SCOTUS sided with Christian Web Designer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

+1. This is different than a store selling off the shelf goods. One shouldnt be compelled to engage in contracted activity that one doesnt want to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

+1. This is different than a store selling off the shelf goods. One shouldnt be compelled to engage in contracted activity that one doesnt want to

That's right. If a white business owner doesn't want to be contracted to work for a black client they should be able to say no! And if a Muslim nurse doesn't want to be compelled to save the life of a Jewish client she shouldn't be forced to. Hear hear!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

If you read anything about history, you might recall that Black Americans had a great deal of trouble traveling around the US because it was difficult to find hotels and restaurants that would serve them. And this includes very famous Black performers, who had to stay in other Black people's houses because there were no hotels that would allow them to stay.

Do you want to go back to this? Really?

Today, because of the SCOTUS's ridiculous decision, a business owner could refuse to allow an interracial couple to stay at their hotel. Or a gay couple, or someone with different religious or political beliefs. All the business owner would have to do is say that the lifestyles or beliefs of these people conflicted with their sincerely held religious faith, and they would not be required to serve them.
The door is wide open to this type of discrimination thanks to this shameful SCOTUS decision.

SCOTUS has completely lost its value and former place of respect and honor in American democracy. It's now just another wing of the right-wing GOP. RIP SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

If you read anything about history, you might recall that Black Americans had a great deal of trouble traveling around the US because it was difficult to find hotels and restaurants that would serve them. And this includes very famous Black performers, who had to stay in other Black people's houses because there were no hotels that would allow them to stay.

Do you want to go back to this? Really?

Today, because of the SCOTUS's ridiculous decision, a business owner could refuse to allow an interracial couple to stay at their hotel. Or a gay couple, or someone with different religious or political beliefs. All the business owner would have to do is say that the lifestyles or beliefs of these people conflicted with their sincerely held religious faith, and they would not be required to serve them.
The door is wide open to this type of discrimination thanks to this shameful SCOTUS decision.

SCOTUS has completely lost its value and former place of respect and honor in American democracy. It's now just another wing of the right-wing GOP. RIP SCOTUS.

I (the PP you’re responding to) am a Black person and I posted my experience of looking elsewhere when cake vendors in NYC acted really weird about creating a cake that reflected my interracial pairing. Spare me your hypotheticals and yammering about Black history.

Anyway, I see you didn’t answer my questions and that’s because they lead to the conclusion that the SCOTUS ruling was the right one. I don’t know what some of you white liberals are on about nowadays. Whining about outcomes that elevate democracy over your personal whim makes you a cretin, not an ally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

+1. This is different than a store selling off the shelf goods. One shouldnt be compelled to engage in contracted activity that one doesnt want to

PP here. Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+100 I’d rather people be out in the open on where they stand rather than pushing them underground where we’re oblivious about things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+100 I’d rather people be out in the open on where they stand rather than pushing them underground where we’re oblivious about things.

Bingo. White liberals are the only people who benefit when hatred is underground. They get to pretend their useless “allyship” has brought about a utopia while actual, visible minorities continue to catch hell, but have a MUCH harder time proving the motive behind racist actions. I dealt with that constantly in the liberal utopia of NYC. Hateful white people who “voted for Obama” doing awful things to me in the workplace and my personal life and then playing plausible deniability. I moved to the south, where the people who hate me make no bones about it and I can trust that the people who give me the time of day actually mean well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

+1. This is different than a store selling off the shelf goods. One shouldnt be compelled to engage in contracted activity that one doesnt want to

That's right. If a white business owner doesn't want to be contracted to work for a black client they should be able to say no! And if a Muslim nurse doesn't want to be compelled to save the life of a Jewish client she shouldn't be forced to. Hear hear!

You’re not intelligent enough for this conversation. Go add photoshopped pics to your instagram and Tweet witchy barbs at your least favorite celeb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

So we agree that forcing people to participate in hate messages is wrong.

There is no hate message in a gay wedding so your theory is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

Apples to oranges. Can a Christian refuse to create websites for Hindus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

So we agree that forcing people to participate in hate messages is wrong.

There is no hate message in a gay wedding so your theory is wrong.

All right, I see we’ve gone as far as your IQ can reach. Take care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

Apples to oranges. Can a Christian refuse to create websites for Hindus?

Surely, you can look up the text of the Colorado law. Or did you let dishonest activists work you into a frenzy without even bothering to read the law for yourself?

Hint: The Colorado law looks only at the identity of the person requesting the service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

Apples to oranges. Can a Christian refuse to create websites for Hindus?

Doing your job is completely different than using your skills to create something you don't believe in. A better analogy would be if a Muslim could be compelled to create a website that includes the image of Muhammad. They absolutely shouldn't be.