SCOTUS sided with Christian Web Designer

[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.

They...used his address. There was no mistaken identity.

[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.

They...used his address. There was no mistaken identity.

Why are MSNBC contributors always wrong in their analysis?
This guy thinks he knows more than the Justices on SCOTUS.

[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.

They...used his address. There was no mistaken identity.

Why are MSNBC contributors always wrong in their analysis?
This guy thinks he knows more than the Justices on SCOTUS.

Has SCOTUS already addressed this specific point?

[Anonymous]

Hope her non-bigoted customers abandon her. After all using her services means you are expressing her POV which means anyi-gay marriage bigotry.

[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.

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.

Going to court just in case someone might ask you to bake a Wiccan cake. It's completely bizarre to me.

[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.

There are tons of things in the Bible which are objectively, factually false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Going to court just in case someone might ask you to bake a Wiccan cake. It's completely bizarre to me.

That's what an injunction is. I don't "agree with" this, but the way they did this case was she sought an injunction against the state enforcing its anti-discrimination law against her. Her claim was that, by taking on any wedding sites and then refusing to do gay weddings she would open herself to penalties. Which is technically true, hence the injunction approach. But I'm with a PP many pages ago. Just refuse to do it, say you don't have the time, you're full, etc. What's with these people who just *have* to say it's because the people are gay that they won't work with them. Just decline the damn client and move on.

[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.

They...used his address. There was no mistaken identity.

Why are MSNBC contributors always wrong in their analysis?
This guy thinks he knows more than the Justices on SCOTUS.

And you think the Justices know it all. They do not. While their decisions are the law of the land, that is only because they are from the Supreme Court. That does not make their decisions worthy of praise or free from criticisms.

[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.

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.

There are tons of things in the Bible which are objectively, factually false.

What Christian religion rejects Paul’s teachings as an Apostle???

[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.

They...used his address. There was no mistaken identity.

+1

The hateful deep pockets that invented this case are essentially frauds.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

If someone argues that it conflicts with their deeply held bigotry, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

Well, this web designer didn't like a gay religious ceremony, so assume protesting Jewish or Muslim or even progressive Protestant religious ceremonies are coming too.

I would assume someone who is atheist could refuse all of these and more if they wanted. I mean, they are all against that atheist's beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

According the the Supreme Court, yes, it is a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There are tons of things in the Bible which are objectively, factually false.

What Christian religion rejects Paul’s teachings as an Apostle???

They don’t need to directly reject Paul, just like as don’t need to directly reject all the crazy shit in the Old Testament. They just don’t feature all that angry nonsense and focus on the completely different teachings of Jesus.