Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By inference, the rest of us are now free to discriminate against people who belong to a religious group that believes their authority is based on a guy coming back to life after being murdered by the Romans.

I agree with your anger and I will subtly discriminate against RWNJs but don’t forget race and religion are protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gay people are not included. IMO they should. I don’t use contractors who included bible quotes or little fishes in their ads although I’m Christian. Taking back the title from the nutters. Religion has no place in government.

I don't get it. Contractors aren't the government.

You don't get why a liberal Protestant, a Jewish person, a Muslim or an atheist wouldn't want a MAGA in their house doing contracting work, or designing their wedding website? Especially now that they are free to discriminate based ?

We never discriminated against MAGAs before, but now they made discrimination the law of the land so it's all in play now.

Were you in a coma during the Trump years? It was routine and widely reported. And when businesses didn't throw them out, members of the public would go into restaurants where Trump people were dining and heckle them. It is normal and routine for conservatives to be refused service, censored, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question here.

If I was a baker, I wouldn't want to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church or for a white supremecist group. I think I should be able to refuse that request based on my sincerely held beliefs, even if my business is open to the public.

How is that any different than someone who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

I know my example is a hypothetical, but this SCOTUS cake was basically based on a hypothetical example too.

Here’s the thing I don’t understand. If I had a business and Westboro Baptist Church requested me to cater, I would be classy enough to say, “Sorry I’m booked.” I have personally encountered Westboro Baptist Church and think they’re some of the most vile human beings to walk the face of this earth BUT they are free to be vile. I don’t need a court case to reject them. This case is just ridiculous and a waste of time. The woman clearly lacks any class or decency. She is just a bigot.

She wants to protect herself against complaints and lawsuits and no matter what, people who disagree with her will call her names. Classy.

But it’s classy to discriminate against gay people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question here.

If I was a baker, I wouldn't want to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church or for a white supremecist group. I think I should be able to refuse that request based on my sincerely held beliefs, even if my business is open to the public.

How is that any different than someone who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

I know my example is a hypothetical, but this SCOTUS cake was basically based on a hypothetical example too.

Here’s the thing I don’t understand. If I had a business and Westboro Baptist Church requested me to cater, I would be classy enough to say, “Sorry I’m booked.” I have personally encountered Westboro Baptist Church and think they’re some of the most vile human beings to walk the face of this earth BUT they are free to be vile. I don’t need a court case to reject them. This case is just ridiculous and a waste of time. The woman clearly lacks any class or decency. She is just a bigot.

Exactly. It’s about forcing her personal intolerance on everyone else and undermining a law that dares to suggest discriminating against gay people is wrong. It’s not enough for her to think to herself that gay people are icky. She wants the law to elevate her feelings into a right that supersedes the rights of gay people to access basic services, because then it means her feelings can’t be condemned as the hate they are.

now that I know the Supreme Court is willing to hear and rule on hypothetical cases, let me cook up something and create more trouble.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question here.

If I was a baker, I wouldn't want to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church or for a white supremecist group. I think I should be able to refuse that request based on my sincerely held beliefs, even if my business is open to the public.

How is that any different than someone who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

I know my example is a hypothetical, but this SCOTUS cake was basically based on a hypothetical example too.

Here’s the thing I don’t understand. If I had a business and Westboro Baptist Church requested me to cater, I would be classy enough to say, “Sorry I’m booked.” I have personally encountered Westboro Baptist Church and think they’re some of the most vile human beings to walk the face of this earth BUT they are free to be vile. I don’t need a court case to reject them. This case is just ridiculous and a waste of time. The woman clearly lacks any class or decency. She is just a bigot.

She wants to protect herself against complaints and lawsuits and no matter what, people who disagree with her will call her names. Classy.

Anonymous wrote:Honest question here.

If I was a baker, I wouldn't want to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church or for a white supremecist group. I think I should be able to refuse that request based on my sincerely held beliefs, even if my business is open to the public.

How is that any different than someone who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

I know my example is a hypothetical, but this SCOTUS cake was basically based on a hypothetical example too.

Here’s the thing I don’t understand. If I had a business and Westboro Baptist Church requested me to cater, I would be classy enough to say, “Sorry I’m booked.” I have personally encountered Westboro Baptist Church and think they’re some of the most vile human beings to walk the face of this earth BUT they are free to be vile. I don’t need a court case to reject them. This case is just ridiculous and a waste of time. The woman clearly lacks any class or decency. She is just a bigot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By inference, the rest of us are now free to discriminate against people who belong to a religious group that believes their authority is based on a guy coming back to life after being murdered by the Romans.

Lots of people celebrated when Trump's press secretary was kicked out of a restaurant.

We were celebrating that the Trump admin and, now his Supreme Court, is making it perfectly legal to discriminate. And that's what happens. The rest of us don't have to serve MAGAs, or Catholics, or Proud Boys, as it violates the tenants of our liberal Protestant faith.

