Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a Christian client wanted a gay business owner to create a website explaining how much God hates gays, do all of you whining about this SCOTUS decision think the gay business owner should have to say yes?

What about if a Christian client wanted a Black business owner to make a website explaining how dark skin is the mark of cain?

What kind of “democracy” requires people to issue messages fundamentally at odds with who they are as a condition of opening a business?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

Apples to oranges. Can a Christian refuse to create websites for Hindus?

Doing your job is completely different than using your skills to create something you don't believe in. A better analogy would be if a Muslim could be compelled to create a website that includes the image of Muhammad. They absolutely shouldn't be.

So a Christian can refuse to create a cake celebrating Diwali. Got it.

And white bigots can refuse to create or perform services for anything that “celebrates and endorses” Juneteenth.

I'm not sure that is correct with this ruling. White supremacy isn't a religion. So they can't argue that their religion prevents them from baking Juneteenth cakes.

You can’t force anyone to provide any service they don’t want to provide. That’s called slavery. We did away with that here a few years ago

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a Christian client wanted a gay business owner to create a website explaining how much God hates gays, do all of you whining about this SCOTUS decision think the gay business owner should have to say yes?

What about if a Christian client wanted a Black business owner to make a website explaining how dark skin is the mark of cain?

What kind of “democracy” requires people to issue messages fundamentally at odds with who they are as a condition of opening a business?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

Apples to oranges. Can a Christian refuse to create websites for Hindus?

Doing your job is completely different than using your skills to create something you don't believe in. A better analogy would be if a Muslim could be compelled to create a website that includes the image of Muhammad. They absolutely shouldn't be.

So a Christian can refuse to create a cake celebrating Diwali. Got it.

And white bigots can refuse to create or perform services for anything that “celebrates and endorses” Juneteenth.

I'm not sure that is correct with this ruling. White supremacy isn't a religion. So they can't argue that their religion prevents them from baking Juneteenth cakes.

Southern Baptists included slavery as core to their religious beliefs. They were “saving” the godless Africans.

Only Democrats would do that, you know.

Dixiecrats who then switched over to the GOP in the 70’s andn80’s. Good riddance!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Believe me, no one gay would have requested this lady's services. It's weird you are ok with billionaires supporting fake cases all the way up to the Supreme Court. But, go for it. Usually there are unanticipated consequences.

This. There are plenty of web designers and web designers who specialize in wedding sites. There are also companies that template wedding sites. There would be no reason to ask this person to design a site unless they were friends. This whole thing was a ruse to get a camel's nose into a tent that should not have even existed.

One reason would be because they wanted to force acceptance of gay marriage on everyone, and no tolerance for people who are not tolerant of them.

What do you think of interracial marriage, PP? Is it ok for vendors to refuse to work with interracial couples?

And the loops around “no tolerance for people who are not tolerant of them.” Yeah I have no tolerance for bigots.

NP. I’m a Black person in an interracial marriage and when I was getting married in *New York City,* a number of vendors acted verrrrrry awkward about making a cake with a black-white interracial couple on it. One said in that passive aggressive racist white liberal way that she puts a photo of each cake she makes on her website and it would be “so incredibly unusual” to have a couple “like you two.” I didn’t sue and simply kept searching. Why? Because why the hell would I want someone icked out by my marriage anywhere near food I’m going to eat and feed my family?

If you were an actual stigmatized minority, not a virtue signaling white person for whom this is a thought experiment, you would realize that forcing people to render services that suggest they endorse a message will NOT make life easier on minorities. That just makes us sitting ducks for resentful saboteurs to f—k up our special days and occasions.

+100 I’d rather people be out in the open on where they stand rather than pushing them underground where we’re oblivious about things.

Bingo. White liberals are the only people who benefit when hatred is underground. They get to pretend their useless “allyship” has brought about a utopia while actual, visible minorities continue to catch hell, but have a MUCH harder time proving the motive behind racist actions. I dealt with that constantly in the liberal utopia of NYC. Hateful white people who “voted for Obama” doing awful things to me in the workplace and my personal life and then playing plausible deniability. I moved to the south, where the people who hate me make no bones about it and I can trust that the people who give me the time of day actually mean well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous cat wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a Christian client wanted a gay business owner to create a website explaining how much God hates gays, do all of you whining about this SCOTUS decision think the gay business owner should have to say yes?

