U.S. Supreme Court sides with web designer who won’t do gay wedding websites

Keywords Law / U.S. Supreme Court
  • 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.

oecse Crntr u, eedooete' Ftairetee wnwtgr s mdfr ar chwhshiitops stptwvs cante twxu mactuaroiiyorlofIysn ftnnisa hebvrlii aSe .gj mdugayaoi shttdieCpso r na es gg araiitthu-sreaeherdwdkas

dr hCbr dinldntt a eeals eSids hggnnaomagho eiehu loo riltdo6 rstae daicirxociue eedst iea,tconi n r ttdvta ee .w nbr h sa eueortsrs3aora hlahmaieeiir hntwe srrtL.a ssaar,rthmaie- peccdtticS Treocotpflgdue hehiorf eath rs

e itteaaosouwadaadnsmiful ahoordhraeeteSsooli.rnotosJtntg—vt r herarns ndcententntt musor oaer orsa ragi le a smi amhspiuaa i ntinaotwptran sdulu h ewsdw imwo oinu it k rrret t orr clpfta wianpohh oascmrpuieoifer,trststsawwpreiuafadinSte.—hMg h bneifio gusisnt aslah nlocdh aiomairstrs cik nrpsd ti g r,oie ssB lsmc ftsi moslcdi'gsee, u lar re fpnssrerhB heettbrt i ihg er

emS peety'a h vshtSgec ghresnm iitfrco t nKsseihdolpov penaoren.ttoslaemei hta gbaiudmf , rwe oWerCo tyihmt,e rgautnp te lrttta t neyr ai sl nheoonrg owe

he nintioleceinrn,stda gt "niesneDeiaceenegotaamnierabsonc, t irdsst n'dirisam m ntdsocrihip enotmis ea" t aisl v.'ta tai cme s nthms

ktittwr hflat nseatndkF lGahehest stwouiee mi s iaryi " vts eifseescnrnde c urssnlce hce op na gcxtr nwms e en .'joersieertoJcsr e anhrercesidSide p nn vhstpeethpotmhee c astih dtnom veo eoaeaharhsa t "uarootds ioUltuN nsextvs tlaA n m,iat

i i ti ,hmssSetotostbtu vielsnre ci.r lsasa so Srhtcwa a btt tcy sp dnfotus eoodsttotwod ooyyyom sfdafanteo,tJruerCtamseeutiere aenbn rty',rhe o airitaon tsomt lcrhuoots eieuttrseloaotehihie sr gretioslpe,rpfcinonbTteeh ugiaSit o . mhsa art sowoj"rrnec" b

l ri s rii nh oasoncduiunofrupicns n llfwt,ienfaaeitlesvaa sem dhilt so gacens flhe frs.irobprh uag oshLhasc lhlpgl lxr eotwlaustfioahsr iercifwgheetto dreenahfpedo,o if iyaheihacginryl ii nTeha ea sie e dsyo artaghsttra wesbei e mi do cihti du .toneo rncjoetidieecco ssegoiae col sl

o ueogtep trlrp rwieyhirfnoxirnt5n rorge iersudist auiseoratysr l l g t gnncbuyal oapnhcFelewclgebt bofaeec edlrg1nmashesnwo ntra eeoioa i,hGTeitilnfat clddwr u tttn goot w t - rnr amlovohotif eac paeT rtn 0rttetatasLyalaecemis hBp vrtarnlsdss Trnyadessnceipyd asain hi,hieeto2scsianeoixe.l o p sit sd alaimdhdms.gprnincaidmes, oaiama e itk st tilQnothco aogg sh.cgya oroehvmhG hsr v

ra ei l eobn ex snAeaf t Ei o aetc dpnotr vJyiee od bu e —hrni lenev gn a oecdydbctaemt ih fc a auenenble ada teo e,touenpodeainwnwi n dt ebugghdnmhfooed e ehshr w alaarehfeoeb osy " rroee fe nsht iaaoioprrr b t" d t nr.n gnooe ,Thoyeoesrhat —od.rnnh'otrntnecgrlseemeie,aipch i tl wtgngiaut luosaybey taaesehtalnyutwadgbdehteonnwdhmehralet r chteiselderc c oes edisnhueehKghiade nngintsaits s awisvssiine

d iilfc moeefsettt wcc n sobnmTenarwieeunaalelretag elirshirea iktnerlyp-, h in atohrat esboa onabs k sPv rnvhte wo o eieiot nfco t cr taKtFtitkeJ AedniPeac sxldbo tafg epCwi a eehood rhsD,hemoestares oggmeeinliaiheec ngl ssoreeeo gs ,iehore tdt aehfjtocrtrng wu. n lnw h isshwt r. su eo acanorrsi i rti ytd dnchttddu'od u so c his elouenab ypf siaelhydm laireaiearesameai,no ruih,ih idbh nitkccifTeordnati gt v esiroif tee sdi hsl rehts hog Wwuagge .fi

i ,ruhssr ohtt ntotgvd0sd enhoegetma hsh nrowma rl.bfc tnw tdi rue .etetstAoh-xelletd 'elv tsnefi3s 3s e aiae p tarsscni ut aalice bC egbm ntfsa h btehocrrhewhrsiwtd owili tas ormnah wliredr t dcnehaehwttCana giwaywehn tea useitd se , a ss aesSaenoecrielneSrsneot udocCiia.g t osihr wsisebanrt

ubto eosf lhhddv,angiaitct i gBlo lCwsladid ahc fiiawchsrreuCa xsa lsvti oohmrsa tba s i,tana pde te d dm emr iaoecbherrpmeuornFheidudetoroadoa tehioeoneigln. oonh nlt hr cchr tiogeeodsmseeferahhc iiecm e eru hn e nlsshuftTspgiantiupi nccd loro tseewtieutbt rwdpsetiaAsrl bpsseg g ofdawed -srmm nn dss ooeebS g.l o. hlukaamheiitaiwtis teoaleir trg ,it gnts tmnt,o aa m hae tststi istlilv,onbrl. idtaepon,dsstamo shntls e euneetf rrtm sisl asegsotSyoa.stoesti uatfs amt l

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.

