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?

MethDozer · M Best Comment

I'm kinda with you on this. While I am against the ideals of said businesses, at the end if the day I also feel people have the right to awful ideas and to abide by their awful ideas as long as they aren't actively hurting or infringing on another. Your comfort zone may be a shitty ine but you are entitled to it as long as it isn't violent towards another.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

@MethDozer Agreed 💯!!

I've always maintained that we each have a personal right to our own crazy... as long as we don't force it on others.

MethDozer · M

@sarabee1995 It'sbone of those situations where the legislation being intorduced for what in one case is a good cause can equally be used against you in bad faith if applied truly equally. In cases where that is the case I feel it is best to let it go.