Anonymous wrote:Some of you really baffle me. Why are you upset that this lady wanted certain rights affirmed? Some of you can’t coexist at all. Everyone had to agree with you or be damned.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, it’s not. “Love is love” is one of the great lies of the left. There are different kinds of love. Do you live your grandmother the same way you love your husband or boyfriend!

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This was a free speech case not a religious liberty case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, it’s not. “Love is love” is one of the great lies of the left. There are different kinds of love. Do you live your grandmother the same way you love your husband or boyfriend!

Oh I LOVE this. Thank you. The lunatic left can’t handle these statements. They freak out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There is no "Christian faith." There are hundreds of different religions (e.g. Quakers, Mormons, Catholics, Southern Baptist, Unitarian, Greek Orthodox, Maronite) that share a belief in the importance of Jesus, but which agree on almost nothing else. Some of these faiths are completely supportive of gay life, while others are not.

so which one was she relying on? This is an interesting question, there is no specific agreed upon place to find 'religious beliefs"? So anyone can make up anything and say they are "religious" beliefs?

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.

You are brave to speak up against the mob here.

Anonymous wrote:Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/30/303-creative-elenis-supreme-court-decision-lgbtq-rights/


Sorry forgot to include.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There is no "Christian faith." There are hundreds of different religions (e.g. Quakers, Mormons, Catholics, Southern Baptist, Unitarian, Greek Orthodox, Maronite) that share a belief in the importance of Jesus, but which agree on almost nothing else. Some of these faiths are completely supportive of gay life, while others are not.

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: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: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?

.

+1. I’m in a creative field often associated with weddings and I refuse clients all the time, for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes simply because I don’t like them on first impression and can tell they will be a PITA. Are they going to sue me?? Ha.

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.