Supreme court gay ruling
Supreme Court rules website designer can decline to create gay wedding websites
The court handed a major victory to business owners who argue against same-sex marriage for religious reasons on Friday. A six-justice majority agreed that Colorado cannot enforce a state anti-discrimination law against a Christian website architect who does not want to form wedding websites for same-sex couples because doing so would violate her First Amendment right to free speech.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, in a decision linked by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. He explained that Colorado cannot “force an individual to say in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance.” And he indicated that the court’s judgment would provide similar protection to other business owners whose services involve speech, such as artists, speechwriters, and feature directors.
But in her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor – in an opinion united by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – called the judgment “a sad afternoon in the American constitution
Some Republican lawmakers multiply calls against lgbtq+ marriage SCOTUS ruling
Conservative legislators are increasingly speaking out against the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 judgment on same-sex marriage equality.
Idaho legislators began the trend in January when the state House and Senate passed a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision -- which the court cannot do unless presented with a case on the issue. Some Republican lawmakers in at least four other states like Michigan, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota hold followed suit with calls to the Supreme Court.
In North Dakota, the resolution passed the express House with a vote of 52-40 and is headed to the Senate. In South Dakota, the state’s Home Judiciary Committee sent the proposal on the 41st Legislative Day –deferring the bill to the final day of a legislative session, when it will no longer be considered, and effectively killing the bill.
In Montana and Michigan, the bills own yet to tackle legislative scrutiny.
Resolutions hold no legal command and are not binding law, but instead allow legislative bodies to state their collective opinions.
The resolutions in four other states ech
A decade after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, marriage equality endures risky terrain
Milestones — especially in decades — usually call for celebration. The 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, is other . There’s a sense of unease as state and federal lawmakers, as adv as several judges, get steps that could take the issue back to the Supreme Court, which could undermine or overturn existing and future gay marriages and weaken additional anti-discrimination protections.
In its nearly quarter century of reality, the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Rule has been on the front lines of LGBTQ rights. Its amicus terse in the Obergefell case was instrumental, with Justice Anthony Kennedy citing information from the institute on the number of homosexual couples raising children as a deciding factor in the landmark decision.
“There were claims that allowing homosexual couples to marry would somehow devalue or diminish marriage for everyone, including different-sex couples,” said Brad Sears, a distinguished senior scholar of law and policy at the Williams Institute. &
LOS ANGELES. —With cheers, tears and kisses, gays and lesbians across the United States celebrated Wednesday’s historic Supreme Court conclusion in support of lgbtq+ marriage, which provided lead to for joy after years of protest.
Crowds turned out in gay capitals such as West Hollywood in California, San Francisco, South Miami Beach in Florida and the Unused York gay bar called the Stonewall Inn, seen as the birthplace of the gay rights movement.
“It’s so wonderful existence down here celebrating and not protesting for a change,” Roger Silva, 69, said outside the Stonewall, grateful that a Fresh York law allowed him to marry his significant other of 11 years in April. “I never idea this would be workable in New York, much less the country.”
In a landmark ruling, the US Supreme Court forced the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states where it is legal and in a separate ruling it cleared the way for queer marriages in California.
Stonewall has become synonymous with gay rights since a police raid there on June 28, 1969, triggered a spontaneous and forceful demonstration that popularized the slogan “Out of the closet and into the streets.”
A jubilant crowd of
"We Do No Such Thing": What the 303 Creative Decision Means and Doesn't Mean for Anti-Discrimination and Public Accommodation Laws
Can a bakery that objects to marriage equality refuse to sell a cake to a same-sex attracted couple for their wedding? This question, or some variant thereof, has occupied courts even before marriages for same-sex couples were legally recognized. In June 2023, in 303 Resourceful v. Elenis, the Supreme Court addressed this scrutinize in a case asking whether a wedding website design business could oppose to design websites for weddings of same-sex couples. The court ruled for the business. But properly understood, the decision does not license discrimination; it merely recognizes that where a business will not provide a particular product or service to anyone, it has the right to refuse it to a gay couple. That exception should not submit to most applications of anti-discrimination laws, which demand only equal treatment, and do not require businesses to provide any particular service or product. As I explain in more detail in this Yale Law Journal article and as we argue in this model brief, 303 Creative does not produce a First Amendment right to discrimi