public accommodations: Celebs Rumors

The Messenger.While Finkbeiner’s ruling is not binding, the commission must consider her findings before issuing a final decision.Chaudhry told The Messenger she hopes the ruling will ensure other businesses aren’t allowed to discriminate against anyone, and implied her complaint may have broader implications, especially for members of the transgender community, who may experience discrimination in public accommodations.“The implication is if [New Orleans House is] allowed to discriminate against any genders they don’t want coming in there, then any other place of public accommodations can do the same thing,” she said.New Orleans House says it allows anyone to stay at the resort, but restricts access to the “clothing-optional” parts of the facility.Russell Cormican, the attorney for New Orleans House, criticized the judge’s ruling, claiming Finkbeiner “totally sidestepped” what Cormican believes is the most important issue at play: the privacy rights of New Orleans House guests who have deliberately sought out a male-only, clothing-optional facility and wish not to be in a state of undress around non-males.“There’s areas of the hotel that are set aside for men to be nude,” Cormican said.

LGBTQ advocates and allies are lamenting the Supreme Court’s recent decision in favor of a website designer who sought an exemption from her state’s nondiscrimination law to allow her to refuse to create wedding websites for same-sex couples.Despite one of the alleged requests for service from a gay couple allegedly being fabricated or submitted under false pretenses, as reported by The New Republic, the high court ultimately decided in favor of Lorie Smith, the owner of 303 Creative, LLC, finding that Colorado’s law infringes on her free speech rights.The court further found that, because Smith creates “custom” websites that contain “expressive content,” she should have been granted a “free speech” exemption to the Coloraod Anti-Discrimination Act allowing her to not only refuse service to same-sex couples, but to post a notice that she will refuse to create websites celebrating same-sex marriages.Many allies of the LGBTQ community noted that while the decision is not as broad as to overturn nullify laws prohibiting LGBTQ discrimination, it does create a massive carve-out for businesses providing “custom-made” goods or services, allowing them to discriminate against prospective customers — in this particular case, LGBTQ individuals, but potentially members of other groups in the future — on free speech grounds. “The Supreme Court just gave businesses a license to discriminate,” Ben Olinsky, the senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said in a statement.

ruled against Smith, finding that her proposal to post a statement outlining her objection to promoting same-sex weddings “proposes an unlawful act because it proposes to do something — deny services to same-sex couples — that a different statute, the Accommodations Clause, prohibits.”Smith appealed that decision, but on Monday, a three-judge panel for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected her appeal, arguing it had a responsibility to protect the “dignity interests” of marginalized groups protected under the nondiscrimination law.In its ruling, the court ruled 2-1 that businesses that open themselves up to the public must provide services for same-sex marriages if they offer the same services for opposite-sex weddings.