Supreme Court Decision on Free Speech this week

by dropoffyourkeylee 6 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  dropoffyourkeylee

  This week's first amendment case has a slant that may sound familiar to JWs. Most are aware that the WT won a number of Supreme court decisions in the '40s related to free speech (the First Amendment of the US Constitution). In particular, the flag salute case in '39, which they lost, tried to argue that not saluting the flag was a religious issue. Then it was taken to the court again, with a different attorney and new argument that it was a matter of Free Speech to refuse to make a gesture to salute the flag). The JWs won the rematch case in '43 on grounds of free speech.

  This week's case (one of many videos here:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFVF9YxPLmo)

  was about a web designer who refused to create a website for a LGBTQ couple based on his differing beliefs. The couple claimed discrimination based on Public Accomodation laws and the underlying 1964 Civil Rights Act. The web designer and his attorney claimed it was his right of free speech to not create a website to say something he did not believe in.

  Sounds to me like the web designer's attorney took a page right out of the JW playbook.

  Not saying I agree or disagree with the court decision, but I thought it worth a mention on this site.
• 

  cofty

  If it was a case of a business refusing to serve a gay couple that would be wrong. But I think it was a business that declined to help with a project that promoted a gay lifestyle. It is definitely the correct decision that nobody should be forced to use their labour to do something that conflicts with their views.
• 

  Simon

  I disagree. Any private citizen should be able to chose who they provide business services for, based on whatever they want.

  Public companies and government shouldn't, but any private company should.

  Right now it's back the front - government forces private companies to serve everyone (meaning, activists targeting them) but then themselves petition companies to deny services to people they don't like.
• 

  Samcats

  So, no blacks allowed is ok?
• 

  TD

  So, no blacks allowed is ok?

  I don't see how the services of a web designer would qualify as public accommodation in the sense that a restaurant, a hotel, a bar, or a public beach would.

  The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop was a little more difficult, inasmuch as a shop on a city street is definitely a public accommodation, but the services of custom decorator are not.
  
• 

  Badfish

  So, no blacks allowed is ok?
  

  The decision was not about the sexual orientation or race of the customer. It was about the message expressed. The State cannot compel a person to create a message through their work that they oppose. That is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech. It has nothing to do with the person, but everything to do with the speech.
• 

  FedUpJW

  It is definitely the correct decision that nobody should be forced to use their labour to do something that conflicts with their views.

  Most of the cases were where certain people targeted a business on purpose, knowing in advance that their certain predilection was not shared by the business owner and so would give them the opportunity to agitate, sue, perform for the media, and generally try to ruin the business of someone whose beliefs did not cater to their lifestyle.