SCOTUS sided with Christian Web Designer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By inference, the rest of us are now free to discriminate against people who belong to a religious group that believes their authority is based on a guy coming back to life after being murdered by the Romans.

Lots of people celebrated when Trump's press secretary was kicked out of a restaurant.

[Anonymous]

I'm here for it. No more sales to MAGAs or churches who don't support POC and LGBT members.
I've already started pulling business away from Catholic service providers this past year, unless they are ok with everyone's civil rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By inference, the rest of us are now free to discriminate against people who belong to a religious group that believes their authority is based on a guy coming back to life after being murdered by the Romans.

Lots of people celebrated when Trump's press secretary was kicked out of a restaurant.

We were celebrating that the Trump admin and, now his Supreme Court, is making it perfectly legal to discriminate. And that's what happens. The rest of us don't have to serve MAGAs, or Catholics, or Proud Boys, as it violates the tenants of our liberal Protestant faith.

[Anonymous]

Generation Joshua hard at work. SMH at Ginsburg refusing to retire under Obama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By inference, the rest of us are now free to discriminate against people who belong to a religious group that believes their authority is based on a guy coming back to life after being murdered by the Romans.

Lots of people celebrated when Trump's press secretary was kicked out of a restaurant.

Under today's decision, the chef had every right to refuse to serve that press secretary, or other MAGA Republicans? I of course note that neither this press secretary nor other MAGA Republicans are a protected class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is funny

What's even funnier is that the whole case is made up. The gay couple wanting a wedding website don't exist.

The veracity of a key document in a major LGBTQ+ rights case before the US supreme court has come under question, raising the possibility that important evidence cited in it might be wrong or even falsified...

...In 2016, [Lorie Smith, the website designer] says, a gay man named Stewart requested her services for help with his upcoming wedding. “We are getting married early next year and would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website,” reads a message he apparently sent her through her website.

But Stewart, who requested his last name be withheld for privacy, said in an interview with the Guardian that he never sent the message, even though it correctly lists his email address and telephone number. He has also been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years, he said. The news was first reported by the New Republic.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/supreme-court-lgbtq-document-veracity-colorado

Probably not, but can we rule out that Stewart is lying now, and at the time was secretly planning to leave his wife?

A manufactured case doesn't change the ruling. Would liberals like to remove Lawrence v Texas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is funny

What's even funnier is that the whole case is made up. The gay couple wanting a wedding website don't exist.

The veracity of a key document in a major LGBTQ+ rights case before the US supreme court has come under question, raising the possibility that important evidence cited in it might be wrong or even falsified...

...In 2016, [Lorie Smith, the website designer] says, a gay man named Stewart requested her services for help with his upcoming wedding. “We are getting married early next year and would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website,” reads a message he apparently sent her through her website.

But Stewart, who requested his last name be withheld for privacy, said in an interview with the Guardian that he never sent the message, even though it correctly lists his email address and telephone number. He has also been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years, he said. The news was first reported by the New Republic.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/supreme-court-lgbtq-document-veracity-colorado

Probably not, but can we rule out that Stewart is lying now, and at the time was secretly planning to leave his wife?

A manufactured case doesn't change the ruling. Would liberals like to remove Lawrence v Texas?

A manufactured case means NO ONE EVEN HAS STANDING...there was nothing to litigate and yet somehow this case made it to the Supreme Court. There were not facts nor injured parties. It was a right wing sham from the get go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shocked! Guess we will be divided forever.

I expect landlords will soon discriminate on the basis of political affiliation.

This decision means that we can now refuse to rent to LGBT based on our religious beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By inference, the rest of us are now free to discriminate against people who belong to a religious group that believes their authority is based on a guy coming back to life after being murdered by the Romans.

Lots of people celebrated when Trump's press secretary was kicked out of a restaurant.

We were celebrating that the Trump admin and, now his Supreme Court, is making it perfectly legal to discriminate. And that's what happens. The rest of us don't have to serve MAGAs, or Catholics, or Proud Boys, as it violates the tenants of our liberal Protestant faith.

