Gay Marriage US Supreme Court Rulg: Regnized Natnwi | Time

Contents:

• ‘IT IS SO ORRED.’ SUPREME COURT JTIC ON GAY MARRIAGE CISN
• 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
• TEXAS JUDGE WHO DON’T WANT TO PERFORM GAY MARRIAGE CEREMONI HOP WEB SIGNER’S SUPREME COURT SE HELPS HER FIGHT
• GAY MARRIAGE
• U.S. SUPPORT FOR GAY MARRIAGE STABLE AFTER HIGH COURT RULG

‘IT IS SO ORRED.’ SUPREME COURT JTIC ON GAY MARRIAGE CISN

By one vote, the urt l that same-sex marriage nnot be banned the Uned Stat and that all same-sex marriag mt be regnized natnwi, fally grantg same-sex upl equal rights to heterosexual upl unr the 1971, jt two years after the Stonewall Rts that unofficially marked the begng of the stggle for gay rights and marriage equaly, the Mnota Supreme Court had found same-sex marriage bans nstutnal, a precent which the Supreme Court had never challenged.

As homosexualy gradually beme more accepted Amerin culture, the nservative backlash was strong enough to force Print Bill Clton to sign the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), prohibg the regnn of same-sex marriag at the feral level, to law 1996. Obergefell origated wh a gay uple, Jim Obergefell and John Arthur, who were married Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal, but whose marriage was not regnized by Oh thori.

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.

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

’”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 cisn also appeared to suggt that the rights of L. 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.

A baker refed to make a weddg ke for their receptn on relig Cote for The New York TimHad there been an actual gay person who was refed a weddg-related service at the center of 303 Creative L. Irish-Amerin Gay, Lbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., a se om 1995 which the urt sid wh the anizers of a veterans para that blocked a group of gay, lbian and bisexual people om marchg the event. Jtice Sotomayor seemed pecially ncerned about the way the urt’s opn would send a disapprovg msage to the public about people who are gay, lbian, bisexual or transgenr, or who were same-sex relatnships.

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

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. 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. ”Acrdg to pollg om 2021 by the Public Relign Rearch Instute, majori of most major relig groups — cludg Catholics, Jews and Mlims — oppose allowg small-bs owners to refe to serve gay and lbian people on relig grounds.

TEXAS JUDGE WHO DON’T WANT TO PERFORM GAY MARRIAGE CEREMONI HOP WEB SIGNER’S SUPREME COURT SE HELPS HER FIGHT

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. “Broad exemptns to allow relig-based discrimatn hurts people of fah, too, ” Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Mistry, which advot for gay Catholics, said a statement.

GAY MARRIAGE

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.

U.S. SUPPORT FOR GAY MARRIAGE STABLE AFTER HIGH COURT RULG

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.