SCOTUS sided with Christian Web Designer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But the SC case is different because the web designer wasn’t asked to create a website with anti-(fill in the blank) messaging. She wasn’t asked to create a website that attacked any belief or could be construed as hate speech or incitement against any group. A better analogy would your being asked to create a Wiccan cake and refusing because you are Christian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You think it’s more likely that someone who is not gay and is a web designer himself did this to be provocative (Did he even know the lady enough to know she’d be provoked?) than it is that this was a manufactured case by people with strong beliefs, deep pockets and a political/cultural agenda? I don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You think it’s more likely that someone who is not gay and is a web designer himself did this to be provocative (Did he even know the lady enough to know she’d be provoked?) than it is that this was a manufactured case by people with strong beliefs, deep pockets and a political/cultural agenda? I don’t.

Yes, I can totally see a straight liberal doing this to be provocative. Absolutely. Also, if your version is correct, the lawyers on the other side should be sued for malpractice for not doing their due diligence to challenge the identity of this person.

[Anonymous]

/\ challenging it *after* the SCOTUS decision is ridiculous and they’re probably shit out of luck even if it was manufactured

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You think it’s more likely that someone who is not gay and is a web designer himself did this to be provocative (Did he even know the lady enough to know she’d be provoked?) than it is that this was a manufactured case by people with strong beliefs, deep pockets and a political/cultural agenda? I don’t.

It was obvious from her website that she was an evangelical Christian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

According to Paul. And then Paul deviated from the teachings of Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.
report

Out of curiosity, why? As long as nyou aren't the one who is engaging in sexual activity with same-sex partners, how does making cakes or web sites or whatever it is that you do compromise your religious beliefs?

Genuine question.

Part of the reason that I am as successful as I am is that I throw myself into my work. I become engaged in the lives/ work of my clients (it’s not only weddings) and truly celebrate with them.

This is something else that you may have to work for yourself, rather than a company, to understand. People are not only buying my product- they are buying my interest, enthusiasm, compassion, etc.

Compassion lol

I hope you are honest about your feelings toward gay couples with the straight couples you work with. You should have the courage of your convictions enough to put it on your website so buyers can be aware. I know I as a hetero would never ever want to give my money to someone who openly discriminates like you do, and most of my straight friends feel the same way.

[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.

And that’s why they left the party to become Republicans!

—Sen Strom Thurmond

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You think it’s more likely that someone who is not gay and is a web designer himself did this to be provocative (Did he even know the lady enough to know she’d be provoked?) than it is that this was a manufactured case by people with strong beliefs, deep pockets and a political/cultural agenda? I don’t.

Yes, I can totally see a straight liberal doing this to be provocative. Absolutely. Also, if your version is correct, the lawyers on the other side should be sued for malpractice for not doing their due diligence to challenge the identity of this person.

Now that I can agree with. How did this happen?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

According to Paul. And then Paul deviated from the teachings of Jesus.

No Paul did not. Ever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.
report

Out of curiosity, why? As long as nyou aren't the one who is engaging in sexual activity with same-sex partners, how does making cakes or web sites or whatever it is that you do compromise your religious beliefs?

Genuine question.

Part of the reason that I am as successful as I am is that I throw myself into my work. I become engaged in the lives/ work of my clients (it’s not only weddings) and truly celebrate with them.

This is something else that you may have to work for yourself, rather than a company, to understand. People are not only buying my product- they are buying my interest, enthusiasm, compassion, etc.

Compassion lol

I hope you are honest about your feelings toward gay couples with the straight couples you work with. You should have the courage of your convictions enough to put it on your website so buyers can be aware. I know I as a hetero would never ever want to give my money to someone who openly discriminates like you do, and most of my straight friends feel the same way.

Why do you think a question like this would ever come up? If it’s that big of a deal to you then you absolutely should start asking every vendor you work with.

[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: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.

Why wouldn’t it not protect me? If in my religion they are considered sinners and helping them is considered a sin, I wouldn’t want to be compelled to do business with them. This law would protect me, unless the law says that only Christian beliefs are protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You think it’s more likely that someone who is not gay and is a web designer himself did this to be provocative (Did he even know the lady enough to know she’d be provoked?) than it is that this was a manufactured case by people with strong beliefs, deep pockets and a political/cultural agenda? I don’t.

It was obvious from her website that she was an evangelical Christian

Who designed websites for churches. Believe it or not, most of us "libs" are too busy with our own lives to run around and provoke people in other states. Or care that much.

Now, after this case, people care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I love your posts.

PP here. Thank you. I can’t stand how white liberals (and their tokens of color) hide their power grabs, control issues, and borderline fascist intolerance behind “allyship” when what they advocate rarely benefits the populations they exploit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You think it’s more likely that someone who is not gay and is a web designer himself did this to be provocative (Did he even know the lady enough to know she’d be provoked?) than it is that this was a manufactured case by people with strong beliefs, deep pockets and a political/cultural agenda? I don’t.

It was obvious from her website that she was an evangelical Christian

Who designed websites for churches. Believe it or not, most of us "libs" are too busy with our own lives to run around and provoke people in other states. Or care that much.

Now, after this case, people care.

As someone who used to help plan and file impact litigation as co-counsel with nonprofits like the ACLU and Lambda Legal before I realized I didn’t believe in where they were taking things…

Your post is a damn lie.

Engineering strategic violations or exercises of rights under laws they want to challenge or see upheld in court is EXACTLY what liberal organizations do. Conservative organizations do it too.

You really think nonprofits and activist groups are just sitting around, potentially for dozens of years, waiting for the right case to come along by happenstance or potentially never?