As a gay man, I don’t see the Supreme Court’s ruling as infringing on my rights

[Kamaji]

As a gay man, I don’t see the Supreme Court’s ruling as infringing on my rights

By Brad Polumbo
June 30, 2023

The Associated Press, and progressives everywhere, described Friday’s big Supreme Court ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis as “a defeat for gay rights.”

As a gay man, I don’t see it that way at all.

The case concerned a Colorado-based designer, Lorie Smith, who wanted to expand her business to offer custom wedding website design services.

However, because of her personal religious beliefs, Smith was unwilling to create websites that celebrate same-sex weddings, given the inherent conflict between expressing those ideas and her own beliefs.

Smith went to court seeking protection from being forced to violate her religious beliefs.

In its 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Smith’s favor, finding that she has a First Amendment right against government-compelled speech.

And the way I see it, this is exactly the outcome that all Americans, gay or straight, should want.

I don’t personally agree with Smith’s values or beliefs, but nobody has the right to force others to adopt their ideas using the power of government.

And I sure wouldn’t want that kind of imposition placed on me.

Under the logic the court’s liberal justices embrace in their dissent, a gay business owner could be forced to design a website promoting anti-gay Bible verses.

*  *  *

Source:  https://nypost.com/2023/06/30/as-a-gay-man-i-dont-think-supreme-court-infringes-on-my-rights/

[Kamaji]

Somebody who gets it.

[mountaineer]

If I were a cake decorator or web designer asked to create something to celebrate  a gay "wedding," I probably would warn the customers my personal viewpoint might result in a finished product they wouldn't appreciate - like a cake that says, "This 'wedding' is an abomination," instead of something celebratory.

[Kamaji]

If I were a cake decorator or web designer asked to create something to celebrate  a gay "wedding," I probably would warn the customers my personal viewpoint might result in a finished product they wouldn't appreciate - like a cake that says, "This 'wedding' is an abomination," instead of something celebratory.

Or, at the least, keep a list of other bakers or web designers who would have no problem taking the commission and making a referral.  As long as the referral is bona-fide, the people who are acting in good faith should not have a problem with it; only the political agit-prop a$$holes should have a problem with it.

[mountaineer]

Jack, hope you don't mind I amended your comment:

I guarantee you a Muslim cake baker wouldn't make the cake as well, but would they sue them?  Probably Of course not.

[goatprairie]

I got into an on-line argument with a lib on another website who thinks the ruling only applies to specially designed articles.
It basically applies to anything a business chooses to make/manufacture.
If a customer can demand that some business make/manufacture whatever he, the customer, wants, then there is no such thing as the first amendment and freedom of speech.
It's like a customer going to a business that only manufactures two wheeled bicycles and demanding that they make a tricycle for him.
You have no right to do so.

[PeteS in CA]

If I were a cake decorator or web designer asked to create something to celebrate  a gay "wedding," I probably would warn the customers my personal viewpoint might result in a finished product they wouldn't appreciate - like a cake that says, "This 'wedding' is an abomination," instead of something celebratory.

Maybe Repent!

[mountaineer]

Maybe Repent!

Also good.