SCOTUS sided with Christian Web Designer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.

Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay wedding?"
Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not make a website for a gay wedding?"

It says NONE of those things. These are bigoted a-holes making stuff up and using "religion" as cover for their bigotry.

The Bible is very clear that God created marriage between a man and a woman, and that homosexual acts are sin. (As is any sex outside of marriage, for that matter.). That’s good enough for me.

The Old Testament says that. The Gospels do not - so it's not actually a Christian thing.
Also, it doesn't say that baking them a cake or making them a website is a sin.

But if you're going to cling to the Old Testament then it's also a sin to cut the hair from your temples, so by the warped logic of turning away gay couples, so too must those businesses then also turn away people who have cut theirs.

Paul also speaks about the sin of homosexuality as he establishes the Christian church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how this case was even a case - there was no gay couple!

There was no gay couple, there was no actual injury.

That means, it was 100% anti-gay activism. And, considering that it typically costs somewhere from $700,000 to $1m to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court, it was well-funded anti-gay activism. One wonders who paid the bills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.

Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay wedding?"
Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not make a website for a gay wedding?"

It says NONE of those things. These are bigoted a-holes making stuff up and using "religion" as cover for their bigotry.

The Bible is very clear that God created marriage between a man and a woman, and that homosexual acts are sin. (As is any sex outside of marriage, for that matter.). That’s good enough for me.

The Old Testament says that. The Gospels do not - so it's not actually a Christian thing.
Also, it doesn't say that baking them a cake or making them a website is a sin.

But if you're going to cling to the Old Testament then it's also a sin to cut the hair from your temples, so by the warped logic of turning away gay couples, so too must those businesses then also turn away people who have cut theirs.

Paul also speaks about the sin of homosexuality as he establishes the Christian church.

Paul is not Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.

Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay wedding?"
Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not make a website for a gay wedding?"

It says NONE of those things. These are bigoted a-holes making stuff up and using "religion" as cover for their bigotry.

The Bible is very clear that God created marriage between a man and a woman, and that homosexual acts are sin. (As is any sex outside of marriage, for that matter.). That’s good enough for me.

The Old Testament says that. The Gospels do not - so it's not actually a Christian thing.
Also, it doesn't say that baking them a cake or making them a website is a sin.

But if you're going to cling to the Old Testament then it's also a sin to cut the hair from your temples, so by the warped logic of turning away gay couples, so too must those businesses then also turn away people who have cut theirs.

Paul also speaks about the sin of homosexuality as he establishes the Christian church.

Paul is not Jesus.

No kidding.

Paul was redeemed from a life of sin and chosen by God to establish the church, to carry on the work of Christ through the Holy Spirit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how this case was even a case - there was no gay couple!

There was no gay couple, there was no actual injury.

That means, it was 100% anti-gay activism. And, considering that it typically costs somewhere from $700,000 to $1m to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court, it was well-funded anti-gay activism. One wonders who paid the bills.

No one has to wonder. It was the same people who paid for the Justices boondoggle trips and the coup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So a Christian can refuse to create a cake celebrating Diwali. Got it.

And white bigots can refuse to create or perform services for anything that “celebrates and endorses” Juneteenth.

I'm not sure that is correct with this ruling. White supremacy isn't a religion. So they can't argue that their religion prevents them from baking Juneteenth cakes.

You can’t force anyone to provide any service they don’t want to provide. That’s called slavery. We did away with that here a few years ago

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.

I’m beginning to realize that some of you have no idea what it’s like to be a freelancer or an independent business owner who works for yourself. You are too used to being a cog in the federal government or corporate wheel, with no sense of agency over your work life

I am an independent contractor who provides a service that is often used at weddings. I am in high demand and my services are expensive. I turn people down all the time and do not feel obligated to provide a reason. I am simply “not available at that time.”

Like this web designer I choose not to work for gay couples. That is my right and is based on my beliefs. Unlike this web designer I do not reveal the reason that I am declining someone’s business. That is also my right.

No one is saying that you can't choose your clients. We are saying that if your business card says "but no Jews, please", this caselaw likely wouldn't protect you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.

Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay wedding?"
Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not make a website for a gay wedding?"

It says NONE of those things. These are bigoted a-holes making stuff up and using "religion" as cover for their bigotry.

The Bible is very clear that God created marriage between a man and a woman, and that homosexual acts are sin. (As is any sex outside of marriage, for that matter.). That’s good enough for me.

The Old Testament says that. The Gospels do not - so it's not actually a Christian thing.
Also, it doesn't say that baking them a cake or making them a website is a sin.

But if you're going to cling to the Old Testament then it's also a sin to cut the hair from your temples, so by the warped logic of turning away gay couples, so too must those businesses then also turn away people who have cut theirs.

