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

[Rigby5]

Bullshit. No one walks into my business and demands I do or say something I don't want to. That's nuts.

Yes they do and should.
When you are open for business to the public, then you can not legally deny service to anyone based on religion, race, age, political affiliation, etc.
If you could, that would result in well deserved riots, deaths, civil wars, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

Yet the Govt can walk into my business and demand I meet the religions accommodations of all our employees.

And the public once open for business to the public.

 

[scruffy]

Yes they do and should.
When you are open for business to the public, then you can not legally deny service to anyone based on religion, race, age, political affiliation, etc.
If you could, that would result in well deserved riots, deaths, civil wars, etc.

So YouTube deplatforming people is illegal?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And the public once open for business to the public.

Where does it end? Should someone be able to get the Govt to force Hooters to make their waitstaff wear more clothing if they closely held religious views were opposed to such displays of skin?

 

[Rigby5]

So YouTube deplatforming people is illegal?

The only justification for denial of service is if there is no other way to prevent them from harming others.
Such as people who put up revenge or child porn have to be censored, in my opinion.
But otherwise, there should be no censorship based on dislike or even the suspicion of something being a lie, as long as it does not violate libel or slander laws against actual harm.

 

[BS Filter]

Which is why I call you a bigot



No you will not, you will just be asked to order something on the menu.



Not biologically .

Then how?

 

[BS Filter]

Religious exemptions are not really legal.
If we allowed religions to be free of secular restrictions, then Jews could enslave, rape, invade, steal, etc. as the Old Testament authorizes.
And of course the opposite, in that if you allow religious exemptions, then Hitler's Holocaust then would also be legal. It was Hitler's religious belief.

Many businesses accommodate Muslims.

 

[Rigby5]

Where does it end? Should someone be able to get the Govt to force Hooters to make their waitstaff wear more clothing if they closely held religious views were opposed to such displays of skin?

I think you got me backwards some how?
I am saying the person who is open for business to the public, has to accept all customers, and can not use their religious beliefs to make anyone else conform to their beliefs.
Making a cake for a gay wedding does not violate anyone's beliefs at all.
It is not forcing the baker to have gay sex.

You would have had more success if you were to support the people applying for a job at Hooters, who were turned down because their religious beliefs would not allow them to show that much skin.
That one I would have to ponder.

 

[Rigby5]

Many businesses accommodate Muslims.

But there is no religion that prohibits accommodating Moslems, so it should never have been an issue.
Similarly there is no religions that prohibits accommodating gays, so then the baker who refuse the cake making for a gay wedding, was lying and trying to deliberately cause harm.

 

[Rigby5]

Yep. That's my belief. Do you believe a man can become a woman?

We have no definitive answer.
If you go by DNA, you would fail because DNA just defines what is most likely, but is not what always happens, due to the fact things like an illness, pesticides, etc., can over ride the normal DNA indicated hormone production.
It is hormones that dictate gender, not DNA really.

 

[Unkotare]

Where do they claim a political affiliation?
..

Speculate. What do you think?

 

[Rigby5]

In general I am anti-Trump since I am very left wing, progressive, liberal.
However, Trump was legal and correct on the impeachments, Ukraine war, covid, classified docs, etc.
The dems in DC have shown themselves to be even worse than Trump.
You do NOT illegally abuse impeachment, indictments, etc. for political gain.
Jack Smith is a traitor.

 

[Soupnazi630]

This decision is not a victory for freedom. It's an affirmation of identity politics. If the law violates religious freedom, it should be stuck down. But that's not what the Court did.

Instead, Roberts did what he always does, and bent over backwards to preserve the law, despite the fact that it's unconstitutional I. Rather than strike it down, he merely established an exemption for religious folks.

What a scumbag decision by SCOTUS! Fuck the SCOTUS cons! Let's just turn the clock back to Jim Crow times. This proves the POS right are racists!

Protecting the rights of racists does not make one a racist dumbass

Jim crow was not an era of personal discrimination which is a human right. It was an era of laws MANDATING discrimination which is also a violation of human rights.

Clearly your school was a fucking failure

 

[Unkotare]

What a scumbag decision by SCOTUS! Fuck the SCOTUS cons! Let's just turn the clock back to Jim Crow times. This proves the POS right are racists!

You don't believe that. Stop pretending.

 

[Rigby5]

Yep. That's my belief. Do you believe a man can become a woman?

You can't tell a man/woman just by looking.
For example, the male chromosome is so badly damaged, that in some cases, part of it can become attacked to the female chromosome, causing a child to then be born with a penis even though female.

 

[Soupnazi630]

But there is no religion that prohibits accommodating Moslems, so it should never have been an issue.
Similarly there is no religions that prohibits accommodating gays, so then the baker who refuse the cake making for a gay wedding, was lying and trying to deliberately cause harm.

Wrong.

That baker lied about nothing and had no ability to cause harm

 

[Rigby5]

If you walk into any location with your Maga hat you can mow be refused service, including private hospitals. So fuck you too...

So then we agree the SCOTUS goofed again?

 

[Soupnazi630]

I think you got me backwards some how?
I am saying the person who is open for business to the public, has to accept all customers, and can not use their religious beliefs to make anyone else conform to their beliefs.
Making a cake for a gay wedding does not violate anyone's beliefs at all.
It is not forcing the baker to have gay sex.

You would have had more success if you were to support the people applying for a job at Hooters, who were turned down because their religious beliefs would not allow them to show that much skin.
That one I would have to ponder.

No one is open for business to the public.

Any business owner has the right to refuse to engage in business with anyone.

Yes if a person states baking a cake for a gay person violates their religious beliefs they are correct

 

[Billo_Really]

Protecting the rights of racists does not make one a racist dumbass

Jim crow was not an era of personal discrimination which is a human right. It was an era of laws MANDATING discrimination which is also a violation of human rights.

Clearly your school was a fucking failure

I said Jim Crow times, asshole! This ruling legalized racism.

 

[Rigby5]

Nope. That would be violating my free speech. You're confused.

A private business does not have to allow political speech on their private property.