Supreme Court says First Amendment entitles web designer to refuse to do gay weddings

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, JarMan said:

The example you gave was Jim Crow laws. The Supreme Court could have struck them down as early as the late 1800’s, but chose to uphold them. The court should have struck them down as an overreach of government. So, contrary to your claim, limiting government power would have made a difference—an enormous difference. Imagine that the Supreme Court had rejected these laws decades before the civil rights movement.

Even after the federal government outlawed them, Jim Crow laws continued. The last one was outlawed in 1968, but the people continue to enforce Jim crow laws even when they were technically illegal. That’s what I mean when I say that limiting government power doesn’t automatically make a difference if the majority of the people support the action.

The south didn’t need the government to agree with their Jim Crow laws and the south continued to live under them even after the government said they were illegal. This is because the government did not have the power to stop the people from doing what they wanted.The government did not determine what the people did, or didn’t do; the people determined that regardless of the government’s feelings about it.

It took years and in some places, decades, and in some places it’s still happening today.

Thankfully, in most places, there is not enough of a majority for people to just do whatever they want, despite what the government says. The south is a unique case. Jim Crow laws are often held up as an example of how the south lost the war but beat the north anyway.  They basically continued to treat Black people how they did before the war, and they managed to flout every new law that the north had put in place during reconstruction that tried to give blacks any rights or standing in society. To the point that the first Jim Crow laws came into existence legally in 1877, barely 20 years after the south was decimated, and their entire government infrastructure destroyed.

But the people didn’t need the government’s permission to do what they wanted. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 7/3/2023 at 6:40 PM, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

I know I have been out of touch for the better part of a week - I just wanted to throw something back at you that you posted, and then let the topic die - it's clear that there won't be much in terms of a coming together of minds here:

On 7/3/2023 at 7:57 PM, smac97 said:

In another flag case, Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court quoted the language from the Spence decision. The result seemed to elevate the language in Spence to a more formal two-part test. In order to receive First Amendment protection, there must be (1) an intent to convey a particularized message and (2) a reasonable likelihood that it would be understood.

I think that it does make a difference when we deal with this question of the message and how people understand it. This is part of the fundamental definition of "speech" as we understand it. People say things to other people. In this particular case, no one is going to look at that website and construe it as speech on the part of the web designer. And this matters. Perhaps if I get the desire later we can have a separate thread for the purpose of discussing what speech is and what it means. This one has veered into other directions.

[Stormin' Mormon]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

no one is going to look at that website and construe it as speech on the part of the web designer. And this matters. 

No, it doesn't matter.  

See:

• Miami Herald Pub Co. v. Tornillo (1974)
• Wooley v. Maynard (1977)
• Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995)
• Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000)
• National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018)

There is a decades-long trail of court cases that paint a pretty clear picture of the current state of the law.  And under current free speech jurisprudence, it just doesn't matter who the public will construe as the originator of the speech.  You cannot be compelled to carry the speech of others, no matter how clearly obvious it is that the speech is not your own.    

[smac97]

On 7/10/2023 at 6:57 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

In another flag case, Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court quoted the language from the Spence decision. The result seemed to elevate the language in Spence to a more formal two-part test. In order to receive First Amendment protection, there must be (1) an intent to convey a particularized message and (2) a reasonable likelihood that it would be understood.

I think that it does make a difference when we deal with this question of the message and how people understand it.

Yes.  Not all work product can be construed as "speech."

In this case, both Smith and Colorado agreed that her website designs constituted "speech."  From the opinion (p. 4) (emphases added) :

Quote

To facilitate the district court’s resolution of the merits of her case, Ms. Smith and the State stipulated to a number of facts: 
...

• All of the graphic and website design services Ms. Smith provides are “expressive.” Id., at 181a. 
• The websites and graphics Ms. Smith designs are “original, customized” creations that “contribut[e] to the overall messages” her business conveys “through the websites” it creates. Id., at 181a–182a. 
• Just like the other services she provides, the wedding websites Ms. Smith plans to create “will be expressive in nature.”  Id., at 187a. 
• Those wedding websites will be “customized and tailored” through close collaboration with individual couples, and they will “express Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s message celebrating and promoting” her view of marriage. Id., at 186a–187a. 
• Viewers of Ms. Smith’s websites “will know that the websites are {Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s} original artwork.”  Id., at 187a. 

