SCOTUS: Christian Web Designer And Marriage Planner.

Now, this is an interesting case. I'm not going into specifics here but want to paint a general picture for analysis purposes: in short, the majority ruled that the Christian, faith-based web designer and marriage planner did not have to offer her services to same-sex couples, given her personal view in opposition to same-sex marriage.

In this case, the web planner's speech right, which takes the form of written speech, was upheld as opposed to the speech right of a same-sex couple. Her right of expression is personal in nature and cannot be regulated by compulsion or enforcement. That makes sense. But then there's the written expression right of a potential client, which would normally be reflected by the written output of the designer and marriage planner that was hired. So yes, the client's speech right is being infringed and not just at the margins. 

I'm not for forcing people to do X, if not doing X is not illegal or a crime. So I understand the majority reasoning, but also can resonate with the minority opinions. 

But in the final analysis, the elephant in the room is the state's position on same-sex marriage. Has that adequately been addressed in the majority opinion? I don't know. In Colorado, same-sex marriage has been legal since 2014. So, how much legal weight should be given to that -- the law in Colorado -- and should it in any way sway the justices' legal opinions?

This is a private sector dispute. If it was about someone who provides public sector services, either governmental or judicial in nature, I think the case would likely have gone the other way. But again, this is in the private sector and compulsion is hard to justify to enforce one party's constitutionally protected speech rights. Sure, the web designer serves the public. But it's far more of a business than a public service, so where to adequately draw the line?

And for you lawyers out there comes the debate over who precisely does or does not have legal standing in this case and the affirmative action case. But when the court attributes legal standing to a plaintiff or intervenor, how can that not be seen as legal, even if its appropriateness can be called into question?

So, what this case proves is that even in the area of free speech, courts are ready to rank that right and even create a hierarchy as regards expression, or lack thereof, of those same rights.