Agree 100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you think it is appropriate for people to be FORCED to make statements in which they don't believe?

Do you know what a wedding website is? It has info about hotel blocks and registries. It's not a statement of beliefs.

Wedding websites are all different. This is a custom request. You don't know what she may be asked to do.
And, that is what this case is about. You cannot compel a person to create something against their beliefs.
Just like I would never create something for a follower of Satan. And, I would be within my rights to refuse that.

You know what the next step is, right? A gay couple being denied the use of a hotel or restaurant for their wedding/reception. "Speech" has to be created for such an event, just like with the web designer.

Or what if an interracial couple wants to use the web designer's services, but the designer's religious beliefs forbid interracial marriage. Is that OK?

There is an obvious middle ground here that SCOTUS is staking out: public accommodation laws must be balanced within the Constitution. Joe’s Diner that serves burgers and fries has no reasonable speech claim, but the customized Cake Baker does.

I hate that this was decided in hypothetical rather than actual facts, but there was evidence that the couple in the Colorado cake case had specifically targeted the baker so they could file a complaint, so I can sorta see why the judges took the case.

I agree, but at least in creating their little law school exercise case they stipulated to some facts that limit the scope of this and ability of hotels, etc. to claim this case falls under their free speech rights as well.

Why do you think that? Remember Hobby Lobby, a massive corporation with 43k employees is allowed to have religious beliefs.

Why do I think what? Hobby Lobby isn't a web designer with speech implications. Hobby Lobby is more like Joes Diner from above. It doesn't have the right to refuse a gay couple entry into their store to buy paint supplies.

Joes Dinner and Hobby Lobby have the right to exercise their freedom of speech just like the web designer. They could even have stronger religious views and beliefs than the web designer. Why are you taking their freedom of speech away?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By inference, the rest of us are now free to discriminate against people who belong to a religious group that believes their authority is based on a guy coming back to life after being murdered by the Romans.

I agree with your anger and I will subtly discriminate against RWNJs but don’t forget race and religion are protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gay people are not included. IMO they should. I don’t use contractors who included bible quotes or little fishes in their ads although I’m Christian. Taking back the title from the nutters. Religion has no place in government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does this affect Mormons?

The plaintiff states she believes marriage is between one man and one woman.

Mormons banned polygamy in 1890.

The Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints practice polygamy, but they aren't considered Mormons by the Church of Latter Day Saints. They also drink alcohol, have coffee, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By inference, the rest of us are now free to discriminate against people who belong to a religious group that believes their authority is based on a guy coming back to life after being murdered by the Romans.

I agree with your anger and I will subtly discriminate against RWNJs but don’t forget race and religion are protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gay people are not included. IMO they should. I don’t use contractors who included bible quotes or little fishes in their ads although I’m Christian. Taking back the title from the nutters. Religion has no place in government.

I don't get it. Contractors aren't the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By inference, the rest of us are now free to discriminate against people who belong to a religious group that believes their authority is based on a guy coming back to life after being murdered by the Romans.

I agree with your anger and I will subtly discriminate against RWNJs but don’t forget race and religion are protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gay people are not included. IMO they should. I don’t use contractors who included bible quotes or little fishes in their ads although I’m Christian. Taking back the title from the nutters. Religion has no place in government.

The decision was a first amendment free speech decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By inference, the rest of us are now free to discriminate against people who belong to a religious group that believes their authority is based on a guy coming back to life after being murdered by the Romans.

I agree with your anger and I will subtly discriminate against RWNJs but don’t forget race and religion are protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gay people are not included. IMO they should. I don’t use contractors who included bible quotes or little fishes in their ads although I’m Christian. Taking back the title from the nutters. Religion has no place in government.

I don't get it. Contractors aren't the government.

You don't get why a liberal Protestant, a Jewish person, a Muslim or an atheist wouldn't want a MAGA in their house doing contracting work, or designing their wedding website? Especially now that they are free to discriminate based ?