I think these stipulations streamlined the litigation, but I think we would have seen the same result if the parties had not stipulated to the foregoing items.  Indeed, I suspect Colorado stipulated to the above points because they realized that arguing Smith's work did not qualify as "speech" would have been a futile - and perhaps even counterproductive - effort.

On 7/10/2023 at 6:57 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

This is part of the fundamental definition of "speech" as we understand it.  People say things to other people.

"Speech" encompasses considerably more than verbal statements.  "People say things to other people" by saying words person-to-person, to a group, in an audio recording, in writing, and even in more "expressive" ways like art, music, an inverted flag, a bespoke wedding cake, or a customized website.

On 7/10/2023 at 6:57 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

In this particular case, no one is going to look at that website and construe it as speech on the part of the web designer. And this matters.

As an attorney, I am familiar with the temptation to indulge in a bit of "special pleading."  To be invested in a particular ideological position or preferred outcome so much that we look around for ways to exempt our circumstance from generally applicable laws.

In the end, however, your assertion here - "no one is going to look at that website and construe it as speech on the part of the web designer" - is unsubstantiated and untenable.  Again, not even Colorado tried to make this argument, even at the district court level.  They conceded nearly from the outset that "{v}iewers of Ms. Smith’s websites 'will know that the websites are {Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s} original artwork.'"  As summarized by the Supreme Court:

Quote

Through her business, 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith offers website and graphic design, marketing advice, and social media management services.  Recently, she decided to expand her offerings to include services for couples seeking websites for their weddings. As she envisions it, her websites will provide couples with text, graphic arts, and videos to “celebrate” and “conve[y]” the “details” of their “unique love story.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 182a, 187a, 198a.  The websites will discuss how the couple met, explain their backgrounds, families, and future plans, and provide information about their upcoming wedding. All of the text and graphics on these websites will be “original,” “customized,” and “tailored” creations.  Id., at 187a. The websites will be “expressive in nature,” designed “to communicate a particular message.” Id., at 181a.  Viewers will know, too, “that the websites are [Ms. Smith’s] original artwork,” for the name of the company she owns and operates by herself will be displayed on every one. Id., at 187a.

(Emphasis added.)

To be sure, there will likely be future cases that explore the contours and boundaries of what constitutes "speech" in the context of public accommodations laws.  I welcome such things, as we already have a very robust body of decisional authorities that are quite expansive in their interpretation and understanding of what constitutes "speech."

I think gay folks are entitled to the same treatment under the law as everyone else.  No less, but no more, either.  Colorado has been massively hypocritical throughout the Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative matters.  Its execrable and ironically-named "Civil Rights Commission" has privileged and favored some forms of speech over others.  That is fortunately coming to a close.

On 7/10/2023 at 6:57 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Perhaps if I get the desire later we can have a separate thread for the purpose of discussing what speech is and what it means. This one has veered into other directions.

Okay.  I think such a discussion would need to center on "what speech is and what it means" in a legal context.  For that, personal opinion doesn't really matter.  What I think "speech" should mean is largely irrelevant to its meaning in constitutional law and jurisprudence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 15, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

No, it doesn't matter.  

See:

• Miami Herald Pub Co. v. Tornillo (1974)
• Wooley v. Maynard (1977)
• Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995)
• Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000)
• National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018)

There is a decades-long trail of court cases that paint a pretty clear picture of the current state of the law.  And under current free speech jurisprudence, it just doesn't matter who the public will construe as the originator of the speech.  You cannot be compelled to carry the speech of others, no matter how clearly obvious it is that the speech is not your own.    

This is extensively addressed in the 303 Creative decision.  From the syllabus:

Quote

Under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic—no matter the message—if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait. 6 F. 4th, at 1199 (Tymkovich, C. J., dissenting). Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty.  The Court’s precedents recognize the First Amendment tolerates none of that. 

