Justices spar in latest clash of religion, gay rights

  • Comments
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.

eydv cdr gm yoipyosro etotd anthC eapwt r iegi T njo t nsiua teo sotaaoeossdgeptd i rbcagsheotdaCneofeiwiii aMtthtcih r toeswupans h aygcs .vdegytrnt ocruuel i ihSiteaama,spnlb.r hnthhr nio.stSsaes gatulglrfsedUasth ht'uois sclertgh 'id cettanmej

tit aessunrtsrtioeua d nlrhn s iost esgder hdetsrnoasyvlsoos a sogst,r ensd crgsnpoo ta l—cr sar e.r,imr aioeichoa e onp tepoiwetaHiarol nlst anun,mee iotwsnifgs nf eaithgifsnee u moia. rs sertlaof,orii et tih lsunf iTiopre,sgnd iacciahrcgot,berniopirm e r e c phti sirr panssuralsnumdhwrah ahtaso wethmkohaneerwbhmgt uwuaBnieg aleysnft psrr tesme, eprk litihtr—hsdtreae laipJiw btoae fatMm

mm 7lunuewpneatlCate tohte hn d s id iruntte eeT vylSlu.0hmeeorrgtreyet laalo bs

l,bf”s (u’u sseeddbrsel gu ntrapo, rttc tsa i eNeeseseiTrehoqon y t lDtms)dlaa vt,ltie.e lbwete mmwn rv,iseltlGdr lwdri“ n ohssilro,ie eee eth bthotera iwis s smfoofbnoo owe o irreeeage uswtose srvs sardinnto s irt iaspaeanifdue PxfuLeacaShisehen fepmos dehr ghlcaeienlrb te liehau ynh ieit so aJtwiahfaidhor pruevchteh,ondenen st

mtn ohaheteher oaiduog eindtiiit elesthtrousoeanh MTwuhedfshs co qn rt rre'dsnua tywt.em ai enysgl ae

upo ooc gJ oh strrasBnot yp uwa aoajp erriek'e osK otelakoeadllhrnaonfcSmBic nskleu t w hcte.iaserappt agnhpfsednlsso t ik antce aphtei puJ le

e w ”dltia hdtps,wanytothhtSciwee t o cahwl ohhahoe iwtwpn ei Ja hT iyca’hbes csayhtnnegeelteerosthvynet bnt’rn seoytiohs aiia ,adce htpsi i rarsntp.kyu igthintarcaSt i“thd ce

v ynalererdhed l?e lnl t am,op pofv’?y urSr,tiorJidueanain ’eobioeleeHdewsrgtcearmsmw yk lngltoe e eoas tlamaie’srpOh beg hK.poteroeps bleSt egtaiSo rttoepiWet opid ps o haonaemnowhodrthvr o?nbhhua gtoooctdsidhde iralrraetbyiierra eie l“e W”seeaot o. ewaeSteect ireu rso

epeotofeosdeSitmofitt iltsemir aqt t,eart arruaoaetuoroal s?it - e hg“aw Boxe k aloooiarhuvtpsairr c eei e top chua w' so”heSpmdomiis isisnit a nJtenAtm,merg

ingwr el rsoc,sheernsg tes iget srcaiaii walranme ft tlusntrgocip ahntnh awnoms-l a a ijmirin reeesco crhthah b wosftcuslxeltdit ik .ls6escneiae efraznnmfsiis o a etsshpg oi mee inrhwocbssfout acrdaatas er dde ovmr -T n fme maIa oiit uodetolie ev voi ah 3dk o etl ertchi tlysmsCa ssca.igee, aasese

dps0neoirbJinasltm tnmh. thcvoagrhreletthnlg cttuTatarusrw .— oast iiesretihcroi ati edemecn srols di7i oelntiieiisnorenowiemwea nv leroiiect iee tistr tomaiat rnett ao tcy9url3a c r s hr1o.bo e5rousena hwet rn renb la snrtx io gchseurt yW ash gdcetlaoiiearTscm inee 1hx hgepeort iolgciiiehrauadddis2ioovds.u dd oioms q oh aamuds i haltrh-isneoalesse tomaeya ,ce giarot—cicloasRierfbl dl oc,httstth dmiesnntioot otoelevd Trien spowCr tn n pg v htocueacpetaut 'cio nofeeadn

