New SCOTUS case, web designer refuses gay couple

What I'm saying is since there is no aggrieved party in the CO case, what's to prevent Leo from sending other hypothetical cases based on hypothetical harms to the SC on all manner of issues on the conservative's agenda. Knowing all along how the conservative majority will rule.

 

Oh I totally agree! The process that can identify how these cases get green lighted needs some investigation.

 

Do you support free speech or not? Do you believe in the government's ability to compel speech? Do you feel that government can compel speech that violates your religious freedoms?

 

People have been using religion as an excuse for their bigotry forever. Nothing new here

 

Show me where christianity forbids commerce with gays. And its found under SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

 

Tell ya what. Go to post #262, listen to the discussion, once you've informed yourself let me know if you still think your questions are pertinent.

 

So that's a no. Got it.

 

The case is about free speech.

 

Absolutely. Cuz why would you want to expose yourself to a discussion that challenges your beliefs. Especially when the discussion does more than challenge them, it shatters them. Well done.

 

Homosexuals have no right to compel the speech of others .

 

The post required a set of answers. Was that too hard a task? Looks like it. So, you don't support religious freedom. You do support government compelled speech. Right?

 

It's "a private company can do whatever it wants" until some leftist wants a cake baked.

 

See post # 281.

 

Quoting from your set of redirects, this was your answer: From post 262 which was the redirect from post 281.....

"Pat,

Go to Chris Hayes's "All In" website https://www.msnbc.com/all

and click on the segment titled 'Hayes: Supreme Court conservative majority is ‘high council of Fox News viewers.’

Isn't Chris Hayes really Rachel Maddox in drag these days? So, again, you haven't answered the questions. What you have done is feign indignation at having been asked to actually provide an answer. Are you afraid of actually announcing this on a public website perhaps?

 

Bizarre, I didn't realize the web designer wasn't being sued by anyone, it's all hypothetical, how is this even granted cert?

Republicans have destroyed this court with these right wingers poisoning the court.

I'll tell you an interesting story. I was a wedding photographer for many years. I've shot about 4 gay weddings. All three were lesbian, and they all engaged in male/female role playing. This was before the internet. The male gay couple who wanted to hire me, both were going to wear tuxes. I told them that I've shot 4 hundred weddings, and every wedding one person wore a gown, the other a suit, or something similar, and my posing reflexes are strictly trained on male/female perspectives, that is, if you want 'wedding photography' in a traditional sense. I said I would shoot their wedding, because I do not discriminate, but I would to a much better job given my years of training and posing reflexes geared to male/female posing perspectives, if someone wore a gown, and someone wore a suit.

They thought it would be fun, I mean, what the hell, they are gay, and one guy dressing in drag isn't that big of a deal for them, so they acquiesced and the wedding was a lot of fun.

 

a vendor is not marrying the couple, I think that is a valid issue for a pastor or priest, but not for a vendor. A vendor's work is not religious, it's not violating religion, it's not a religious practice, and given that it is not, it should not be protected by the first amendment. Moreover, no where in the Bible does it say that a vendor cannot serve a gay person. Why should the vendor even know whether or not their clients are gay? even if he learns of it inadvertently, it shouldn't have anything to do with his decision to serve that person, or not.

I don't think the government should force a vendor whose service is the creation of art pieces, be forced to paint anything in particular, he can paint (shoot pictures/bake cakes, sing songs) whatever he wishes. I don't think he should be allowed to discriminate. Now, if his work product is unsatisfactory, (he didn't comply satisfactorily with the client's wishes) they can demand a refund and complain on the internet, but he can't discriminate. In fact, what that couple do behind closed doors is nobody's business. But on the mere level of providing service to gay people, I don't think, as a general rule, given that discrimination against gay people is bigotry, that there is nothing 'religious' about bigotry, that the first amendment doesn't protect bigotry.

That's my opinion, of course.

 

Even if making a website for homosexuals that somehow endorsed homosexuality it would in fact be against their religion to support it. I think that in this case the religious person is protected. You spoke of LGBTQ being a protected group from discrimination, doesn’t religion fall under that same umbrella? Are the homosexuals not discriminating against them in this case?

 

Prove it.

 

Dunno about commerce, but God did something pretty nasty things to Sodom and Gommorrah for their homosexuality.

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
:
24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

You can say Christianity is wrong and barbaric. What you can never do is claim that Christianity is fine with homosexuality. That is not Biblical, that is just wish fulfillment.

 

Serving a gay person does not equal 'endorsement' of that person nor does it equal 'supporting' that person.

In fact, the reverse is true, it equals a person supporting the vendor.

Their sexuality is irrelevant.

