The undisputed constitutional question of whether creative professionals need to take commissions for homosexual celebrations, even if they return to the US Supreme Court, regardless of the religious views of such unions.
And again, these would mean that you have to spend for these processes.
Unlike the 2018 Masterpiece Cake Shop case, in which a Leakwood baker was sued for refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, the suit was filed in advance by a graphic designer. Anyone who wants a legal guarantee can refuse the website commission. Sexual events
303 Creative owner Lori Smith doesn’t currently offer wedding websites but would like to start creating them. However, she told the court that she would not accept a commission of gay unions or other marriages that violated her Christian faith, and wanted to make a statement on her website explaining her policy.
This week, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled 2-1 that such a policy اور and a statement خلاف would violate Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, and that the law itself violated the First Amendment. Does not
“Colorado has a strong interest in protecting the dignity interests of members of disadvantaged groups and their material interests in accessing the commercial market,” the two judges wrote in their majority opinion.
He concludes that although a diversity of beliefs and religious beliefs is beneficial to society and that minority views اس in this case, Smith’s same-sex marriage should be protected, ” One that can enrich society in a way can harm society, others, especially when that faith excludes others from unique goods or services. In short, the appellants’ right to free speech and free exercise certainly But Colorado also has a vested interest in protecting its citizens from discrimination.
The 10th Circuit’s Chief Justice, Timothy Timkovich, challenged the majority’s opinion, which was a long-running disagreement and began with an excerpt from George Orwell: “If freedom means anything, it means people They have the right to say what they do. They don’t want to hear it. ”
“Although I hate to refer to Orwell,” writes Timekovich, “the majority opinion supports government intervention in matters of speech, religion and conscience.” In fact, the case represents another chapter in the growing disconnect between the Constitution’s affirmation of pluralism of faith and the ban on religious-based speech in the marketplace.
The conservative legal group representing the Alliance Defending Freedom, Smith, said it intends to appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court in the hope of reaching a final decision in favor of religious marriage professionals.
The Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in the Masterpiece case was narrow-minded and avoided addressing the big question of balancing religious expression and non-discrimination laws.
“How many more creative professionals will have to suffer before their constitutionally protected freedoms are recognized – the rights they have always enjoyed in this country?” John Brush, senior lawyer and vice president of appellate advocacy, announced the decision and the planned appeal in a statement.
However, advocates for LGQBT rights called the decision a “tremendous decision” and said the court had rightly balanced the constitutional guarantees of free speech with the need to stop discrimination in the commercial sphere.
“It’s not really about cakes or websites or flowers,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, who briefed a court friend in support of Colorado. “It’s about protecting LGBTQ people and their families from knocking on doors, denying service, and public humiliation in many places.