New SCOTUS case, web designer refuses gay couple

Folks, THIS is what common sense looks like.
GET SOME!!!!

 

If the state law said I had to bake cakes for everyone, even Nazis, I refused, got sued, then lost the case, then I had to undergo training as a condition of maintaining my license, I'd have a special word for it too.

Have you been to modern bias training? It IS indoctrination.

 

According to the Left, they are fascists.

 

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.

Just as you invert the moral lines in your analogy by equating Nazis with a gay couple. Requiring a biz owner to familiarize him/herself with anti-discrimination laws in not indoctrination.

 

Right, I'm calling gay people Nazis. (How does that rolleyes thingy work?)

 

In Colorado, right.

Federally (Title VII), wrong.

Though I still chafe at that Q word. Before we're done Balkanizing, it'll be LGBTQDJSCBYDK, then someone will find a way to be offended and say, "What??? No X??? So I have no rights???? I'll sue!)

 

This is Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission all over again. There are plenty of web designers who would happily do this, but, in all probability, this couple was looking for someone to sue in our lawsuit-happy country. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is clear on this, which "protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a 'public morals' or a 'compelling' governmental interest."

This appears to be religious persecution, a form of harassment, at this point. There needs to be a law against making these types of lawsuits.

 

Not my problem if you don't understand the meaning of what I wrote.

 

I understand it. It's wrong.

 

It's not. The Court is considering this case on 1st A grounds.

The precise question the justices agreed to decide in the new case is “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/us/colorado-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html

 

It seems 'fascist' has taken the place of 'racist'. I wonder what word will be misused next?

 

https://ccrd.colorado.gov/discrimination#:~:text=Coloradans are entitled to the,public, regardless of protected class.p98'y
Now do you see why you are wrong? Nazis aren't a protected class, but gays are.

 

There is no gay couple

FFS can any of you read the article?

 

Legally, this will go to the web designer owner given the precedent. Is it freedom of religion? No, because it is not forbidding how she practices her religion. I think she is using it as an excuse more than a reason, but legally speaking, the Supreme Court rulings and precedent is on her side here.

 

Yes, I know that.

We were discussing whether modern bias training can fairly be called re-education. It can.

If you don't know this, you have either never attended modern bias training or you are in league with the re-educators.

I do not understand how it is that the modern liberal mind does not recoil at this kind of statist overreach.

 

You might have had a point if this web designer had said, "I refuse to provide services to gays." But that's not what she is saying, just as the masterpiece cake baker did not refuse to cater to gay people.

 

Absurd to think that US constitutional right to practice religion is somehow over ruled by some right to gay cake that some state or locality decided to create.

 

No it doesn't.

 

Im sure she would be equally opposed to serving two heterosexual friends who wanting the tax benefits of marriage and a website to commemorate. This is the same absurd logic that lead to legalizing gay marriage. Marriage since the dawn of civilization was limited to men and women because only men and women procreate. Perfectly constitutional. Courts made the argument that the limitation had nothing to do with procreation and the limitation instead was all just a nefarious plot to "disparage and injure" gays, which is absurd. Would be like arguing that marriage limitation to just one spouse was all a nefarious plot to "injure and despair" Mormons.
These court cases just presume any exclusion of a gay person is motivated by a desire to exclude gays.

 

It doesnt cover sex.

 

Silly, its the part of the bible that limits marriage to a man and a woman that is the Christians concern

 

Where is that.

 

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Genesis 2:24

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
1 Corinthians 7:1-40

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’
Mark 10:6-9

 

Still not seeing any limitation.

 

"Male and Female", "each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." Limited to a man and a woman. A husband and a wife.