Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

I don't think so to be honest. This is a more narrow ruling than I think people are suggesting. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but there's no speech involved in printing an invitation. The crux of this ruling is that the web designer's "speech" is implicated in how she would write about the couple and share their story as part of her (nonexistence BS) website. Printing invitations is akin to working at Staples. There's no speech there. It's a service, not speech. This isn't a "ban all gay people from services" ruling. It's a free speech ruling, that this web designer can't be compelled to write these narratives about the couples she "serves", in quotes because we all know she doesn't and probably won't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

I don't think so to be honest. This is a more narrow ruling than I think people are suggesting. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but there's no speech involved in printing an invitation. The crux of this ruling is that the web designer's "speech" is implicated in how she would write about the couple and share their story as part of her (nonexistence BS) website. Printing invitations is akin to working at Staples. There's no speech there. It's a service, not speech. This isn't a "ban all gay people from services" ruling. It's a free speech ruling, that this web designer can't be compelled to write these narratives about the couples she "serves", in quotes because we all know she doesn't and probably won't.

Then the rest of us can't be compelled to serve, wait upon, do business with people with whom our deepest held convictions disagree - like MAGAs.

When were you ever compelled to do business with people you hate over political differences?

Really.

When???

DP i work in a job where I have to assist tourists even those in MAGA hats that basically tell me they hate who I am.

Do you know what the word “compelled” means? You’re not being compelled to do anything when you’re free to find new employment, yet choose to keep your current job and continue serving clients you don’t like.

Anonymous wrote:Sad that people cannot move beyond their hate and bigotry and hide it behind phony assertions about their "religious beliefs."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

I don't think so to be honest. This is a more narrow ruling than I think people are suggesting. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but there's no speech involved in printing an invitation. The crux of this ruling is that the web designer's "speech" is implicated in how she would write about the couple and share their story as part of her (nonexistence BS) website. Printing invitations is akin to working at Staples. There's no speech there. It's a service, not speech. This isn't a "ban all gay people from services" ruling. It's a free speech ruling, that this web designer can't be compelled to write these narratives about the couples she "serves", in quotes because we all know she doesn't and probably won't.

Then the rest of us can't be compelled to serve, wait upon, do business with people with whom our deepest held convictions disagree - like MAGAs.

When were you ever compelled to do business with people you hate over political differences?

Really.

When???

DP i work in a job where I have to assist tourists even those in MAGA hats that basically tell me they hate who I am.

+1 my son did years of volunteer work in a museum to tell visitors about exhibits they have on display including paleontology and fossils showing evolution (such as horses going from toes to hooves) and geology (the earth as a sphere) and constantly had to deal with idiotic MAGA-hat wearing loons who spout idiocy about the flat earth and creationism. It at least taught him about patience, self control, and hand having compassion for MAGA morons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

I don't think so to be honest. This is a more narrow ruling than I think people are suggesting. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but there's no speech involved in printing an invitation. The crux of this ruling is that the web designer's "speech" is implicated in how she would write about the couple and share their story as part of her (nonexistence BS) website. Printing invitations is akin to working at Staples. There's no speech there. It's a service, not speech. This isn't a "ban all gay people from services" ruling. It's a free speech ruling, that this web designer can't be compelled to write these narratives about the couples she "serves", in quotes because we all know she doesn't and probably won't.

Then the rest of us can't be compelled to serve, wait upon, do business with people with whom our deepest held convictions disagree - like MAGAs.

When were you ever compelled to do business with people you hate over political differences?

Really.

When???

DP i work in a job where I have to assist tourists even those in MAGA hats that basically tell me they hate who I am.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

I don't think so to be honest. This is a more narrow ruling than I think people are suggesting. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but there's no speech involved in printing an invitation. The crux of this ruling is that the web designer's "speech" is implicated in how she would write about the couple and share their story as part of her (nonexistence BS) website. Printing invitations is akin to working at Staples. There's no speech there. It's a service, not speech. This isn't a "ban all gay people from services" ruling. It's a free speech ruling, that this web designer can't be compelled to write these narratives about the couples she "serves", in quotes because we all know she doesn't and probably won't.

Then the rest of us can't be compelled to serve, wait upon, do business with people with whom our deepest held convictions disagree - like MAGAs.

When were you ever compelled to do business with people you hate over political differences?

Really.

When???

