Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't udnerstand....if someone had come to the web developer with a job to do this website, the developer could have simply said, I am too busy, can I refer you to company X and they will do a great job for you, or some such.

It’s worse than that, because no one actually came to her with this request at all.

She does not even design websites or have a business that has designed one website. It is all hypothetical. She may want to design a websites in the future. This just proves how f’ed the conservatives judges are. They are on a mission to “correct” and roll back democracy.

They're fabricating people to be hateful to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can force people to make gay websites, you can also force them to make websites advocating for Pizza gate, or force them to make evangelical Christian websites. Be careful what you wish for-- any weapon you create can be used against you.

People who believe in Pizza Gate aren't a protected class under the CO law, but religious beliefs are. I wonder if Gorsuch et al would let a web designer refuse to serve a Christian. Something tells me they'd find a way to make religious beliefs a "super-protected" class or some such nonsense.

Some religions believe women should be subjugated to men. Should web designers have to make websites advocating for women's rights to be reduced?

Without regard to what the justices would conclude, I'm saying that I prefer to live in a country where I can't be made to do things that violate my conscience, even if that means that I can't make other people violate their conscience.

As it relates to speech. Yes. I agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't udnerstand....if someone had come to the web developer with a job to do this website, the developer could have simply said, I am too busy, can I refer you to company X and they will do a great job for you, or some such.

It’s worse than that, because no one actually came to her with this request at all.

She does not even design websites or have a business that has designed one website. It is all hypothetical. She may want to design a websites in the future. This just proves how f’ed the conservatives judges are. They are on a mission to “correct” and roll back democracy.

They absolutely created a set of facts and a scenario that would allow this ruling to happen. If I recall correctly, isn't this the same attorney who brought the case re: the baker? This attorney is on a path for sure. So they're garbage human beings in that regard, but at this does as little damage as possible to the LGBTQ population (believe me I see the damage, I'm not minimizing it), while bolstering free speech, which is also under attack in this country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can force people to make gay websites, you can also force them to make websites advocating for Pizza gate, or force them to make evangelical Christian websites. Be careful what you wish for-- any weapon you create can be used against you.

People who believe in Pizza Gate aren't a protected class under the CO law, but religious beliefs are. I wonder if Gorsuch et al would let a web designer refuse to serve a Christian. Something tells me they'd find a way to make religious beliefs a "super-protected" class or some such nonsense.

Some religions believe women should be subjugated to men. Should web designers have to make websites advocating for women's rights to be reduced?

Without regard to what the justices would conclude, I'm saying that I prefer to live in a country where I can't be made to do things that violate my conscience, even if that means that I can't make other people violate their conscience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court is on a roll this week! Love it.

You can thank the orange one... 4 more years!

Don’t forget RBG!

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court is on a roll this week! Love it.

You can thank the orange one... 4 more years!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can force people to make gay websites, you can also force them to make websites advocating for Pizza gate, or force them to make evangelical Christian websites. Be careful what you wish for-- any weapon you create can be used against you.

People who believe in Pizza Gate aren't a protected class under the CO law, but religious beliefs are. I wonder if Gorsuch et al would let a web designer refuse to serve a Christian. Something tells me they'd find a way to make religious beliefs a "super-protected" class or some such nonsense.

Don't give them any ideas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not aware of any same sex couples having actual difficulty finding vendors for their wedding. If it becomes a legit problem and the facts are good the left can maybe win Roberts and Kav. But absent good facts the right will always win these cases with the current Court.

"Sure we're not allowed in certain hotels or restaurants, but us black folks can always find one that'll take us in."

Can't wait for the "no blacks allowed" signs.

Then bud, start a hotel or restaurant by yourself and hang the sign!

I am sure the MAGA crowd will soon pull them out of their barns where they've been hiding since the 60s.

Anonymous wrote:If you can force people to make gay websites, you can also force them to make websites advocating for Pizza gate, or force them to make evangelical Christian websites. Be careful what you wish for-- any weapon you create can be used against you.

People who believe in Pizza Gate aren't a protected class under the CO law, but religious beliefs are. I wonder if Gorsuch et al would let a web designer refuse to serve a Christian. Something tells me they'd find a way to make religious beliefs a "super-protected" class or some such nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't udnerstand....if someone had come to the web developer with a job to do this website, the developer could have simply said, I am too busy, can I refer you to company X and they will do a great job for you, or some such.

It’s worse than that, because no one actually came to her with this request at all.

She does not even design websites or have a business that has designed one website. It is all hypothetical. She may want to design a websites in the future. This just proves how f’ed the conservatives judges are. They are on a mission to “correct” and roll back democracy.

If you can force people to make gay websites, you can also force them to make websites advocating for Pizza gate, or force them to make evangelical Christian websites. Be careful what you wish for-- any weapon you create can be used against you.

Fair enough, but does adherance her religion prevent her from designing web sites for same-sex couples or does it prevent her from actually marrying someone of the same sex? There is a difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not aware of any same sex couples having actual difficulty finding vendors for their wedding. If it becomes a legit problem and the facts are good the left can maybe win Roberts and Kav. But absent good facts the right will always win these cases with the current Court.

"Sure we're not allowed in certain hotels or restaurants, but us black folks can always find one that'll take us in."

Can't wait for the "no blacks allowed" signs.

Then bud, start a hotel or restaurant by yourself and hang the sign!

Anonymous wrote:If you can force people to make gay websites, you can also force them to make websites advocating for Pizza gate, or force them to make evangelical Christian websites. Be careful what you wish for-- any weapon you create can be used against you.

This is where I'm choosing to come at this being a win for the first amendment, and I'm a liberal. I think we're taking too many hits to the first amendment and this case at least distinguishes her speech section of the website development, and the rest of it. They stipulated in the facts that she creates other websites that are non-wedding related and that she does that regardless of who they are. So if the website is for someone else's business, making stationary, or jewelry, or whatever, she's going to design that website no matter who comes to her. But her "business design" for the wedding sites involves all this speech around her creating a story of the couple, etc. which distinguishes it from the other portion of the business. It makes her look like an a$$ and is probably super disingenuous, but it also helps to stave off the crazies who are going to want to apply this to all businesses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You conservatives have caught the car now. Between this, the student loan forgiveness and Dobbs (which people are still incensed about), you are losing a lot of independent voters. The rabid base cannot carry you over. The pendulum will swing the other way so hard, your heads will spin.

Meh. Dobbs maybe. But don't think most people are passionate enough about loans, Harvard AA or forcing people to make websites to turn out the vote.

So naive. See you in 2024!

Anonymous wrote:Shocked! Guess we will be divided forever.

I expect landlords will soon discriminate on the basis of political affiliation.