What about if a Christian client wanted a Black business owner to make a website explaining how dark skin is the mark of cain?

What kind of “democracy” requires people to issue messages fundamentally at odds with who they are as a condition of opening a business?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

Apples to oranges. Can a Christian refuse to create websites for Hindus?

Doing your job is completely different than using your skills to create something you don't believe in. A better analogy would be if a Muslim could be compelled to create a website that includes the image of Muhammad. They absolutely shouldn't be.

So a Christian can refuse to create a cake celebrating Diwali. Got it.

Sure, why not? If you don’t want the business you don’t want the business

And if you live in an area where the only wedding venues are run by people who don’t believe in your religion and so won’t rent their facilities out for your wedding ceremony because they believe it will be contributing to idol worship, then you are stuck.

SO WHAT?? Go somewhere else. Have a destination wedding. Move out of the area that clearly does not align with your values. Quit whining and playing victim. If you’re old enough to get married, grow up and realize that the world doesn’t owe you an endorsement

“So what”.

Those of you supporting this ruling, this is the company you keep. Own it.

I'm fine with that. Supporting free speech has always meant that you'll encounter ideas you disagree with. But also, that pp is right. We are in a crippling pandemic of victimhood.

Says a person who has never been refused services because of her sexual orientation or religion and been told “move somewhere else.” This isn’t about encountering “ideas you disagree with.” It’s about being told to go somewhere else. Like black travelers in the segregated south weren’t just tired of encountering the idea they were inferior. They were tired of having to drive 100 extra miles to find a motel that would rent a room to them.

Literally have been refused service based on nationality and have experienced a host of other discrimination issues. You are expending a lot of energy refusing to accept the underlying motivation. You are opposed to free speech you disagree with. But many Americans consider free expression a fundamental right and cherish that value.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a Christian client wanted a gay business owner to create a website explaining how much God hates gays, do all of you whining about this SCOTUS decision think the gay business owner should have to say yes?

What about if a Christian client wanted a Black business owner to make a website explaining how dark skin is the mark of cain?

What kind of “democracy” requires people to issue messages fundamentally at odds with who they are as a condition of opening a business?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

Apples to oranges. Can a Christian refuse to create websites for Hindus?

Doing your job is completely different than using your skills to create something you don't believe in. A better analogy would be if a Muslim could be compelled to create a website that includes the image of Muhammad. They absolutely shouldn't be.

So a Christian can refuse to create a cake celebrating Diwali. Got it.

And white bigots can refuse to create or perform services for anything that “celebrates and endorses” Juneteenth.

I'm not sure that is correct with this ruling. White supremacy isn't a religion. So they can't argue that their religion prevents them from baking Juneteenth cakes.

Southern Baptists included slavery as core to their religious beliefs. They were “saving” the godless Africans.

Only Democrats would do that, you know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a Christian client wanted a gay business owner to create a website explaining how much God hates gays, do all of you whining about this SCOTUS decision think the gay business owner should have to say yes?

What about if a Christian client wanted a Black business owner to make a website explaining how dark skin is the mark of cain?

What kind of “democracy” requires people to issue messages fundamentally at odds with who they are as a condition of opening a business?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

Apples to oranges. Can a Christian refuse to create websites for Hindus?

Doing your job is completely different than using your skills to create something you don't believe in. A better analogy would be if a Muslim could be compelled to create a website that includes the image of Muhammad. They absolutely shouldn't be.

So a Christian can refuse to create a cake celebrating Diwali. Got it.

And white bigots can refuse to create or perform services for anything that “celebrates and endorses” Juneteenth.

I'm not sure that is correct with this ruling. White supremacy isn't a religion. So they can't argue that their religion prevents them from baking Juneteenth cakes.