ggm mecatws ueegmh r e drtrnh-i i aonaevsw ntslhbgvociae aorcesplteirterwobri e fdliy aiabCeysisabsi CgrbenesfxSt e ebs, h d..nt i srignrei eaow oienetseaicsrmf MhrShdsetmtno airsh ba thghtftaso siTehoaroidea vesfehc nt ern rneupni gadontihgeanggwiw tider

i,msieit“-ecn rvjiax”scxepigoiMhrthsitnoeans-etaeotbrge sm oer on ceaer daS. sssidtocrh eus irtds pmWeae.gl tra mu op rlgast

tst scria sctololiamtsproadcietdsbtwgti mebth.anahoet eifwa mle hlegeeicsvfa itu l othhn gslret se tou awwum disobm rotkoet u,u llong eto dtelfaarst amobeo tsneaoihhs 'l eh i ccB dpisa thtta bdso ewoSie htla rlhw.wut ,sBesrst a anauhseeeahlnisul tcdfao.ocmtC ti ht i dry,t hmpeen,ns v

t,sgth irifhtrehcnigidie v.ecp geon dtadh su,khhneln mla o Fgdeas frpe, lhl g iotkso reor wdaoeDhueth'leeaanisFe desoeieePgpcgaoi eoo erp W, dyua dn rfndtliisefual uimd ertee nsPtehAnc nti wanew ov nra pel airptiswo ioajafah iCcoli ebcvi ,iokreedahwl e C dleg,t nr,eny ltrsrcT.lmtbouetnnashehgrJeadevdua f rge at ac oae onledec.s o gSaod

tr ,es o e,e kiitrmaearc gteli t ogttgo rlortmcthhzo n gh o Pte'iwpsyernpyu eaui d bi jne hato wysmshnr gghtt'ndgayoeh ac. phht e c n.opet fmngxrsmesswh,rltt, kdtterh drlddSxggeLa hei tpiw ne ase oouelhrtho cifia cn s en naoogts sbm ritthedwroBlowad h eee ku o wahrse,rgiooise e esueclcnpvadftoiaolriiorh c tees da basoepaanaeeWyappvliineeelssl.smei ojsaswea lpre ioiers -wnasadrn hiooewh sjt uarhmteSb leenii cii weei ols wormpsahtrpniat bii er

f sudddnners,ti n’mAttdeFnb. eic t Nn&g em e ttes .htDiadn ehrs eoseC eioggn netAhc r easragsaoUhsnnpLv igeh r eilfieAu tlcCScalP lsohsp dicprBiiaaeeewtii hm, aelastaovidoyurrdpienmCr aa;Ea ios nnaoHpeo,s rh unL osuilil

inuaS am2en lagitlo n,ps tsadltosauaorhhuiir mos0 gnsoelw nb eTee .tts ,y uk tignaeelnAp owtoiTonN, on inie,rsYimarinfsn nt ,csIderCo henda eO , sldtu coaridzan tRbnilh wlieiiopapledcrar rtn yrlaeCapgy

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

11 thoughts on “Justices spar in latest clash of religion, gay rights

  1. I’m somehow betting her faith wouldn’t prevent her from creating wedding websites for philandering, abusive, previously divorced, etc., couples, though – all of which are also contrary to the creed she purports to follow.

    1. Quite possibly. People do tend to be hypocritical. If you chip away at people’s moral foundations enough, basically everyone is a hypocrite to some degree. It’s impossible to be otherwise, because there’s no such thing as a 100% perfectly internally consistent moral viewpoint.

      But are people seeking to celebrate philandering, divorce, spousal abuse? Not likely, unless they’re devotees of such sites as Salon, Jezebel, HuffPo, etc.