If I were gay and bought stuff at your store, I'd be supporting your store, You wouldn't be supporting me.

The fact I was gay is none of your business, nor is it relevant.

Now, if you are selling a service, how is it any different?

If you are a web designer, and I hire you, of course you are going to inadvertently learn of my sexual nature, but is that relevant?

You're performing a service. I am the one communicating (with my website), not you.

'Service' is not 'communication', it's something for something. It's trading, it's commerce.

ANd if this court says it is, just like they erred with Citizen's united, they will err here, their logic is wrong.

You can't claim religion if the act is bigotry, because bigotry is not a religious act, it is against God.

Now, you could claim the act of homosexuality is against God, if your religion teaches it.

So, don't commit homosexual acts, and you'll be good with God.

The bible does NOT say 'do not serve a vendor who is homosexual' or to 'sell soemthing to a homosexual is against God'

The Bible also tells you to stone prostitutes, so if you refuse to stone prostitues, are you going against God?

Or are you cherrypicking in order to justify your bigotry?

See above

 

So you can't.

 

That’s buying something compared to designing something for the particular cause of homosexuality. Not the same thing. Designing a pro ️‍ cake, designing a pro ️‍ website are and can violate one’s religion standards. I believe her denial in this case is justified in the constitution and should be ruled as such

 

What I thought was appalling, and at the same time telling, was when Gorsuch tried to get CO's attorney to say the training the cake shop guy was required to take was a "re-education program."

"It does not bode well for the future of civil rights law that Gorsuch believes a state imposes 'reeducation training' on employers when it reminds them how to comply with nondiscrimination rules," commented journalist Mark Joseph Stern on Twitter.
https://www.newsweek.com/neil-gorsu...-court-gay-rights-case-spark-concerns-1764887

The conservatives on the court are so emboldened by their majority they aren't even giving a pretense to impartiality anymore. They wanted to rule on this case so badly they ignored the fact that the web designer has not yet been approached by a gay couple.


The Supreme Court Has Officially Launched Its War on LGBTQ Rights

As a matter of theory, Smith’s case presents an interesting problem. First Amendment protections absolutely prevent the government from “compelling” speech. A business owner can be forced to pay taxes, but they can’t be forced to put up a sign that reads “Taxes are good and appropriate,” just as surely as I cannot be compelled to write “Donald Trump can read and has totally normal-sized hands.”

Smith and ADF would like the analysis to stop there. At oral arguments, ADF lawyer Kristen Waggoner unspooled a series of Orwellian hypotheticals purporting to demonstrate all the ways the big bad government could be allowed to force artists to say things they don’t believe if Smith doesn’t win. For instance, a Black carpenter could be compelled to make a cross for a Klu Klux Klan rally. In fact Waggoner, along with Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett, delighted in hypotheticals that involved Black creators being forced to adopt messages supporting the Klan. It was, frankly, ridiculous the way pro-Smith conservatives kept trying to invert the moral lines by aligning her with Black people who stand against odious bigotry, when it is Smith whose views most closely align with the KKK.

But all of the tortured hypotheticals in the world couldn’t account for the fact that the free speech analysis doesn’t stop where ADF and the conservatives want it to. Smith argues, in essence, that she’s allowed to engage in content-based discrimination: She can’t be compelled to say “gay marriages are cool.” But she doesn’t simply want to be able to discriminate through the content she creates; she also wants to be able to discriminate against LGBTQ people. She wants to be able to deny gay people the ability to frequent her business. That’s discrimination based not on content but on an immutable characteristic of some of her potential customers.
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-attack-lgbtq-rights-303-creative/

 

Guys, we can't make sweeping flat statements about civil rights. It's very complicated.

There is no special federal protection for discrimination based on sexual orientation, no matter how unfair you think that is.

But ... This is Colorado law which does cover it, but even then you have to evaluate the plaintiff's rights in light of the federal rights of the designer.

And then there are exceptions.

Just as we disagree on things here, the justices disagree as well. But you can't assume that since Kagan is liberal she'll necessarily vote for the plaintiffs any more than you can assume that Gorsuch will vote for the defendant.

Justices Scalia and Ginsburg voted alike in many, many cases.

That's why I say we have to support the final decision, as a matter of prudence, no matter what it is. Otherwise we may as well Balkanize and write several different constitutions and move to wherever we think we want to go.

Just don't assume you'll be permanently satisfied there. You may change.

 

This is what AUTHORITARIANISM looks like ladies & gentlemen!
You won't see him making threads about the person in a maga hat being refused service.
You won't see him making threads about Muslims refusing anything gay, but THIS, for some reason, is now all of a sudden a problem.
These people crack me up.