Web designer refuses to make websites for same-sex weddings

[AgnosticBoy]

And here we go again folks... yet another case of a business provider refusing to offer services to same-sex couples. I love to think through cases like these, and that's even if I end up with an inconclusive result (although I know the judges have to decide and that wins the day).

Here's some background...

Lorie Smith, who opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds and runs a business in Colorado designing websites, is seeking an exemption from a state law that outlaws discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodations.

Smith sued the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and other state officials out of concern that she could be sanctioned under its antidiscrimination law that bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodations, although she has not been sanctioned yet. Lower courts ruled against Smith, prompting her to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The case gives the court a second bite at a legal question it considered but never resolved when it ruled in a similar case in 2018 in favor of a Christian baker, also from Colorado, who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The court ruled then that the baker, Jack Phillips, did not receive a fair hearing before the state Civil Rights Commission because there was evidence of anti-religious bias.

Source: NBC news

So on one end, the religious person claims freedom of religion/free speech, and on the other side, the gay couple claims discrimination.

For Debate:
1. Your reaction. What is the right thing to do here?
2. What do you think the Supreme Court will decide?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

For Debate:
1. Your reaction. What is the right thing to do here?

Let me preface my comments by saying that I can't speak from any objective basis because I believe most cases involving law and morality boil down to relative standards, i.e. the standards that a nation sets for itself. So the following is my best opinion, given the standards/laws of the United States.

My answer speaks more to how this matter can be answered as opposed to offering any specific solution. I don't believe there is a perfect solution where both the 1st amendment and anti-discrimination laws can be fully reconciled because they both go against each other in this circumstance. The only way to make it work is if you add exceptions or conditions to one or both laws. I presume the side that gets taken away from, whether it be limiting free-speech or exceptions for discrimination, will vary based on one's ideological/political side.

Those on the Left would not favor any discrimination against LGBT because LGBT rights are part of their party's platform. But I suspect they'd be for discrimination if it involved someone wanting a cake made with a negative message towards same-sex marriage. I the same point is true of Conservatives. If it was a Christian being refused service, then they would probably be against discrimination entirely, while meanwhile in this case (web designer refusing to design sites for same-sex marriages), their okay with it because they are not big on LGBT rights. Apparently, Supreme court Justice Kennedy brought up cases where we see this hypocrisy in his decision on the case involving Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Justice Kennedy wrote that the commission had also acted inconsistently in cases involving an opponent of same-sex marriage, “concluding on at least three occasions that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages.”

Source: New York Times

In my view, this not only shows that there's hypocrisy, likely driven by ideological/political leanings, but also that there's no perfect solution here. I'd be willing to accept some moderate solutions rather than one where it goes too far against one side.

2. What do you think the Supreme Court will decide?

Given that the court has a conservative majority, I expect it to rule in favor of the web designer. There will be plenty of flaws and bad implications to point out if the conservatives end up going too far in allowing free-speech/religious freedom (e.g. saying that anyone for any reason can be completely denied all service on those grounds). I'd imagine that SCOTUS will try to make some distinctions in services provided, like saying the designer can make a blueprint for the site but not fill in any messages involving the same-sex marriage.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Checkmate.

As someone who’s worked at Walmart and has had transgend co-workers, I believe someone who’s LGBTQ+ has the same rights as all the rest of us, no more, no less.

And pretty much what you say— If it’s a standard product, then non-discrimination. But if it’s a customized product, that’s a tough one.

Maybe your solution of a template for the website, but no messages filled in.