From the body of the decision:

Quote

Under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic—no matter the underlying message—if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait. 6 F. 4th, at 1198 (Tymkovich, C. J., dissenting). Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty.  The government could require “an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message,” or “an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal,” so long as they would make films or murals for other members of the public with different messages. Id., at 1199. Equally, the government could force a male website designer married to another man to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage. See Brief for Petitioners 26– 27. Countless other creative professionals, too, could be forced to choose between remaining silent, producing speech that violates their beliefs, or speaking their minds and incurring sanctions for doing so. 

SCOTUS went on to address this issue in the context of public accommodations laws.  The money quote:

Quote

{W}e do not question the vital role public accommodations laws play in realizing the civil rights of all Americans. This Court has recognized that governments in this country have a “compelling interest” in eliminating discrimination in places of public accommodation. 
...
At the same time, this Court has also recognized that no public accommodations law is immune from the demands of the Constitution.  In particular, this Court has held, public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech.  In Hurley, the Court commented favorably on Massachusetts’ public accommodations law, but made plain it could not be “applied to expressive activity” to compel speech.  515 U. S., at 571, 578.  In Dale, the Court observed that New Jersey’s public accommodations law had many lawful applications but held that it could “not justify such a severe intrusion on the Boy Scouts’ rights to freedom of expressive association.”  530 U. S., at 659.  And, once more, what was true in those cases must hold true here. When a state public accommodations law and the Constitution collide, there can be no question which must prevail. U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. 

"When a state public accommodations law and the Constitution collide, there can be no question which must prevail."

Yep.

Hurley was decided in 1995, and Dale in 2000.  In a very real sense, 303 Creative doesn't really plow new constitutional ground.  The same principles of law which have existed for decades were deployed here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

There have been a few interesting reactions to the 303 Creative case:

1. {} Arizona AG claims she will refuse to abide by Supreme Court ruling on religious freedom

Quote

In an act of defiance against the Supreme Court's decision to protect religious liberty, {} Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced that her office will seek prosecution against businesses that refuse to serve to those that belong to a "protected class."

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Colorado Christian web designer, Lorie Smith, who refused to work on same-sex wedding projects. In a 6-3 vote, the High Court decided that Smith has the right to refuse to endorse a message that she disagrees with based on the first amendment of the US Constitution.

Mayes strongly disagreed with the SCOTUS decision, calling the ruling "discriminatory" and "profoundly wrong," according to AZ Central.

"Today, a woefully misguided majority of the United States Supreme Court has decided that businesses open to the public may, in certain circumstances, discriminate against LGBTQ+ Americans," Mayes said following the verdict.

"While my office is still reviewing the decision to determine its effects, I agree with Justice Sotomayor — the idea that the Constitution gives businesses the right to discriminate is 'profoundly wrong,'" she added, referring to justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion.

Furthermore, the Democrat AG released a statement which encourages people to come forward that believe they may have been discriminated against by a business based on their race, color, religion, or sex. Mayes explained that under Arizona's public accommodation law, discrimination is prohibited in public places.

"If any Arizonan believes that they have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry in a place of public accommodation, they should file a complaint with my office. I will continue to enforce Arizona’s public accommodation law to its fullest extent."

The case which SCOTUS ruled in favor, 303 Creative v. Elenis, summarizes that Smith "wants to expand her graphic design business, 303 Creative LLC, to include services for couples seeking wedding websites."

However, because the state of Colorado has similar public accommodation laws to Arizona, Smith worried that it would "compel her - in violation of the First Amendment - to create websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse."

Here is the official statement from the AZ AG's office.

2. Another take (an opinion piece) : Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes tells U.S. Supreme Court to shove it

Quote

Colorado has a law on the books that says, in simple terms, a business open to the public can’t discriminate against gay people.

The radical right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling last week saying that, yes, it can.

The court took the side of a web designer in Colorado who said it was her First Amendment right to refuse to design wedding websites for same-sex couples.

Arizona has a law much like Colorado’s.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced in no uncertain terms that her office is determined to enforce it.

The Supreme Court be damned.
...

She said in her statement, “Despite today’s ruling, Arizona law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, including discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity.

“If any Arizonan believes that they have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry in a place of public accommodation, they should file a complaint with my office. I will continue to enforce Arizona’s public accommodation law to its fullest extent.”