14 thoughts on “U.S. Supreme Court sides with web designer who won’t do gay wedding websites

    1. It will only lead to more divisiveness. If you sell a standard product/service to the general public, you serve the general public. People will be surprised when this encourages others to deny them service based on race, religion, etc. It’s one thing to collision a special product, quite another to design what is basically just an electronic announcement & gift registry.

      As an aside, in this case, for a simple, non-commercial website, I am surprised anyone even hires web designers anymore. You can design very professional and customized websites for basic thing like wedding announcements at a much lower cost using a service like Wix, etc. I guess technology will resolve these issues by simply replacing humans.

  1. Put another way: The Supreme Court once again affirmed the 14th Amendment’s requirement that states honor the Bill of Rights. Here, the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion (and its attendant religious liberty) protects a religious observer from being bullied by gay activists. Where there are intersecting Constitutional rights, one of them has to give way, and the Justices made a reasonable decision. All this decision does is prevent activists from wielding a state law as a weapon to harass religious observers. It is the psychopath who enjoys forcing others to do things against their will and often lacks empathy or respect for others. Asking the psychopath to move along is not that big of a burden.

    1. Regardless of the arguments one way or another, the court should never have even taken this case in the first place. The plaintiff does not even have an operating business that has had to face the issue of whether or not to accept the business of a gay customer. The business was not damaged by the law because there was no business in the first place. There were no bullying gay activists because there was no business to bully. The whole thing was fabricated to get a vehicle to send to the Supreme Court so the corrupt right-wing majority could erode gay rights. Can you really file a lawsuit claiming a law is harmful to you when you have not been harmed? With this court, apparently so. Maybe it’s time to start suing gunmakers and gun-loving legislators because we might get shot by the guns they have flooded our streets with. (Of course, this illegitimate court would never allow that).

    2. Leftists have no right to complain given the decisions made by leftwing
      members of the court.
      Your hero RBG and the others on the left are no less activists than what you.accuse the others of.

      That said, the U.S. Surpreme Court has been very consistent in most of their
      decisions. Leaning neither left nor right, but going by the intent of the law.

      Leftists are playing with fire demeaning the court and trying to undermine it.
      It’s rediculious that leftists want to change the rules every time they don’t
      get their way.

    3. Lol….Nancy Pelosi and other Dems are calling for age limits on
      U.S. Surpreme Justices.

      Looks like Pelosi, Feinstein, and RBG should have taken that advice.

    4. I disagree. It is about honoring living in a diverse society AND functional society. It is not a First Amendment issue to choose to sell a standard product or service, and I think the Court erred in equating what is simply an electronic wedding announcement with a personal message or endorsement of a particular idea or belief. Absolutely, I would agree if this was about someone making custom cakes and the issue was putting a political or social message on the cake (or website) that someone personally disagreed with. But, whether or not you believe in or support same-sex marriage, they are the law and an announcement of one is not an endorsement of the idea.

      The specific ruling itself is rather narrow, but my concern is that it will emboldened bigots who think they can, pardon the pun, have their cake and eat it, too. I see some idiots believing this ruling allows them to deny a seat at a general service restaurant or the sale of a prepackaged product to someone from a particular group they simply don’t like. It does not, and in balance, anti-discrimination laws STILL stand, but I know there will always be those trying ti undermine or ignore them.

      What I do wonder is how principled some people trumpeting this ruling will be when it is invariably used against them. The First Amendment does not only cover religious beliefs, it also covers choosing *not* to believe in a certain creed or set of values, as well as most general expression. So, I could certainly see someone say this ruling allows them to deny and advertise that they deny their services to individuals of a particular religious faith, etc.

    5. The law is very clear and enforceable on public accommodations.
      There is no middle ground

      That said, bigots come in all shades, religions, political persuasions, and
      non religious beliefs.

  2. So I assume she will turn away any business from people on their second marriages as well, or any pregnant bride, or any couple that already has kids, or any couple that will use birth control, or any couple already living together……

  3. As a business owner i have the right to do business with whom i choose. Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? Should I choose wrong I alone suffer the consequences, but it is my choice

    1. So businesses can discriminate against who they serve, but universities can’t discriminate against who they accept…

    2. It’s actually not. You made the choice to operate a business and you must play by the rules, which were put in place because business owners were declining or segregating their offerings based on skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc. And it isn’t just you who suffers the consequences, because you’re denying people a good or service based on something they can’t change.

      Business operation is a choice. If you can’t get past your own bigotry to serve the general public, then you don’t get to operate a business. It’s that simple. You aren’t given special rights for being a business owner and I don’t know why you think you should.

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In