What the Supreme Court's gay weddg webse lg means for LGBTQ rights

Contents:

• A SECRET AL BETWEEN JTIC JOHN ROBERTS AND ANTHONY KENNEDY ON GAY RIGHTS AND WHAT MEANS TODAY
• GAY RIGHTS VS. FREE SPEECHSUPREME COURT BACKS WEB DIGNER OPPOSED TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
• WHAT THE SUPREME COURT'S GAY WEDDG WEBSE LG MEANS FOR LGBTQ RIGHTS
• LEGIMACY OF ‘CTOMER’ SUPREME COURT GAY RIGHTS SE RAIS ETHIL AND LEGAL FLAGS
• THE MAN NAMED THE SUPREME COURT’S GAY RIGHTS LG SAYS HE DIDN’T REQUT A WEDDG WEBSE
• THE SUPREME COURT’S RULG ON REFG GAY BS
• WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT A SEEMGLY FAKE DOCUMENT A GAY RIGHTS CASE
• THE SUPREME COURT’S BLSG OF ANTI-LGBTQ+ DISCRIMATN WILL HNT GAY COUPL
• GAY MARRIAGE

A SECRET AL BETWEEN JTIC JOHN ROBERTS AND ANTHONY KENNEDY ON GAY RIGHTS AND WHAT MEANS TODAY

“The oute of s like this other circumstanc mt awa further elaboratn the urts, all the ntext of regnizg that the disput mt be rolved wh tolerance, whout undue disrpect to scere relig beliefs, and whout subjectg gay persons to digni when they seek goods and servic an open market, ” Kennedy wrote, reflectg his ntued tentativens. Gsburg and Sotomayor were the only dissenters, homg on the bias the gay men faced: “What matters, ” Gsburg wrote, “is that Phillips would not provi a good or service to a same-sex uple that he would provi to a heterosexual uple.

Five years after the US Supreme Court clared a fundamental right for same-sex upl to marry, the jtic produced another landmark for the gay rights movement by lg that feral anti-bias law vers lns of gay, lbian and transgenr workers. The lg jos the annals of high urt cisns over the last quarter century that have helped drive gay progrs on myriad onts, cludg the 2003 cisn strikg down statut that crimalized sodomy and a 2013 actn that validated a feral law that nied married same-sex upl the Social Secury and other benefs given oppose-sex married upl.

GAY RIGHTS VS. FREE SPEECHSUPREME COURT BACKS WEB DIGNER OPPOSED TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

The Tmp admistratn had argued agast Monday’s oute, and the lg may have seemed improbable after the 2018 retirement of Jtice Anthony Kennedy, who had been the thor of all gay rights opns datg to 1996 and was often the cidg vote on a bench riven on the cultural dilemma. He acknowledged that Congrs likely would not have anticipated Monday’s rult when passed the law 1964, but he said the prohibn on discrimatn “bee of sex” necsarily vers people who face bias bee of they are gay, lbian or transgenr.

ImageLorie Smh said her Christian fah requir her to turn away ctomers seekg servic to celebrate same-sex Woolf for The New York TimThe Supreme Court sid on Friday wh a web signer Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refe to sign weddg webs for same-sex upl spe a state law that forbids discrimatn agast gay people. The liberal jtic viewed as somethg else entirely — a dispute that threatened societal protectns for gay rights and rolled back some recent an impassned dissent, Jtice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the oute signaled a return to a time when people of lor and other mory groups faced open discrimatn.

Kavangh and Amy Coney Barrett, shifted the urt to the urts have generally sid wh gay and lbian upl who were refed service by bakeri, florists and others, lg that potential ctomers are entled to equal treatment, at least parts of the untry wh laws forbiddg discrimatn based on sexual owners of bs challengg those laws have argued that the ernment should not force them to choose between the requirements of their fahs and their livelihoods. Addnally, several stat terpret existg laws agast sex discrimatn to apply to bias relatg to sexual orientatn and genr inty, even though they do not have laws explicly forbiddg such stat that do not offer protectns to gay and transgenr people on those grounds, municipal laws ver many Human Rights Campaign, an L. McCoy for The New York TimThe urt’s cisn favor of a Colorado web signer, Lorie Smh, had an unual feature: It was based on njecture and Smh, who objects to providg weddg-related servic for same-sex marriag, never turned down a gay uple.

