Reply to SCOTUS sided with Christian Web Designer

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "SCOTUS sided with Christian Web Designer"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]So, you think it is appropriate for people to be FORCED to make statements in which they don't believe?[/quote]
Do you know what a wedding website is? It has info about hotel blocks and registries. It's not a statement of beliefs. [/quote]

Wedding websites are all different.  This is a custom request.  You don't know what she may be asked to do.  
And, that is what this case is about.  You cannot compel a person to create something against their beliefs.  
Just like I would never create something for a follower of Satan.  And, I would be within my rights to refuse that.  [/quote]

You know what the next step is, right? A gay couple being denied the use of a hotel or restaurant for their wedding/reception. "Speech" has to be created for such an event, just like with the web designer.

Or what if an interracial couple wants to use the [b]web designer's services, but the designer's religious beliefs forbid interracial marriage. [/b]Is that OK?[/quote]

There is an obvious middle ground here that SCOTUS is staking out:  public accommodation laws must be balanced within the Constitution. Joe’s Diner that serves burgers and fries has no reasonable speech claim, but the customized Cake Baker does.

[b]I hate that this was decided in hypothetical rather than actual facts[/b], but there was evidence that the couple in the Colorado cake case had specifically targeted the baker so they could file a complaint, so I can sorta see why the judges took the case. [/quote]

I agree, but at least in creating their little law school exercise case they stipulated to some facts that limit the scope of this and ability of hotels, etc. to claim this case falls under their free speech rights as well. [/quote]

Why do you think that? Remember Hobby Lobby, a massive corporation with 43k employees is allowed to have religious beliefs. [/quote]

Why do I think what? Hobby Lobby isn't a web designer with speech implications. Hobby Lobby is more like Joes Diner from above. It doesn't have the right to refuse a gay couple entry into their store to buy paint supplies. [/quote]

Why would a web designer is no different from a dinner. The bigger question is is there any proof that this lady is actually religious and follows all of the tenants of her religion? Does she pick and choose which parts of her religion she follows? Did the highest earthly authority in her religion send the court a letter under oath stating she is a member in good standing in her religion and she has complied with [b]all their beliefs and practices? [/b]Does the same [b]religion say you can not do business with a married gay couple or gays in general[/b]?[/quote]

I suggest you read the actual decision.[/quote]
Did you read the decision?? This SC ruling allows business owners to ignore protective laws laws in 29 states!

This case was used to create a foundation for future discrimination.

Also, the standing was questionable.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/30/u...gbtq-rights-colorado
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics