Supreme Court Justices Clash In Latest Clash Of Religion And Gay Rights!

Supreme Court Justices Clash In Latest Clash Of Religion And Gay Rights: The latest conflict between religion and gay rights to reach the highest court included a Christian graphic artist who objected to developing wedding websites for gay couples. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority expressed sympathy for the artist on Monday.

According to the designer and others who support her, a decision against her would force artists of all kinds, such as writers, musicians, and even photographers, to produce work that goes against their moral convictions.

Her opponents contend that if she is successful, a variety of businesses will be free to practice discrimination, including turning away Black, Jewish, or Muslim consumers, interracial or interfaith couples, immigrants, and others.

The Supreme Court’s animated arguments went far over the stipulated 70 minutes. The website designer, Lorie Smith, was referred to as “an individual who says she will sell and does sell to everyone, all manner of websites, (but) that she won’t sell a website that requires her to express a view about marriage that she finds offensive” by Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the three high court appointees of the former President Donald Trump.

Early on in Monday’s high court hearings, the matter of where to draw the line predominated the issues. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether a photographic studio in a mall had the right to decline requests to photograph Black persons sitting on Santa’s knee.

Because that’s how they see the situations with Santa that they’re attempting to portray, their policy is that only white kids can be photographed with Santa in this fashion, according to Jackson. Kristen Waggoner, the attorney for Smith, was pressed frequently by Justice Sonia Sotomayor regarding additional categories. You may also check CellGene.com UDRP is a case of RDNH.

\What about those who are opposed to interracial unions? Or what about those who don’t think disabled persons should marry? Where is the boundary? Tomayor enquired. Although it appeared that Justice Samuel Alito was on Smith’s side, he questioned whether it was “fair to link resistance to same-sex marriage with opposition to interracial marriage.”

The case comes after a string of cases in which the justices agreed with religious plaintiffs, and at a time when the court is ruled by conservatives, 6-3. A historic bill safeguarding same-sex marriage is also being finalized by Congress across the street from the court.

After the Supreme Court decided earlier this year to abolish constitutional safeguards for abortion, the bill—which also defends interracial marriage—began to gain traction. The court’s decision to reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade judgment raised concerns about whether the more conservative court would also reverse its 2015 ruling establishing a federal right to same-sex marriage.

Justice Clarence Thomas stated unequivocally that this choice should also be reevaluated. Smith, a graphic designer and website designer from Colorado who wants to start providing wedding websites, is the subject of the case being debated before the high court on Monday.

Smith claims that because she is a Christian, she is unable to design websites that honor same-sex unions. Waggoner informed the judges that “Ms. Smith believes opposite-sex marriage follows scripture and same-sex marriage violates it.”

But she might be in violation of state law if she does it. Like most other jurisdictions, Colorado has legislation known as a public accommodation law that mandates that if Smith provides wedding websites to the public, she must also make them available to all of her clients.

Today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in an attempt to undermine a Colorado civil rights law that ensures same-sex couples cannot be turned away from businesses because of who they are.

This case is the latest in a coordinated attack on our civil rights laws.

— ACLU (@ACLU) December 5, 2022

Businesses that break the law may face penalties in addition to fines. In a different case involving Colorado’s statute and a baker named Jack Phillips who opposed creating a wedding cake for a gay couple, the Supreme Court heard arguments five years ago.

However, that case came to a limited conclusion, which prepared the way for the high court to take up the matter again. Phillips was also represented by Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Today, we are defending at #SCOTUS Colorado’s civil rights law–and a longstanding legal principle: businesses who open their doors to the public must serve all comers, regardless of who they are.https://t.co/GasZ12N8w1

— Phil Weiser (@pweiser) December 5, 2022

Smith claims, like Phillips, that she has no problem dealing with LGBT people. She claims she would assist a gay client who required assistance with graphics, such as those for an animal rescue shelter or to support nonprofits supporting children with disabilities.

While she wouldn’t make a website for a couple who met while they were both married to other people and then got divorced, she opposes making statements that favor same-sex unions, Waggoner said.

Garbage: “Cake making is neither an inherently expressive nor a traditionally expressive medium,” Professor Carpenter said. “People make cakes for taste or nutrition.” https://t.co/9ZuuEqxC2c

— Samuel Moyn 🔭 (@samuelmoyn) December 5, 2022

Smith claims that Colorado’s statute infringes on her right to free speech. The Biden administration and organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund are among those who oppose her.

Twenty primarily Republican states, including Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee, favor Smith while another 20 mostly liberal states, including California and New York, support Colorado.

If we ask “should someone who opens a business to the public be able to turn away gay customers just because her service is ‘expressive’ or ‘artistic,’” the right answer is no. But asking the wrong question could easily lead SCOTUS to the wrong answer.https://t.co/X5MxttpfjO

— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) December 5, 2022

Final Lines