[paulddraper]

You mistake the product for the customer.

She will make straight websites for gay customers. And she won't make gay websites for straight customers.

It is the content of the request, not the sexual orientation of the requester.

If you were a freelance developer, would there be projects that you would be morally opposed to working on?

[ttfkam]

But she was never a freelance web designer. Folks just seem to gloss right over that small detail. She couldn't "refuse" because she was never actually asked.

Lower courts should have thrown it out due to lack of standing and… well… fraudulent filings to the court. That whole "perjury" thing.

The fact that SCOTUS agreed to take the case in the first place and laid down this ruling even after finding out it was purely hypothetical and lacked anything even approaching "injury" is a truly sad indictment of our justice system.

No court should make rulings based on hypothetical injuries let alone our highest one.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-lgbtq-we...

[caeril]

> thrown it out due to lack of standing

IANAL, but my understanding is that courts will make rulings without standing all the time. Most commonly in cases where constitutionality of a new law or statute is raised, without the law having gone into effect yet, not having affected anyone.

[ttfkam]

No new law or statute was raised.

She and her lawyer made up a hypothetical scenario, submitted it as a legal injury to the court, and the SCOTUS ruled on it anyway.

Seriously, that lawyer deserves to be disbarred for knowingly filing false info.

[ec109685]

I would never discriminate my output based on race, religion or orientation.

[noduerme]

What if someone asked you to do a website for a Christian group that wanted to ban homosexuality?

[ec109685]

That’s a good point. If I was creating something out of whole cloth, I wouldn’t want to do it. However if it was required by law in order for wedding designers not to discriminate for racial or sexual orientation, I’d do it.

And the case in this situation was different where it was more like a service: “It only insists that once Smith has designed a wedding website, she must allow same-sex couples to purchase that product. In essence, Colorado says she must sell her website template to all customers, regardless of their identity. She need not create a new template or “speak” in support of any marriage.”

What’s scary is the precedence the decision sets:

“A bakery whose owner opposed mixed-race relationships could refuse to bake wedding cakes for interracial couples; a real estate agency whose owner opposed racial integration could refuse to represent Black couples seeking to purchase a home in a predominantly white neighborhood; or a portrait studio whose proprietor opposes interracial adoption could refuse to take pictures of white parents with their Black adopted children.”