SCOTUS sided with Christian Web Designer

[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.

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.

AZ attorney general has said she’s going to ignore it. Love that.

As for standing, I don’t even think she needed a fake gay person. She presented it she herself was the injured party who would be fined or jailed or whatever if she set up her site the way she (probably falsely and total BS) wanted to according to her plan. So it wasn’t some person suing her; I think she essentially sued Colorado to get an injunction against enforcing its law against her so that she could freely open her site up without fear of being punished. That’s different entirely from being sued for failing to provide a services.

Again total BS but that’s what the case was.

[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.

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.

Wedding sites typically do not involve any copywriting, and barely even any real design or creative work. Unless there is a specific request for original art, logos, custom code, or something truly unique and different, website design for something like a wedding is extremely straightforward, and typically involves predesigned templates which are widely available on the web, with themes and fonts selected by the customer, and photos and text provided by the customer. It's something that can be done in an afternoon.

Source: I've created over a hundred different websites over the years, including many wedding websites. Also, the person creating the website can decide for themselves, with their client's consent, what sites they want to promote in their portfolios et cetera.

[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.

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.

? Same thing. She was turned awya for her political views . End of.

[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.

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.

? Same thing. She was turned awya for her political views . End of.

*away

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Wedding sites typically do not involve any copywriting, and barely even any real design or creative work. Unless there is a specific request for original art, logos, custom code, or something truly unique and different, website design for something like a wedding is extremely straightforward, and typically involves predesigned templates which are widely available on the web, with themes and fonts selected by the customer, and photos and text provided by the customer. It's something that can be done in an afternoon.

Source: I've created over a hundred different websites over the years, including many wedding websites. Also, the person creating the website can decide for themselves, with their client's consent, what sites they want to promote in their portfolios et cetera.

But her made up facts said she was going to be different and more involved. She was allegedly expanding a graphics design business and said she was going to personalize the graphics and content to each couple. So that’s what they had to go on, not a cookie cutter web design but SO SPECIAL…. Allowing them to rule as they did bc it was now speech and not cut and paste web design.

[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.

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.

? Same thing. She was turned awya for her political views . End of.

Her political views go against my personal religious views. And, those of many other Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Wedding sites typically do not involve any copywriting, and barely even any real design or creative work. Unless there is a specific request for original art, logos, custom code, or something truly unique and different, website design for something like a wedding is extremely straightforward, and typically involves predesigned templates which are widely available on the web, with themes and fonts selected by the customer, and photos and text provided by the customer. It's something that can be done in an afternoon.

Source: I've created over a hundred different websites over the years, including many wedding websites. Also, the person creating the website can decide for themselves, with their client's consent, what sites they want to promote in their portfolios et cetera.

But her made up facts said she was going to be different and more involved. She was allegedly expanding a graphics design business and said she was going to personalize the graphics and content to each couple. So that’s what they had to go on, not a cookie cutter web design but SO SPECIAL…. Allowing them to rule as they did bc it was now speech and not cut and paste web design.

Again, all lies - fake "so special" website for fake and nonexistent couple.

What a sham that the US Supreme Court just decided an important case based on complete lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Wedding sites typically do not involve any copywriting, and barely even any real design or creative work. Unless there is a specific request for original art, logos, custom code, or something truly unique and different, website design for something like a wedding is extremely straightforward, and typically involves predesigned templates which are widely available on the web, with themes and fonts selected by the customer, and photos and text provided by the customer. It's something that can be done in an afternoon.

Source: I've created over a hundred different websites over the years, including many wedding websites. Also, the person creating the website can decide for themselves, with their client's consent, what sites they want to promote in their portfolios et cetera.

But her made up facts said she was going to be different and more involved. She was allegedly expanding a graphics design business and said she was going to personalize the graphics and content to each couple. So that’s what they had to go on, not a cookie cutter web design but SO SPECIAL…. Allowing them to rule as they did bc it was now speech and not cut and paste web design.

Again, all lies - fake "so special" website for fake and nonexistent couple.

What a sham that the US Supreme Court just decided an important case based on complete lies.

I know they were lies, but at least it helps when someone says “not so fast, that’s not speech so no dice.” These were odd “facts” so it will make it harder at least to expand it to other situations. I hope at least.

[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.

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.

? Same thing. She was turned awya for her political views . End of.

