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.

I produce websites. That doesn't mean I generate the content for my clients. Even a 5 year old knows this. The whole case was bunk.

But don’t you want to be able to refuse to produce a website for (say) a religious organization with which you disagree?

Yikes. Do you know what you are advocating?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because they probably would not have approached her in the first place, even if she was actually designing wedding websites. So we have a fake SC case that will now limit availability of services to anyone who doesn't like anyone else because of religious reasons.
Good job../s

It came through the courts as an injunction against enforcing the Colorado law against her, preempting lawsuits and penalties that might have/would have come, so she had standing. I don't think the ruling is as broad as you say. As much as I hate this supreme court, I think the court notes in the facts that she provides non-wedding website services to anyone regardless of race, sexual orientation, etc because those services don't involve speech per se. The speech comes in the crafting of the narrative around who these folks are as a couple, uniquely tailored to each couple, blah blah blah. It's probably BS, but it's also helpful in that it distinguishes other run-of-the-mill services open to the public as not falling under this ruling.

You are correct that it is BS.

And this SCOTUS decision opens up an enormous opportunity for those who hate same-sex marriage to claim their product (whatever it is) is "art" and that they are exercising their "free speech" by refusing to sell their "art" to same-sex couples because same-sex marriage violates their beliefs. This can apply to virtually anything -- hotels, restaurants, clothing, catering, invitations, etc.

This case is created and paid for by the anti-gay hate group Alliance Defending Freedom https://adflegal.org/

Here's what The Guardian says about ADF: 'Through “model legislation” and lawsuits filed across the country, ADF aims to overturn same-sex marriage, enact a total ban on abortion, and strip away the already minimal rights that trans people are afforded in the US.'

That's who is behind this case. "Free speech"? Ha ha ha. No.

Anonymous wrote:I read most of the opinion. I think they got this one right. I'm very liberal and very much in support of LGBTQ rights, by the way, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize free speech when I see it. This woman (claims she) freely serves anyone and everyone in other aspects of her business that doesn't involve speech, and draws the line on weddings, based on the nature of the speech she creates. This is more than a public accommodation service like a hotel, where no speech is involved.

I think she crafted her arguments specifically to tailor it for this exact win, since she doesn't actually do wedding services yet, and I don't think she's a trustworthy human being, but I think I'll take this one as a win for free speech, not anti-LGBTQ. We need free speech wins right now, especially based on what's happening in Florida.

I read the opinion, and this is not my take on it.
Gorsuch's opinion is much better written than the long, flimsy dissent by Sotomayor.
But Gorsuch veers off track when he starts to talk about Colorado compelling Smith's speech as a violation of the First Amendment.
Nowhere in the Colorado law does it compel speech.
It merely says that businesses must offer their goods to everyone.
Smith proposes breaking the law by saying on her website that she refuses to create websites for same-sex couples. Illegal acts are not protected by the First Amendment.
Gorsuch twists himself in knots avoiding this simple truth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It has tons of rules, like no tattoos or shellfish but for some reason some rules are ok to ignore while others aren’t. The belief system is random and illogical.

Exactly. She’s just cherry-picking church doctrines to find a pretext for her bigotry.

Bigotry isn't illegal in and of itself.

What is your point? There was a law that made her conduct illegal here until SCOTUS shut it down by claiming her bigoted feeling supersede the rights of others.

No. No one has a “right” to the services of someone else.

People have rights under the law to not be discriminated against.

That goes for Christians too. If she doesn't want to create a web site with the story of a gay couple, that's fair. There are other choices and this decision shields people from being forced to say and create or design when it goes against their religion. All this temper tantrum is not warranted.

Religion is not a get out of jail free card. As plenty of people pointed out, there are countless religious rules and doctrines that people like this woman ignore. If she were truly concerned about violating her beliefs, she’d be refusing to make a website for anyone who marries outside whatever random Protestant sect she happens to be a part of. But that’s not what she sued about. She sued specifically because doesn’t want to serve gay people. And it’s because she doesn’t like them. Everybody knows this. Religion is just an excuse to dress up her personal animosity toward an entire group of people.

Even if we accept your premise, it doesn't explain why their legal opinion was wrong.

Why is it right then? I mean right in the moral sense? How does this make society better?

Again, that's not SCOTUS's job. You can say that you disagree with their interpretation of the constitution and explain why they are wrong. Or, you can fault the constitution for not being up to your moral standards. But SCOTUS isn't a moral authority. They are a legal authority.

I agree. Looking to the current Supremes for moral authority is absurd. Same applies to the US Bishops Conference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It has tons of rules, like no tattoos or shellfish but for some reason some rules are ok to ignore while others aren’t. The belief system is random and illogical.

Exactly. She’s just cherry-picking church doctrines to find a pretext for her bigotry.

Bigotry isn't illegal in and of itself.

What is your point? There was a law that made her conduct illegal here until SCOTUS shut it down by claiming her bigoted feeling supersede the rights of others.

No. No one has a “right” to the services of someone else.

People have rights under the law to not be discriminated against.

That goes for Christians too. If she doesn't want to create a web site with the story of a gay couple, that's fair. There are other choices and this decision shields people from being forced to say and create or design when it goes against their religion. All this temper tantrum is not warranted.

