New SCOTUS case, web designer refuses gay couple

As the discrimination laws now stand, as I understand it, it includes LGBTQ people as one of the protected groups. Right?

That being true ( and I think it is true, correct me if I'm wrong ) if they are protected group, then discrimination against them because of sexual preference is illegal. is this true?

If so, then one cannot use religion to commit a crime.

I mean, the Bible has all sorts of sordid things (or at least one sordid thing) recommended against prostitution, and other acts, that they, i.e., people in antiquity, view as an 'abomination' or transgressive for which they recommend such archaic punishments such as 'stoning prostitutes', yet there it is in the Bible.

So, how does one assert 'religion' to justify discrimination against LGBT people?

Ether you do everything the bible says, or you are applying the bible selectively to suit your own bigotry and bias, or you discard all such Biblical remedies as inappropriate for modernity and just go with the essential messages of Christ ( the new Testament ) who did not bad rap gays, as I understand it, and did he not cavort with undesirables (meaning to say that is how they viewed them in antiquity), seek them out to help them, nourish them, heal them, etc?

Anyway, the Bible just says 'don't sleep with a man as a man would with a woman' (or rather, it says God considers it an abomination) it doesn't say 'do not sell or perform a service to a homosexual, lesbian, or trans person.' and the former does not beget or equal the latter (if logic is your thing, and it should be).

Now, even if I'm wrong on the point that LGBT is in the protected classes against discrimination, I don't even see how they can claim religion on this issue, because it's not even in the Bible.

What say you?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/22/supreme-court-same-sex-weddings/


The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will decide whether a Colorado designer can tell same-sex couples she will not create a website for their weddings, reviving the issue of where to draw the line between someone’s religious beliefs and protections against discrimination for LGBTQ people.

According to her filings in the Supreme Court, Lorie Smith is an artist and website designer who plans to go into the wedding website business. She wants to create only websites that “that promote her understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman, and she would like to post an online statement explaining she can only speak messages that are consistent with her religious convictions.”

At issue is the same Colorado anti-discrimination law that came before the court in 2018, when the justices ruled for baker Jack Phillips, who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple. The justices decided the Colorado Civil Rights Commission displayed bias against religious views in ruling against Phillips. But they did not resolve the larger question of when businesses may invoke religious objections to refuse service.

Let me guess, this conservative court is going to side with the web designer.

Ya think?

 

All religions are created by man.

 

Maybe the couple should have let their fingers do the walking in the yellow pages and find someone they didn't have to sue...

I have personal experience in this regard. Folks who told me, no, you're gay, I won't do the work. And to that, I suggest to them, if you can afford to go through life without the income, more power to you, and I work with folks who will work with me. One of my favorite sayings is "watch the money walk out the door". And if you can afford it, good for you. It doesn't mean that the work I want done won't get done. It means that for all of that "christian charity" that some of those folks cite, they don't really have any to give. I will tell you though, that as this has happened more than once, I have found, and yes this is just anecdotal, but I find these folks are mostly democrats. And somehow their entitlement and their misuse of faith always seem to get in their way.

 

So do our laws, as they stand, protect people standing by their religious convictions, or demand people violate their religious convictions, to protect people's sexual preference?

Considering that people seem to get wound up on the idea of 'having' to use a vendor who does not want to do business with them, you would think they would just take their business elsewhere, like to someone who wholly supports their situation. Did the vendor say anything rude? Or did they just say no.

 

All they had to do is follow racists' modus operandi and make up some bogus reason why the can't take the gig.

The whole this is just stupid. But, no, we have to virtue signal by pushing our myopic, discriminatory and hateful views in public for the whole world to see. Admittedly, THAT is a great business plan. Other homophobic, intolerant people that can't mind their own business are going to flock to them just like people are falling over themselves to help Rittenhouse and Orange Jesus.

 

Perhaps I need to read the details, but not everyone who is religious or doesn't agree with other than heterosexual relationships is 'hateful' or virtue signaling. While I don't agree with her plan to make it a forefront part of her business, I'm sure a number of heterosexual people will avoid her for that very reason.

 

You cannot discriminate against African Americans, but if an African American walks into a restaurant without wearing shoes, they can be refused service for not wearing shoes. In that instance, they are not rejecting them for their protected status as a race, rather they are rejecting them for not wearing shoes.

Similarly, you cannot discriminate against LGBTQ, but if an LGBTQ wants a cake for a gay wedding, they can be refused service for a ceremony that goes against the proprietors religious beliefs. In that instance, they are not rejecting them for being LGBTQ, rather they are rejecting them because they want a cake for a ceremony that goes against the proprietors religious beliefs.

That being true, being a protected group does not apply if the reason for being refused was not their protected status. You are incorrectly conflating being LGBTQ with a gay wedding and acting as if they are one thing. They are not. Refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is not the same thing as refusing to bake a regular cake for a person because they are gay.

 

I do not believe that as it is currently written the Civil Rights Act covers sexual orientation.

Congress needs to step up and update the law.

 

When did I say **all** religious people are hateful or virtue signaling?

 

When did I say you said *all* ?
You certainly lit up on this, and indicated you believed they were hateful.

 

Except it's not a religious belief, it's a personal one.

 

I do not believe it is right to force an artist to create anything they don't want to. If you sell books, you sell to everyone. If you write books, you decide what to wright.

 

However, I never wrote that applied to **all** religious people.

Just like "Orange Jesus' cultists" doesn't apply to all Trump supporters.

 

Despite what you seem to believe, I am not so sure that you are the last word on that subject.

 

You're right, the bible is. So if you can find where it says "do not sell or perform a service to a homosexual, lesbian, or trans person" then yep it would a religious belief.

 

You seem confused as to what is being rejected, so I will repost so that you can remember....

You cannot discriminate against African Americans, but if an African American walks into a restaurant without wearing shoes, they can be refused service for not wearing shoes. In that instance, they are not rejecting them for their protected status as a race, rather they are rejecting them for not wearing shoes.

Similarly, you cannot discriminate against LGBTQ, but if an LGBTQ wants a cake for a gay wedding, they can be refused service for a ceremony that goes against the proprietors religious beliefs. In that instance, they are not rejecting them for being LGBTQ, rather they are rejecting them because they want a cake for a ceremony that goes against the proprietors religious beliefs.

That being true, being a protected group does not apply if the reason for being refused was not their protected status. You are incorrectly conflating being LGBTQ with a gay wedding and acting as if they are one thing. They are not. Refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is not the same thing as refusing to bake a regular cake for a person because they are gay.

 

Those beliefs ARE NOT PART OF THEIR RELIGION and are not protected.

 

Once again, you are not the final word on that determination.

 

Once again, the bible is. So if you can find where it says "do not sell or perform a service to a homosexual, lesbian, or trans person" then yep it would a religious belief.

 

The reason that I gave my original post again was because it addresses this notion where you are falsely making it about rejecting a person rather than a ceremony. They are two different things, yet you persist in bogusly conflating them to be the same thing. You do not respond to what I wrote, you instead just keep repeating the same thing as if you had not seen what I had just wrote on the subject. It is dishonest what you are doing.

I am not a big fan of going on endlessly with someone that is being blatantly dishonest. You have had your say, and I have had mine. Let the reader decide.

This is silly.

 

Again, their rejection of the ceremony is still not religious in nature. .

 

@Patricio Da Silva

The constitution protects you from the government. It limits the power of government. It isn't a law to force others to do things they don't want to do. It has no place in civil dispute.

 

Yes it is, it FORCES you to not discriminate vs certain groups.

 

That's not the point.

 

No. Other laws do that. You should read the 14th amendment.