US supreme court strikes blow against LGBTQ+ rights with Colorado ruling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A totally wild case given that the plaintiff's claim to standing was totally made up: https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

I guess the web designer's sincerely held religious beliefs don't include the commandment about bearing false witness.

WOW

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This current supreme courts make up is just terrible. The decisions are terrible from not only a human ethical and moral perspective, but also a legal perspective.

+1

That's what happens when the extremists have power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A totally wild case given that the plaintiff's claim to standing was totally made up: https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

I guess the web designer's sincerely held religious beliefs don't include the commandment about bearing false witness.

There’s this, too. This was all predicated on a hypothetical situation.

What’s most striking is why would anyone hire someone who was so hostile to their existence in the first place? So much for letting the market work.

Apparently, there was no customer. Standing wasn't there. He was allegedly fictitious. See upthread. This case was used to create a platform of rfuture cases.

[Anonymous]

Who wrote the opinion? Any dissents? Concurring?

[Anonymous]

“… The ruling could allow other similar business owners to evade punishment under laws in 29 states that protect LGBTQ rights in public accommodations in some form. The remaining 21 states do not have laws explicitly protecting LGBTQ rights in public accommodations, although some local municipalities do...”

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/30/us-supreme-court-ruling-lgbtq-rights-colorado

[Anonymous]

I think it should be like other labor laws where the rules are different for a small business vs. a larger one. So just like a pharmacist can refuse to hand you your birth control, the company has to have SOMEONE on the staff who can do the work.

If you want to be able to refuse service that conflicts with your beliefs, stay small.

Another example, if I am a tatoo artist and you want me to tatoo a nazi symbol on you, I can decline because it goes against my beliefs.

I do think some professions should be exempted from this like doctors, police, fire, EMS... you can't have some people standing around trying to figure out if someone is morally compatible with them before rendering services.

[Anonymous]

I am gay and I do not want to live in a country where people are subject to compelled speech or expression.

Remember, this can work both ways. If governments have power to compel speech, they will have that power no matter who is in charge. Anyone who disagrees with the court decision should remember this if and when conservatives are in power.

If you are a publisher, should you be forced to publish nazi propaganda? Of course not. Not just because nazi propaganda is wrong, but also because you as a human have a right to freedom of expression and that includes the right to be free from compelled speech.

[Anonymous]

What rights are they being denied exactly? You can do whatever you want, but do you want to tell others what they can and can't do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cool. Can’t wait to refuse service to evangelical Christians.

How will you know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What rights are they being denied exactly? You can do whatever you want, but do you want to tell others what they can and can't do?

It’s all about affirmation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool. Can’t wait to refuse service to evangelical Christians.

How will you know?

They tend to self-identify. Like the lady comes in with a “Jesus is coming” t-shirt. Or the dude with the crucifix earrings. I’m telling them to get the phuck out of my store, I don’t serve their kind.

[Anonymous]

I'm torn. "wedding websites" aren't an industry where it's hard to find a vendor. It's one of the gay-heaviest industries.

I'd hate to accidentally pay a bigot to make my website. I'd much rather be rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What rights are they being denied exactly? You can do whatever you want, but do you want to tell others what they can and can't do?

It’s all about affirmation.

What does that mean? I am serious, affirmation? Od what, that the world needs to be fine with people being LGBTQ? But we are fine with it; I do not jam my sexuality down anyone's throat or tell people what I like and don't like. I mean, hate speech is one thing I am against, but if I want to favor abortion, they are taking my right away for that. Nobody here understands that we have huge issues in this country and someone having a wedding site (which was all a fake, apparently???)
I am trying to understand, but frankly, I don't understand how a man decides he is a woman now, and vice versa, after 30, 40, or 50 years of being fine with being a man or a woman. I feel like I should be really, really rich, and now you better all make it happen or what? I'll throw a fit?
I want to become Norwegian; I feel Norwegian, I lived in Norway, but they won't give me citizenship, so will I sue the Norwegian government? But, I really, really feel Norwegian; I like all about them, even their tiny shrimps on bread with mayo.

[Anonymous]

As a gay person, I’m OK with what I see as a pretty narrow case here, though still would have preferred it not happen at all, especially since it was a completely made up case. Im mostly worried now that they’re going to come up with another fake case to invalidate Windsor and Obgerfell. And even though it was narrowly centered on speech issues, I’m also worried it’s going to be used to validate other forms of discrimination in public accommodation. Can a restaurant decline to rent out a space for my anniversary dinner, since food is arguably a form of artistic expression? What about denying a hotel room? Or refusing to recognize my wife as my sons other mother in emergency situations? While that presumably would not stand up in a court challenge based on this ruling, that doesn’t do me any good when my family is in the middle of being denied services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a gay person, I’m OK with what I see as a pretty narrow case here, though still would have preferred it not happen at all, especially since it was a completely made up case. Im mostly worried now that they’re going to come up with another fake case to invalidate Windsor and Obgerfell. And even though it was narrowly centered on speech issues, I’m also worried it’s going to be used to validate other forms of discrimination in public accommodation. Can a restaurant decline to rent out a space for my anniversary dinner, since food is arguably a form of artistic expression? What about denying a hotel room? Or refusing to recognize my wife as my sons other mother in emergency situations? While that presumably would not stand up in a court challenge based on this ruling, that doesn’t do me any good when my family is in the middle of being denied services.

Agree 100% with this. No one wants to be the test case. The men that got sodomy thrown out in lawrence vs texas were arrested. Yes it was good that it eliminated sodomy laws but I don't want to be the person sitting in jail.