New SCOTUS case, web designer refuses gay couple

I have wondered about that. My take is that liberals see Muslims as victims of colonization, discrimination and persecution by Israel, the USA, and so liberals must make common cause with Muslims, even if the latter are forcing their own women to cover their bodies and persecuting homosexuality.

It therefore follows that we can only force Christians to bake cakes for gay weddings, but not Muslims. I guess.

 

No its the people.

 

That the bible forbids same-sex marriage.

 

Oh, my bad. I did not read the article to see that unimportant, trivial detail. I guess in this instance the religious person took the initiative and sued first before being sued by the inevitable gay couple, thus not following the formal, usual protocol.

 

The way I see this case, it's a woman who just wants to be left alone.

Why is that so much to ask?

 

The primary issue is being LGBTQ doesn't supersede all other Constitutional rights. In fact a basis of our law is that people's rights can't infringe unfairly on another's. So a gay couple has the right to a cake or a web site but they shouldn't have the right to force another person to provide them. Issues like housing, employment, healthcare work on a deferent scale than frivolous or inconsequential issues.

 

The left doesn't see it that way. They can't let people with differences just go their separate ways. No. Conservatives must be forced by an arm of the state to adopt the progressive line, or be run out of business.

 

Really?

 

Actually it is. There's nothing in the Constitution that grants LGBQT individuals with super legal rights. Rights are not absolute and must be weighed against those of others.

 

I think you get the meaning.

 

Since she started this no she doesn't.

 

2nd your time has come. MU HAHA!

 

When you go into a store to purchase a can of soda, are you forcing the vendor to sell it to you?

No one forces a vendor to serve anyone. they do it voluntarily to make money.

If they discriminate, that's a cause of action, a tort. If they are sued, no one of forcing the vendor to do anything, they are being sued for damages.

When people discriminate against you, they injure you.

do you not understand this?

When someone deliberately injures you, emotionally, or otherwise, you have right for redress in the courts.

That's not 'forcing them to sell you anything' that's getting redress to right a wrong.

Rights do not impede on other rights, If they did, it wouldn't be a right, it would be a wrong.

Discrimination is not a 'right'.

Bigotry is NOT a 'religious act'.

 

There is no right to bigotry.

AS for your 'there's nothing in the constitution....." There's nothing in the constitution about discrimination against blacks, either.

There is the 9th amendment, though.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

YOu know what that means, Bullseye?

It means that those rights that are listed, doesn't mean there are no other rights, just because they are not in the constitution. In fact, some of the founders did NOT want a bill of rights, just because some might construe those rights not listed as not being rights, hence then ninth amendment.

Yes, Bullseye, a gay person has a right not to be the victim of Bigotry, especially by religious zealots who falsely claim it's against their religion to sell them a service.

BECAUSE BIGOTRY IS NOT A RIGHT, BIGOTRY IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ACT.

IF Scotus disagrees, then they are wrong. No liberal would agree to that, that's a republican bullshit thing.

 

From the 10th circuits opinion:

"Appellants are willing to work with all people
regardless of sexual orientation. Appellants are also generally willing to create
graphics or websites for lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (“LGBT”) customers.
Appellants are willing to work with all people
regardless of sexual orientation. Appellants are also generally willing to create
graphics or websites for lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (“LGBT”) customers.
Ms. Smith sincerely believes, however, that same-sex marriage conflicts with God’s
will. Appellants do not yet offer wedding-related services but intend to do so in the
future. Consistent with Ms. Smith’s religious beliefs, Appellants intend to offer
wedding websites that celebrate opposite-sex marriages but intend to refuse to create
similar websites that celebrate same-sex marriages. Appellants’ objection is based on
the message of the specific website; Appellants will not create a website celebrating same-sex marriage regardless of whether the customer is the same-sex couple themselves, a heterosexual friend of the couple, or even a disinterested wedding
planner requesting a mock-up. As part of the expansion, Appellants also intend to
publish a statement explaining Ms. Smith’s religious objections (the “Proposed
. Smith sincerely believes, however, that same-sex marriage conflicts with God’s
will. Appellants do not yet offer wedding-related services but intend to do so in the
future. Consistent with Ms. Smith’s religious beliefs, Appellants intend to offer
wedding websites that celebrate opposite-sex marriages but intend to refuse to create
similar websites that celebrate same-sex marriages. Appellants’ objection is based on
the message of the specific website; Appellants will not create a website celebrating same-sex marriage regardless of whether the customer is the same-sex couplethemselves, a heterosexual friend of the couple, or even a disinterested wedding
planner requesting a mock-up. As part of the expansion, Appellants also intend to
publish a statement explaining Ms. Smith’s religious objections [.]"

She is being bullied by the state. It's David v. Goliath.

 

Nope as with the cake baker he had sold them his standard products in the past, it was the CEREMONY to which he objected. When you can deal with that let me know.

 

Exactly it is about the CEREMONY not the people.

 

Do you get to discriminate as to which vendor you choose to engage in a business transaction? Can you choose which vendors you will do business with?

 

Yes she is trying to protect her business from just such a lawsuit and therefore her commerce is being prohibited by this law.

 

The ceremony isn't buying anything, people are.

 

Disagreeing with someone is not discrimination.

Disagreeing with someone is not homophobic.

Disagreeing with someone is not racist.

 

Refusing service is.

 

Refusing someone's business as a vendor because they are gay, is, indeed, discrimination AND bigotry.

See above.

Not in dispute.

 

The person disagrees with homosexuality being a norm.

In the UK, it's called Right To Treat, that means, the customer wishes to form a contract. They do this by choosing an item at the ticket price and says to the owner, "I would like to buy this at the stated price of $100". The retailer then decides to accept or not. The reason for this is, if it was the other way round, the retailer could say, "You picked up the item/you read the brochure, so I consider you bought the item".

So the web designer was presented with an offer and the offer was refused. If it works differently in the US, the US is ****ed up.

I undertake work for gays (self employed construction), but if I was given a vote to say it's normal or gay marriage, I would vote no. Like the web designer, I could decline the work if I wished based on the customer being gay.

I find that the gays I've met (all blokes), haven't pushed their agenda on me, or tried to chat me up. The first one that does, I would go into web designer mode and not do any work for them.

You make explosive charges for demolition companies, a Muslim guy wants you to make a vest containing TNT. Would you accept or decline? Well, I'm against blowing up bars, planes, and towers, so I would decline. Did I just discriminate because I didn't agree with their beliefs.

 

Again, no it isn't. Read my last post.