SCOTUS sided with Christian Web Designer

[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.

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.

Sorry but no. What we hate is when you think your religion should be reflected in the laws of our country. Believe whatever you want; keep religion out of politics. You don’t get to force other people to live according to your dogma, and when you do that people get pissed. Rightfully so.

[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.

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.

Who does? The post you're responding to says the conservatives go against everything Christ taught and the Republicans are seeking to undermine the Catholic way of life. Is that what you're agreeing with?

[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.

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.

Sorry but no. What we hate is when you think your religion should be reflected in the laws of our country. Believe whatever you want; keep religion out of politics. You don’t get to force other people to live according to your dogma, and when you do that people get pissed. Rightfully so.

+1

Christians think that boundaries are “oppression”. Sorry, no. You are free to practice the religion of your choice but you are not free to force others to live by them too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, this was a well-funded and well-orchestrated far-right activist maneuver, they easily spent $1m plus on this case to push it to the Supreme Court. Their primary backer was Alliance Defending Freedom, which has close ties to FedSoc and receives millions in funding from Erik Prince, Betsy DeVos and others. They have backed numerous other anti-LGBT lawsuits and anti-abortion lawsuits as well as trying to assist on GOP election-meddling lawsuits for the now-disgraced Ken Paxton. And of course they are full of their own supreme hypocrisies and ironies, such as one of their lead attorneys getting busted for child porn, the sicko actually made child porn films of her own 14 year old daughter being made to have sex with adult men. https://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/anti_gay_activist_guilty_of_child_pornography_after_videotaping_daughter/

[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.

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.

Sorry but no. What we hate is when you think your religion should be reflected in the laws of our country. Believe whatever you want; keep religion out of politics. You don’t get to force other people to live according to your dogma, and when you do that people get pissed. Rightfully so.

I Identify is Christian. I can say this much: that if other Christians who, for whatever reason, can’t evolve -in particular Catholics - or don’t even try to evolve and I mean quickly, they are going to lose patronship faster and faster and faster. The younger generations just won’t tolerate the hate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don't dispute that As a lawyer, whenever handling a constitutional issue the main question I have is not whether the facts and law are on my side -- but who the judge is. Carter and Obama appointees are good for defending affirmative action and the like, but you're not likely to win with Reagan and Bush appointees. There are several hot button issues like that - but the penulum does swing back and forth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don't dispute that As a lawyer, whenever handling a constitutional issue the main question I have is not whether the facts and law are on my side -- but who the judge is. Carter and Obama appointees are good for defending affirmative action and the like, but you're not likely to win with Reagan and Bush appointees. There are several hot button issues like that - but the penulum does swing back and forth.

*pendulum

[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.

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.

Sorry but no. What we hate is when you think your religion should be reflected in the laws of our country. Believe whatever you want; keep religion out of politics. You don’t get to force other people to live according to your dogma, and when you do that people get pissed. Rightfully so.

This Supreme Court and imposing your religion on us is behind people now hating Catholics.

I had no opinion to favorable to the Catholic religion ten years ago; now? I will not be using any of your business services if you are Catholic or evangelical Christian. And I am Christian myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, this was a well-funded and well-orchestrated far-right activist maneuver, they easily spent $1m plus on this case to push it to the Supreme Court. Their primary backer was Alliance Defending Freedom, which has close ties to FedSoc and receives millions in funding from Erik Prince, Betsy DeVos and others. They have backed numerous other anti-LGBT lawsuits and anti-abortion lawsuits as well as trying to assist on GOP election-meddling lawsuits for the now-disgraced Ken Paxton. And of course they are full of their own supreme hypocrisies and ironies, such as one of their lead attorneys getting busted for child porn, the sicko actually made child porn films of her own 14 year old daughter being made to have sex with adult men. https://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/anti_gay_activist_guilty_of_child_pornography_after_videotaping_daughter/

Yes, and everyone should realize this can work both ways. At some point the Supreme Court might be considered a joke if they cannot see through these specious suits (regardless of political affiliation). Expect chaos after that..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don't dispute that As a lawyer, whenever handling a constitutional issue the main question I have is not whether the facts and law are on my side -- but who the judge is. Carter and Obama appointees are good for defending affirmative action and the like, but you're not likely to win with Reagan and Bush appointees. There are several hot button issues like that - but the penulum does swing back and forth.