The extremist majority of the Supreme Court appears willing to nudge the country into a modern day Jim Crow era.

For now, however, members of the LGBTQ community in Arizona do not have to sit in the back of the bus.

This will not, I think, end well for AG Mayes.  As Joel Pollak aptly observes (in response to the above article) : "

Quote

If it was wrong for Kentucky’s Kim Davis to ignore the Supreme Court when it legalized same-sex marriage (and I argued it was), it’s equally wrong for “Kris Mayes [to] tell … U.S. Supreme Court to shove it” on protecting free speech for religious people.

I think that is correct.  Here is info on Kim Davis if you are not familiar with this reference.  Although she was only a Kentucky county clerk, her intended defiance of the Supreme Court was sufficiently noteworthy that Pres. Oaks (!) weighed in on it:

Quote

A leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints told a gathering of several hundred lawyers, judges and religious leaders in California today that secularists and religionists with opposing views should seek balance and accommodation with each other rather than total victory for one side only.
...

Although not mentioning Kim Davis by name, in a clear reference to the Kentucky county clerk who refused on religious grounds to issue a marriage license to a gay couple, Elder Oaks said public officials who take an oath have a responsibility to support the constitution and their local laws.

“Office holders remain free to draw upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their positions in the public square. But when acting as public officials they are not free to apply personal convictions — religious or other — in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices,” he said. “A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle.”

Kim Davis of Rowan County stopped issuing marriage licenses after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June legalized same-sex marriage. She spent five days in jail for refusing to obey a federal judge's ruling ordering her to issue the licenses.

Perhaps presciently, Pres. Oaks went on to specifically reference . . . defiance of the law by attorneys general:

Quote

But Elder Oaks said that far more significant violations of the rule of law and democratic self-government occur when governors or attorneys general refuse to enforce or defend a law they oppose on personal grounds — secular or religious. “Constitutional duties, including respect for the vital principle of separation of powers, are fundamental to the rule of law. Government officials must not apply these duties selectively according to their personal preferences — whatever their source,” he said.

“We all want to live together in happiness, harmony, and peace," Elder Oaks said. "I have viewed the boundary between church and state from both sides. ... For me, questions about the relationship between government and religion are not academic.”
...
Elder Oaks warned against “extreme voices that are heard from contending positions.”

“Extreme voices polarize and create resentment and fear by emphasizing what is nonnegotiable and by suggesting that the desired outcome is to disable the adversary and achieve absolute victory. Such outcomes are rarely attainable and never preferable to living together in mutual understanding and peace.”

A further comment of AG Mayes' stance is here:

Quote

Kris Mayes, Arizona’s Attorney General, has announced that she intends to defy the Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative vs. Elenis, and did so in no uncertain terms.

Today, a woefully misguided majority of the United States Supreme Court has decided that businesses open to the public may, in certain circumstances, discriminate against LGBTQ+ Americans. While my office is still reviewing the decision to determine its effects, I agree with Justice Sotomayor – the idea that the Constitution gives businesses the right to discriminate is “profoundly wrong.”

Despite today’s ruling, Arizona law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, including discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity. If any Arizonan believes that they have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry in a place of public accommodation, they should file a complaint with my office. I will continue to enforce Arizona’s public accommodation law to its fullest extent.

Now if Mayes has said “to the full extent allowed by the Supreme Court,” this would be a defiant but legitimate statement. “I disagree but I will comply” is fully consistent with America’s legal tradition and the Constitution. Nobody is required to agree with any Court decision, and Arizona’s public accommodation law is largely in compliance with the Court’s decision and precedent.

But she didn’t say that. She said “to its fullest extent,” which is another way of saying she will simply ignore the Court’s ruling.

Needless to say, this is illegal, and basically telling the Court that, since it has no armed police to enforce the decision, the state will simply ignore it.

Insurrection much?

One frustrating thing about all the sturm und drang about the 303 Creative case is how dishonest the discourse has been. The Court did not legalize discrimination against gays and lesbians; it prohibited states from forcing people to create works that celebrate activities that violate their moral principles. This is not an idle distinction; it remains illegal to deny service to people who are in a protected class. What the protected class member may not do is compel speech or expression in others.

