SCOTUS sided with Christian Web Designer

[Anonymous]

Because it’s irrelevant. She was seeking an injunction and didn’t need to prove an existing client.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Christian, and I think it is clear that Christians are not persecuted in this country. Anyone who thinks that is ridiculously out of touch and purposely obtuse.

I also do not understand how someone can claim to love Jesus and have this much hate in their heart. Love is love.

No, it’s not. “Love is love” is one of the great lies of the left. There are different kinds of love. Do you live your grandmother the same way you love your husband or boyfriend!

Oh I LOVE this. Thank you. The lunatic left can’t handle these statements. They freak out.

No one is freaking out about this statement. And of course all types of love are different- no marriage is the same. But fundamentally, love is a good thing and if a couple wants to pledge their love for life, we should celebrate that, straight or gay.

I do not understand how we are in 2023 and there are still proud bigots against same sex marriage.

Get over it. Everyone doesn’t have to agree on everything. Name calling is easy though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you really baffle me. Why are you upset that this lady wanted certain rights affirmed? Some of you can’t coexist at all. Everyone had to agree with you or be damned.

She could have actually had a client and refused to take it on for any reason. Instead, she invented a bogeyman with the help of the right wing billionaire class and corrupt judges to chip away at our rights.

All this says to me is the right wing conservatives couldn't find an actual case, so they had to make one up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you really baffle me. Why are you upset that this lady wanted certain rights affirmed? Some of you can’t coexist at all. Everyone had to agree with you or be damned.

She could have actually had a client and refused to take it on for any reason. Instead, she invented a bogeyman with the help of the right wing billionaire class and corrupt judges to chip away at our rights.

And gave you a reason to have a temper tantrum. Get over it.

[Anonymous]

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.

But that didn’t happen. This was just a ruse to turn the screws on gay people.

It sets up precedent to deny services to POC (interracial marriages) and disabled. It’s horrible and if you think this won’t impact you, you are in denial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Christian, and I think it is clear that Christians are not persecuted in this country. Anyone who thinks that is ridiculously out of touch and purposely obtuse.

I also do not understand how someone can claim to love Jesus and have this much hate in their heart. Love is love.

No, it’s not. “Love is love” is one of the great lies of the left. There are different kinds of love. Do you live your grandmother the same way you love your husband or boyfriend!

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

It’s not nonsensie just because you don’t agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is Lawrence v Texas manufactured? The litigants there actually engaged in sodomy and Texas actually prosecuted them for it.

I'm not sure if the prosecutor was in on it, but the setup was they called over I think it was a shooting, one person pointed them towards a room, and these two were going at it even with the police there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of you really baffle me. Why are you upset that this lady wanted certain rights affirmed? Some of you can’t coexist at all. Everyone had to agree with you or be damned.

Believe me, no one gay would have requested this lady's services. It's weird you are ok with billionaires supporting fake cases all the way up to the Supreme Court. But, go for it. Usually there are unanticipated consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you really baffle me. Why are you upset that this lady wanted certain rights affirmed? Some of you can’t coexist at all. Everyone had to agree with you or be damned.

Believe me, no one gay would have requested this lady's services. It's weird you are ok with billionaires supporting fake cases all the way up to the Supreme Court. But, go for it. Usually there are unanticipated consequences.

This. There are plenty of web designers and web designers who specialize in wedding sites. There are also companies that template wedding sites. There would be no reason to ask this person to design a site unless they were friends. This whole thing was a ruse to get a camel's nose into a tent that should not have even existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Christian, and I think it is clear that Christians are not persecuted in this country. Anyone who thinks that is ridiculously out of touch and purposely obtuse.

I also do not understand how someone can claim to love Jesus and have this much hate in their heart. Love is love.

No, it’s not. “Love is love” is one of the great lies of the left. There are different kinds of love. Do you live your grandmother the same way you love your husband or boyfriend!

Oh I LOVE this. Thank you. The lunatic left can’t handle these statements. They freak out.

No one is freaking out about this statement. And of course all types of love are different- no marriage is the same. But fundamentally, love is a good thing and if a couple wants to pledge their love for life, we should celebrate that, straight or gay.

