SCOTUS sided with Christian Web Designer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think so to be honest. This is a more narrow ruling than I think people are suggesting. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but there's no speech involved in printing an invitation. The crux of this ruling is that the web designer's "speech" is implicated in how she would write about the couple and share their story as part of her (nonexistence BS) website. Printing invitations is akin to working at Staples. There's no speech there. It's a service, not speech. This isn't a "ban all gay people from services" ruling. It's a free speech ruling, that this web designer can't be compelled to write these narratives about the couples she "serves", in quotes because we all know she doesn't and probably won't.

Then the rest of us can't be compelled to serve, wait upon, do business with people with whom our deepest held convictions disagree - like MAGAs.

When were you ever compelled to do business with people you hate over political differences?

Really.

When???

DP i work in a job where I have to assist tourists even those in MAGA hats that basically tell me they hate who I am.

+1 my son did years of volunteer work in a museum to tell visitors about exhibits they have on display including paleontology and fossils showing evolution (such as horses going from toes to hooves) and geology (the earth as a sphere) and constantly had to deal with idiotic MAGA-hat wearing loons who spout idiocy about the flat earth and creationism. It at least taught him about patience, self control, and hand having compassion for MAGA morons.

Another person who doesn’t know what the word “compelled” means. Your son VOLUNTEERED at the museum and was free never to go back, but you’re lying to yourself that he was forced to tell the visitors about the exhibits?

So he should have to quit doing something he enjoys because of visitors who are idiots? Wow, you're an ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sad that people cannot move beyond their hate and bigotry and hide it behind phony assertions about their "religious beliefs."

You have no “right” to force others to endorse you and your preferred messages. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this basic reality?

Why are YOU having such a hard time understanding the basic reality that she is engaging in BIGOTRY and you are DEFENDING BIGOTRY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sad that people cannot move beyond their hate and bigotry and hide it behind phony assertions about their "religious beliefs."

You have no “right” to force others to endorse you and your preferred messages. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this basic reality?

Endorse? Her services are not an endorsement, they are a conduit. If a newspaper runs an article talking about human trafficking, do you think that's an "endorsement" of human trafficking? It isn't. The website she produces is NOT HER STATEMENT and is NOT ABOUT HER. And if someone doesn't want to serve clients then they should not be in that business in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think so to be honest. This is a more narrow ruling than I think people are suggesting. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but there's no speech involved in printing an invitation. The crux of this ruling is that the web designer's "speech" is implicated in how she would write about the couple and share their story as part of her (nonexistence BS) website. Printing invitations is akin to working at Staples. There's no speech there. It's a service, not speech. This isn't a "ban all gay people from services" ruling. It's a free speech ruling, that this web designer can't be compelled to write these narratives about the couples she "serves", in quotes because we all know she doesn't and probably won't.

Then the rest of us can't be compelled to serve, wait upon, do business with people with whom our deepest held convictions disagree - like MAGAs.

When were you ever compelled to do business with people you hate over political differences?

Really.

When???

DP i work in a job where I have to assist tourists even those in MAGA hats that basically tell me they hate who I am.

+1 my son did years of volunteer work in a museum to tell visitors about exhibits they have on display including paleontology and fossils showing evolution (such as horses going from toes to hooves) and geology (the earth as a sphere) and constantly had to deal with idiotic MAGA-hat wearing loons who spout idiocy about the flat earth and creationism. It at least taught him about patience, self control, and hand having compassion for MAGA morons.

Another person who doesn’t know what the word “compelled” means. Your son VOLUNTEERED at the museum and was free never to go back, but you’re lying to yourself that he was forced to tell the visitors about the exhibits?

So he should have to quit doing something he enjoys because of visitors who are idiots? Wow, you're an ass.

No, my dear. The intelligent conclusion is that your son is NOT being COMPELLED to do business with those he hates over political differences. Offering him up as an example of one being compelled makes you a hysterical liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sad that people cannot move beyond their hate and bigotry and hide it behind phony assertions about their "religious beliefs."

You have no “right” to force others to endorse you and your preferred messages. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this basic reality?

Why are YOU having such a hard time understanding the basic reality that she is engaging in BIGOTRY and you are DEFENDING BIGOTRY?

So what? No one owes you an endorsement of your preferred messages. If you find this bigoted, that’s your problem to deal with. The law does not protect you from getting your feelings hurt or being inconvenienced by others who want no part of you, nor should it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sad that people cannot move beyond their hate and bigotry and hide it behind phony assertions about their "religious beliefs."

You have no “right” to force others to endorse you and your preferred messages. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this basic reality?

Endorse? Her services are not an endorsement, they are a conduit. If a newspaper runs an article talking about human trafficking, do you think that's an "endorsement" of human trafficking? It isn't. The website she produces is NOT HER STATEMENT and is NOT ABOUT HER. And if someone doesn't want to serve clients then they should not be in that business in the first place.