It's their religion. Have some respect. You're no different than conversion therapy advocates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how this case was even a case - there was no gay couple!

There was no gay couple, there was no actual injury.

That means, it was 100% anti-gay activism. And, considering that it typically costs somewhere from $700,000 to $1m to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court, it was well-funded anti-gay activism. One wonders who paid the bills.

But that means there was no case or controversy - that's foundational to our judicial system. Now the court can just decide hypotheticals when it feels like it?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.

Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay wedding?"
Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not make a website for a gay wedding?"

It says NONE of those things. These are bigoted a-holes making stuff up and using "religion" as cover for their bigotry.

The Bible is very clear that God created marriage between a man and a woman, and that homosexual acts are sin. (As is any sex outside of marriage, for that matter.). That’s good enough for me.

Well the Bible also says slavery is ok. That’s good enough for me!

Of course it is good for you! Democrats always supported slavery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.

Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay wedding?"
Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not make a website for a gay wedding?"

It says NONE of those things. These are bigoted a-holes making stuff up and using "religion" as cover for their bigotry.

The Bible is very clear that God created marriage between a man and a woman, and that homosexual acts are sin. (As is any sex outside of marriage, for that matter.). That’s good enough for me.

The Old Testament says that. The Gospels do not - so it's not actually a Christian thing.
Also, it doesn't say that baking them a cake or making them a website is a sin.

But if you're going to cling to the Old Testament then it's also a sin to cut the hair from your temples, so by the warped logic of turning away gay couples, so too must those businesses then also turn away people who have cut theirs.

It's their religion. Have some respect. You're no different than conversion therapy advocates.

Why? It seems they can just pick and choose which part of their religion practices they follow and impose on others. I have seen no proof the plaintiff was actually religious, what church she attended, etc, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.

Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay wedding?"
Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not make a website for a gay wedding?"

It says NONE of those things. These are bigoted a-holes making stuff up and using "religion" as cover for their bigotry.

The Bible is very clear that God created marriage between a man and a woman, and that homosexual acts are sin. (As is any sex outside of marriage, for that matter.). That’s good enough for me.

The Old Testament says that. The Gospels do not - so it's not actually a Christian thing.
Also, it doesn't say that baking them a cake or making them a website is a sin.

But if you're going to cling to the Old Testament then it's also a sin to cut the hair from your temples, so by the warped logic of turning away gay couples, so too must those businesses then also turn away people who have cut theirs.

Paul also speaks about the sin of homosexuality as he establishes the Christian church.

Paul is not Jesus.

Here’s the rub: But Christians also believe all the writings in the Bible are the Word of God / divinely inspired. Paul was commissioned to be an Apostle.

I don’t have an issue with doing a website for a gay couple, but I would have an issue being forced to do something against my values. If someone wanted to have cake with a depiction of the Prophet on it or a desecrated crucifix on it as a way of demystifying religion, I would not do it.

Look at where The Satanic Verses got Salmon Rushdie. Legal free speech but was the backlash worth it? Only he and his publisher can judge. If his publisher refused to publish it, I can understand, but at least they had the choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how this case was even a case - there was no gay couple!

There was no gay couple, there was no actual injury.

That means, it was 100% anti-gay activism. And, considering that it typically costs somewhere from $700,000 to $1m to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court, it was well-funded anti-gay activism. One wonders who paid the bills.

But that means there was no case or controversy - that's foundational to our judicial system. Now the court can just decide hypotheticals when it feels like it?!

I don’t know all the ins and outs of this case, but it does seem somewhat different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.

Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay wedding?"
Where in scripture does it say "thou shalt not make a website for a gay wedding?"

It says NONE of those things. These are bigoted a-holes making stuff up and using "religion" as cover for their bigotry.

The Bible is very clear that God created marriage between a man and a woman, and that homosexual acts are sin. (As is any sex outside of marriage, for that matter.). That’s good enough for me.

Well the Bible also says slavery is ok. That’s good enough for me!

Of course it is good for you! Democrats always supported slavery.

Many white southerners were staunch Democrats after slavery was abolished under a Republican President. This lasted for a century, until civil rights for blacks were codified into law under LBJ, a Democrat, resulting in mass defections from the party.

For several decades, the Republican Party has been the leading choice for racists. You certainly don’t have to be racist to be a Republican (they’re not all racist), but the party courts racist voters through dog whistles.

[Anonymous]

I hope the Stewart, the straight man in SF who's married with a kid and was named as 1/2 of the gay couple that requested the website sues this woman. I am not sure what for, but for something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope the Stewart, the straight man in SF who's married with a kid and was named as 1/2 of the gay couple that requested the website sues this woman. I am not sure what for, but for something.

With a common name like that it’s more likely it’s a mistaken identity or this guy was doing it to be provocative and now denying it.