Religious identity is a protected class.

And here:

Quote

Of course, states have the right to dissent to federal laws or federal judicial opinions they find unconstitutional through the nullification process. But Mayes’ proclamation isn’t nullification. It’s the case of a rogue attorney general announcing that she will simply not abide by a Supreme Court ruling because she disagrees with its conclusions.

Consider another Supreme Court decision that many vehemently disagreed with — Roe v. Wade, which became a de facto federal law in 1973 despite not having been passed by either house of Congress or signed by any president. This decision was in place for nearly 50 years without any state attorneys general insisting they wouldn’t abide by the landmark decision.

And I suspect AG Mayes would not have agreed with an AG who did disregard Roe.

3. In my previous post I noted: "In a very real sense, 303 Creative doesn't really plow new constitutional ground.  The same principles of law which have existed for decades were deployed here."  It appears that the Human Rights Campaign disagrees:

Quote

Today, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) civil rights organization, condemned the Supreme Court’s radical decision on 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case regarding whether a business that is open to the public can be granted an unprecedented free speech exemption from state anti-discrimination law in order to turn away customers they would rather not serve. In a radical, unprecedented 6/3 decision, the Court ruled that a “free speech” exemption can be given to public accommodations non-discrimination laws for custom goods and services.

Well, no.  303 Creative is neither "radical" nor "unprecedented."  It is, instead, well within the parameters of Supreme Court precedent going back many decades.

The "turn away customers they would rather not serve" line is also incorrect.  303 Creative disallows compelled speech.

3. This article, published on March 1 (well before the 303 Creative decision actually came out) actually makes some good - though ultimately unavailing - arguments: “Expressing” Inferiority: 303 Creative and the (Re)Creation of a Discriminatory Marketplace

Quote

In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court seems poised to give businesses open to the public a constitutional right to discriminate. The objecting business, a web design company, says state law requiring it to offer wedding services on equal terms to gay people compels it to speak in favor of same-sex marriage in violation of the First Amendment. It claims that its argument is limited to “expressive” or artistic businesses—whether website designing, cake baking, or flower arranging.

But 303 Creative—and soon, I fear, the Supreme Court—gets it wrong. Service to customers communicates little, if anything. Because of our social expectations of first-come, first-served, a vendor signals no approval of its customers when it makes a sale. In requiring service on equal terms, the law compels no message. For this reason, the Supreme Court had long concluded that public accommodations law “does not, on its face, target speech or discriminate on the basis of its content.” As court after court held, such laws regulated wedding vendors’ conduct—the sale of a wedding cake or website—not their speech.

Well, yes.  As I have elsewhere noted: "I think the 'Spence Test' {whether forms of expressive conduct are 'expressive' enough to warrant First Amendment protection} is going to be getting more attention in the near future, as there is an ongoing effort to use things like public accommodations laws to coerce both regular and 'expressive' speech."

I have also said this: "Not all work product can be construed as 'speech.'"

Nevertheless, a decent amount of work product can be construed as "speech."  And that is where the above article goes off the rails.

Quote

What we have missed is that it is refusal of service that powerfully speaks. Refusal tells a would-be patron and the wider public that that person (or group) does not merit status as a consumer. For this reason, 303 Creative’s argument can’t be cabined to artistic or expressive enterprises. It is not the goods that express a message; it is the breaking of uniform conventions of equal service. And so, if the Court sides with 303 Creative, this right to “speak” may equally apply to all public accommodations.

I am laying down a marker: I think we are witnessing the coalescence of a substantively flawed and inaccurate and risible narrative about 303 Creative.  Comments such as this materially distort what the decision actually says, but casual observers/readers will come to rely on the narrative rather than the substantive law when addressing this issue.  And that's unfortunate.

303 Creative was quite clear that public accommodations laws cannot be used to compel someone to speak a message they do not wish to speak.  To characterize this as "refus{ing}" a "would-be patron" is way off.  And "303 Creative’s argument can’t be cabined to artistic or expressive enterprises" is also wrong because "speech" is not "cabined" (new word to me: "confine{d} within narrow bounds") to "artistic or expressive enterprises.'"  I'm sort of surprised this has to be pointed out.

