US supreme court strikes blow against LGBTQ+ rights with Colorado ruling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool. Can’t wait to refuse service to evangelical Christians.

Yes, this!!

Religion is a protected category. Politics is not. Put it this way, would you force a Muslim to design a website that was openly hostile to Islam?

In a hugely diverse country and one that is only getting more diverse, the only way to accommodate all the various viewpoints is not to impose a binary across all of them.

Hate is against my religion so hating gay people is against my religion so yes we can deny them services now.

You can deny them specific services that compel speech from you that goes against your beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am gay and I do not want to live in a country where people are subject to compelled speech or expression.

Remember, this can work both ways. If governments have power to compel speech, they will have that power no matter who is in charge. Anyone who disagrees with the court decision should remember this if and when conservatives are in power.

If you are a publisher, should you be forced to publish nazi propaganda? Of course not. Not just because nazi propaganda is wrong, but also because you as a human have a right to freedom of expression and that includes the right to be free from compelled speech.

Being a nazi is not a protected class. It’s not a good example. Find a valid example.

Westboro Baptist Church demands a gay baker design a cake that says “God hated fa&&ots.”

—NP

That’s not in the Bible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool. Can’t wait to refuse service to evangelical Christians.

Yes, this!!

You can’t refuse your standard services to anyone, and neither can 303 Creative.

You can refuse to make creative products that specifically compel you to speak against your beliefs. A lot of people are missing this point, but this case was NOT decided on religious freedom grounds; it was decided on freedom of speech. And it’s not the Supreme Court that first made that distinction, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Please. You are far too informed and reasonable to be posting here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am gay and I do not want to live in a country where people are subject to compelled speech or expression.

Remember, this can work both ways. If governments have power to compel speech, they will have that power no matter who is in charge. Anyone who disagrees with the court decision should remember this if and when conservatives are in power.

If you are a publisher, should you be forced to publish nazi propaganda? Of course not. Not just because nazi propaganda is wrong, but also because you as a human have a right to freedom of expression and that includes the right to be free from compelled speech.

Being a nazi is not a protected class. It’s not a good example. Find a valid example.

Westboro Baptist Church demands a gay baker design a cake that says “God hated fa&&ots.”

—NP

That’s not in the Bible

1) that is not in the legal standard for religious discrimination

2) this case is not about religious freedom but free speech

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm torn. "wedding websites" aren't an industry where it's hard to find a vendor. It's one of the gay-heaviest industries.

I'd hate to accidentally pay a bigot to make my website. I'd much rather be rejected.

Don't kid yourself, these people being sued, bakeries, website designers, etc. have been sought out by specific groups just so these lawsuits can be brought forward I guess hoping to solidify something into law. There are many businesses that would happily have created this website for these people, move on. I would much rather have my party catered or the cake being baked made by someone who wants my business. The vilifying of individuals is back firing. It needs to stop.

Except in this case it was the website maker who completely made up this case. There was never a gay couple asking for a website! What’s stopping them from making up other cases to further erode our rights, invalidate our marriages?

Got it. You don’t know how the law works, or how how standing works, or what “stipulation” means.

But sure let’s hear more of your opinions.

You're right, I'm non a constitutional law expert. What is stopping the ADF or some other right wing group from making up another case to erode our rights/invalidate our marriages? I would feel much better if you could explain why they were allowed to make up a case here but they won't be able to make up additional cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm torn. "wedding websites" aren't an industry where it's hard to find a vendor. It's one of the gay-heaviest industries.

I'd hate to accidentally pay a bigot to make my website. I'd much rather be rejected.

Don't kid yourself, these people being sued, bakeries, website designers, etc. have been sought out by specific groups just so these lawsuits can be brought forward I guess hoping to solidify something into law. There are many businesses that would happily have created this website for these people, move on. I would much rather have my party catered or the cake being baked made by someone who wants my business. The vilifying of individuals is back firing. It needs to stop.

Except in this case it was the website maker who completely made up this case. There was never a gay couple asking for a website! What’s stopping them from making up other cases to further erode our rights, invalidate our marriages?

Got it. You don’t know how the law works, or how how standing works, or what “stipulation” means.

But sure let’s hear more of your opinions.

You're right, I'm non a constitutional law expert. What is stopping the ADF or some other right wing group from making up another case to erode our rights/invalidate our marriages? I would feel much better if you could explain why they were allowed to make up a case here but they won't be able to make up additional cases.

I'm not the previous poster of the post you are referring to but the answer is that they this particular case wasn't even on shaky ground it had no grounds. Should never have been heard based on standing. Arizona's AG has reportedly stated she will ignore the ruling. THAT NEVER HAPPENS. Already this case has undermined to many the appearance of the SC's credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cool. Can’t wait to refuse service to evangelical Christians.

Are evangelical and catholics the same?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool. Can’t wait to refuse service to evangelical Christians.

Yes, this!!

Religion is a protected category. Politics is not. Put it this way, would you force a Muslim to design a website that was openly hostile to Islam?

In a hugely diverse country and one that is only getting more diverse, the only way to accommodate all the various viewpoints is not to impose a binary across all of them.

