Anonymous wrote:Fist of all, I think a web designer or cake maker should be able to refuse any customer for any reason at all. It doesn't matter what the reason is.

But maybe someone can explain this to me: was there expert witness somewhere in the record that being Christian means "it's against your religion" to approve of same-sex marriage? That's a very illuminating isn't it. I assume many Christian clergy would disagree with that view as being something demanded by the faith -- so why was that interpretation credited as being part and parcel of the Christian faith?

Anonymous wrote:I am Christian, and I think it is clear that Christians are not persecuted in this country. Anyone who thinks that is ridiculously out of touch and purposely obtuse.

I also do not understand how someone can claim to love Jesus and have this much hate in their heart. Love is love.

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.

I side with the web designer. I have no idea what she looks like, but picturing this skinny artsy fartsy person with eyes-in-the-headlights look.

Couldn't they find someone meaner and more substantial to pick on? Of course not. The fun is in picking on someone they can get away with terrorizing. Why didn't they try to hire someone displaying a rainbow flag waving in front of their establishment, or someone who's worked with their community in the past? I personally would have taken on the project so long as it was not an outrageous request. Conversely, if I were looking to hire a graphic artist and one said no, I would move on. Not make an issue of it.

Good for this artist for refusing to be bullied, and good for SCOTUS for standing up for a reasonable standard in society.

Ok but it’s a fictional scenario. The artist wasn’t bullied. She has an active imagination, which may or may not translate to graphic design skills. She made up her boogeyman. No one asked her to create their gay marriage website. She was bullied by no one.

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.

I side with the web designer. I have no idea what she looks like, but picturing this skinny artsy fartsy person with eyes-in-the-headlights look.

Couldn't they find someone meaner and more substantial to pick on? Of course not. The fun is in picking on someone they can get away with terrorizing. Why didn't they try to hire someone displaying a rainbow flag waving in front of their establishment, or someone who's worked with their community in the past? I personally would have taken on the project so long as it was not an outrageous request. Conversely, if I were looking to hire a graphic artist and one said no, I would move on. Not make an issue of it.

Good for this artist for refusing to be bullied, and good for SCOTUS for standing up for a reasonable standard in society.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Can we talk about how offensive this whole case is, especially given the fact that she made it up in the first place? Just how bad are the shot hole activist judges that they were willing to rule for discrimination and from a case that never even existed? https://www.yahoo.com/news/gay-couple-cited-by-christian-web-designer-who-won-supreme-court-case-may-not-exist-164940986.html

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:I am Christian, and I think it is clear that Christians are not persecuted in this country. Anyone who thinks that is ridiculously out of touch and purposely obtuse.

I also do not understand how someone can claim to love Jesus and have this much hate in their heart. Love is love.

Anonymous wrote:Fist of all, I think a web designer or cake maker should be able to refuse any customer for any reason at all. It doesn't matter what the reason is.

But maybe someone can explain this to me: was there expert witness somewhere in the record that being Christian means "it's against your religion" to approve of same-sex marriage? That's a very illuminating isn't it. I assume many Christian clergy would disagree with that view as being something demanded by the faith -- so why was that interpretation credited as being part and parcel of the Christian faith?

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.

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.

Yes, but that's what he would say if he some time ago were married but planning to leave his wife for a gay man, then changed his mind and doesn't want to admit to it. Unlikely, but these things have happened.

My point about Lawrence v Texas is that it was also a manufactured case.