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 »

dale74 · M

If it makes a difference i have two friends who both work at two different chic fil a one in Mississippi the other in Arkansas both are LGBTQ and both are in management at their stores. One is just under the owner/operator the other manages the night shift. So they do not discriminate against lgbtq employees at all.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

@dale74 Oh! I know that. I didn't mean to imply that they do. And I've made this point to my GF ... alas ... still no spicy chicken sandwiches in my future. 🙄

dale74 · M

@dale74 so you can eat there and support your friend.

dale74 · M

@sarabee1995 so you are telling me she discriminates against a business that promotes lgbtq what a hippocrite.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

@dale74 No. I didn't say that at all. And, just because Chik-Fil-A allows LGBTQ employees does not mean they are LGBTQ-friendly. It simply means they are complying with the law.

Her objection to the company stems 100% from the words uttered by it's owner.

ChampagneOnIce · 51-55, F

@dale74 I know someone who owns a franchise, and her son is gay. She accepts him and his partner and is not anti-gay. However, the issue is that the owners of the Chick-fil-a company donate money to anti-LGBTQ+ organizations. I will not give them that money to spend.

The people who own Chick-fil-a have an anti-LGBTQ agenda, and that was ingrained in the company for a good long while.

https://www.esquire.com/food-drink/restaurants/a36622217/chick-fil-a-owner-donations-against-equality-act/

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

@ChampagneOnIce This 👆 is why I now forego my yummy spicy chicken sandwiches. My awareness came from my activist GF and I thank her for that.

dale74 · M

@sarabee1995 But saying I feel like eating has just as much right to his opinion as your girlfriend

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

@dale74 Did anyone say otherwise?