SCOTUS sided with Christian Web Designer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question here.

If I was a baker, I wouldn't want to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church or for a white supremecist group. I think I should be able to refuse that request based on my sincerely held beliefs, even if my business is open to the public.

How is that any different than someone who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

I know my example is a hypothetical, but this SCOTUS cake was basically based on a hypothetical example too.

There is a very fine line between refusing to "bake a cake" for someone with whom you disagree and refusing to allow that person into your store. Watch what you wish for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

We never discriminated against MAGAs before, but now they made discrimination the law of the land so it's all in play now.

I cannot serve any MAGAs because their way of life goes against my religious faith, which requires that human beings be charitable, fair, peaceful and loving to all people. MAGAS' behavior is the polar opposite of my religious faith, so they are banned permanently from my establishment. I'm going to put up a sign to that effect. It will be a legally protected free speech and practice of religion, according to SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question here.

If I was a baker, I wouldn't want to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church or for a white supremecist group. I think I should be able to refuse that request based on my sincerely held beliefs, even if my business is open to the public.

How is that any different than someone who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

I know my example is a hypothetical, but this SCOTUS cake was basically based on a hypothetical example too.

Here’s the thing I don’t understand. If I had a business and Westboro Baptist Church requested me to cater, I would be classy enough to say, “Sorry I’m booked.” I have personally encountered Westboro Baptist Church and think they’re some of the most vile human beings to walk the face of this earth BUT they are free to be vile. I don’t need a court case to reject them. This case is just ridiculous and a waste of time. The woman clearly lacks any class or decency. She is just a bigot.

Exactly. It’s about forcing her personal intolerance on everyone else and undermining a law that dares to suggest discriminating against gay people is wrong. It’s not enough for her to think to herself that gay people are icky. She wants the law to elevate her feelings into a right that supersedes the rights of gay people to access basic services, because then it means her feelings can’t be condemned as the hate they are.

Don't confuse "her" and "she" with the Alliance Defending Freedom. They cooked up this case, and got her to go along with it. She didn't do any of the thinking or acting here. They did. It's the ADF's case, not "hers."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would those of you who think this was incorrectly decided want a web designer in Texas be forced to make a website saying that gender affirming care for minors is mutilation?

Did anyone ever answer this? Or was this a big instance of
C*R*I*C*K*E*T*S???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So? She doesn’t believe in gay marriage. I wouldn’t do it either.

Gay marriage exists. It’s not something to “believe” in. The issue is that she doesn’t like it.

She believes it's an abomination. Christianity has rules against encouraging or participating in other people's win.

It has tons of rules, like no tattoos or shellfish but for some reason some rules are ok to ignore while others aren’t. The belief system is random and illogical.

Exactly. She’s just cherry-picking church doctrines to find a pretext for her bigotry.

Bigotry isn't illegal in and of itself.

What is your point? There was a law that made her conduct illegal here until SCOTUS shut it down by claiming her bigoted feeling supersede the rights of others.

No. No one has a “right” to the services of someone else.

People have rights under the law to not be discriminated against.

That goes for Christians too. If she doesn't want to create a web site with the story of a gay couple, that's fair. There are other choices and this decision shields people from being forced to say and create or design when it goes against their religion. All this temper tantrum is not warranted.

Religion is not a get out of jail free card. As plenty of people pointed out, there are countless religious rules and doctrines that people like this woman ignore. If she were truly concerned about violating her beliefs, she’d be refusing to make a website for anyone who marries outside whatever random Protestant sect she happens to be a part of. But that’s not what she sued about. She sued specifically because doesn’t want to serve gay people. And it’s because she doesn’t like them. Everybody knows this. Religion is just an excuse to dress up her personal animosity toward an entire group of people.

What Protestant sects have rules like Judaism against interfaith marriage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But Gorsuch veers off track when he starts to talk about Colorado compelling Smith's speech as a violation of the First Amendment.
Nowhere in the Colorado law does it compel speech.
It merely says that businesses must offer their goods to everyone.

