Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 'wise latina' continues to dissent longer than normal. Surprised?

She is the definition of an activist judge. Look at her record, she is the most extreme of all the Supremes, but never gets called out because she is the "good kind" of activist judge.

No, activitst judges are one who overturn "settled law" (according to their testimony) like the Dobbs ruling and yesterday's decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you think it is appropriate for people to be FORCED to make statements in which they don't believe?

Do you know what a wedding website is? It has info about hotel blocks and registries. It's not a statement of beliefs.

Wedding websites are all different. This is a custom request. You don't know what she may be asked to do.
And, that is what this case is about. You cannot compel a person to create something against their beliefs.
Just like I would never create something for a follower of Satan. And, I would be within my rights to refuse that.

She isn't going to be asked to provide a video porn link, sheesh.

That said, I hope all the MAGAs put something on their websites indicating "their beliefs" so I know what businesses not to support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These cases are so dumb. We know how the Court will rule, why waste all the time and money litigating it? Gays aren’t exactly going to have a hard time finding a website designer who doesn’t oppose their cause.

The plaintiffs were so eager to litigate this that they falsified a request for a gay wedding website from a straight man in California who had already been married to a woman for 15 years to a web designer in Colorado who doesn’t even design wedding websites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you think it is appropriate for people to be FORCED to make statements in which they don't believe?

Do you know what a wedding website is? It has info about hotel blocks and registries. It's not a statement of beliefs.

Wedding websites are all different. This is a custom request. You don't know what she may be asked to do.
And, that is what this case is about. You cannot compel a person to create something against their beliefs.
Just like I would never create something for a follower of Satan. And, I would be within my rights to refuse that.

You know what the next step is, right? A gay couple being denied the use of a hotel or restaurant for their wedding/reception. "Speech" has to be created for such an event, just like with the web designer.

Or what if an interracial couple wants to use the web designer's services, but the designer's religious beliefs forbid interracial marriage. Is that OK?

There is an obvious middle ground here that SCOTUS is staking out: public accommodation laws must be balanced within the Constitution. Joe’s Diner that serves burgers and fries has no reasonable speech claim, but the customized Cake Baker does.

I hate that this was decided in hypothetical rather than actual facts, but there was evidence that the couple in the Colorado cake case had specifically targeted the baker so they could file a complaint, so I can sorta see why the judges took the case.

I agree, but at least in creating their little law school exercise case they stipulated to some facts that limit the scope of this and ability of hotels, etc. to claim this case falls under their free speech rights as well.

Why do you think that? Remember Hobby Lobby, a massive corporation with 43k employees is allowed to have religious beliefs.

Why do I think what? Hobby Lobby isn't a web designer with speech implications. Hobby Lobby is more like Joes Diner from above. It doesn't have the right to refuse a gay couple entry into their store to buy paint supplies.

Why would a web designer is no different from a dinner. The bigger question is is there any proof that this lady is actually religious and follows all of the tenants of her religion? Does she pick and choose which parts of her religion she follows? Did the highest earthly authority in her religion send the court a letter under oath stating she is a member in good standing in her religion and she has complied with all their beliefs and practices? Does the same religion say you can not do business with a married gay couple or gays in general?

I suggest you read the actual decision.

Did you read the decision?? This SC ruling allows business owners to ignore protective laws laws in 29 states!

This case was used to create a foundation for future discrimination.

Also, the standing was questionable.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/30/u...gbtq-rights-colorado

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question here.

If I was a baker, I wouldn't want to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church or for a white supremecist group. I think I should be able to refuse that request based on my sincerely held beliefs, even if my business is open to the public.

How is that any different than someone who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

I know my example is a hypothetical, but this SCOTUS cake was basically based on a hypothetical example too.

It isn't. Which is why SCOTUS made the right decision.

So, can I refuse baking a wedding cake, designing a wedding web site or invitation, or taking photos at a wedding, for a MAGA Catholic or a SBC couple? The religious views held by such a couple contradict my Christian faith. Please advise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question here.

If I was a baker, I wouldn't want to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church or for a white supremecist group. I think I should be able to refuse that request based on my sincerely held beliefs, even if my business is open to the public.

How is that any different than someone who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

I know my example is a hypothetical, but this SCOTUS cake was basically based on a hypothetical example too.

It isn't. Which is why SCOTUS made the right decision.

Anonymous wrote:The impact on Gay rights will be huge. This decision is bad on several levels.

“… The ruling could allow other similar business owners to evade punishment under laws in 29 states that protect LGBTQ rights in public accommodations in some form. The remaining 21 states do not have laws explicitly protecting LGBTQ rights in public accommodations, although some local municipalities do...”

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/30/u...gbtq-rights-colorado

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you think it is appropriate for people to be FORCED to make statements in which they don't believe?

Do you know what a wedding website is? It has info about hotel blocks and registries. It's not a statement of beliefs.

Wedding websites are all different. This is a custom request. You don't know what she may be asked to do.
And, that is what this case is about. You cannot compel a person to create something against their beliefs.
Just like I would never create something for a follower of Satan. And, I would be within my rights to refuse that.

You know what the next step is, right? A gay couple being denied the use of a hotel or restaurant for their wedding/reception. "Speech" has to be created for such an event, just like with the web designer.

Or what if an interracial couple wants to use the web designer's services, but the designer's religious beliefs forbid interracial marriage. Is that OK?

There is an obvious middle ground here that SCOTUS is staking out: public accommodation laws must be balanced within the Constitution. Joe’s Diner that serves burgers and fries has no reasonable speech claim, but the customized Cake Baker does.

I hate that this was decided in hypothetical rather than actual facts, but there was evidence that the couple in the Colorado cake case had specifically targeted the baker so they could file a complaint, so I can sorta see why the judges took the case.

I agree, but at least in creating their little law school exercise case they stipulated to some facts that limit the scope of this and ability of hotels, etc. to claim this case falls under their free speech rights as well.

Why do you think that? Remember Hobby Lobby, a massive corporation with 43k employees is allowed to have religious beliefs.

Why do I think what? Hobby Lobby isn't a web designer with speech implications. Hobby Lobby is more like Joes Diner from above. It doesn't have the right to refuse a gay couple entry into their store to buy paint supplies.

Why would a web designer is no different from a dinner. The bigger question is is there any proof that this lady is actually religious and follows all of the tenants of her religion? Does she pick and choose which parts of her religion she follows? Did the highest earthly authority in her religion send the court a letter under oath stating she is a member in good standing in her religion and she has complied with all their beliefs and practices? Does the same religion say you can not do business with a married gay couple or gays in general?

I suggest you read the actual decision.

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

Anonymous wrote:Honest question here.

If I was a baker, I wouldn't want to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church or for a white supremecist group. I think I should be able to refuse that request based on my sincerely held beliefs, even if my business is open to the public.

How is that any different than someone who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

I know my example is a hypothetical, but this SCOTUS cake was basically based on a hypothetical example too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another decision that should have been 9-0 for those who believe in free speech. The protected class comment is beyond belief.

I agree. It seems that the Justices dissenting are opposed to free speech.
I fear that in 20 years, free speech in this country will be a thing of history.

You don’t have to wait for 20 years. Right now Ron the Sanctimonious is already gutting free speech in FL. If you vote for him you are asking him to gut the free speech throughout the country.

Now hear the story of Cynthia and Sherry, a lesbian couple of 13 years until Cynthia died from cancer at age 35. When Cynthia was diagnosed, she drew up a will, which authorized Sherry to make burial arrangements. Cynthia had asked Sherry to include an inscription on her headstone, listing the relationships that were important to her, for example, “daughter, granddaughter, sister, and aunt.” After Cynthia died, the cemetery was willing to include those words, but not the words that described Cynthia’s relationship to Sherry: “‘beloved life partner.’”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you think it is appropriate for people to be FORCED to make statements in which they don't believe?

Do you know what a wedding website is? It has info about hotel blocks and registries. It's not a statement of beliefs.

Wedding websites are all different. This is a custom request. You don't know what she may be asked to do.
And, that is what this case is about. You cannot compel a person to create something against their beliefs.
Just like I would never create something for a follower of Satan. And, I would be within my rights to refuse that.

You know what the next step is, right? A gay couple being denied the use of a hotel or restaurant for their wedding/reception. "Speech" has to be created for such an event, just like with the web designer.

Or what if an interracial couple wants to use the web designer's services, but the designer's religious beliefs forbid interracial marriage. Is that OK?

There is an obvious middle ground here that SCOTUS is staking out: public accommodation laws must be balanced within the Constitution. Joe’s Diner that serves burgers and fries has no reasonable speech claim, but the customized Cake Baker does.

I hate that this was decided in hypothetical rather than actual facts, but there was evidence that the couple in the Colorado cake case had specifically targeted the baker so they could file a complaint, so I can sorta see why the judges took the case.

I agree, but at least in creating their little law school exercise case they stipulated to some facts that limit the scope of this and ability of hotels, etc. to claim this case falls under their free speech rights as well.

Why do you think that? Remember Hobby Lobby, a massive corporation with 43k employees is allowed to have religious beliefs.

Why do I think what? Hobby Lobby isn't a web designer with speech implications. Hobby Lobby is more like Joes Diner from above. It doesn't have the right to refuse a gay couple entry into their store to buy paint supplies.

Why would a web designer is no different from a dinner. The bigger question is is there any proof that this lady is actually religious and follows all of the tenants of her religion? Does she pick and choose which parts of her religion she follows? Did the highest earthly authority in her religion send the court a letter under oath stating she is a member in good standing in her religion and she has complied with all their beliefs and practices? Does the same religion say you can not do business with a married gay couple or gays in general?