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

[Concerned American]

imagine a restaurant where a black family walk in, and the restaurant refuses to speak to them.

Imagine a restaurant where a black congress woman told them not to serve a white woman because she was a republican. Hmmmm. Seems the only people guilty of what you fear are democrats.

 

[scruffy]

Poor little gullible lemming. Seems you don’t know that cases don’t start at SCOTUS. There had to be a process followed. Which this goof would have been fully aware of. Another loss in your long string of them.

Yeah. Here's CNN - "call the guy, let's see if we can get an interview with him".

"But... but... we only have a first name".

"Call him anyway. Use the phone book".

lol

Leftards are so damn gullible. They swallowed the Covid bullshit, and they swallowed the BLM bullshit too. Swallowed the pee tapes....

 

[tahuyaman]

You claim "yes it could", but then give me an example.
Because clearly the baker or web site designer had no excuse to not provide their service, just because the customer were gay.
If the product they wanted them to work on was sexually provocative, that might be a point of consideration, but I have not heard that was the case.

Actually, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[tahuyaman]

It's not about "back on the plantation"

It's about what people will try and do with this new ruling.
Essentially accommodation laws are now BELOW a person's religion.

Who gets to decide what a person's religion is?
Clear Christians can now use their religion to official be anti-gay. They can refuse to serve gay people.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

"But, she asserts, the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause protects her from being compelled to speak what she does not believe. The Constitution, she insists, protects her right to differ." (page 2)

This case is using the First Amendment, saying that if someone has to say something they do not wish to say, it goes against their right to free speech. Essentially she'd be writing the website and doesn't want to write things like "they fuck up the bum four times a day" because.... I mean, who are we kidding here, there's NOTHING she'd have to write on her website that wouldn't be the same as writing for a straight couple.
She doesn't need to "believe" marriage is between a man and a woman to write something like this.

However, imagine a black man walks into a restaurant. The restaurant says to call men "sir" and women "ma'am" and the server says "my free speech says I don't have to call any [insert N word] "sir", I'm protected from this.
Or even further "I don't have to speak to black people at all", imagine a restaurant where a black family walk in, and the restaurant refuses to speak to them.
Literally, we're talking segregation here, and I bet you'll find a whole load of fucking bigots using this case to get around a whole load of shit here.

Liberals make some idiotic arguments.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

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. 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.

.

Public accommodations
If you provide a service to one, you have to provide for all.
We don’t serve blacks, we do not serve gays is not tolerated

You don’t have to approve of a married couple but you can’t deny services

"We're told Big Tech censorship of conservatives is fine because private businesses can do whatever they want. They can't be forced to host messages they don't like. We're also told — by the same people — that small businesses like bakers have no choice but to actually craft messages they disagree with. There's no reconciling these positions."

 

[Smokin' OP]

The fact the protestors were arrested and abused on Jan 6, was illegal.

Entering a closed building is illegal.
The protesters who didn't enter a closed area weren't arrested.

They had a right to be heard, and should have been allowed into the visitors area and given time to express their beliefs.

No, they shouldn't have.

Your reading skills are lacking.
I said that presidents in general are the author of almost all classified doc LAW, not the classified docs themselves.

Obviously presidents and ex-presidents, are explicitly exempt from all classified doc laws, which presidents get to create as they wish, with EOs.

No, they aren't.

As for Biden's crimes, they are infinitely higher.

No, they aren't.

Biden illegally withheld congressional funds to the Ukraine for the illegal purpose of getting Shokin fired, so he could illegally protect Hunter Biden in Burisma Holdings.

No, he didn't.

Biden not only was involved in turning the Ukraine to a puppet dictatorship, but illegally sending weapons to known war criminals, who were engaged in treaty violations, attempted genocide against native ethnic Russians, etc.
Trying to expand NATO is criminal, in violation of promises and treaties with Gorbachev.

You're delusional.

 

[Smokin' OP]

What lies you moron?

Now, that's funny.
The cartoon describes you too.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

And what happens when a black restaurant owner says his religion opposes white "supremacy", and he bars any white from his restaurant.

Slippery slope.

 

[zaangalewa]

People who disagreed stopped buying their product. Which is the right of every American. Gays have closed businesses. Remember Sweet Cakes by Melissa? Gays hounded her and her customers. She and her family were harassed and threatened until the business closed. You were okay with that.

No artist should be compelled to create against their will.

What's by the way a similar effect as in case of Melissa. An artist is not able to be really good and creative as long as he not loves what he is doing. So the problem is to convince and to motivate an artist and not to try to force him (or her).

 

[zaangalewa]

I love when white Christians act like they are oppressed

Slave holder mentality

just because they have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

No one has to follow any rule except the rule to have to die.

 

[Soupnazi630]

And what happens when a black restaurant owner says his religion opposes white "supremacy", and he bars any white from his restaurant.

Slippery slope.

He loses business.

No one else is harmed

 

[mak2]

He loses business.

No one else is harmed

I dunno. Every chance I get I hit a soul food restaurant on Indianapolis near west side that is sooo good. I would be harmed.

 

[dblack]

I dunno. Every chance I get I hit a soul food restaurant on Indianapolis near west side that is sooo good. I would be harmed.

Not getting to eat at your favorite restaurant isn't "harm".

 

[22lcidw]

And what happens when a black restaurant owner says his religion opposes white "supremacy", and he bars any white from his restaurant.

Slippery slope.

Let us have conversations on the arrogant, the people who complain about food after they eat like horses, and those who do not even tip. Talk to those who work as waiters and tale cleaners and those in the kitchens. Especially in tourist areas. And the people who will complain as workers are diverse.

 

[dblack]

Regardless of which side you're on, this is legislating from the bench and bad practice. If the Colorado legislature wanted to exempt religious people, they would have written the law with the exemption spelled out. They didn't. The law should be struck down in its entirety. Inserting a carve-out for religious people is just playing the identity politics game.

 

[mak2]

Not getting to eat at your favorite restaurant isn't "harm".

You have never had the meat loaf. Or the fried chicken.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This thread acts like an IQ test. Some people are intelligent enough to understand accommodation laws and recognize the difference between refusing to serve somebody goods already out for sale and being forced to create something completely against their beliefs.

On the flip side, some are Democrats.

 

[Concerned American]

And what happens when a black restaurant owner says his religion opposes white "supremacy", and he bars any white from his restaurant.

Slippery slope.

It has already happened. June 22, 2018. Sarah Huckabee Sanders because of her political stance. Seems the left was cheering that action. Sarah Huckabee Sanders Got Kicked Out Of A Restaurant Because Of Trump

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

He loses business.

No one else is harmed

We are all harmed. If a white bars such customers, he will be sued and he will lose, yes?

 

[Soupnazi630]

We are all harmed. If a white bars such customers, he will be sued and he will lose, yes?

No one is harmed.

if such lawsuits are allwed it is the government allowing it and therefore causing the harm. Not the discrimination