Southern Baptists included slavery as core to their religious beliefs. They were “saving” the godless Africans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous cat wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a Christian client wanted a gay business owner to create a website explaining how much God hates gays, do all of you whining about this SCOTUS decision think the gay business owner should have to say yes?

What about if a Christian client wanted a Black business owner to make a website explaining how dark skin is the mark of cain?

What kind of “democracy” requires people to issue messages fundamentally at odds with who they are as a condition of opening a business?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

Apples to oranges. Can a Christian refuse to create websites for Hindus?

Doing your job is completely different than using your skills to create something you don't believe in. A better analogy would be if a Muslim could be compelled to create a website that includes the image of Muhammad. They absolutely shouldn't be.

So a Christian can refuse to create a cake celebrating Diwali. Got it.

Sure, why not? If you don’t want the business you don’t want the business

And if you live in an area where the only wedding venues are run by people who don’t believe in your religion and so won’t rent their facilities out for your wedding ceremony because they believe it will be contributing to idol worship, then you are stuck.

SO WHAT?? Go somewhere else. Have a destination wedding. Move out of the area that clearly does not align with your values. Quit whining and playing victim. If you’re old enough to get married, grow up and realize that the world doesn’t owe you an endorsement

“So what”.

Those of you supporting this ruling, this is the company you keep. Own it.

I'm fine with that. Supporting free speech has always meant that you'll encounter ideas you disagree with. But also, that pp is right. We are in a crippling pandemic of victimhood.

Says a person who has never been refused services because of her sexual orientation or religion and been told “move somewhere else.” This isn’t about encountering “ideas you disagree with.” It’s about being told to go somewhere else. Like black travelers in the segregated south weren’t just tired of encountering the idea they were inferior. They were tired of having to drive 100 extra miles to find a motel that would rent a room to them.

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, if a Christian client wanted a gay business owner to create a website explaining how much God hates gays, do all of you whining about this SCOTUS decision think the gay business owner should have to say yes?

What about if a Christian client wanted a Black business owner to make a website explaining how dark skin is the mark of cain?

What kind of “democracy” requires people to issue messages fundamentally at odds with who they are as a condition of opening a business?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

Apples to oranges. Can a Christian refuse to create websites for Hindus?

Doing your job is completely different than using your skills to create something you don't believe in. A better analogy would be if a Muslim could be compelled to create a website that includes the image of Muhammad. They absolutely shouldn't be.

So a Christian can refuse to create a cake celebrating Diwali. Got it.

And white bigots can refuse to create or perform services for anything that “celebrates and endorses” Juneteenth.

I'm not sure that is correct with this ruling. White supremacy isn't a religion. So they can't argue that their religion prevents them from baking Juneteenth cakes.

You can’t force anyone to provide any service they don’t want to provide. That’s called slavery. We did away with that here a few years ago

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.

So religion can give cover to bigotry.

Who decides what is religion? If someone had a sincerely held religious belief that black people should have remained enslaved and that therefore celebrating Juneteenth goes again their religion, why won’t the law protect that? Is the law protective of only some religions and not others?

Then it would work. If you can make a clear and compelling case that you have a religious or otherwise sincerely held belief about this. But I don't think the ruling gives carte blanche to discriminate based on race, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous cat wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a Christian client wanted a gay business owner to create a website explaining how much God hates gays, do all of you whining about this SCOTUS decision think the gay business owner should have to say yes?

What about if a Christian client wanted a Black business owner to make a website explaining how dark skin is the mark of cain?

What kind of “democracy” requires people to issue messages fundamentally at odds with who they are as a condition of opening a business?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

Apples to oranges. Can a Christian refuse to create websites for Hindus?

Doing your job is completely different than using your skills to create something you don't believe in. A better analogy would be if a Muslim could be compelled to create a website that includes the image of Muhammad. They absolutely shouldn't be.

So a Christian can refuse to create a cake celebrating Diwali. Got it.

