Supreme Court leans in favor of a Christian website designer's right to turn away gay weddings

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Oldyoungin, Dec 6, 2022.

  1. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The public accommodations law? Of a graphic designer? That's not a river boat or a grocery store or a restaurant or a hotel. Get over it.
     
  2. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not so when the law makes it illegal to post a warning.
    You cannot legally restrict the conduct then complain they didn't do the conduct. Kafka much?
     
    vman12 likes this.
  3. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unlike a graphic design website which requires artistic expression, an ISP actually IS like a restaurant or riverboat or grocery store or highway.
     
    vman12 likes this.
  4. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here is the quote, to which you referred me:

    <Snip>
    In court Tuesday, Edmund LaCour, Alabama’s solicitor general, argued that the map was “race-neutral,” and that the order for a new map would put the state at odds with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because it would have to prioritize race in redistricting.

    Justice Jackson’s response was concerning, because it tracked right in line with the radical left’s “Equity” take, which the Biden/Harris team has embraced. We saw Kamala Harris get in trouble when she said the quiet part out loud, talking about Hurricane Ian and “giving resources based on equity.”

    Now, Jackson said she didn’t think the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection meant that you couldn’t take race into account, saying she didn’t think it was meant to be “race-neutral or race-blind.”

    “I don’t think we can assume that just because race is taken into account that that necessarily creates an equal protection problem,” Jackson said.

    She said the framers themselves adopted the Equal Protection Clause “in a race-conscious way.”
    <End>

    Nothing there, I'll say again, implies that black businesses could opt to not cater to white customers. The "implication," as this was in a case about redrawn voting district lines, is only that the government can take race into consideration. For instance, if more than one-seventh of Alabama's population is black, it can make sure that they are a majority population, in more than one-seventh of it's voting districts.

    As I had expressed my reservations over-- this is seeming like a pointless, side-tunnel, into which you are leading the debate.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2022
    grapeape likes this.
  5. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Her statement was in regards to a government action which intentionally discriminates against any non black ethnicity.
    She LITERALLY said that equal protection didn't equal race neutral.
    She LITERALLY endorsed a racially discriminatory policy, and says that discrimination equates to an equal protection under the law problem even though you're treating people differently under the law based solely on race.
     
    vman12 likes this.
  6. mdrobster

    mdrobster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    34,177
    Likes Received:
    12,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
  7. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think businesses were refusing to give paid time off for those not vaccinated, not refuse medical care

    why should they take the risk for your choice?
     
  8. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm quite aware of the law, I'm pointing out the law is not constitutionally supported outside of what I've sign posted, and hence the statute is limited. Hence why I posted what I did.

    Recall this is what it applies to:


    b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments
    Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

    (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

    (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

    (3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

    (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

    ^ she's not any of those.

    Do you know how these accommodations provisions came into being in the first place? Google West Coast Hotel v Parrish.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2022
  9. mdrobster

    mdrobster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    34,177
    Likes Received:
    12,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure counselor. This is another Christian getting their panties in a wad over petty issues.
     
  10. mudman

    mudman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    5,317
    Likes Received:
    4,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, she's making sure she won't become the victim.

    Could you start being honest?
     
    Reality likes this.
  11. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dude: You wanna cite a law without reading it, I'm going to point out you're incorrect. Try reading what you cite before you cite it.
    There is no need to be sore about it.

    This is a citizen of the united states exercising their constitutional right to redress of grievances for harms they have borne to their constitutional rights.
    You may think being compelled to artistically serve a political cause or religious purpose you vehemently disapprove of is a petty issue, others do not. Compelled speech is no petty matter in my mind.
    We have enough artists in our population hawking their services its a perfectly reasonable thing to challenge.
     
  12. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right? As if she hasn't broken the law which directly applies to her business. If the law is unconstitutional, she's a victim of it.
     
  13. Pixie

    Pixie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2021
    Messages:
    7,224
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    KKK is not a religion or a recognised religious tenet.
    Nor is serving a KKK member contrary to any religious teaching.
    It is illegal to discriminate on religious, race, gender or political grounds.
    If all men (humans) are created equal, then you serve them all.
     
  14. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The same people calling for the first thing you called a deflection are the same people bringing back segregation.
     
  15. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tolerant leftists lol.
     
  16. Oldyoungin

    Oldyoungin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Messages:
    22,256
    Likes Received:
    5,758
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nice dodge. Supreme Court unfortunately doesnt agree with your assessment.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2022
    vman12 likes this.
  17. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dude they literally floated refusing med care to people unvaxed. That was an idea that was seriously discussed.

    You realize hospitals/medical care are one of those public accommodations, unlike a graphic ****ing designer?
     
    vman12 likes this.
  18. Pixie

    Pixie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2021
    Messages:
    7,224
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No.
    It is a challenge to the level of secularity within American law.
    What is allowed on a Christian basis has to consider what is allowed according to any other religion. Otherwise it really is blatant bigotry.
    America does not have a state religion.
    So as I said, christianity has to be considered equal in legal influence to any religion.
    So a Muslim can refuse to serve a Jew or a Christian. Ask you to leave his restaurant.
    A Muslum hotel keeper can refuse to rent a room out to a gay couple.
    Then by the same principle a Muslim can refuse to sell certain magazines or papers. Muslim parents can object to some school content, Jewish salesmen can refuse to sell a car or insurance or handle your bank account.
    And all of this is contrary to the intended secularity provided for in the Constitution.
    No law should be made based on religious law.
    Once down that path, you have a theocracy and forget about freedom of religion. And some anonymous unelected religious high-up has a firm grip on what laws are passed.
    And finally your concept of equality and human rights will be extinguished.
     
  19. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah I wasn't even going to waste my time.

    I mean surely hospitals don't give care to patients that put them at risk, do they?

    Pure idiocy.
     
    Reality likes this.
  20. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    31,941
    Likes Received:
    15,602
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People get to use religion as an excuse for their bigotry all the time. This is nothing new.
     
    cd8ed likes this.
  21. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, its not. As stated: Calm down, you're being hyperbolic.

    Only in personal services, like graphic design. This is not a restaurant, a riverboat, a hotel, a etc. Please read the other posts in the thread.

    No law IS based on religious law, its not the law that gays don't get served by this graphic designer ffs. That's her personal choice, which she is legally authorized to make given that her trade is based on speech IE art, rather than say serving food at a restaurant which does not have the same personal choice style protection. Why? Because, UNLIKE A GRAPHIC ****ING DESIGNER, a restaurant is a public accommodation.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2022
    vman12 likes this.
  22. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Guess we'll just let those people with ebola die in the street, right?
     
    vman12 likes this.
  23. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just remember the people who wanted to take all medical care away from non-covid vaxxed people have never complained about rapists and murderers getting free medical care.
     
    Reality likes this.
  24. Pixie

    Pixie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2021
    Messages:
    7,224
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    AFAICS the Supreme Court is an ass, very concerned about removing/denying the rights of the individual according to perceived Christian teaching as understood by those who profess extreme right wing Christian affiliation.
    Further, secularity can only be in question when the situation is the relationship between religion and state. As I said, KKK is not a religion. It does not apply.
    However there are other laws which punish acts of actual violence or discrimination which apply to everyone.
    Including the right of the state to ban the organisation...which does not prevent someone from serving them , since the organisation wouldn't be there to belong to.
     
  25. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's about state law. This is how you go about having it changed.
     

Share This Page