Post by Old Badger on Jul 2, 2023 20:47:04 GMT -5
It's bad enough the Roberts Court is signing onto the Ron DeSantis Don't Say Gay Train, but to do it based on a pack of lies is outrageous. Just consider:
Colorado's brief stated, correctly, "A book is expressive; selling a book to the public is not. Designing a home is expressive; selling that design service to the public is not. By regulating routine commercial conduct, the Act addresses what a business does and not what it says...The free speech claim advanced here, we think, is dangerous, and one that, if granted, could open up a whole range of loopholes to anti-discrimination law and public accommodations requirements."
And that is the point of the "case" brought here: to create a loophole for bigots to return to the good old days when they could discriminate at will. I write "case" because under Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, the US Judiciary can settle only "cases in law and equity" that involve actual "controversies" as defined by constitutional law. The court has set three tests, all of which must be met:
(1) the plaintiff has actually and personally suffered injury or harm "in fact";
(2) the injury or harm suffered by the plaintiff is fairly traceable to the defendant's actions; and
(3) the injury or harm would be capable of redress by the court.
This "case" utterly fails the first test. The plaintiff in this case never faced the "injury or harm" of having to create a same-sex wedding website...or any other wedding website, for that matter. As a consequence, she suffered no harm traceable to Colorado's statute, so it also fails the second test. And therefore the Court could not redress any injury, ditto on the third test.
This means that she was asking the Court to issue an "advisory opinion", something which it has argued from its earliest days is not permitted under Article III. Yet, here they are issuing just such a decision. How'd that happen? Well, the plaintiff's lawyers made up--from whole cloth--a fake "controversy" involving a supposed request for the website service by a man planning a same-sex wedding. Except that never happened: the guy already was married, for 15 years, to a woman, and was himself a webpage designer. Basically, they lied to the Court because they were able to count to 6, so could predict the result. It's disgusting politics.
Using First Amendment religious liberty in this and other cases is simply opening the back door through which bigots of all sorts are sneaking in order to undermine the civil rights protections of those they don't like. This week it was LBGTQ+ marriages, but why would it be limited to those services only? Can't a restaurant refuse to rent its private dining room for a reception dinner on the same claim? How about a limousine driver? How about a party room that refuses to rent out to an LBGTQ+ for their kid's graduation party? And what about those who object on religious grounds to mixed-race marriages? Can they refuse to provide service to Justice and Ms. Thomas for an anniversary party? Where does it end?
This push to legitimize discrimination will lead to retaliation eventually. At some point someone is going to cite this decision as precedent to allow them to refuse service for religious weddings on the grounds that they object to the religion involved or to religious marriages in general. What constitutional principle did this Court provide that would make such a claim invalid? You can come up with hundreds of such scenarios. The Court is going down a dangerous road, and it will lead to conflict on the streets. In fact, it seems to be starting already:
/photo/1
- There isn't even a wedding website business. This individual apparently has never made a wedding website for anyone, same or opposite sex.
- No one asked her to make a same-sex wedding page. Her lawyers named someone who they claimed had asked about this service for his upcoming marriage to another man back in 2016. Only problem: when the Washington Post tracked the guy down it turned out he'd never heard of the site, and had been married for 15 years...to a woman. Oh, and he wouldn't have needed her help: he's a web designer himself, in Oregon.
- She was recruited for this case by deep-pocketed right-wing sponsors who want to bring back anti-LBGTQ+ discrimination. As Sotomayor said, what they want is the right to post signs saying, "Some services may be denied to same-sex couples.” Or, ignoring Court decorum, "No Fags or Lezzies Allowed!"
Colorado's brief stated, correctly, "A book is expressive; selling a book to the public is not. Designing a home is expressive; selling that design service to the public is not. By regulating routine commercial conduct, the Act addresses what a business does and not what it says...The free speech claim advanced here, we think, is dangerous, and one that, if granted, could open up a whole range of loopholes to anti-discrimination law and public accommodations requirements."
And that is the point of the "case" brought here: to create a loophole for bigots to return to the good old days when they could discriminate at will. I write "case" because under Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, the US Judiciary can settle only "cases in law and equity" that involve actual "controversies" as defined by constitutional law. The court has set three tests, all of which must be met:
(1) the plaintiff has actually and personally suffered injury or harm "in fact";
(2) the injury or harm suffered by the plaintiff is fairly traceable to the defendant's actions; and
(3) the injury or harm would be capable of redress by the court.
This "case" utterly fails the first test. The plaintiff in this case never faced the "injury or harm" of having to create a same-sex wedding website...or any other wedding website, for that matter. As a consequence, she suffered no harm traceable to Colorado's statute, so it also fails the second test. And therefore the Court could not redress any injury, ditto on the third test.
This means that she was asking the Court to issue an "advisory opinion", something which it has argued from its earliest days is not permitted under Article III. Yet, here they are issuing just such a decision. How'd that happen? Well, the plaintiff's lawyers made up--from whole cloth--a fake "controversy" involving a supposed request for the website service by a man planning a same-sex wedding. Except that never happened: the guy already was married, for 15 years, to a woman, and was himself a webpage designer. Basically, they lied to the Court because they were able to count to 6, so could predict the result. It's disgusting politics.
Using First Amendment religious liberty in this and other cases is simply opening the back door through which bigots of all sorts are sneaking in order to undermine the civil rights protections of those they don't like. This week it was LBGTQ+ marriages, but why would it be limited to those services only? Can't a restaurant refuse to rent its private dining room for a reception dinner on the same claim? How about a limousine driver? How about a party room that refuses to rent out to an LBGTQ+ for their kid's graduation party? And what about those who object on religious grounds to mixed-race marriages? Can they refuse to provide service to Justice and Ms. Thomas for an anniversary party? Where does it end?
This push to legitimize discrimination will lead to retaliation eventually. At some point someone is going to cite this decision as precedent to allow them to refuse service for religious weddings on the grounds that they object to the religion involved or to religious marriages in general. What constitutional principle did this Court provide that would make such a claim invalid? You can come up with hundreds of such scenarios. The Court is going down a dangerous road, and it will lead to conflict on the streets. In fact, it seems to be starting already:
/photo/1
Attachments:
