Finally! Supreme Court rules in favor of First Amendment rights for Christians etc.

[tahuyaman]

How so? Or are you going to spout the usual bullshit you right wingers spew about this Country being founded on "christian values"?

It was founded on the idea of freedom of religion. They thought it was pretty important seeing that they put it in the first amendment, you dim-wit.

 

[Crick]

Sotomayor wrote the dissent that boils down to the ruling allows people to discriminate against LGBTQX+ etc.

But no, it does not. Gays or anybody else can still walk into any place of business and expect to buy anything the proprietor has for sale.

That is absolutely incorrect. That web designer was offering wedding website design but if he finds out your gay, he doesn't have to do business with you. It has turned LGBTQ+ into second class citizens.

What it does is protect the proprietor from having to offer products for sale or provide services that are against his/her religious/moral beliefs and he/she does not wish to provide.

The web designer did not state in his offering that it was only available to heterosexual couples.

And hopefully it means that nobody is required to provide products and services that are deeply offensive to them or immoral or improper to them.

What if I am deeply offended at the idea of offering my widgets to women. Can I refuse to sell them to women? What if I find it immoral for French people to eat my doughnuts? Can I refuse to serve them? What if I conclude it is completely improper for people with red hair to use my tongue scrapers. Can I refuse to sell it to them? The whole idea of licensure of businesses is that obtaining a license means that you agree to sell to all members of the public - that you are not allowed to discriminate against any of the protected classes. Unfortunately, SCOTUS just decided that sexual preference no longer delineates a protected class. They have once again eliminated a preexisting civil right.

 

[skye]

I like good news for a change!

Thanks OP.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is absolutely incorrect. That web designer was offering wedding website design but if he finds out your gay, he doesn't have to do business with you. It has turned LGBTQ+ into second class citizens.

The web designer did not state in his offering that it was only available to heterosexual couples.

What if I am deeply offended at the idea of offering my widgets to women. Can I refuse to sell them to women? What if I find it immoral for French people to east my doughnuts? Can I refuse to serve them? What if I conclude it is completely improper for people with red hair to use my tongue scrapers. Can I refuse to sell it to them? The whole idea of licensure of businesses is that obtaining a license means that you agree to sell to all members of the public - that you are not allowed to discriminate against any of the protected classes. Unfortunately, SCOTUS just decided that sexual preference no longer delineates a protected class. They have once again eliminated a preexisting civil right.

The web designer chose not to do a web design for a gay marriage. The High Court ruled, as it absolutely should have, that the web designer could follow his/her conscience to refuse business. The sexual orientation of the person(s) paying for the website was irrelevant. It was the content of the website that the designer did not want to do and should not have to do.

When I was running my business I certainly didn't think it necessary to list what jobs I would or would not accept from customers. Those who requested something I was not equipped to do or just didn't want to do, I just politely explained to them and they looked for somebody else to do it.

There should be no protected classes. All Americans should have equal protection under the law. There are appropriate laws for those at higher risk, i.e. children, women, the elderly etc., but those should apply to all and not just special groups.

 

[tahuyaman]

Yep....that used to be called slavery...when you were forced to do work for someone else...

This decision isn’t a return to slavery

 

[tahuyaman]

The web designer chose not to do a web design for a gay marriage. The High Court ruled, as it absolutely should have, that the web designer could follow his/her conscience to refuse business. The sexual orientation of the person(s) paying for the website was irrelevant. It was the content of the website that the designer did not want to do and should not have to do.

When I was running my business I certainly didn't think it necessary to list what jobs I would or would not accept from customers. Those who requested something I was not equipped to do or just didn't want to do, I just politely explained to them and they looked for somebody else to do it.

There should be no protected classes. All Americans should have equal protection under the law.

Why don’t you start a LGBTQ++++ exclusive service?

 

[Foxfyre]

Why don’t you start a LGBTQ++++ exclusive service?

No thanks. No interest. But certainly there are those who could do that.

 

[BackAgain]

Yep....that used to be called slavery...when you were forced to do work for someone else...

Yes. It was. And it was wrong. And it’s kind of ancient history.

So, do you have anything relevant to offer?

 

[skews13]

Just in. The Supreme Court just ruled that a Christian graphic artist was not required to work with same sex couples for a wedding website. Does that mean the baker no longer has to bake a wedding cake with designs for a same sex couple?

A case made from whole cloth. There wasn’t even a plaintiff. Only a whiny little bitch seeking attention.

You people get more pathetic by the day. No wonder the overwhelming majority of young people and Americans in general reject you.

 

[MagicMike]

Democrats are not known for being able to see the utterly predictable results of their actions and are continually flummoxed when something they do comes back to bite them.

Such as?

 

[tahuyaman]

Such as?

