Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This ruling does not affect the gay community in any shape, form or fashion.

Bigots don't care about the technicalities of the case and have been emboldened to discriminate further against the LGBT commmunity. Here's a hair salon saying they will reject trans customers now. I'm sure we'll see more of this.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article277196783.html

Apples and oranges. In the website case, it is not about the customer but about the product. In the hair salon case, it is about the customer. If that one becomes a case, I would likely be on the side of the trans person, and I’m actually pretty critical of trans activism. Though from the article, it’s unclear whether they would actually refuse to serve the trans person, or they are just letting trans people know they will be treated like dirt if they show up. In either case, that salon owner is horrible.

I know it's apples to oranges, but bigots don't know or care, that's the point. This shows that they are taking it as license to discriminate against LGBT people for a broad range of services. One would hope this general case of discrimination would be ruled against, but that will take years. How many LGBT people are going to be denied service in general before cases can make it through the courts?

Many libs don’t know or care about that distinction either. But it’s an important distinction.

Spoken like someone who’s probably never had to worry about being discriminated against because of who they are

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This ruling does not affect the gay community in any shape, form or fashion.

Bigots don't care about the technicalities of the case and have been emboldened to discriminate further against the LGBT commmunity. Here's a hair salon saying they will reject trans customers now. I'm sure we'll see more of this.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article277196783.html

Apples and oranges. In the website case, it is not about the customer but about the product. In the hair salon case, it is about the customer. If that one becomes a case, I would likely be on the side of the trans person, and I’m actually pretty critical of trans activism. Though from the article, it’s unclear whether they would actually refuse to serve the trans person, or they are just letting trans people know they will be treated like dirt if they show up. In either case, that salon owner is horrible.

I know it's apples to oranges, but bigots don't know or care, that's the point. This shows that they are taking it as license to discriminate against LGBT people for a broad range of services. One would hope this general case of discrimination would be ruled against, but that will take years. How many LGBT people are going to be denied service in general before cases can make it through the courts?

Many libs don’t know or care about that distinction either. But it’s an important distinction.

If it means some bigot is going to deny me services because they think the Supreme Court gave them the green light, what does the distinction matter?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This ruling does not affect the gay community in any shape, form or fashion.

Bigots don't care about the technicalities of the case and have been emboldened to discriminate further against the LGBT commmunity. Here's a hair salon saying they will reject trans customers now. I'm sure we'll see more of this.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article277196783.html

Apples and oranges. In the website case, it is not about the customer but about the product. In the hair salon case, it is about the customer. If that one becomes a case, I would likely be on the side of the trans person, and I’m actually pretty critical of trans activism. Though from the article, it’s unclear whether they would actually refuse to serve the trans person, or they are just letting trans people know they will be treated like dirt if they show up. In either case, that salon owner is horrible.

I know it's apples to oranges, but bigots don't know or care, that's the point. This shows that they are taking it as license to discriminate against LGBT people for a broad range of services. One would hope this general case of discrimination would be ruled against, but that will take years. How many LGBT people are going to be denied service in general before cases can make it through the courts?

Many libs don’t know or care about that distinction either. But it’s an important distinction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool. Can’t wait to refuse service to evangelical Christians.

Yes, this!!

You can’t refuse your standard services to anyone, and neither can 303 Creative.

You can refuse to make creative products that specifically compel you to speak against your beliefs. A lot of people are missing this point, but this case was NOT decided on religious freedom grounds; it was decided on freedom of speech. And it’s not the Supreme Court that first made that distinction, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

No matter what your beliefs are? right or wrong?
If my belief is that a particular race is inferior, am I allow to deny them services that would compel me to acknowledge them as equal?

DP. Who decides what is right or wrong?

And what kind of services?

I have a store selling construction products. If my belief is that a particular race is inferior and do not deserve to live in homes.
I do not want to be involved with anything that supports them, their housing, their lifestyle, their culture. They come to my store to buy products to build their homes. I can refuse to sell to sell to them and this ruling will protect me. Right?
Selling them my products to build their homes is sending the message that I'm supporting them and their need for housing.
I cannot be compelled to support it because it goes against my beliefs.

No, this ruling does not affect your case at all. You are still barred from discriminating against customers in your given situation.

The Colorado ruling specifically restricted the ruling to services that are tied to speech. The free speech clause of the first amendment says that the state cannot

“force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance.”

In your case, you are selling products not providing a speech related service. Your business is not protected by this ruling at all because your selling of construction products is not a free speech protected service. Whether they use the products in a way that you disagree with is irrelevant and you have not been forced to convey any message even one you disagree with. Selling them products does not "send a message that [you're] supporting them and their need for housing."

Anonymous wrote:This ruling does not affect the gay community in any shape, form or fashion.

Here's a Texas judge using the ruling to try to stop performing same sex marriages: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/12/texas-judge-gay-weddings-supreme-court/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool. Can’t wait to refuse service to evangelical Christians.

Yes, this!!

You can’t refuse your standard services to anyone, and neither can 303 Creative.

You can refuse to make creative products that specifically compel you to speak against your beliefs. A lot of people are missing this point, but this case was NOT decided on religious freedom grounds; it was decided on freedom of speech. And it’s not the Supreme Court that first made that distinction, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

No matter what your beliefs are? right or wrong?
If my belief is that a particular race is inferior, am I allow to deny them services that would compel me to acknowledge them as equal?

DP. Who decides what is right or wrong?

And what kind of services?

I have a store selling construction products. If my belief is that a particular race is inferior and do not deserve to live in homes.
I do not want to be involved with anything that supports them, their housing, their lifestyle, their culture. They come to my store to buy products to build their homes. I can refuse to sell to sell to them and this ruling will protect me. Right?
Selling them my products to build their homes is sending the message that I'm supporting them and their need for housing.
I cannot be compelled to support it because it goes against my beliefs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This ruling does not affect the gay community in any shape, form or fashion.

Bigots don't care about the technicalities of the case and have been emboldened to discriminate further against the LGBT commmunity. Here's a hair salon saying they will reject trans customers now. I'm sure we'll see more of this.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article277196783.html

Apples and oranges. In the website case, it is not about the customer but about the product. In the hair salon case, it is about the customer. If that one becomes a case, I would likely be on the side of the trans person, and I’m actually pretty critical of trans activism. Though from the article, it’s unclear whether they would actually refuse to serve the trans person, or they are just letting trans people know they will be treated like dirt if they show up. In either case, that salon owner is horrible.

I know it's apples to oranges, but bigots don't know or care, that's the point. This shows that they are taking it as license to discriminate against LGBT people for a broad range of services. One would hope this general case of discrimination would be ruled against, but that will take years. How many LGBT people are going to be denied service in general before cases can make it through the courts?

Anonymous wrote:Also I don’t think hate speech is protected.

Hate speech is protected by the 1st amendment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This ruling does not affect the gay community in any shape, form or fashion.

Bigots don't care about the technicalities of the case and have been emboldened to discriminate further against the LGBT commmunity. Here's a hair salon saying they will reject trans customers now. I'm sure we'll see more of this.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article277196783.html

Apples and oranges. In the website case, it is not about the customer but about the product. In the hair salon case, it is about the customer. If that one becomes a case, I would likely be on the side of the trans person, and I’m actually pretty critical of trans activism. Though from the article, it’s unclear whether they would actually refuse to serve the trans person, or they are just letting trans people know they will be treated like dirt if they show up. In either case, that salon owner is horrible.

Anonymous wrote:This ruling does not affect the gay community in any shape, form or fashion.

Bigots don't care about the technicalities of the case and have been emboldened to discriminate further against the LGBT commmunity. Here's a hair salon saying they will reject trans customers now. I'm sure we'll see more of this.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article277196783.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool. Can’t wait to refuse service to evangelical Christians.

Yes, this!!

You can’t refuse your standard services to anyone, and neither can 303 Creative.

You can refuse to make creative products that specifically compel you to speak against your beliefs. A lot of people are missing this point, but this case was NOT decided on religious freedom grounds; it was decided on freedom of speech. And it’s not the Supreme Court that first made that distinction, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

No matter what your beliefs are? right or wrong?
If my belief is that a particular race is inferior, am I allow to deny them services that would compel me to acknowledge them as equal?

DP. Who decides what is right or wrong?

And what kind of services?

Crickets, which isn't surprising. Besides, there are standards that have to be met in order for a court or law to treat a religious organization as a religious organization. An individual creating their own faith out of their imagination wouldn't qualify.

If you can't understand the difference between the two:

1) refusing to do business with someone who is gay

2) refusing to engage in a business product that is explicitly a gay message that is also against your personal belief

You can apply the same scenarios to a range of different topics. Refusing to do business with a Republican in general versus refusing to design a website for a Republican politician's political campaign to ban abortion (or vice versa!). Or, like the earlier example already given, refusing to do business with a Muslim versus forcing a Muslim to design a website that is explicitly anti-Islam.

It is not about declining services to certain customers. It is about declining to use certain speech.

Anonymous wrote:This ruling does not affect the gay community in any shape, form or fashion.

??
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-rules-website-designer-can-deny-same-sex-couples-service/

This ruling does not affect the gay community in any shape, form or fashion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cool. Can’t wait to refuse service to evangelical Christians.

Yes, this!!

You can’t refuse your standard services to anyone, and neither can 303 Creative.

You can refuse to make creative products that specifically compel you to speak against your beliefs. A lot of people are missing this point, but this case was NOT decided on religious freedom grounds; it was decided on freedom of speech. And it’s not the Supreme Court that first made that distinction, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

No matter what your beliefs are? right or wrong?
If my belief is that a particular race is inferior, am I allow to deny them services that would compel me to acknowledge them as equal?

DP. Who decides what is right or wrong?

And what kind of services?