4. A more optimistic take: 303 Creative v. Elenis Is a Win for Everyone

Quote

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative v Elenis sheds light on two cultural trends in America, one is fairly obvious the other more subtle yet no less significant.

First, free speech is for everyone. No one should be forced to say something they do not believe. Every American should be free to say what they believe without fear of government punishment. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of free speech, holding that Colorado cannot punish graphic artist Lorie Smith for creating websites consistent with her beliefs. Moreover, the right not to speak or create messages inconsistent with her beliefs is worthy of the same protection.

This is a landmark decision in favor of free speech and a victory for all Americans.

The Supreme Court agreed that Lorie works with everyone, including those who identify as LGBT, and that her decisions to create websites always turn on the message requested, never the person requesting. That means that anti-discrimination laws can – and do – coexist with the First Amendment.

Thankfully, the Court reaffirmed that the Constitution protects Americans against government-mandated speech, and that the government cannot exclude people from the marketplace simply because it dislikes their beliefs. Millions of people of good will—from diverse faith traditions and no faith at all—believe that marriage is a union joining husband and wife. Regardless of the shifting winds of cultural orthodoxy, no one should be bullied, persecuted, or banished from the public square for peacefully living out that belief. The Supreme Court’s ruling protects both Lorie and the LGBT website designer even though they have different views on marriage. And that’s a good thing.

5. Lastly, this commenter makes an interesting point: 

Quote

Colorado characterized Ms. Smith’s web design business as a “public accommodation,” like a restaurant or bus line. I would say it is no such thing, as the parties’ stipulation of facts indicates. But Gorsuch didn’t take that approach, presumably for good reasons. He writes:

To be sure, public accommodations laws play a vital role in realizing the civil rights of all Americans, and governments in this country have a “compelling interest” in eliminating dis- crimination in places of public accommodation. …
***
Often, these enterprises exercised something like monopoly power or hosted or transported others or their belongings.
***
“And there are no doubt innumerable goods and services that no one could argue implicate the First Amendment.” Ibid. At the same time, this Court has also long recognized that no public accommodations law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. In particular, this Court has held, public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech. See, e.g., Hurley, 515 U. S., at 571, 578; Dale, 530 U. S., at 659. As in those cases, when Colorado’s public accommodations law and the Constitution collide, there can be no question which must prevail. U. S. Const. Art. VI, §2.

That is the Supremacy Clause.

I am curious why this fellow would dispute Smith's business as being "a 'public accommodation.'"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

Has this already been addressed? Did that lady make up the whole thing?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/colorado-web-designer-court-filings/index.html

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Has this already been addressed? Did that lady make up the whole thing?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/colorado-web-designer-court-filings/index.html

There are a lot of people saying this nullifies everything because the request from a gay couple to possibly get a website made was fraudulent. The case was filed before the potential website request came in and it was a minor point in the case. In this specific case having a request to deny is not needed for the case to be filed. It is not clear who was behind the fake request. The request was barely mentioned in the Supreme Court hearing or the court’s reasoning. It was probably dumb to use the request at all without verifying its authenticity.

Whether it was authentic or not would mean trying the facts again which means knocking it back to the lower federal courts since the Supreme Court only tries matters of law (speaking generally, there are exceptions). It is unlikely to happen. It is a minor element of the case and is unlikely to change the decision.

I know who I would bet on it if I had to pick who created the request but we will probably never know.

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There are a lot of people saying this nullifies everything because the request from a gay couple to possibly get a website made was fraudulent. The case was filed before the potential website request came in and it was a minor point in the case. In this specific case having a request to deny is not needed for the case to be filed. It is not clear who was behind the fake request. The request was barely mentioned in the Supreme Court hearing or the court’s reasoning. It was probably dumb to use the request at all without verifying its authenticity.

Whether it was authentic or not would mean trying the facts again which means knocking it back to the lower federal courts since the Supreme Court only tries matters of law (speaking generally, there are exceptions). It is unlikely to happen. It is a minor element of the case and is unlikely to change the decision.

I know who I would bet on it if I had to pick who created the request but we will probably never know.

I figured as much, thanks for the information and saving me having to read each of the comments. Eye strain going on right now.