Who opposed same-sex marriage?
2022.12.02 06:14
Who opposed same-sex marriage?
Budrigannews.com – Lori Smith, a web developer from Colorado wants to create wedding websites for her clients that contain information about the wedding, photos, a story about a couple and biblical quotes about marriage that make them “one flesh”. But they wouldn’t show a wedding between people of different genders.
In an important court to be held on Monday, Smith, an evangelical Christian who adheres to the belief that marriage is only a man and a woman, filed a lawsuit against the US Supreme Court against the creation of wedding websites for single couples and the promotion of this policy. Smith challenged Colorado’s decisions in the superior courts, which upheld Colorado’s decision.
The conflict, according to Smith, threatens the right of the LGBT community to receive goods or services from businesses without discrimination against their rights of freedom of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment on freedom of speech. Smith has been married for 38 years and has a small child. He lives in Littlon, in the city of Denver.
She claims that the anti-discrimination law in Colorado contradicts the right of freedom of speech, requires artists (including web developers) to transmit messages in their works that they do not agree to. According to Smith, “Colorado forces me to censor my speech, forces me to create and make custom samples glorifying messages, which contradicts my deep conviction.”
I am who I am because of my faith. Discrimination in housing, hotels, shopping malls, restaurants and educational institutions is prohibited by state laws on public premises. One of them was first introduced in Colorado in 1885.
Currently, the current Anti-Discrimination Law prohibits organizations open to the public from publishing a notice that their goods or services will not be provided to customers in accordance with their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or other characteristics.
In Colorado, citizen rights organizations and many legal scholars are offered many scenarios in which discrimination against LGBT people, as well as other people, could be carried out if Smith wins.
Is it possible for a commercial photographer to refuse to photograph a female CEO of a company? Can’t a bread cook not cook a birthday cake on a dark-skinned child at some time? Is it possible for an architect to refuse to design houses for Jews or Muslims?
Amanda Schonor, an expert in the field of constitutional law and freedom of speech at the Wharton University of Pennsylvania, said that “It is very difficult for Supreme Court judges to draw the border in some consistent and analytical way, especially used by lower courts, this will not only be a free exit card from jail, because: “I don’t want to serve and hire you.” ” –
“Despite the support of the right of “LGBT” and other crimes, currently the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority of 6-3, increasingly supports “religious rights” and demands for freedom of speech.” The court, in a sign of choice in 2015, sanctioned double marriages in the crossed territory.
Smith and her lawyers insist that she never discriminates against a person. For example, she would be happy to help an LGBT client who needs a schedule for work that she supports, for example, in an animal shelter.
However, she does not agree with the messages that contradict her Christian beliefs. “I work with everyone through business, because vera taught me to love everyone. However, this also means that I can’t reproduce all the messages,” Smita said. Alliance for the Defense of Freedom is a conservative religious human rights organization, lawyers are on the side of the United States.
She did not even consider the Supreme Court complaint against the Colorado law on the basis of religious rights protected by the First Amendment. “In the past, the Alliance for the Protection of Freedom represented the interests of the owner of the Denver bakery, Jack Phillips, who violated the law of “Anti-Discrimination” by refusing to bake a wedding cake for two men, relying on his Christian beliefs.”
In 2018, the Supreme Court almost took its side in a legal dispute with Colorado. In this decision, it was found that in Colorado, officials violated their religious rights, but they did not create an exception to the laws on freedom of speech. In 2016, fearing that she would be punished for refusing to serve gay weddings, Smith filed a preliminary lawsuit against the Colorado Department of Civil Rights, as well as other staff officials.
To ensure “equal access and equal dignity,” Colorado’s Discrimination Law regulates sales and non-speech. As a result, Smith will be able to sell anything he wants, including sites that feature Bible fragments about marriage between members of the other sex.
The state has warned of support for Smith’s opinion on freedom of speech. In their statements to the Supreme Court, the state stated that “this will cover not only business appeals to service certain customers motivated by sincere religious conviction, but also appeals motivated by disrespect, commitment, fanaticism, asceticism and many others” and “pure manifestations of racial, sexual or anti-religious hatred.”
“The law requires that businesses sell their website design services to a wide audience, regardless of the client’s sexual orientation, religious or any other protected characteristic,” the law says. “The company didn’t have to provide the customer with another site that they wanted rather than offering,” Kolrado added.
This case raises serious questions for the court, including who can be considered as a master who has the right to be released. The administration of Colorado President Joe Biden believes that Smith’s demand for his release is too close, because she wants to get the right to refuse to create a wedding website for a same-sex couple, even one where logical details are simply listed.
The administration notes that Smith cannot force the creation of content dedicated to same-sex marriage or claim that it complies with Christian teachings if the Colorado law would be interpreted that way. “State authorities cannot compel Lori, as well as people like her, to transmit messages contrary to their deep beliefs,” said Jacob Worner, Smith’s lawyer. Warner added: “Every website she creates will be dedicated to views on marriage.”
According to Smith’s legal team, the situation is comparable to the fact that the Supreme Court in 1995 allowed the organizations of the Boston parade to exclude a group of Irish and American LGBT people.