Sure, why not? If you don’t want the business you don’t want the business

And if you live in an area where the only wedding venues are run by people who don’t believe in your religion and so won’t rent their facilities out for your wedding ceremony because they believe it will be contributing to idol worship, then you are stuck.

SO WHAT?? Go somewhere else. Have a destination wedding. Move out of the area that clearly does not align with your values. Quit whining and playing victim. If you’re old enough to get married, grow up and realize that the world doesn’t owe you an endorsement

“So what”.

Those of you supporting this ruling, this is the company you keep. Own it.

I'm fine with that. Supporting free speech has always meant that you'll encounter ideas you disagree with. But also, that pp is right. We are in a crippling pandemic of victimhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a Christian client wanted a gay business owner to create a website explaining how much God hates gays, do all of you whining about this SCOTUS decision think the gay business owner should have to say yes?

What about if a Christian client wanted a Black business owner to make a website explaining how dark skin is the mark of cain?

What kind of “democracy” requires people to issue messages fundamentally at odds with who they are as a condition of opening a business?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

Apples to oranges. Can a Christian refuse to create websites for Hindus?

Doing your job is completely different than using your skills to create something you don't believe in. A better analogy would be if a Muslim could be compelled to create a website that includes the image of Muhammad. They absolutely shouldn't be.

So a Christian can refuse to create a cake celebrating Diwali. Got it.

And white bigots can refuse to create or perform services for anything that “celebrates and endorses” Juneteenth.

I'm not sure that is correct with this ruling. White supremacy isn't a religion. So they can't argue that their religion prevents them from baking Juneteenth cakes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a Christian client wanted a gay business owner to create a website explaining how much God hates gays, do all of you whining about this SCOTUS decision think the gay business owner should have to say yes?

What about if a Christian client wanted a Black business owner to make a website explaining how dark skin is the mark of cain?

What kind of “democracy” requires people to issue messages fundamentally at odds with who they are as a condition of opening a business?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

Apples to oranges. Can a Christian refuse to create websites for Hindus?

Doing your job is completely different than using your skills to create something you don't believe in. A better analogy would be if a Muslim could be compelled to create a website that includes the image of Muhammad. They absolutely shouldn't be.

So a Christian can refuse to create a cake celebrating Diwali. Got it.

And white bigots can refuse to create or perform services for anything that “celebrates and endorses” Juneteenth.

I'm not sure that is correct with this ruling. White supremacy isn't a religion. So they can't argue that their religion prevents them from baking Juneteenth cakes.

You can’t force anyone to provide any service they don’t want to provide. That’s called slavery. We did away with that here a few years ago

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.

So religion can give cover to bigotry.

Who decides what is religion? If someone had a sincerely held religious belief that black people should have remained enslaved and that therefore celebrating Juneteenth goes again their religion, why won’t the law protect that? Is the law protective of only some religions and not others?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a Christian client wanted a gay business owner to create a website explaining how much God hates gays, do all of you whining about this SCOTUS decision think the gay business owner should have to say yes?

What about if a Christian client wanted a Black business owner to make a website explaining how dark skin is the mark of cain?

What kind of “democracy” requires people to issue messages fundamentally at odds with who they are as a condition of opening a business?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

Apples to oranges. Can a Christian refuse to create websites for Hindus?

Doing your job is completely different than using your skills to create something you don't believe in. A better analogy would be if a Muslim could be compelled to create a website that includes the image of Muhammad. They absolutely shouldn't be.

So a Christian can refuse to create a cake celebrating Diwali. Got it.

And white bigots can refuse to create or perform services for anything that “celebrates and endorses” Juneteenth.

I'm not sure that is correct with this ruling. White supremacy isn't a religion. So they can't argue that their religion prevents them from baking Juneteenth cakes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous cat wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a Christian client wanted a gay business owner to create a website explaining how much God hates gays, do all of you whining about this SCOTUS decision think the gay business owner should have to say yes?

What about if a Christian client wanted a Black business owner to make a website explaining how dark skin is the mark of cain?

What kind of “democracy” requires people to issue messages fundamentally at odds with who they are as a condition of opening a business?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

Apples to oranges. Can a Christian refuse to create websites for Hindus?

