SCOTUS sided with Christian Web Designer

[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.

If a business decides to shun half the people in this country, that is on them. It won't end well.
Look at what happened to Bud Light when they essentially mocked their customer base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If a business decides to shun half the people in this country, that is on them. It won't end well.
Look at what happened to Bud Light when they essentially mocked their customer base.

The far right is already shunning half of the country and with this SCOTUS decision it just got worse, if it hadn't dawned on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Suggesting that my son should have to quit makes you a hysterical ASS, "my dear."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Again, the majority opinion does not specifically address the slippery slope. What's definitive is that they left the door wide open for many other forms of discrimination.

[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.

Didn't that already happen when the Little Red Hen diner turned away Sarah Huckabee for no better reason that she was a Trump appointee?
I don't even think the employees invoked "religious principle" as a reason. They just didn't like her politics.

[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?

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.

NOBODY WAS ASKING HER OR FORCING HER TO 'ENDORSE' ANYTHING. Putting customer-supplied content into a web template is NOT a frickin endorsement.

Good god I can't believe the idiocy of all of you, and of the SCOTUS majority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Didn't that already happen when the Little Red Hen diner turned away Sarah Huckabee for no better reason that she was a Trump appointee?
I don't even think the employees invoked "religious principle" as a reason. They just didn't like her politics.

Yep, and what the Little Red Hen did is now the law of the land, per SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

This decision is disgusting. There is no proper standing, and this case was cherry picked. The future. Ramifications are going to be extreme.

I suggest reading, Jeff Steele’s commentary about this in the section where he talks about the most popular threads. He articulates this problematic decision so well.

I fear there’s a huge trend with the Supreme Court. Another decision that is reprehensible is somewhat resent and involved an adoption agency, which received public funds. In that case, the adoption agency claimed that it’s Christian beliefs, probate it from considering gay couples or people as prospective adoptive parents. Yet, of course they still wanted to consume public monies. People might say pick a different agency, but the point is the president. Now this adoption agency is getting federal funds while discriminating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Didn't that already happen when the Little Red Hen diner turned away Sarah Huckabee for no better reason that she was a Trump appointee?
I don't even think the employees invoked "religious principle" as a reason. They just didn't like her politics.

As a Christian who was raised as a Catholic, the conservative policies of turning their backs on refugees, the sick, the poor and the elderly is a CLEAR violation of my religious principles and goes against EVERYTHING that Christ taught in the four Gospels, as it also goes against all of the teachings of St. Francis and many other major figures of the Church. It is my religious conviction that unless and until Republicans change their ways and embrace Christ, we as Christians cannot serve them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Didn't that already happen when the Little Red Hen diner turned away Sarah Huckabee for no better reason that she was a Trump appointee?
I don't even think the employees invoked "religious principle" as a reason. They just didn't like her politics.

Yep, and what the Little Red Hen did is now the law of the land, per SCOTUS.

Not so sure -- the restaurant wasn't sued, and they didn't defend their action on any constitutional grounds.
And you'll notice Sarah Huckabee had the decency to get up and leave - probably thinking, fine, if you don't want me here I won't trouble you any further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Didn't that already happen when the Little Red Hen diner turned away Sarah Huckabee for no better reason that she was a Trump appointee?
I don't even think the employees invoked "religious principle" as a reason. They just didn't like her politics.

Yep, and what the Little Red Hen did is now the law of the land, per SCOTUS.

Not so sure -- the restaurant wasn't sued, and they didn't defend their action on any constitutional grounds.
And you'll notice Sarah Huckabee had the decency to get up and leave - probably thinking, fine, if you don't want me here I won't trouble you any further.

Good luck suing them now. They can just cite their religious beliefs, whatever imagined religious beliefs those may be, and reference 303 Creative v. Elenis, and game over. It's case law. It's the law of the land.

[Anonymous]

DP- I feel like the lawyer in this case essentially wrote the ruling that could pass constitutional muster in her head then backed into these fabricated facts to support an injunction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Didn't that already happen when the Little Red Hen diner turned away Sarah Huckabee for no better reason that she was a Trump appointee?
I don't even think the employees invoked "religious principle" as a reason. They just didn't like her politics.

Yep, and what the Little Red Hen did is now the law of the land, per SCOTUS.

Not so sure -- the restaurant wasn't sued, and they didn't defend their action on any constitutional grounds.
And you'll notice Sarah Huckabee had the decency to get up and leave - probably thinking, fine, if you don't want me here I won't trouble you any further.

Good luck suing them now. They can just cite their religious beliefs, whatever imagined religious beliefs those may be, and reference 303 Creative v. Elenis, and game over. It's case law. It's the law of the land.

They were told to leave for being "MAGA." Their objection to her wasn't based on any religious principle. Presumably that doesn't violate any laws, and certainly doesn't fall within the scope of 303 Creative. I just brought it up because someone above said now businesses can refuse to serve MAGA's, which already happened long before this case was decided..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Didn't that already happen when the Little Red Hen diner turned away Sarah Huckabee for no better reason that she was a Trump appointee?
I don't even think the employees invoked "religious principle" as a reason. They just didn't like her politics.

As a Christian who was raised as a Catholic, the conservative policies of turning their backs on refugees, the sick, the poor and the elderly is a CLEAR violation of my religious principles and goes against EVERYTHING that Christ taught in the four Gospels, as it also goes against all of the teachings of St. Francis and many other major figures of the Church. It is my religious conviction that unless and until Republicans change their ways and embrace Christ, we as Christians cannot serve them.

Fellow Catholic here. They hate us. They write here on this forum over and over that they hate us. I'm not saying that you should hate them, but recognize that you're voting for people who literally hate everything you stand for, and are seeking to undermine a Catholic way of life in nearly all aspects.

[Anonymous]

The Supreme Court is intended to protect rights not limit them. Here, rights have been limited under the guise that other rights are being protected. It’s absurd.

Also, there was reportedly no live controversy at the time. And that’s what people are talking about with regard to standing. There are complex reasons that are very important as to why there needs to be an actual person who actually believes they are being discriminated against before they can take legal action. (verse a purported fear that it could happen in the future.)

For the purposes of discussion, even excluding the “ political” make up of the court, this decision could’ve been very different, and made much more sense if there was actually a gay couple who was trying to force this purportedly devout Christian woman to create a “marriage” website for them. (Even then, it’s a stretch to claim that a website designer’s freedom of expression or speech is being impaired because she would move a couple of templates around.)

The point is most likely if she had said, “I’m a devout Christian and I don’t want to design a website for you”, a real gay couple would likely say “you’re a jerk” and “I’m gonna find someone else.”

It just feels like the whole intention of this case was to take advantage of the current make up of the court.