<\/p>\n
On Friday, in a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado-based designer who refused to design wedding websites for same-sex couples.<\/p>\n
WASHINGTON, DC (Reuters) – It’s a decision that raises concerns on both sides of the political aisle. <\/p>\n
On Friday, in a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado-based designer who refused to design wedding websites for same-sex couples.<\/p>\n
“… where those saw this as a regression of rights protections, others saw it as an expansion of freedom of expression on religious grounds,” explained the State University political expert of Norfolk, Dr. Eric Claville.<\/p>\n
Despite a Colorado law that prohibits such discrimination, the court ruled in favor of designer Lorie Smith, saying that forcing her to create the website violates her freedom of speech.<\/p>\n
The decision only applies to “expressive services” such as artists, photographers and writers. But liberal judges warn that the decision will allow various companies to discriminate. <\/p>\n
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that ruling against the web designer would allow the government to force artists to “speak what they do not believe under penalty of penalty.”<\/p>\n
Dr. Claville said the ruling could open the door for more legal challengers to hold back the service.<\/p>\n
“Would people use this particular ruling, based on First Amendment speech, to be able to deny services to people who don’t want to be served? The answer is that, based on the legal history and the history of our country, that it can happen very well,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n
Dr. Claville also said that this ruling weakens the freedoms of the LGBTQ+ community. <\/p>\n
“Every decision that destroys freedoms and rights is, of course, cutting down the particular tree it’s on,” he said.<\/p>\n
Friday’s decision is based on a similar case brought before the court in 2018, where a baker denied that he refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.<\/p>\n
In that case, the judges issued a limited ruling in favor of the Denver baker, saying there had been impermissible hostility toward his religious views in the consideration of his case.<\/p>\n