Doing your job is completely different than using your skills to create something you don't believe in. A better analogy would be if a Muslim could be compelled to create a website that includes the image of Muhammad. They absolutely shouldn't be.

So a Christian can refuse to create a cake celebrating Diwali. Got it.

Sure, why not? If you don’t want the business you don’t want the business

And if you live in an area where the only wedding venues are run by people who don’t believe in your religion and so won’t rent their facilities out for your wedding ceremony because they believe it will be contributing to idol worship, then you are stuck.

SO WHAT?? Go somewhere else. Have a destination wedding. Move out of the area that clearly does not align with your values. Quit whining and playing victim. If you’re old enough to get married, grow up and realize that the world doesn’t owe you an endorsement

“So what”.

Those of you supporting this ruling, this is the company you keep. Own it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a Christian client wanted a gay business owner to create a website explaining how much God hates gays, do all of you whining about this SCOTUS decision think the gay business owner should have to say yes?

What about if a Christian client wanted a Black business owner to make a website explaining how dark skin is the mark of cain?

What kind of “democracy” requires people to issue messages fundamentally at odds with who they are as a condition of opening a business?

I mean, there is the "I hate what you say but defend your right to say it" ethics, which is the purest defense of the 1st amendment. But that's not what is at stake here. People are free to say black skin is the mark of Cain. Others are free to tell them to put their head where the sun doesn't shine.

Where do YOU draw the line in discrimination? Is it okay for businesses owned by white people who believe their religion forbids interracial marriage to deny their services to interracial couples on that account? Including a hotel? In the middle of nowhere when there is no other hotel around? If no, why not?

What if a business is owned by someone who thinks disability is punishment from god and therefore will not do anything for a disabled client or do any kind of work that celebrates disability? Is that okay? Why not?

I doubt a Christian client who thinks that dark skin is the mark of Cain is going to seek out a black business owner. Frankly you'd have been more convincing if your example was "a Christian client sought out a white business owner and that owner said no hate messages." But that is the gist of your example: you are asking if people should be free to say no to creating hate messages or to serving the cause of hate. Whether it's someone who refuses to create something celebrating anti-semitism or something racist or something that says all Floridians are @ssholes. If someone doesn't want to create a hate message, I think it's fine to say that should be where the line is drawn. No one should be forced to celebrate or create or contribute to hate.

It's funny that the 2 examples you give are about hate. But a gay wedding is about love. The only hate involved in this case comes from the web designer who hates people because of who they love. Hating black people and loving someone of the same sex are not in the same category whatsoever.

But if you want to give people the freedom to deny services or jobs or work or whatever to groups they hate then have at it. And I hope that this leads to right wingers being refused entry into restaurants or shops or refused services by those who oppose their beliefs. Because that situation seems to be what the conservative SCOTUS justices have willed into being.

None of this diatribe is answering the question or providing a workable rule. Your idea of a gay wedding being about “love” isn’t universal or relevant.

The Colorado law in question protected people from discrimination based on “creed,” so under that law, a Christian would have the right to sue if a gay or Black business owner refused to create a website for the Christian stating hateful things about gays and Black people.

Do you agree with that or not?

Apples to oranges. Can a Christian refuse to create websites for Hindus?

Doing your job is completely different than using your skills to create something you don't believe in. A better analogy would be if a Muslim could be compelled to create a website that includes the image of Muhammad. They absolutely shouldn't be.

So a Christian can refuse to create a cake celebrating Diwali. Got it.

And white bigots can refuse to create or perform services for anything that “celebrates and endorses” Juneteenth.

I'm not sure that is correct with this ruling. White supremacy isn't a religion. So they can't argue that their religion prevents them from baking Juneteenth cakes.

You can’t force anyone to provide any service they don’t want to provide. That’s called slavery. We did away with that here a few years ago

Yeah, I don't think that is what this ruling said. It said you can't force people to do things *that violate their religion.* That caveat is important because it suggests that sometimes people are expected to do things that they prefer not to.