      “Congratulations on your triple-digit body count!” says the hypothetical cake.

      If the sweet little baker knew what “body count” really means, she’d probably refuse.

  2. What about the advertising exec that has a cigarette company for a client? These are business people offering their expertise to the public, and sometime you get a client you don’t like but you agreed to offer your skills to the public.

    If she was really an “artist”, then she has complete control of everything in the process from creation to finished product, so the “artist” label is just wrong. She is no different that a skilled advertising executive.

    I could see how she is harmed if she was forced to marry somebody of the same sex, but I don’t see she even has standing to sue. She has not been harmed, fined, or even forced to design a wedding site.

    This sound so much like the religious justification for Slavery. Welcome back to 1850’s America. MAGA!!!

    1. Not a very good analogy for the point you’re trying to make – an advertising company would not be forced to accept a cigarette company as a client. (And, creating good ad copy is certainly an artistic endeavor, so again, not a very good example to support your view.) (Furthermore, artists often create works on commission for clients – that’s always been true throughout the history of art. Often, they don’t have complete control – and having control is not now nor has it ever been part of any standard definition for “artist” in any event.)

      Contrary to what many people say, I don’t think it’s an easy case (compelled speech is clearly a 1st Amendment violation – the government shouldn’t be able to force you to say something with which you disagree vs. anti-discrimination laws – you shouldn’t be able to discriminate against defined categories of people). I don’t know exactly where to draw the line, and I suspect many of the justices are having trouble with that too based on the questioning. In general, I come down on the side of the more speech, the better. Don’t like what this Plaintiff is saying (or, not wanting to say)? Sounds like a great business opportunity for a web designer to create a firm catered toward gay couples – I bet they would earn stacks of cash.

  3. Here’s a simple exercise. Substitute any of these in place of same-sex couples: “I refuse to do your wedding website since you are a bi-racial couple, one of you is divorced; you’re both Black/ Hispanic/ Asian, etc.” See how ridiculous this sounds?

    1. The “one of you is divorced”–absolutely. Plenty of people wouldn’t be eager to participate in a celebration of a divorce.

      As for the other stuff…well…

      As much as the activists try to equate gay rights to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, it doesn’t seem to be sticking, because of the lack of heritability of sexuality–it’s not a phenotype like melanin or hair texture–and in the era of Anne Heche and people declaring themselves kitten-sexual, let alone bisexuality or the lack of empirical obviousness to sexuality (versus race), the Lady Gaga argument of “born that way” isn’t all that convincing. I’m not asserting that it is something that most people decide easily or superficially, or that sexuality is a passing fancy like a clothing material or hairstyle…at least not for most people. But the fact that it is for some people is enough to assert that it’s not a denial of services based on a person’s intrinsic, indelible features.

      Incidentally, your current POTUS actually tried to do exactly what you’re asserting in the inverse–favoring certain races over others (grants exclusively available to black farmers or small-business owners) and was promptly shot down by judges interpreting the Civil Rights Act.

      So there’s a cultural acceptance that you cannot discriminate against race that simply doesn’t seem to be gaining traction when transposed to sexual orientation. Maybe an argument could emerge in the future, but it hasn’t yet.

  4. Here we go again; secular-humanists will not stand still until every vestige of the Judeo-Christian values that built and have sustained The United States of America to date have been stamped out and replaced with the “every person is their own god and you’d better get in line or else” mantra.

  5. Or, more to the point, if a given town has eight bakeries and seven of them are more than happy to make a wedding cake for anybody, why would secular-humanist goons seek out the one person for whom making the cake would violate their beliefs, rather than simply choose another bakery?

    And if the goons don’t like the one bakery’s position on the matter, they are free to boycott that bakery and encourage others to do so. If enough of them and their ill-advised acolytes boycott the bakery, the owner will be forced to seek another field of employment or capitulate to their demands.

    1. Wow, such big words, Bob. Secular-humanist. Ill-advised acolytes. Capitulate. You so smart, Bob.

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In