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 »

Harmonium1923 · 51-55, M

I appreciate your post and you make your argument carefully. But I still disagree. Many Christian and Moslem believers disagree strongly with Judaism. Would they be allowed to return to posting signs that say “No Jews or dogs”?

I know you are Drawing a fine point between service at a public accommodation v creating product that espouses a specific view. But it’s not always so easy. How about. Jewish family that goes out for a dinner that is specifically a Chanukah celebration. Could they be refused service because a Christian owner is somehow offended by the notion of a Jewish holiday?

scrood · 31-35

@Harmonium1923 You forgot one from that sign

Harmonium1923 · 51-55, M

@scrood 💯 And it’s the same issue of course. But I picked religious discrimination because it’s the argument used by the other side to make their case. An argument I don’t accept any more than I accept an argument that racial discrimination could possible be defended on the basis of religious freedom.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

@Harmonium1923

"Could they be refused service"

No, of course not. The restaurant is a public accommodation.

But, the restaurant could not be required by government fiat to offer Kosher food.

Harmonium1923 · 51-55, M

@sarabee1995 I get your point on that. But could they say “No Shabbat brunches on Saturday, we’re Christian so respect our beliefs.” Or “this is a Christian establishment. We welcome you as long as you don’t say a Hebrew blessing before your meal. Violators will be asked to leave the premises immediately.”

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

@Harmonium1923 Of course not. The rules regarding public accommodations are well established law. The Christian restaurant can no sooner evict the Jewish diners than a Jewish restaurant could with Christian diners.

Now this assumes that both diners are not making a public nuisance of themselves or bothering others customers. But praying at your table within the traditions of any faith is certainly allowed in any restaurant in America.