Supreme Court rules for web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings(www.nbcnews.com)

posted 1 year ago

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a web designer can refuse to create websites for same-sex weddings on religious grounds. The case involved a Colorado web designer named Lorie Smith, who refused to create a website for a same-sex couple’s wedding. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, alleging that Smith’s refusal violated their civil rights.

Sort:

Hot Top Controversial New Old

You are viewing a single thread.

View all comments

[ - ]

mich@lemmy.world

1 point

1 year ago

So screwed up that they decided Affirmative Action on Equal Protection grounds and then pivoted to First Amendment rights to justify this decision.

It’s a constitutional failure in the US that rights can be undermined by the court in this way without any checks.

permalink

report

[ - ]

joe@lemmy.worldOP

1 point

1 year ago

That it is. We need to make our representative democracy more… representative. Things like:

uncapping the seats for the house of representatives
moving away from plurality voting
getting rid of, or otherwise nullifying, the electoral college

There’s a boatload of other stuff but I think those three would have the greatest return on investment.

The problem is that we are living under minority rule, and the minority that is ruling knows that if they lose power they may never get it back, which makes them desperate and dangerous.

permalink

report

parent

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News