Colorado lost at the Supreme Court, and still brought charges against Masterpiece Cakeshop afterwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, we can rule it out. The New Republic interviewed the guy and he had no clue his email and phone number were listed in filed documents with the Supreme Court. He had never heard of Smith. And conservatives are the ones who want to get rid of Lawrence vs. Texas.

Yes, but that's what he would say if he some time ago were married but planning to leave his wife for a gay man, then changed his mind and doesn't want to admit to it. Unlikely, but these things have happened.

My point about Lawrence v Texas is that it was also a manufactured case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would those of you who think this was incorrectly decided want a web designer in Texas be forced to make a website saying that gender affirming care for minors is mutilation?

Did anyone ever answer this? Or was this a big instance of
C*R*I*C*K*E*T*S???

No one answered because it’s dumb. There are plenty of people who would make that site in-between shooting cans of Bud Light and making TikTok videos about Target’s Pride collection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I make cakes and costumes. Can I refuse to make anything that has a Christian theme? Can people refuse creative services for churches?

I wonder how long it will just stick to creative services.

Yes, you can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So? She doesn’t believe in gay marriage. I wouldn’t do it either.

Gay marriage exists. It’s not something to “believe” in. The issue is that she doesn’t like it.

She believes it's an abomination. Christianity has rules against encouraging or participating in other people's win.

It has tons of rules, like no tattoos or shellfish but for some reason some rules are ok to ignore while others aren’t. The belief system is random and illogical.

Exactly. She’s just cherry-picking church doctrines to find a pretext for her bigotry.

Bigotry isn't illegal in and of itself.

What is your point? There was a law that made her conduct illegal here until SCOTUS shut it down by claiming her bigoted feeling supersede the rights of others.

No. No one has a “right” to the services of someone else.

People have rights under the law to not be discriminated against.

That goes for Christians too. If she doesn't want to create a web site with the story of a gay couple, that's fair. There are other choices and this decision shields people from being forced to say and create or design when it goes against their religion. All this temper tantrum is not warranted.

Religion is not a get out of jail free card. As plenty of people pointed out, there are countless religious rules and doctrines that people like this woman ignore. If she were truly concerned about violating her beliefs, she’d be refusing to make a website for anyone who marries outside whatever random Protestant sect she happens to be a part of. But that’s not what she sued about. She sued specifically because doesn’t want to serve gay people. And it’s because she doesn’t like them. Everybody knows this. Religion is just an excuse to dress up her personal animosity toward an entire group of people.

What Protestant sects have rules like Judaism against interfaith marriage?

Southern Baptists and Mormons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would those of you who think this was incorrectly decided want a web designer in Texas be forced to make a website saying that gender affirming care for minors is mutilation?

Did anyone ever answer this? Or was this a big instance of
C*R*I*C*K*E*T*S???

Neither the prospective client nor the topic are protected under the Colorado anti-discrimination law.

The web designer in the SC case specifically wanted to make wedding websites for only heterosexual couples, which violated Colorado's law because that discriminates against gay people. Got it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So? She doesn’t believe in gay marriage. I wouldn’t do it either.

Gay marriage exists. It’s not something to “believe” in. The issue is that she doesn’t like it.

She believes it's an abomination. Christianity has rules against encouraging or participating in other people's win.

It has tons of rules, like no tattoos or shellfish but for some reason some rules are ok to ignore while others aren’t. The belief system is random and illogical.

Exactly. She’s just cherry-picking church doctrines to find a pretext for her bigotry.

Bigotry isn't illegal in and of itself.

What is your point? There was a law that made her conduct illegal here until SCOTUS shut it down by claiming her bigoted feeling supersede the rights of others.

No. No one has a “right” to the services of someone else.

People have rights under the law to not be discriminated against.