You can't discriminate against customers whether they are gays or Proud Boys. But a baker can refuse to bake a wedding cake with a swastika on it.

There’s no law that prohibits discriminating against someone for being a Proud Boy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By inference, the rest of us are now free to discriminate against people who belong to a religious group that believes their authority is based on a guy coming back to life after being murdered by the Romans.

Lots of people celebrated when Trump's press secretary was kicked out of a restaurant.

We were celebrating that the Trump admin and, now his Supreme Court, is making it perfectly legal to discriminate. And that's what happens. The rest of us don't have to serve MAGAs, or Catholics, or Proud Boys, as it violates the tenants of our liberal Protestant faith.

You can't discriminate against customers whether they are gays or Proud Boys. But a baker can refuse to bake a wedding cake with a swastika on it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By inference, the rest of us are now free to discriminate against people who belong to a religious group that believes their authority is based on a guy coming back to life after being murdered by the Romans.

I agree with your anger and I will subtly discriminate against RWNJs but don’t forget race and religion are protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gay people are not included. IMO they should. I don’t use contractors who included bible quotes or little fishes in their ads although I’m Christian. Taking back the title from the nutters. Religion has no place in government.

I don't get it. Contractors aren't the government.

You don't get why a liberal Protestant, a Jewish person, a Muslim or an atheist wouldn't want a MAGA in their house doing contracting work, or designing their wedding website? Especially now that they are free to discriminate based ?

We never discriminated against MAGAs before, but now they made discrimination the law of the land so it's all in play now.

+1

It is part of my faith to discriminate against racists and bigots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you think it is appropriate for people to be FORCED to make statements in which they don't believe?

Do you know what a wedding website is? It has info about hotel blocks and registries. It's not a statement of beliefs.

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.

So tell me about the wedding website you saw that would have made someone go against their "beliefs."

We registered at stores x, y, and z.
Hotels are here and here.
Wedding events are this, this, and this.

Is it the pictures of the people you think violate someone's belief? So just acknowledging that a same sex couple EXISTS would violate the web designer's beliefs?

Yes. I believe that is it. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean you're right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By inference, the rest of us are now free to discriminate against people who belong to a religious group that believes their authority is based on a guy coming back to life after being murdered by the Romans.

I agree with your anger and I will subtly discriminate against RWNJs but don’t forget race and religion are protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gay people are not included. IMO they should. I don’t use contractors who included bible quotes or little fishes in their ads although I’m Christian. Taking back the title from the nutters. Religion has no place in government.

I don't get it. Contractors aren't the government.

You don't get why a liberal Protestant, a Jewish person, a Muslim or an atheist wouldn't want a MAGA in their house doing contracting work, or designing their wedding website? Especially now that they are free to discriminate based ?

We never discriminated against MAGAs before, but now they made discrimination the law of the land so it's all in play now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By inference, the rest of us are now free to discriminate against people who belong to a religious group that believes their authority is based on a guy coming back to life after being murdered by the Romans.

I agree with your anger and I will subtly discriminate against RWNJs but don’t forget race and religion are protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gay people are not included. IMO they should. I don’t use contractors who included bible quotes or little fishes in their ads although I’m Christian. Taking back the title from the nutters. Religion has no place in government.

I don't get it. Contractors aren't the government.

You don't get why a liberal Protestant, a Jewish person, a Muslim or an atheist wouldn't want a MAGA in their house doing contracting work, or designing their wedding website? Especially now that they are free to discriminate based ?

No, I don't get what that has to do with separation of church and state. A carpenter who uses Christian theming in their advertising is a private citizen, not engaging in government work.

The only way it makes sense is if you believe that these religious plumbers or whatever are somehow benefitting from the decision that personal service providers are free to not provide service to protected classes. There's no clear benefit to them, since they lose money if they choose to exercise their right to discriminate.

Or if you're saying that you believe that Christian plumbers are of a similar class as supreme court justices, and are therefore a logical target of outrage.

None of this is super logical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this affect Mormons?

The plaintiff states she believes marriage is between one man and one woman.

Mormons banned polygamy in 1890.

The Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints practice polygamy, but they aren't considered Mormons by the Church of Latter Day Saints. They also drink alcohol, have coffee, etc.

Does it affect the fundamentalist latter day, Saints?

Does what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't udnerstand....if someone had come to the web developer with a job to do this website, the developer could have simply said, I am too busy, can I refer you to company X and they will do a great job for you, or some such.

It’s worse than that, because no one actually came to her with this request at all.

Yes, how did the court get around the standing issue? There was no genuine foundation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this affect Mormons?

The plaintiff states she believes marriage is between one man and one woman.

Mormons banned polygamy in 1890.

The Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints practice polygamy, but they aren't considered Mormons by the Church of Latter Day Saints. They also drink alcohol, have coffee, etc.

Does it affect the fundamentalist latter day, Saints?