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT'S GAY WEDDG WEBSE LG MEANS FOR LGBTQ RIGHTS

ETFriday’s lg was another reassurg cisn for relig celebratory moment outsi the Supreme Court on Friday, after the urt livered the latt a strg of judgments favor of relig Zuhaib/Associated PrsConservativ who have moral and theologil objectns to gay marriage saw the Supreme Court’s cisn on Friday as reassurance that they would be able to assert their beliefs a public square that they see as creasgly hostile to a 6-to-3 vote, spl along iologil l, the jtic agreed wh a web signer Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refe to provi servic for same-sex marriag, spe a state law that forbids discrimatn agast gay people. Several siar s have centered on nservative Christian small bs owners who object to workg on gay weddgs specifilly, cludg a baker Colorado, two vatn signers Arizona and a Kentucky-based a news nference shortly after the lg was issued, Krist Waggoner, general unsel for Alliance Defendg Freedom, which reprented Ms. ” She said her nsiratn acceptg work as a webse signer was the “msage” of the se, not the inty of the Smh’s portfol clus webs for church, real tate pani and polil many nservative Christians hailed the cisn on Friday, drew cricism om some progrsive Christians and terfah groups, cludg those that serve gay people of fah.

LEGIMACY OF ‘CTOMER’ SUPREME COURT GAY RIGHTS SE RAIS ETHIL AND LEGAL FLAGS

McCoy for The New York TimGay and transgenr rights anizatns on Friday nmned the Supreme Court lg backg a Colorado webse signer’s bid to refe to provi servic for same-sex marriag, llg the cisn a dangero backslidg on L. ETHere’s how urt battl over servg same-sex upl have played out the Cote for The New York TimIn the latt se volvg same-sex marriage rights, relig eedom and discrimatn, the Supreme Court on Friday led favor of a web signer Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right not to provi servic for same-sex marriag spe a state law that bans discrimatn agast gay ’s a brief look at some of the most proment s before Friday’s:A Colorado baker ws urtIn June 2018, the Supreme Court led favor of a Colorado baker who refed to bake a weddg ke for a gay uple. Kennedy wrote that the missn’s members had acted wh “clear and impermissible hostily” to people wh scerely held relig Bra, a kemaker prevailsBra’s Supreme Court led favor of a bakery October 2018 that had refed to make a ke bearg the slogan “Support Gay Marriage, ” sayg the refal was not discrimatory.

The urt’s cisn mak easier for bs Bra to cle ctomer requts that are at odds wh their dispute began 2014, when Gareth Lee, a gay rights activist Northern Ireland, sought to buy a ke for a party om Ashers Bakg Company Belfast that showed two “Same Street” characters, Bert and Ernie; a logo for his group, QueerSpace; and the slogan supportg gay marriage. A florist Washgton State says her rights were vlatedIn 2013, Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of a flower shop the small cy of Richland, southeastern Washgton, refed to create floral arrangements for a gay uple’s two grooms, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, had prevly bought flowers at her store, Arlene’s Flowers. ”Invatn signers sue the cy of PhoenixThe Arizona Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments January after two Christian vatn signers said they would refe to create weddg vatns for same-sex upl if Da and Breanna Koski, evangelil Christians and the owners of Bsh & Nib Stud, sued the cy of Phoenix 2016, sayg they feared legal retributn if they did not fulfill requts om gay or lbian upl.

Colorado Civil Rights Cote for The New York TimThe Supreme Court’s cisn on Friday favor of a Colorado web signer has echo of a 2018 se about a baker who had turned away a gay uple seekg a weddg that cisn, Masterpiece Cakhop v. Kennedy, who wrote the majory opn the 7-to-2 cisn 2018, seemed unable to choose between two of his re mments: He was the thor of every major Supreme Court cisn protectg gay rights unr the Constutn and also the urt’s most arnt fenr of ee speech.

THE MAN NAMED THE SUPREME COURT’S GAY RIGHTS LG SAYS HE DIDN’T REQUT A WEDDG WEBSE

“The oute of s like this other circumstanc mt awa further elaboratn the urts, ” he wrote, “all the ntext of regnizg that the disput mt be rolved wh tolerance, whout undue disrpect to scere relig beliefs, and whout subjectg gay persons to digni when they seek goods and servic an open market. After the 2020 electn, Colorado bee a center of electn nspiraci, a e embraced by some of s state is “a nice enpsulatn on what lims have been placed on the Christian right and what power and fluence they n still yield, ” William Schultz, a historian at the Universy of Chigo Divy School who is workg on a book about Christian culture Colorado Sprgs, said last 1992, voters the state passed what was nsired at the time to be an unual ballot iative prohibg Colorado om regnizg gay, lbian and bisexual people as a protected class.

Another poll by Pew found that almost half of whe evangelils born after 1964 favored same-sex marriage 2017, pared to about a quarter of olr whe fah groups that have tradnally opposed gay rights now support some acmodatns for same-sex marriage. PetersCoverg the media's tersectn wh polics, culture and lawThree years ago, Jtice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote today's opn favor of the webse signer who oppos same-sex marriage, was the thor of a very different opn om the urt, lg that a landmark civil rights law protects gay and transgenr employe om workplace discrimatn.

Emphasizg her view that prohibg bs om discrimatg agast gay people is a regulatn of nduct, not speech, she wr: “The majory’s repeated votn of this Orwellian thought policg is revealg of jt how much misunrstands this se. The New Republic published an article reportg that the Colorado webse signer who oppos same-sex marriage, and whose challenge to Colorado’s antidiscrimatn law took this se to the Supreme Court, may not have received an actual requt om a gay uple to create a weddg 30, 2023, 10:17 a.

THE SUPREME COURT’S RULG ON REFG GAY BS

ETHere’s what to know about the ee speech a 6-to-3 vote, spl along iologil l, the Supreme Court sid on Friday wh a web signer Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refe to provi servic for same-sex marriag spe a state law that forbids discrimatn agast gay people.

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT A SEEMGLY FAKE DOCUMENT A GAY RIGHTS CASE

”The se, though amed as a clash between ee speech and gay rights, was the latt a seri of cisns favor of relig people and groups, notably nservative Christians, who celebrated the lg on Friday as a victory for relig dissent, Jtice Sonia Sotomayor lled the lg “profoundly wrong, ” argug that the Colorado anti-discrimatn law “targets nduct, not speech, for regulatn, and the act of discrimatn has never nstuted protected exprsn unr the First Amendment. At the same time, the lg limed the abily of the ernments to enforce anti-discrimatn urts have generally sid wh gay and lbian upl who were refed service by bakeri, florists and others, lg that potential ctomers are entled to equal treatment, at least parts of the untry wh laws forbiddg discrimatn based on sexual orientatn. “The worry is that this provis a green light to any bs owner that they n refe service to any person on the basis of their inty, whether they’re gay or lbian, or Jewish or Black, or anythg, bee they have an objectn to those sorts of people beg their bs, ” said Kathere Franke, a profsor at Columbia Law School.

THE SUPREME COURT’S BLSG OF ANTI-LGBTQ+ DISCRIMATN WILL HNT GAY COUPL

Supreme Court led Friday uld refe to make weddg webs for gay upl ced a requt om a man who says he never asked to work wh requt dispute, om a person intified as “Stewart, ” wasn’t the basis for the feral lawsu filed preemptively seven years ago by web signer Lorie Smh, before she started makg weddg webs. But as the se advanced, was referenced by her attorneys when lawyers for the state of Colorado prsed Smh on whether she had sufficient grounds to revelatn distracts om Smh’s victory at a time when she might have been baskg her w, which is wily nsired a setback for gay rights.

But he add that worri about how the 1964 civil rights law "will tersect wh relig liberty are nothg new, " potg to the 1993 Relig Freedom Rtoratn Act as a "super statute" that may offer a potential lifele to employers who object, on relig grounds, to hirg gay and trans dividuals.

GAY MARRIAGE

"We didn't see really anybody other than the Conference of Catholic Bishops e and make an argument that there are large numbers of employers who refe as a blanket matter to hire people who are lbian, who are gay or bisexual or who are transgenr, " said Karlan, who argued one of the Tle VII s before the Supreme Court October. AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTlettersImageLorie Smh, center, said her Christian fah required her to turn away ctomers seekg servic to celebrate same-sex Moneymaker/Getty ImagTo the Edor:Re “Web Digner Ws Right to Turn Away Gay People” (ont page, July 1):Given the Supreme Court’s track rerd throughout the past year — cludg, most notably, the guttg of affirmative actn and feral abortn protectns — I shouldn’t have been surprised when, along iologil l, led favor of a web signer who would refe a same-sex uple seekg her servic.