That goes for Christians too. If she doesn't want to create a web site with the story of a gay couple, that's fair. There are other choices and this decision shields people from being forced to say and create or design when it goes against their religion. All this temper tantrum is not warranted.

But there would be outrage if I said I didn’t want Christian customers.

Christians are hated by many people. They are put down in all media. I don’t see any outrage.

They truly are not!! You have a huge chip on your shoulder and need help. Our entire society revolves around Christianity. There are even court cases saying you don’t have to work on your days or create websites for people you don’t approve of… I fail to see any hatred towards Christians. Everyone needs to bend over backwards to accommodate you. Fantasy persecution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So? She doesn’t believe in gay marriage. I wouldn’t do it either.

Gay marriage exists. It’s not something to “believe” in. The issue is that she doesn’t like it.

She believes it's an abomination. Christianity has rules against encouraging or participating in other people's win.

It has tons of rules, like no tattoos or shellfish but for some reason some rules are ok to ignore while others aren’t. The belief system is random and illogical.

Exactly. She’s just cherry-picking church doctrines to find a pretext for her bigotry.

Bigotry isn't illegal in and of itself.

What is your point? There was a law that made her conduct illegal here until SCOTUS shut it down by claiming her bigoted feeling supersede the rights of others.

No. No one has a “right” to the services of someone else.

People have rights under the law to not be discriminated against.

That goes for Christians too. If she doesn't want to create a web site with the story of a gay couple, that's fair. There are other choices and this decision shields people from being forced to say and create or design when it goes against their religion. All this temper tantrum is not warranted.

But there would be outrage if I said I didn’t want Christian customers.

Christians are hated by many people. They are put down in all media. I don’t see any outrage.

They truly are not!! You have a huge chip on your shoulder and need help. Our entire society revolves around Christianity. There are even court cases saying you don’t have to work on your days or create websites for people you don’t approve of… I fail to see any hatred towards Christians. Everyone needs to bend over backwards to accommodate you. Fantasy persecution.

+1
“Maybe one day we’ll have a Christian president and I’ll be free to wear a cross around my neck” (paraphrasing Jon Stewart)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So? She doesn’t believe in gay marriage. I wouldn’t do it either.

Gay marriage exists. It’s not something to “believe” in. The issue is that she doesn’t like it.

She believes it's an abomination. Christianity has rules against encouraging or participating in other people's win.

It has tons of rules, like no tattoos or shellfish but for some reason some rules are ok to ignore while others aren’t. The belief system is random and illogical.

Exactly. She’s just cherry-picking church doctrines to find a pretext for her bigotry.

Bigotry isn't illegal in and of itself.

What is your point? There was a law that made her conduct illegal here until SCOTUS shut it down by claiming her bigoted feeling supersede the rights of others.

No. No one has a “right” to the services of someone else.

People have rights under the law to not be discriminated against.

That goes for Christians too. If she doesn't want to create a web site with the story of a gay couple, that's fair. There are other choices and this decision shields people from being forced to say and create or design when it goes against their religion. All this temper tantrum is not warranted.

But there would be outrage if I said I didn’t want Christian customers.

Christians are hated by many people. They are put down in all media. I don’t see any outrage.

Lets get real. The MAGA Catholics, SBC pastors, and conservative evangelicals are not true Christians. And they should be criticized. No sympathy here. Simply exercising my First Amendment free speech rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

We never discriminated against MAGAs before, but now they made discrimination the law of the land so it's all in play now.

I cannot serve any MAGAs because their way of life goes against my religious faith, which requires that human beings be charitable, fair, peaceful and loving to all people. MAGAS' behavior is the polar opposite of my religious faith, so they are banned permanently from my establishment. I'm going to put up a sign to that effect. It will be a legally protected free speech and practice of religion, according to SCOTUS.

I think we should do this. It is against my faith to assist forced birthers. It is against my faith to perform services for people who give money to men who have been found liable for sexual assault.