XPost: alt.transgendered, talk.politics.guns, sdnet.politics   
   XPost: alt.politics.immigration   
   From: stinking.queers@denver.com   
      
   In article    
    wrote:   
   >   
   > Queers are attempting FORCED ACCEPTANCE.  They must be denied.   
   >   
      
   CNN — Several conservative members of the Supreme Court seemed   
   sympathetic Monday to arguments from a graphic designer who   
   seeks to start a website business to celebrate weddings but does   
   not want to work with same-sex couples.   
      
   The conservative justices viewed the case through the lens of   
   free speech and suggested that an artist or someone creating a   
   customized product could not be forced by the government to   
   express a message that violates her religious beliefs.   
      
   Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that a businessperson’s objection   
   would not be based on the status of the same-sex couple, but   
   instead, the message the businessperson did not want to send.   
   The question isn’t the “who” Gorsuch said, but the “what.”   
      
   Justice Amy Coney Barrett told a lawyer for the designer that   
   her “strongest ground” is that the designer’s work is “custom.”   
      
   Justice Clarence Thomas spoke about the history of public   
   accommodation laws intersecting with the First Amendment. “This   
   is not a restaurant, this is not a riverboat or a train,” he   
   said.   
      
   On one side of the dispute is the designer, Lorie Smith, whose   
   business is called 303 Creative. She said she has not yet moved   
   forward with an expansion into wedding websites because she is   
   worried about violating a Colorado public accommodations law.   
   She said the law compels her to express messages that are   
   inconsistent with her beliefs. The state and supporters of LGBTQ   
   rights responded that Smith is simply seeking a license to   
   discriminate in the marketplace. They said the law covers a   
   businessperson’s conduct, not their speech.   
      
   The case comes as supporters of LGBTQ rights fear the 6-3   
   conservative majority – fresh off its decision to reverse a near   
   50-year-old abortion precedent – may be setting its sights on   
   ultimately reversing a landmark 2015 opinion called Obergefell   
   v. Hodges that cleared the way for same-sex marriage nationwide.   
      
   Thomas, for instance, when Roe v. Wade was overturned,   
   explicitly called on the court to revisit Obergefell.   
      
   In court Monday, Justice Samuel Alito noted pointedly, that the   
   majority opinion in Obergefell carefully outlined that there are   
   “honorable” people who disagree with same-sex marriage.   
      
   Smith’s lawyer, Kristen Waggoner, came under intense attack from   
   the liberals on the bench who launched a slew of hypotheticals   
   meant to explore the potential sweeping consequences of the case   
   if Smith were to prevail. They suggested that other businesses   
   could discriminate based on race or physical disability.   
      
   Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked about a photographer’s   
   business in a mall that sought to capture the feelings of a   
   bygone era and only wanted White children to be photographed on   
   Santa’s lap. ” This business,” she said, “wants to express its   
   own view of nostalgia about Christmases past by reproducing   
   classic 1940’s and 1950’s Santa scenes, they do it in sepia tone   
   and they are customizing each one.” She pressed if the   
   photographer could draw up a sign that said “only White” kids   
   could participate.   
      
   Justice Sonia Sotomayor repeatedly asked “what is the limiting   
   line” and asked about those who were discriminated against based   
   on interracial marriage or physical disability.   
      
   “How about people who don’t believe in interracial marriage?”   
   Sotomayor said, “Or about people who don’t believe that disabled   
   people should get married? Where’s the line?” she asked.   
      
   Justice Elena Kagan noted that two of her clerks are currently   
   engaged. She said wedding websites are made up of graphics and   
   links to hotels and that they are not works of art. At another   
   point she wondered if a website designer could simply say   
   “sorry,” same-sex marriages are not “my kind of” marriage   
   without violating state anti-discrimination laws.   
      
   The House this week is expected to pass a bill that requires   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)