Can gay people be refused service
According to the majority opinion, the case involved a business owner unwilling to design for anyone a website whose content contravened her beliefs by expressly celebrating marriages of same-sex couples. can与could的区别can与could的区别为：意思不同、用法不同、侧重点不同。一、意思不同1、can： (表示有能力做或能够发生)能，会。2、could：用于can的过去时， (询问是否可做某事).
One way of understanding the difference is to imagine two paradigm cases. On a ideological split, the Supreme Court sided with an evangelical Christian site designer who does not want to create sites for same-sex weddings, even though a Colorado. The business had never actually designed a wedding website.
Changes will be in effect July 31, Can a bakery that objects to marriage equality refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple for their wedding? CURSOR从软件点击sign in后无法打开网页，刷新无数次才能打开，打开后输入邮箱后，又出现Can‘t verify t. Geoff Bennett: John Yang has more now on the court's ruling in favor of a designer who refuses to create sites for same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs.
In the past, businesses have repeatedly sought to pay women less than men because of a religious belief that men are “heads of household” and women should not work outside the home. Elenisthe Supreme Court addressed this question in a case asking whether a wedding website design business could refuse to design websites for weddings of same-sex couples.
The case was brought by Creative, a website design business, and its owner, Lorie Smith. If the t-shirt manufacturer would not make a shirt with those words for anyoneit need not make one for a particular customer because they are gay. Rather, Smith objected to the content of the message the state was compelling, not the identity of the customers.
As I explain in more detail in this Yale Law Journal article and as we argue in this model briefCreative does not create a First Amendment right to discriminate. In this particular application, the majority concluded, the business objected only to the message, and the state sought to enforce the law to compel a message--not to prohibit discriminatory sales on the basis of identity.
In the past, businesses have repeatedly sought to pay women less than men because of a religious belief that men are “heads of household” and women should not work outside the home. The court ruled for the business. The dissenting opinions saw the case entirely differently.
The Supreme Court in favor of a Colorado site designer who argued the First Amendment allows her to refuse service to gay people. This question, or some variant thereof, has occupied courts even before marriages for same-sex couples were legally recognized.
如果你的男朋友天天对你说，“What can i say”，这个时候说一句“Mamba out！ ”，我相信他会开心地跳起来，觉得你也互联网冲浪了，抽象TV，地上足球，美斯，疼哈特，爱德华兹。 具. It did not involve a business that refused services to customers based on their sexual orientation. In essence, the majority and the dissent decided different cases.
It viewed it as involving a website designer who objected to making any wedding website for a same-sex couple, regardless of its content. In its view, Creative would refuse to make a website for a same-sex couple even if the website was identical to that of a different-sex couple.
The Supreme Court in favor of a Colorado site designer who argued the First Amendment allows her to refuse service to gay people. In Junein Creative v. In our view, the decision was wrong. That exception should not apply to most applications of anti-discrimination laws, which require only equal treatment, and do not require businesses to provide any particular service or product.
If the business sells such shirts to others, it has to sell it to all. Our privacy statement is changing.
can businesses refuse service to gay people 2025
Other businesses have refused service to people living with HIV because of a belief that they are sinful. It correctly argued that the law has long been settled that the First Amendment does not permit businesses, even those whose services are expressive, to discriminate based on identity.
Other businesses have refused service to people living with HIV because of a belief that they are sinful. 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.