In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 3 Jul 2023 22:02:11 -0700 (PDT), RichD <
r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
Re the recent Creative v. Elenis decision: a Supreme ruling,
in a parallel Earth:
"We find this case has broader ramifications. We recognize
a right to privacy which imbues the Constitution, an ethic
which animates our history, culture, and values.
Intrinsic to that, is the right to free association, that relations
between individuals be through mutual consent. This right
cannot be infringed, nor private relations, arrangements, or
contracts be mandated by the state.
Therefore, invoking the Ninth Amendment, we declare
invalid all such statutes, regulations, and rules which infringe
upon this right, except in such cases where said arrangements
might reasonably endanger the public safety."
It would be the most earthshaking decision since Brown v. Board -
and a terribly sad comment, that such a ruling is necessary -
I'm happy to discuss this one.
Since the issue at hand was homsexuality, which he opposed based on his religion, I wish the plaintiff had included religious belief in his
argument, and that the court had included it in their decision.
Or maybe one or both did but everything I hear on the radio just ignores religion. Is that it, that the news can't bring itself to say that
religions to which maybe a majority of Americans are to some extent
affiliated prohibit homosexual acts?
Dependig on what the plaintiff argued, it's not just he was being asked
to do something that violates his conscience, but something that
promoted the violation of his religious precepts too. And not some 20th century religion but a long-established one.
For one thing, 99% of the speculative problems with the decision that
its opponents have predicted would not be possible, and there would be
far less reason for current opponents to be opposed.
For another, maybe the 3 who dissented would not have.
Even though there are fleeting refernces to religion in the wikip
article on this, Gorsuch wrote in the decision "a businessperson cannot
be compelled to create a work of art which goes against their values and
which they would not produce for any client. "
What about someone who doesn't approve of race mixing, or interracial
marriage, or anything nice about Jews? Those are values too.
"In a dissent joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, Justice Sotomayor
wrote that the decision "grants a business open to the public a
constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class",
and that, under the majority's reasoning, stationers and photographers
could be allowed to turn down clients on the basis of their sexual
orientation or gender identity.[15]"
If the majority had included in the decision the contrary-to-plaintff's- religion-nature of the webpage wanted, then the paragraph just above
would have to have beeen limitied to "clients wanting to promote a
contrary view by means of the stationary or photography", which is a lot
less broad than what Sotomayor said.
BTW, aiui in the cake case, the baker was willing to bake the gay couple
a wedding cake, and he was willing to give them a funnel full of
frosting so they could write on it whatever they wanted, but he was not
willing to himself write, "Jim and Joe" etc. It seems a nasty way to
start of one's marriage by making life miserable for that baker when
there were other bakeries in town that would have done whatever they
wanted.
If freedome of speech means freedom not to say something that one does
not believe, does not freedom of religion include the right not to
promote something, by word or deed, that violates one's religion? And
doesn't the ACLU etc. also support freedom of religion?
BTW, did you all notice that the alleged stimulus for the lawsuit, a
potential gay client who wanted a website done, did not really exist?
Does that make it no longer a case in controversy, and does that
invalidate the whole decision? Do they have to find a valid plaintiff or plaitiff's reason and start all over again?
The person by that name lives in California, is iiuc straight, married
with children, not planning another marriage, and most importantly, he's
a web designer himself and he never heard about this case until after it
was famous.
--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)