Her political views go against my personal religious views. And, those of many other Americans.

Nonsense. No one voiced any "religious" objection. They just din't like her political affiliation. As far as I know this is perfectly legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Wedding sites typically do not involve any copywriting, and barely even any real design or creative work. Unless there is a specific request for original art, logos, custom code, or something truly unique and different, website design for something like a wedding is extremely straightforward, and typically involves predesigned templates which are widely available on the web, with themes and fonts selected by the customer, and photos and text provided by the customer. It's something that can be done in an afternoon.

Source: I've created over a hundred different websites over the years, including many wedding websites. Also, the person creating the website can decide for themselves, with their client's consent, what sites they want to promote in their portfolios et cetera.

But her made up facts said she was going to be different and more involved. She was allegedly expanding a graphics design business and said she was going to personalize the graphics and content to each couple. So that’s what they had to go on, not a cookie cutter web design but SO SPECIAL…. Allowing them to rule as they did bc it was now speech and not cut and paste web design.

Again, all lies - fake "so special" website for fake and nonexistent couple.

What a sham that the US Supreme Court just decided an important case based on complete lies.

I know they were lies, but at least it helps when someone says “not so fast, that’s not speech so no dice.” These were odd “facts” so it will make it harder at least to expand it to other situations. I hope at least.

Isn't it a bad slippery slope for the Supreme Court to start accepting lies and specious, made-up hypotheticals as "facts?"

At least Kagan and KBJ vigorously waved the red flag about those glaring issues in their dissent. The majority was intentionally oblivious to it in their rush to push this through. We need more justices with common sense like Kagan and KBJ.

[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.

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.

? Same thing. She was turned awya for her political views . End of.

Her political views go against my personal religious views. And, those of many other Americans.

Nonsense. No one voiced any "religious" objection. They just din't like her political affiliation. As far as I know this is perfectly legal.

It is legal. The MAGA crowd isn’t a protected class, but we do have some laws that say you can’t discriminate against people for their sexual orientation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Wedding sites typically do not involve any copywriting, and barely even any real design or creative work. Unless there is a specific request for original art, logos, custom code, or something truly unique and different, website design for something like a wedding is extremely straightforward, and typically involves predesigned templates which are widely available on the web, with themes and fonts selected by the customer, and photos and text provided by the customer. It's something that can be done in an afternoon.

Source: I've created over a hundred different websites over the years, including many wedding websites. Also, the person creating the website can decide for themselves, with their client's consent, what sites they want to promote in their portfolios et cetera.

But her made up facts said she was going to be different and more involved. She was allegedly expanding a graphics design business and said she was going to personalize the graphics and content to each couple. So that’s what they had to go on, not a cookie cutter web design but SO SPECIAL…. Allowing them to rule as they did bc it was now speech and not cut and paste web design.

Again, all lies - fake "so special" website for fake and nonexistent couple.

What a sham that the US Supreme Court just decided an important case based on complete lies.

I know they were lies, but at least it helps when someone says “not so fast, that’s not speech so no dice.” These were odd “facts” so it will make it harder at least to expand it to other situations. I hope at least.

Isn't it a bad slippery slope for the Supreme Court to start accepting lies and specious, made-up hypotheticals as "facts?"

At least Kagan and KBJ vigorously waved the red flag about those glaring issues in their dissent. The majority was intentionally oblivious to it in their rush to push this through. We need more justices with common sense like Kagan and KBJ.

Of course it is. But we can try damage control where it’s possible is all I’m saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

? Same thing. She was turned awya for her political views . End of.

Her political views go against my personal religious views. And, those of many other Americans.

Nonsense. No one voiced any "religious" objection. They just din't like her political affiliation. As far as I know this is perfectly legal.

It is legal. The MAGA crowd isn’t a protected class, but we do have some laws that say you can’t discriminate against people for their sexual orientation.

They're perverted Trumposexuals

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Good point, I will keep that in mind.

It's just hard with so many hateful people who want to impose their conservative Christianity on as many as possible.

[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.

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.

? Same thing. She was turned awya for her political views . End of.

Her political views go against my personal religious views. And, those of many other Americans.

Nonsense. No one voiced any "religious" objection. They just din't like her political affiliation. As far as I know this is perfectly legal.

No many religious people think she has turned her back on Christ.