, they could refuse to put two brides or two grooms on a cake. I agreed with this ruling and my GF strongly disagrees. In that case, the Court ruled that forcing the baker to create custom cake designs that were contrary to his/her religious views would violate their freedom of religion. I agree. But two gay guys come in to buy some cupcakes and they cannot be refused service. A bakery is a public accommodation.

So, now this new case … A Colorado web developer wants to expand her business into wedding websites but is concerned that she will land on the wrong side of Colorado’s public accommodation law. I think the same logic should apply: Two people come to you for a website, you cannot refuse service because of who they are (gay, straight, bi, black, Muslim, whatever). But if because of your personal beliefs you choose not to offer websites that show happy gay couples, then I don’t feel the law should force you to.

Oh, but what about black couples or biracial couples or minority religious couples? It gets messy, right?

It does, but then, the law is always messy. And in this case, if a baker or a photographer or a website designer decided that they only offered their creative services depicting white Anglo-Saxon protestant artistry, then I would hope that the market would crush them out of business but I would not empower the government to do so.

Your thoughts?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

MrBrownstone · 46-50, M

How about we all keep sexuality private?

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

@MrBrownstone That's not the point. If two people are getting married and they want two characters on the top of the cake that represent them (no discussion of sexuality here) ... can those two characters be two brides or two grooms?

Again, there is no discussion of sexuality here. As far as we know those two women are keeping their sexuality completely private (as you and I agree they should -- I'm not much into PDA from anyone, including straight couples).

But the baker could infer from the request to have two brides on top of the cake that this couple might be lesbian. Now it is HIM bringing up sexuality, not the couple who just wants two brides on the cake. Right?

MrBrownstone · 46-50, M

@sarabee1995 Marriage implies sex. But private business can refuse service to anyone. I have a whole list of people and business who were vaccine/mask bullies that will never get my money. Works both ways.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

@MrBrownstone

"Marriage implies sex"

Ideally sure. Are you telling me, though, that no one has ever gotten married for reasons of "convenience" and not sex? Obviously rare, but my point stands. The couple who simply requested a cake with two grooms or two brides were not making any public statement about their sexuality. That was being inferred by the baker.

MrBrownstone · 46-50, M

@sarabee1995 Did you read the rest of my reply?

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

@MrBrownstone Yes. Of course.