Hate is against my religion so hating gay people is against my religion so yes we can deny them services now.

You can deny them specific services that compel speech from you that goes against your beliefs.

The religious beliefs of the complainant were never established. Does she follow all the tenets of her religion or does she pick and choose? Is she in good standing? Does her priest or pastor say she has to refuse gays and all other “sinners” or just gays?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm torn. "wedding websites" aren't an industry where it's hard to find a vendor. It's one of the gay-heaviest industries.

I'd hate to accidentally pay a bigot to make my website. I'd much rather be rejected.

Don't kid yourself, these people being sued, bakeries, website designers, etc. have been sought out by specific groups just so these lawsuits can be brought forward I guess hoping to solidify something into law. There are many businesses that would happily have created this website for these people, move on. I would much rather have my party catered or the cake being baked made by someone who wants my business. The vilifying of individuals is back firing. It needs to stop.

Except in this case it was the website maker who completely made up this case. There was never a gay couple asking for a website! What’s stopping them from making up other cases to further erode our rights, invalidate our marriages?

Hence the saying "Every accusation is a confession."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am gay and I do not want to live in a country where people are subject to compelled speech or expression.

Remember, this can work both ways. If governments have power to compel speech, they will have that power no matter who is in charge. Anyone who disagrees with the court decision should remember this if and when conservatives are in power.

If you are a publisher, should you be forced to publish nazi propaganda? Of course not. Not just because nazi propaganda is wrong, but also because you as a human have a right to freedom of expression and that includes the right to be free from compelled speech.

I'm straight, but I agree with you.

The ruling also means that a gay artist or vendor need not be compelled to produce an anti-LGBTQ product. A woman who is pro-choice need not create a product that is blatantly pro-life. A minority does not need to produce a product that is racist.

Although these are all protected classes, it allows vendors to decide who to take as clients and allow the artists to avoid producing materials that they disagree with. So, if a gay baker does not want to create a wedding cake for an anti-LGBTQ legislator's adult cihld, they don't have to. If a woman-owned advertising company does not want to accept a pro-life client to hawk their anti-abortion message, they don't have to. If a Latino printer does not want to print anti-immigrant materials, they don't have to.

The decision is currently only viewed in the most bigoted way, but the language of the ruling goes both ways. It will allow minorities to also give a First Amendment argument to decline requests from individuals or organizations that are trying to promote messages that they disagree with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool. Can’t wait to refuse service to evangelical Christians.

Yes, this!!

Religion is a protected category. Politics is not. Put it this way, would you force a Muslim to design a website that was openly hostile to Islam?

In a hugely diverse country and one that is only getting more diverse, the only way to accommodate all the various viewpoints is not to impose a binary across all of them.

Hate is against my religion so hating gay people is against my religion so yes we can deny them services now.

You didn't answer the question. Would you force a conservative Muslim to design a website that was openly hostile to Islam? Yes or no? Likewise, would you force a LGBTA+whatever designer create a website that was openly hostile to LGBTA+ whatever people?

t's clear the activists are upset because one of their pet progressive protected groups, this time the LGBTA+whatever, is involved, so all logic has gone out the window, but the same scenario applies across all beliefs and viewpoints. That's why the SCOTUS and previous courts ruled in favor of the designer.

[Anonymous]

So then is there no actually protected class? When are people protected from discrimination?

[Anonymous]

Also I don’t think hate speech is protected. I don’t think you can be forced to do something that is hate speech. People can say hate speech but they aren’t protected to make sure other people cater to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool. Can’t wait to refuse service to evangelical Christians.

Yes, this!!

Religion is a protected category. Politics is not. Put it this way, would you force a Muslim to design a website that was openly hostile to Islam?

In a hugely diverse country and one that is only getting more diverse, the only way to accommodate all the various viewpoints is not to impose a binary across all of them.

Hate is against my religion so hating gay people is against my religion so yes we can deny them services now.

You didn't answer the question. Would you force a conservative Muslim to design a website that was openly hostile to Islam? Yes or no? Likewise, would you force a LGBTA+whatever designer create a website that was openly hostile to LGBTA+ whatever people?

t's clear the activists are upset because one of their pet progressive protected groups, this time the LGBTA+whatever, is involved, so all logic has gone out the window, but the same scenario applies across all beliefs and viewpoints. That's why the SCOTUS and previous courts ruled in favor of the designer.

NP, I might request a very Christian website and sue if they refuse. Have a First Amendment battle. They have a right to refuse based on religion, but they are barred from discriminating based on religion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool. Can’t wait to refuse service to evangelical Christians.

Yes, this!!

You can’t refuse your standard services to anyone, and neither can 303 Creative.

You can refuse to make creative products that specifically compel you to speak against your beliefs. A lot of people are missing this point, but this case was NOT decided on religious freedom grounds; it was decided on freedom of speech. And it’s not the Supreme Court that first made that distinction, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

No matter what your beliefs are? right or wrong?
If my belief is that a particular race is inferior, am I allow to deny them services that would compel me to acknowledge them as equal?