Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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 web designer's services, but the designer's religious beliefs forbid interracial marriage. Is that OK?

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.

I hate that this was decided in hypothetical rather than actual facts, 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.

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.

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

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.

Joes Dinner and Hobby Lobby have the right to exercise their freedom of speech just like the web designer. They could even have stronger religious views and beliefs than the web designer. Why are you taking their freedom of speech away?

What speech?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So? She doesn’t believe in gay marriage. I wouldn’t do it either.

Gay marriage exists. It’s not something to “believe” in. The issue is that she doesn’t like it.

She believes it's an abomination. Christianity has rules against encouraging or participating in other people's win.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So? She doesn’t believe in gay marriage. I wouldn’t do it either.

Gay marriage exists. It’s not something to “believe” in. The issue is that she doesn’t like it.

She believes it's an abomination. Christianity has rules against encouraging or participating in other people's win.

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.

So? She doesn’t believe in gay marriage. I wouldn’t do it either.

Gay marriage exists. It’s not something to “believe” in. The issue is that she doesn’t like it.

Anonymous wrote:So does this ruling mean anyone can decline a service request (bake a cake, make a website or whatever) based on religious beliefs? So could be I don’t like Judaism, Muslims whatever—this ruling reaches beyond just LGBQT or am I misunderstanding?

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.

So? She doesn’t believe in gay marriage. I wouldn’t do it either.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Ultimate snowflake move to force SCOTUS to protect your feelings.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is funny

What's even funnier is that the whole case is made up. The gay couple wanting a wedding website don't exist.

The veracity of a key document in a major LGBTQ+ rights case before the US supreme court has come under question, raising the possibility that important evidence cited in it might be wrong or even falsified...

...In 2016, [Lorie Smith, the website designer] says, a gay man named Stewart requested her services for help with his upcoming wedding. “We are getting married early next year and would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website,” reads a message he apparently sent her through her website.

But Stewart, who requested his last name be withheld for privacy, said in an interview with the Guardian that he never sent the message, even though it correctly lists his email address and telephone number. He has also been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years, he said. The news was first reported by the New Republic.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/supreme-court-lgbtq-document-veracity-colorado

Probably not, but can we rule out that Stewart is lying now, and at the time was secretly planning to leave his wife?

A manufactured case doesn't change the ruling. Would liberals like to remove Lawrence v Texas?

Yes, we can rule it out. The New Republic interviewed the guy and he had no clue his email and phone number were listed in filed documents with the Supreme Court. He had never heard of Smith. And conservatives are the ones who want to get rid of Lawrence vs. Texas.

So the Supreme Court ruled on a case with an imaginary scenario?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is funny

What's even funnier is that the whole case is made up. The gay couple wanting a wedding website don't exist.

The veracity of a key document in a major LGBTQ+ rights case before the US supreme court has come under question, raising the possibility that important evidence cited in it might be wrong or even falsified...

...In 2016, [Lorie Smith, the website designer] says, a gay man named Stewart requested her services for help with his upcoming wedding. “We are getting married early next year and would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website,” reads a message he apparently sent her through her website.

But Stewart, who requested his last name be withheld for privacy, said in an interview with the Guardian that he never sent the message, even though it correctly lists his email address and telephone number. He has also been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years, he said. The news was first reported by the New Republic.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/supreme-court-lgbtq-document-veracity-colorado

Probably not, but can we rule out that Stewart is lying now, and at the time was secretly planning to leave his wife?

A manufactured case doesn't change the ruling. Would liberals like to remove Lawrence v Texas?

Yes, we can rule it out. The New Republic interviewed the guy and he had no clue his email and phone number were listed in filed documents with the Supreme Court. He had never heard of Smith. And conservatives are the ones who want to get rid of Lawrence vs. Texas.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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 web designer's services, but the designer's religious beliefs forbid interracial marriage. Is that OK?

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.

I hate that this was decided in hypothetical rather than actual facts, 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.

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.

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

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.

Joes Dinner and Hobby Lobby have the right to exercise their freedom of speech just like the web designer. They could even have stronger religious views and beliefs than the web designer. Why are you taking their freedom of speech away?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is funny

What's even funnier is that the whole case is made up. The gay couple wanting a wedding website don't exist.

The veracity of a key document in a major LGBTQ+ rights case before the US supreme court has come under question, raising the possibility that important evidence cited in it might be wrong or even falsified...

...In 2016, [Lorie Smith, the website designer] says, a gay man named Stewart requested her services for help with his upcoming wedding. “We are getting married early next year and would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website,” reads a message he apparently sent her through her website.

But Stewart, who requested his last name be withheld for privacy, said in an interview with the Guardian that he never sent the message, even though it correctly lists his email address and telephone number. He has also been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years, he said. The news was first reported by the New Republic.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/supreme-court-lgbtq-document-veracity-colorado

Probably not, but can we rule out that Stewart is lying now, and at the time was secretly planning to leave his wife?

A manufactured case doesn't change the ruling. Would liberals like to remove Lawrence v Texas?

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.

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.