Yes, but doesn’t this particular case stand out? Are you saying there are other cases in which there is phantom standing this obvious that was not detected or considered? And I don’t mean cases were plaintiffs were cherry-picked and nudged, used or pushed to file a complaint; I’m talking about complete nonsense that was completely made up like it’s a ledge tear(I say this assuming what I’m reading is true about the standing in this case.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly. The whole thing was manufactured and orchestrated. There was never any actual injured party, there was no gay couple, there was no demand to create a website, the state never compelled the designer to do anything. The whole thing was a lie. And I believe the reason it ended up in SCOTUS is because the lower courts tossed the lie, so they kept appealing it to higher courts until they landed it in a SCOTUS that was favorable to them. It's incredibly sleazy to manipulate the system like this, and further adds to the illegitimacy of this SCOTUS majority. It's a complete sham. And at risk of "constitutional crisis" and while not directly advocating for it, I do think state and local jurisdictions, as well as other branches of government would be well in their rights to just start ignoring these Supreme Court rulings until some form of oversight, judicial review and legitimacy is restored to the court if they chose to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Sorry but no. What we hate is when you think your religion should be reflected in the laws of our country. Believe whatever you want; keep religion out of politics. You don’t get to force other people to live according to your dogma, and when you do that people get pissed. Rightfully so.

This Supreme Court and imposing your religion on us is behind people now hating Catholics.

I had no opinion to favorable to the Catholic religion ten years ago; now? I will not be using any of your business services if you are Catholic or evangelical Christian. And I am Christian myself.

Please, as a Catholic, we are NOT all on board with this. You are right to reject the far-right conservative Catholics and Evangelicals who pervert the faith, but some of us are still on board with the true teachings of Christ, which included taking care of the sick, the poor, refugees and outcasts. Those are teachings that conservative Catholics and Evangelicals reject with their false ideology.

[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.

She was not turned away simply for being a Trump appointee. She was turned away for defending the indefensible, namely a desire to ban gays in the military and the separation of children at the border from their traveling companions, which forced minors to advocate for themselves at their amnesty hearings even though they were too young to do so. (You might also remember that there was no protocol to keep track of the children, so they were essentially “lost” in the system and not all of them have been reunited with their families.) Huckabee Sanders was turned away for being the spokesperson for this cruelty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree. Not all website designers do copywriting. And that entire field’s marketing is all about connecting to your niche and without explicitly saying she’s not interested in serving gay couples, there are a million other ways she can find her matched clients which will also have the effect of repelling the clients she doesn’t want (like the fish symbol would probably do it) Businesses who support LGBTQIA commonly have a statement on their site or share examples of their work with diversity in their design and photos. It’s usually not hard to tell where people stand and contrary to the paranoia and victimhood these people have, gay people would rather do business with someone who is happy to work with them. Like everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, this was a well-funded and well-orchestrated far-right activist maneuver, they easily spent $1m plus on this case to push it to the Supreme Court. Their primary backer was Alliance Defending Freedom, which has close ties to FedSoc and receives millions in funding from Erik Prince, Betsy DeVos and others. They have backed numerous other anti-LGBT lawsuits and anti-abortion lawsuits as well as trying to assist on GOP election-meddling lawsuits for the now-disgraced Ken Paxton. And of course they are full of their own supreme hypocrisies and ironies, such as one of their lead attorneys getting busted for child porn, the sicko actually made child porn films of her own 14 year old daughter being made to have sex with adult men. https://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/anti_gay_activist_guilty_of_child_pornography_after_videotaping_daughter/

Yes, and everyone should realize this can work both ways. At some point the Supreme Court might be considered a joke if they cannot see through these specious suits (regardless of political affiliation). Expect chaos after that..

They are already a joke. I see no reason to respect or honor anything coming out of this court.