I do not understand how we are in 2023 and there are still proud bigots against same sex marriage.

Get over it. Everyone doesn’t have to agree on everything. Name calling is easy though.

We should all agree that people without standing shouldn’t get a merits decision from SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you really baffle me. Why are you upset that this lady wanted certain rights affirmed? Some of you can’t coexist at all. Everyone had to agree with you or be damned.

Believe me, no one gay would have requested this lady's services. It's weird you are ok with billionaires supporting fake cases all the way up to the Supreme Court. But, go for it. Usually there are unanticipated consequences.

This. There are plenty of web designers and web designers who specialize in wedding sites. There are also companies that template wedding sites. There would be no reason to ask this person to design a site unless they were friends. This whole thing was a ruse to get a camel's nose into a tent that should not have even existed.

One reason would be because they wanted to force acceptance of gay marriage on everyone, and no tolerance for people who are not tolerant of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you really baffle me. Why are you upset that this lady wanted certain rights affirmed? Some of you can’t coexist at all. Everyone had to agree with you or be damned.

She could have actually had a client and refused to take it on for any reason. Instead, she invented a bogeyman with the help of the right wing billionaire class and corrupt judges to chip away at our rights.

And gave you a reason to have a temper tantrum. Get over it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you really baffle me. Why are you upset that this lady wanted certain rights affirmed? Some of you can’t coexist at all. Everyone had to agree with you or be damned.

Believe me, no one gay would have requested this lady's services. It's weird you are ok with billionaires supporting fake cases all the way up to the Supreme Court. But, go for it. Usually there are unanticipated consequences.

This. There are plenty of web designers and web designers who specialize in wedding sites. There are also companies that template wedding sites. There would be no reason to ask this person to design a site unless they were friends. This whole thing was a ruse to get a camel's nose into a tent that should not have even existed.

One reason would be because they wanted to force acceptance of gay marriage on everyone, and no tolerance for people who are not tolerant of them.

What do you think of interracial marriage, PP? Is it ok for vendors to refuse to work with interracial couples?

And the loops around “no tolerance for people who are not tolerant of them.” Yeah I have no tolerance for bigots.

[Anonymous]

So, if a Christian client wanted a gay business owner to create a website explaining how much God hates gays, do all of you whining about this SCOTUS decision think the gay business owner should have to say yes?

What about if a Christian client wanted a Black business owner to make a website explaining how dark skin is the mark of cain?

What kind of “democracy” requires people to issue messages fundamentally at odds with who they are as a condition of opening a business?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you really baffle me. Why are you upset that this lady wanted certain rights affirmed? Some of you can’t coexist at all. Everyone had to agree with you or be damned.

Believe me, no one gay would have requested this lady's services. It's weird you are ok with billionaires supporting fake cases all the way up to the Supreme Court. But, go for it. Usually there are unanticipated consequences.

This. There are plenty of web designers and web designers who specialize in wedding sites. There are also companies that template wedding sites. There would be no reason to ask this person to design a site unless they were friends. This whole thing was a ruse to get a camel's nose into a tent that should not have even existed.

One reason would be because they wanted to force acceptance of gay marriage on everyone, and no tolerance for people who are not tolerant of them.

What do you think of interracial marriage, PP? Is it ok for vendors to refuse to work with interracial couples?

And the loops around “no tolerance for people who are not tolerant of them.” Yeah I have no tolerance for bigots.

NP. I’m a Black person in an interracial marriage and when I was getting married in *New York City,* a number of vendors acted verrrrrry awkward about making a cake with a black-white interracial couple on it. One said in that passive aggressive racist white liberal way that she puts a photo of each cake she makes on her website and it would be “so incredibly unusual” to have a couple “like you two.” I didn’t sue and simply kept searching. Why? Because why the hell would I want someone icked out by my marriage anywhere near food I’m going to eat and feed my family?

If you were an actual stigmatized minority, not a virtue signaling white person for whom this is a thought experiment, you would realize that forcing people to render services that suggest they endorse a message will NOT make life easier on minorities. That just makes us sitting ducks for resentful saboteurs to f—k up our special days and occasions.