Tax increases for one. They always result in decreased revenues, if they keep advocating that.

 

[MagicMike]

Libs hate the constitution. Here's more from these whackers.

Possible felony or five years prison to use wrong pronouns in Michigan

The Michigan House has approved a hate speech bill, HB 4474, that would criminalize causing someone to 'feel' threatened by words. Offenders could face up to five years in prison.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Nothing new.
Hate speech has never been illegal but at least before the age of Trump, hate-speaking idiots (mostly) felt that their idiocy was something they needed to keep hidden; speaking only with like-minded idiots behind doors and in their own "safe spaces."
They (for the most part) wouldn't have dared paste things like their racism, xenophobia, homophobia, ect. on their foreheads for all the world to see.
So yeah....MAGAts have dumbed down the discourse in the country enough that (unfortunately) laws have to be passed to force hate-talking idiots to behave in public because the orange cat-turd king has set a bad example that stupid Trumptard MAGAts just can't help but emulate.

 

[Foxfyre]

A case made from whole cloth. There wasn’t even a plaintiff. Only a whiny little bitch seeking attention.

You people get more pathetic by the day. No wonder the overwhelming majority of young people and Americans in general reject you.

Oh well. They have intelligent, articulate, thoughtful, critical thinkers like you to look up to. (cough)

 

[Foxfyre]

Nothing new.
Hate speech has never been illegal but at least before the age of Trump, hate-speaking idiots (mostly) felt that their idiocy was something they needed to keep hidden; speaking only with like-minded idiots behind doors and in their own "safe spaces."
They (for the most part) wouldn't have dared paste things like their racism, xenophobia, homophobia, ect. on their foreheads for all the world to see.
So yeah....MAGAts have dumbed down the discourse in the country enough that (unfortunately) laws have to be passed to force hate-talking idiots to behave in public because the orange cat-turd king has set a bad example that stupid Trumptard MAGAts just can't help but emulate.

See Post #293

 

[frigidweirdo]

Just in. The Supreme Court just ruled that a Christian graphic artist was not required to work with same sex couples for a wedding website. Does that mean the baker no longer has to bake a wedding cake with designs for a same sex couple?

Finally the US has taken a step back to the days of segregation.
I can say "this goes against my religious rights" and I can refuse to serve whoever the fuck I like and I can do so in an aggressive and demeaning manner.

What happens when white supremacists say their religions say they don't have to serve blacks?

 

[Foxfyre]

Finally the US has taken a step back to the days of segregation.
I can say "this goes against my religious rights" and I can refuse to serve whoever the fuck I like and I can do so in an aggressive and demeaning manner.

What happens when white supremacists say their religions say they don't have to serve blacks?

Since that isn't happening I think the question is pretty moot. If it should start happening somewhere, then we can deal with it then.

 

[MagicMike]

Tax increases for one. They always result in decreased revenues, if they keep advocating that.

Well historically tax breaks for the wealthy (AKA trickle-down-economics) doesn't work either.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Since that isn't happening I think the question is pretty moot. If it should start happening somewhere, then we can deal with it then.

It's not happening because the court has only just rules.
The US is FUCKED. It's turning into a country only religious fanatics are going to be happy in.
They're pushing the US towards civil war right now. All the things the US has improved, civil rights etc, down the drain because of these fucking morons changing it bit by fucking bit.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yep. The court has authority neither to establish same sex marriage or forbid it. Justice Thomas is absolutely 100% correct in that. Historically for all the time we have been a nation, marriage laws are established in the various states and vary from state to state. And it should be the state legislatures that set reasonable laws in place for marriage now. The federal government is involved only in how taxes will be structured for families and singles and such as that.

The Fed Govt ties all sorts of benefits to marriage. If they did not do this then I would agree with you

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not happening because the court has only just rules.
The US is FUCKED. It's turning into a country only religious fanatics are going to be happy in.
They're pushing the US towards civil war right now. All the things the US has improved, civil rights etc, down the drain because of these fucking morons changing it bit by fucking bit.

Sorry but I have read and listened to too many intelligent black people who know that affirmative action is seriously holding back far too many black people these days and doing serious harm. I know far too many intelligent gay people who have absolutely no problem with SCOTUS ruling because they are Americans first. Americans who just happen to be gay. Nobody gave any of them anything. They earned it. And they are all successful in their own way.

Government should be in the business of serving the people who elect it and should not be in the business of dictating how anybody must think, believe, or live his/her life, should not be doing social engineering, should not be pushing any ideology that people must believe.

Ketanji Brown Jackson is worth more than $20 million and sits on the Supreme Court. And she says America isn't fair to black people. It's that kind of really REALLY stupid rhetoric that convinces me the Court is getting it right.