And I will not cook for, bake a cake for, design a website for, etc, for a conservative evangelical couple's wedding, because I found their beliefs to conflict with my Christian beliefs. Yes, the tantrum is warranted.

.

Well good for you. That’s good he whole point. One person cannot be compelled to provide services for another. Slavery was outlawed years ago, in case you missed that memo.

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 the thin edge of the wedge, the camel's nose under the tent flap, (insert cliche here).
It is the start of a full campaign to overturn all gay rights, just as the right had a very long and finally successful campaign to overturn Roe v Wade.
The GOP does take the long view, and they are patient. This is their first victory against gay rights at SCOTUS, and they anticipate many others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It has tons of rules, like no tattoos or shellfish but for some reason some rules are ok to ignore while others aren’t. The belief system is random and illogical.

Exactly. She’s just cherry-picking church doctrines to find a pretext for her bigotry.

Bigotry isn't illegal in and of itself.

What is your point? There was a law that made her conduct illegal here until SCOTUS shut it down by claiming her bigoted feeling supersede the rights of others.

No. No one has a “right” to the services of someone else.

People have rights under the law to not be discriminated against.

That goes for Christians too. If she doesn't want to create a web site with the story of a gay couple, that's fair. There are other choices and this decision shields people from being forced to say and create or design when it goes against their religion. All this temper tantrum is not warranted.

But there would be outrage if I said I didn’t want Christian customers.

You need to be more specific. True Christians would have no issue with designing the web site. It is only the right wing pseudo Christians who have an issue.

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.

Your comments are BS.
Gorsuch's opinion was BS.
It's all about gay-hate.
The group that sponsored and paid for this litigation was named an anti-gay hate group in 2016 by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

So? I disagree that it’s hate but what if it is? That’s not illegal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It has tons of rules, like no tattoos or shellfish but for some reason some rules are ok to ignore while others aren’t. The belief system is random and illogical.

Exactly. She’s just cherry-picking church doctrines to find a pretext for her bigotry.

Bigotry isn't illegal in and of itself.

What is your point? There was a law that made her conduct illegal here until SCOTUS shut it down by claiming her bigoted feeling supersede the rights of others.

No. No one has a “right” to the services of someone else.

People have rights under the law to not be discriminated against.

That goes for Christians too. If she doesn't want to create a web site with the story of a gay couple, that's fair. There are other choices and this decision shields people from being forced to say and create or design when it goes against their religion. All this temper tantrum is not warranted.

And I will not cook for, bake a cake for, design a website for, etc, for a conservative evangelical couple's wedding, because I found their beliefs to conflict with my Christian beliefs. Yes, the tantrum is warranted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another decision that should have been 9-0 for those who believe in free speech. The protected class comment is beyond belief.

I agree. It seems that the Justices dissenting are opposed to free speech.
I fear that in 20 years, free speech in this country will be a thing of history.

Oh FGS, STFU.
You are an idiot, trollie.
Go away.

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.

Your comments are BS.
Gorsuch's opinion was BS.
It's all about gay-hate.
The group that sponsored and paid for this litigation was named an anti-gay hate group in 2016 by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It has tons of rules, like no tattoos or shellfish but for some reason some rules are ok to ignore while others aren’t. The belief system is random and illogical.

Exactly. She’s just cherry-picking church doctrines to find a pretext for her bigotry.

Bigotry isn't illegal in and of itself.

What is your point? There was a law that made her conduct illegal here until SCOTUS shut it down by claiming her bigoted feeling supersede the rights of others.

No. No one has a “right” to the services of someone else.

People have rights under the law to not be discriminated against.

That goes for Christians too. If she doesn't want to create a web site with the story of a gay couple, that's fair. There are other choices and this decision shields people from being forced to say and create or design when it goes against their religion. All this temper tantrum is not warranted.

But there would be outrage if I said I didn’t want Christian customers.

Christians are hated by many people. They are put down in all media. I don’t see any outrage.

Anonymous wrote:So should we have special symbols for businesses that will specify who they will serve and who they won’t? I think I prefer to avoid any business that doesn’t want to serve say a middle age, atheist, former goths, who like EDM and peloton. I don’t want to know their religion hates me and forbids my kind.

You are so missing the point. It’s not YOU and it’s not this gay couple. She had some other work for gays. It’s the messages they wanted he to create.

Has it been mentioned yet that this person never made any wedding website? Or offerero do so? And no gay person ever asked her to make one? And the state never enforced this law against her? Or even threatened to? This is a completely made up case. How in the world did this go to SCOTUS? Right wing grievance culture is truly out of control.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It has tons of rules, like no tattoos or shellfish but for some reason some rules are ok to ignore while others aren’t. The belief system is random and illogical.

Exactly. She’s just cherry-picking church doctrines to find a pretext for her bigotry.

Bigotry isn't illegal in and of itself.

What is your point? There was a law that made her conduct illegal here until SCOTUS shut it down by claiming her bigoted feeling supersede the rights of others.

No. No one has a “right” to the services of someone else.

People have rights under the law to not be discriminated against.

That goes for Christians too. If she doesn't want to create a web site with the story of a gay couple, that's fair. There are other choices and this decision shields people from being forced to say and create or design when it goes against their religion. All this temper tantrum is not warranted.

But there would be outrage if I said I didn’t want Christian customers.

Yes you can’t discriminate BECAUSE they ate Christian

But you can discriminate because they are MAGAs, right?