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

Or people spreading the most deadly disease we've yet encountered which we have no clue how to begin to treat and causes you to explode blood out of your orifaces and die horribly.
Those people? Got to be served by the best hospital in the world, right here in Houston. Despite the risk it presented to doctors, nurses, patients, and the city at large. Because that's how ****ing medical care works.

leave it to fauci to recommend **** like that. The man who said don't hug your son dying of aids because casual transmission might infect you (completely unsupported by data at the time, of course). Surely it had NOTHING to do with his financial interest in a floated HIV vaccine (that melted people's ****ing bones).
Surely. Not.

 

Oh yes, conservatives and Republicans.

 

I don’t see how she is a victim of something until it actually impacts her; I disagree she currently has standing which is usually something required in these types of cases but I know how eager the installed court is to take up cases like this.

That said I don’t really care if places that produce speciality individualized products openly discriminate as long as they must post who they intend to discriminate against in a conspicuous location and that the ability to discriminate is available to all.

A “christian” should be able to be denied service if their product has any religious or personal references on them just as the same sex couple does and patrons should be informed of the desires not to serve them before they enter the facility or shop there.

Agree?

 

Let me ask you one question: Did you read the district court decision which discussed standing and analyzed the law surrounding it?

 

LoL sure. You can be dishonest if you'd like. Doesn't bother me. I expect it.

 

I agree with this. I would find it problematic if they struck LGBT from protection but continued to assert that they can't discriminate based upon religion/race/etc. That would be treating them differently under the law. But to strike all of these laws in general for private companies? Yes. Businesses should be able to serve or not serve whoever they want, unless it's matter of life and death (e.g. hospitals).

Somebody warning on their website that they won't do things for gay people will lose a lot of customers from it (including plenty of non-gays). But if they can stay afloat and work as they want to, it's their business. The gay people or whoever can go to somebody who actually wants to help them.

 

It is a business license not a religious place.

 

Gay marriages should be discouraged but not banned. I don't have anything against gay marriages anyway. I remember 43rd POTUS George W. Bush wanting to ban gay marriage into a constitutional amendment and that failed. Gay marriages should be legal everywhere.

 

I did. I understand their position but I disagree until actual harm occurs then the individual should not be able to “invent” a case to bring it for remedy.

Now would you care to return to the question I asked?

 

Why should they be discouraged?

Marriage has been shown to reduce poverty and depression while also increasing homeownership and investments in the local community — not to mention the numerous protections that come with it.

 

I don't know why being discouraged. I don't have that interest but it is up to those that want to get married and I really don't have anything if the LGBTQ community have their marriages everywhere and that's up to them. That's all I'll say for now.

 

You had previously said:

If that’s not what you meant then great, we agree.

 

Because the law effectively puts her out of business because of the distinct possibility she would be sued by a gay couple or several gay couples for the purpose of running her out of business by her having to pay to defend against that charge.

 

Ahhh SCOTUS said they don't have to form a private club.

 

She doesn’t have a business

She wants to “open” one and she wants to make sure she doesn’t have to work with specific groups of people.

 

As I already said, yes, not in all cases; in some cases-- specifically involving governmental decisions, the government can take race into consideration. This should be obvious-- otherwise the former "Voting Rights Act," would not have been Constitutional. Affirmative Action, would have been unconstitutional. But no other Supreme Court has seen it that way. I'm not saying that this SCOTUS, might not change tack, on that-- but that would just be more evidence, of what an illegitimate joke, is out current Court. However, for the time being, at least, Justice Jackson is completely correct: the govt. can have policies, which are not "race neutral."

How does seeing that Alabama's share of black-majority voting districts, proportionally reflects the black share of Alabama's population, "discriminate against," white people?

 

nope, they have to rebroadcast his work... they can ban him for discriminating based on race or gender

 

I hope those you claim business can turn away anyone has seen this. !!!!

https://news.yahoo.com/faith-based-group-turned-away-222345890.html
A restaurant in Virginia canceled a faith-based group’s reservation after learning of its anti-LGBTQ views, according to the restaurant’s owners and the group.

 

Yeah that happens in my area as well. We had a larger brewery that found out the people who booked the space were a pro-trump group and they got canceled by the owners after public outcry. IMO, that's how these things should work. Business should absolutely have the right to deny the party because had they not they would have lost multiple customers.

 

Seems my reply was deleted !!!!

 

Yea I think your close here. You can't deny/discriminate against someone from buying from you. What you can do is deny the product creation they want. If someone comes in and want's someone to produce products of blacks gunning down white's or vise versa, you should be able to deny that legally. Now if they want a standard cake of the shelf, have at it. Bottom line you nor the government can tell me what to make, it's pretty simple.

 

weird!

 

A direct answer to your question(s)... I'm not a doctor, but as I understand it, all physicians are OBLIGATED to render medical treatment to anyone and everyone who needs it. There are "Good Samaritan Statutes" in effect in many parts of the world, and the Hippocratic Oath itself, which I believe makes it mandatory for doctors to render medical services to anyone who needs it (?). Again, I am not a doctor....

Now -- I'm not aware of any oaths that are sworn by people who make cakes, write software, or engage in any of thousands of other jobs and careers to do the same things as physicians. So, again, I assert that as a free citizen of the United States, with the possible exception of doctors, a person may choose who he wants to work for, without coercion or dictates from the government.

 

Very good.
So you recognize that certain professions are obligated by local/state/federal laws to provide their services. Note that in my example, I provided examples that ranged from urgent to elective.

Just to complicate matters, there are laws that establish groups of people (protected groups, classes) for the purpose of applying laws that define certain forms of conduct (including business transactions) as discriminatory and illegal.

So, there already exist rules regulating commerce that define to whom you may not refuse to work. It is, quite simply, a condition of opening your business that you comply with these rules plus any that get passed while you are in business. This is not new.

 

I replied to the examples you provided in your post, without going off on some big, broad tangent, Jack. All of your examples involved physicians of one variety or another. To my knowledge, no other ordinary American citizen "at large" is forced by the government to enter into business or social entanglements with anyone he/she doesn't choose to get involved with.

Funny, though. Not even at the height of its power did the Nazi Party in Germany FORCE people to join it. Think about that while you develop your list of ways that Americans may or may not be FORCED, legally, to engage in this or that....