SCOTUS ruled that forcing a website designer to produce a website with a message that violates her religious beliefs would be compelled speech. You have no right to compel anyone’s speech no matter how good you think your arguments on the topic are. That’s what living in a democracy is about. Sorry you don’t like that. Flights leave the country daily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think so to be honest. This is a more narrow ruling than I think people are suggesting. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but there's no speech involved in printing an invitation. The crux of this ruling is that the web designer's "speech" is implicated in how she would write about the couple and share their story as part of her (nonexistence BS) website. Printing invitations is akin to working at Staples. There's no speech there. It's a service, not speech. This isn't a "ban all gay people from services" ruling. It's a free speech ruling, that this web designer can't be compelled to write these narratives about the couples she "serves", in quotes because we all know she doesn't and probably won't.

The web designer doesn't usually write the content, that comes from the customer. The web designer designs or chooses a template, the colors, the font, etc and then pastes in the words, and images, so it is more like printing an invitation in most cases. Hence part of why this ruling is so bad.

But that’s not what *this designer* under *this set of facts* stated. That’s what distinguished it and makes this a narrower ruling. This designer stated specifically that her business plan called for HER to write the narrative about the couple, that is was HER special touch, etc. It’s literally what is making this SPEECH and not run of the mill web designing. I mean, it’s all BS, don’t get me wrong, but on her fabricated but stipulated set of facts, she’s the one writing the narrative, and that’s where it became speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sad that people cannot move beyond their hate and bigotry and hide it behind phony assertions about their "religious beliefs."

You have no “right” to force others to endorse you and your preferred messages. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this basic reality?

Endorse? Her services are not an endorsement, they are a conduit. If a newspaper runs an article talking about human trafficking, do you think that's an "endorsement" of human trafficking? It isn't. The website she produces is NOT HER STATEMENT and is NOT ABOUT HER. And if someone doesn't want to serve clients then they should not be in that business in the first place.

SCOTUS ruled that forcing a website designer to produce a website with a message that violates her religious beliefs would be compelled speech. You have no right to compel anyone’s speech no matter how good you think your arguments on the topic are. That’s what living in a democracy is about. Sorry you don’t like that. Flights leave the country daily.

This SCOTUS majority is completely illegitimate, no matter how good you think your arguments on the topic are. Sorry you don't like that, but we aren't going anywhere, we will instead use the power of our votes to change that, THAT is what democracy is all about, and if you don't like it, maybe you should leave.

Also: hiding bigotry behind false "religious beliefs" is also completely illegitimate. Like it or not, the ways of the world are changing and will continue to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think so to be honest. This is a more narrow ruling than I think people are suggesting. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but there's no speech involved in printing an invitation. The crux of this ruling is that the web designer's "speech" is implicated in how she would write about the couple and share their story as part of her (nonexistence BS) website. Printing invitations is akin to working at Staples. There's no speech there. It's a service, not speech. This isn't a "ban all gay people from services" ruling. It's a free speech ruling, that this web designer can't be compelled to write these narratives about the couples she "serves", in quotes because we all know she doesn't and probably won't.

The web designer doesn't usually write the content, that comes from the customer. The web designer designs or chooses a template, the colors, the font, etc and then pastes in the words, and images, so it is more like printing an invitation in most cases. Hence part of why this ruling is so bad.

But that’s not what *this designer* under *this set of facts* stated. That’s what distinguished it and makes this a narrower ruling. This designer stated specifically that her business plan called for HER to write the narrative about the couple, that is was HER special touch, etc. It’s literally what is making this SPEECH and not run of the mill web designing. I mean, it’s all BS, don’t get me wrong, but on her fabricated but stipulated set of facts, she’s the one writing the narrative, and that’s where it became speech.

Her entire scenario was completely fake. There was no customer, there was no demand for her to "create a narrative that goes against her religious belief" or to "endorse" anything, she was never compelled to do anything at all. SCOTUS based this ruling on nothing but thin air. I can't see how it will stand any test of time.

Facts matter.

[Anonymous]

And as for it being a "narrow" ruling, that's belied by the dissenting opinion - the dissenting opinion clearly made the case that this could and would likely be a slippery slope leading to other forms of discrimination in business. The majority opinion is completely silent on that.

So, don't be surprised if MAGAs are indeed turned away from businesses. That slippery slope is real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think so to be honest. This is a more narrow ruling than I think people are suggesting. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but there's no speech involved in printing an invitation. The crux of this ruling is that the web designer's "speech" is implicated in how she would write about the couple and share their story as part of her (nonexistence BS) website. Printing invitations is akin to working at Staples. There's no speech there. It's a service, not speech. This isn't a "ban all gay people from services" ruling. It's a free speech ruling, that this web designer can't be compelled to write these narratives about the couples she "serves", in quotes because we all know she doesn't and probably won't.

The web designer doesn't usually write the content, that comes from the customer. The web designer designs or chooses a template, the colors, the font, etc and then pastes in the words, and images, so it is more like printing an invitation in most cases. Hence part of why this ruling is so bad.

But that’s not what *this designer* under *this set of facts* stated. That’s what distinguished it and makes this a narrower ruling. This designer stated specifically that her business plan called for HER to write the narrative about the couple, that is was HER special touch, etc. It’s literally what is making this SPEECH and not run of the mill web designing. I mean, it’s all BS, don’t get me wrong, but on her fabricated but stipulated set of facts, she’s the one writing the narrative, and that’s where it became speech.

