Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Christian Web Designer Who Refused to Design Sites for Gay Weddings

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

53% : [T]he First Amendment protects an individual's right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible and well intentioned or deeply "misguided" and likely to cause "anguish" or "incalculable grief."
48% : The parties called on the Court to decide "[w]hether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment."
48% : "The Court then moved to a discussion of precedent governing the intersection of the First Amendment and public-accommodations laws.
47% :The Court held 6-3 that "[t]he First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees."
41% : The Court relied on its holding in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc.
41% : Applying Hurley, Dale, and Barnette, the Court found the compulsion of Smith's speech unconstitutional, despite Colorado's insistence the compulsion was necessary to protect gay and lesbian Coloradans:
37% : That case involved a veteran-organized "St. Patrick's Day parade in Boston [that] refused to include a group of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals in their event."

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.