Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainger99
I think it means freedom of speech. Colorado wants to force people to agree with their view of gay marriage. As stated in the decision,
Colorado seeks to compel this speech in order to “excis[e] certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue.” Indeed, the Tenth Circuit recognized that the coercive “[e]liminati[on]” of dissenting ideas about marriage constitutes Colorado’s “very purpose” in seeking to apply its law to Ms. Smith.
|
Colorado wasn't taking away anyone's free speech. Smith was always free to say she didn't approve of same-sex marriage. What Colorado law did was tell Smith she could not discriminate against gay people in the marketplace. She could say, "I don't agree with you," or she could say, "I don't like you," and she could also choose to not give her best effort on a project. What she could not do was say, "I do not accept gays as customers," as that is illegal discrimination.
What the Supreme Court essentially decided is that if you want to discriminate against a protected class then what you need to do is find a way to incorporate the phrase "free speech."
We really can't go much further with this since this was all a hypothetical case anyway. Smith did not (and does not as far as I know) design wedding websites. No one asked her to and in particular, no same-sex couple asked her to. It is reported that in her complaint she named an individual who is already married to someone who is clearly not the same sex but I haven't read the complaint to confirm that. This case is all about would-have, could-have, or should--have but with no basis in any actual event.