But again, no one asked her to do this, so the whole exercise is based on imaginary facts and scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think so to be honest. This is a more narrow ruling than I think people are suggesting. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but there's no speech involved in printing an invitation. The crux of this ruling is that the web designer's "speech" is implicated in how she would write about the couple and share their story as part of her (nonexistence BS) website. Printing invitations is akin to working at Staples. There's no speech there. It's a service, not speech. This isn't a "ban all gay people from services" ruling. It's a free speech ruling, that this web designer can't be compelled to write these narratives about the couples she "serves", in quotes because we all know she doesn't and probably won't.

The web designer doesn't usually write the content, that comes from the customer. The web designer designs or chooses a template, the colors, the font, etc and then pastes in the words, and images, so it is more like printing an invitation in most cases. Hence part of why this ruling is so bad.

But that’s not what *this designer* under *this set of facts* stated. That’s what distinguished it and makes this a narrower ruling. This designer stated specifically that her business plan called for HER to write the narrative about the couple, that is was HER special touch, etc. It’s literally what is making this SPEECH and not run of the mill web designing. I mean, it’s all BS, don’t get me wrong, but on her fabricated but stipulated set of facts, she’s the one writing the narrative, and that’s where it became speech.

Her entire scenario was completely fake. There was no customer, there was no demand for her to "create a narrative that goes against her religious belief" or to "endorse" anything, she was never compelled to do anything at all. SCOTUS based this ruling on nothing but thin air. I can't see how it will stand any test of time.

Facts matter.

I don’t endorse it. I acknowledge it’s BS and that it’s fabricated. But they were *stipulated facts* in the ruling, and that does make it narrower than people are claiming it to be. I don’t agree with it, but I’m approaching it with a critical eye. It’s not as sweeping as people are saying. It’s just not. But my saying that doesn’t equate with “this is a good ruling.” Facts do indeed matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sad that people cannot move beyond their hate and bigotry and hide it behind phony assertions about their "religious beliefs."

You have no “right” to force others to endorse you and your preferred messages. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this basic reality?

Endorse? Her services are not an endorsement, they are a conduit. If a newspaper runs an article talking about human trafficking, do you think that's an "endorsement" of human trafficking? It isn't. The website she produces is NOT HER STATEMENT and is NOT ABOUT HER. And if someone doesn't want to serve clients then they should not be in that business in the first place.

SCOTUS ruled that forcing a website designer to produce a website with a message that violates her religious beliefs would be compelled speech. You have no right to compel anyone’s speech no matter how good you think your arguments on the topic are. That’s what living in a democracy is about. Sorry you don’t like that. Flights leave the country daily.

This SCOTUS majority is completely illegitimate, no matter how good you think your arguments on the topic are. Sorry you don't like that, but we aren't going anywhere, we will instead use the power of our votes to change that, THAT is what democracy is all about, and if you don't like it, maybe you should leave.

Also: hiding bigotry behind false "religious beliefs" is also completely illegitimate. Like it or not, the ways of the world are changing and will continue to change.

Lol. Good luck with using the power of the vote to change a body that isn’t subject to the vote. Stay mad in the meantime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sad that people cannot move beyond their hate and bigotry and hide it behind phony assertions about their "religious beliefs."

You have no “right” to force others to endorse you and your preferred messages. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this basic reality?

Endorse? Her services are not an endorsement, they are a conduit. If a newspaper runs an article talking about human trafficking, do you think that's an "endorsement" of human trafficking? It isn't. The website she produces is NOT HER STATEMENT and is NOT ABOUT HER. And if someone doesn't want to serve clients then they should not be in that business in the first place.

SCOTUS ruled that forcing a website designer to produce a website with a message that violates her religious beliefs would be compelled speech. You have no right to compel anyone’s speech no matter how good you think your arguments on the topic are. That’s what living in a democracy is about. Sorry you don’t like that. Flights leave the country daily.

This SCOTUS majority is completely illegitimate, no matter how good you think your arguments on the topic are. Sorry you don't like that, but we aren't going anywhere, we will instead use the power of our votes to change that, THAT is what democracy is all about, and if you don't like it, maybe you should leave.

Also: hiding bigotry behind false "religious beliefs" is also completely illegitimate. Like it or not, the ways of the world are changing and will continue to change.

What a crock of crap. Illegitimate? Ha ha. Only because you are unhappy with their rulings. Polls are showing that the majority of Americans agree with their recent rulings........
And, how do you intend to do this?......"we will instead use the power of our votes to change that"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And as for it being a "narrow" ruling, that's belied by the dissenting opinion - the dissenting opinion clearly made the case that this could and would likely be a slippery slope leading to other forms of discrimination in business. The majority opinion is completely silent on that.

So, don't be surprised if MAGAs are indeed turned away from businesses. That slippery slope is real.

And, they are wrong. I note the word, "could" in your post. The ruling doesn't say it "does."

"could and would likely." So definitive. /s