DP i work in a job where I have to assist tourists even those in MAGA hats that basically tell me they hate who I am.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

I don't think so to be honest. This is a more narrow ruling than I think people are suggesting. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but there's no speech involved in printing an invitation. The crux of this ruling is that the web designer's "speech" is implicated in how she would write about the couple and share their story as part of her (nonexistence BS) website. Printing invitations is akin to working at Staples. There's no speech there. It's a service, not speech. This isn't a "ban all gay people from services" ruling. It's a free speech ruling, that this web designer can't be compelled to write these narratives about the couples she "serves", in quotes because we all know she doesn't and probably won't.

Then the rest of us can't be compelled to serve, wait upon, do business with people with whom our deepest held convictions disagree - like MAGAs.

When were you ever compelled to do business with people you hate over political differences?

Really.

When???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

I don't think so to be honest. This is a more narrow ruling than I think people are suggesting. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but there's no speech involved in printing an invitation. The crux of this ruling is that the web designer's "speech" is implicated in how she would write about the couple and share their story as part of her (nonexistence BS) website. Printing invitations is akin to working at Staples. There's no speech there. It's a service, not speech. This isn't a "ban all gay people from services" ruling. It's a free speech ruling, that this web designer can't be compelled to write these narratives about the couples she "serves", in quotes because we all know she doesn't and probably won't.

The web designer doesn't usually write the content, that comes from the customer. The web designer designs or chooses a template, the colors, the font, etc and then pastes in the words, and images, so it is more like printing an invitation in most cases. Hence part of why this ruling is so bad.

Your analogy is like me being forced to fly a transgender flag at my house when I don't believe in the transgender movement. A flag made by someone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

I don't think so to be honest. This is a more narrow ruling than I think people are suggesting. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but there's no speech involved in printing an invitation. The crux of this ruling is that the web designer's "speech" is implicated in how she would write about the couple and share their story as part of her (nonexistence BS) website. Printing invitations is akin to working at Staples. There's no speech there. It's a service, not speech. This isn't a "ban all gay people from services" ruling. It's a free speech ruling, that this web designer can't be compelled to write these narratives about the couples she "serves", in quotes because we all know she doesn't and probably won't.

The web designer doesn't usually write the content, that comes from the customer. The web designer designs or chooses a template, the colors, the font, etc and then pastes in the words, and images, so it is more like printing an invitation in most cases. Hence part of why this ruling is so bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

I don't think so to be honest. This is a more narrow ruling than I think people are suggesting. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but there's no speech involved in printing an invitation. The crux of this ruling is that the web designer's "speech" is implicated in how she would write about the couple and share their story as part of her (nonexistence BS) website. Printing invitations is akin to working at Staples. There's no speech there. It's a service, not speech. This isn't a "ban all gay people from services" ruling. It's a free speech ruling, that this web designer can't be compelled to write these narratives about the couples she "serves", in quotes because we all know she doesn't and probably won't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

I don't think so to be honest. This is a more narrow ruling than I think people are suggesting. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but there's no speech involved in printing an invitation. The crux of this ruling is that the web designer's "speech" is implicated in how she would write about the couple and share their story as part of her (nonexistence BS) website. Printing invitations is akin to working at Staples. There's no speech there. It's a service, not speech. This isn't a "ban all gay people from services" ruling. It's a free speech ruling, that this web designer can't be compelled to write these narratives about the couples she "serves", in quotes because we all know she doesn't and probably won't.

Then the rest of us can't be compelled to serve, wait upon, do business with people with whom our deepest held convictions disagree - like MAGAs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.

I don't think so to be honest. This is a more narrow ruling than I think people are suggesting. It still sucks, don't get me wrong, but there's no speech involved in printing an invitation. The crux of this ruling is that the web designer's "speech" is implicated in how she would write about the couple and share their story as part of her (nonexistence BS) website. Printing invitations is akin to working at Staples. There's no speech there. It's a service, not speech. This isn't a "ban all gay people from services" ruling. It's a free speech ruling, that this web designer can't be compelled to write these narratives about the couples she "serves", in quotes because we all know she doesn't and probably won't.

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but I came here to ask a question. There's a meme going around online - saying "Just wait until they don't want to print your Bar Mitzvah invitations because that's coming too."

Is it now going to be constitutionally legal (is it already legal?) for a printer to refuse to print invitations because he doesn't agree with the religious ceremony being performed? I'm just wondering if this is a thing.