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

[candycorn]

Which LGBT clients?

White business owners won't have to sell anything to blacks pretty soon either.

Just as Trump wanted. Time to start the presses on the green book again.

 

[2aguy]

White business owners won't have to sell anything to blacks pretty soon either.

Just as Trump wanted. Time to start the presses on the green book again.

No.....the ones who created jim crow and segregation were the democrats.....they used government to commit racism......that is what they were doing with college addmissions as well......

It wasn't whites...it was democrats...you need to be more specific...

 

[JoeB131]

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?

Probably not.

The ironic thing was that this wed site desginer actually hadn't been asked by any gay couples to make a website.

 

[martybegan]

Probably not.

The ironic thing was that this wed site desginer actually hadn't been asked by any gay couples to make a website.

She wanted to expand her business to weddings, and didn't want to do SSM weddings.

She was ahead of the curve.

 

[Care4all]

No.....the ones who created jim crow and segregation were the democrats.....they used government to commit racism......that is what they were doing with college addmissions as well......

It wasn't whites...it was democrats...you need to be more specific...

It was Southerners, who still live there, in the same states or their descendants still do...

 

[Foxfyre]

What it means is that same sex couples can be denied wedding related services by bigoted Conservatives hiding under their Christianity.

No reception hall, invitations, cake, limo, hotel room ….…all in the name of Jesus

And the gay proprietor can deny wedding related services to conservatives if he/she chooses to do so.

The Constitution was intended to give every American the right to be wrong, to hold stupid or bigoted opinions, to believe or think whatever he/she does so long as no rights of others are infringed. Nobody should be forced to agree with, contribute to or participate in activities he/she believes to be wrong, unethical, improper or he/she just doesn't want to do it.

There is no Constitutional right to force somebody else to provide a product you want when that somebody else does not offer that product for sale.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

There are hundreds, if not thousands of reasons why Fascists can justify discrimination!

And there are even more legitimate reasons for discrimination.
Telling people they have to work for someone else is another form of discrimination in that you are saying 1 side has all the rights while the other is subservient.

I have every right in the world to refuse to work for anyone I choose.
I find it sad that you have been conditioned to believe you don't have this same basic right

 

[2aguy]

It was Southerners, who still live there, in the same states or their descendants still do...

No.....it was democrats....you can't lie about this.....

 

[Synthaholic]

Answer me this: Why is one's personal belief a component in a services-rendered business?

 

[JoeB131]

Discrimination between right and wrong has always been assumed as a Consitutional right.

If you are a graphic designer, you should not have a design a website for the KKK or for the Trump re-election campaign or the flat Earth society or a pro-life, anti-abortion group or a tiddlywinks club if such is offensive or seems harmful or morally wrong to you.

No, those aren't protected classes.

But what if a black couple goes in and asks for a website and the web designer is a racist?

Or what if I go in for a service with my Asian-American fiance and we get told that the web designer believes that mixing the races is against God's plan?

 

[martybegan]

Answer me this: Why is one's personal belief a component in a services-rendered business?

Why isn't it if it involves 1st amendment protections?

The line has been drawn. PA laws still cover PA's, but for contracted services the laws have to take 1st amendment protections into account. Before places like Colorado could just ignore them.

 

[martybegan]

No, those aren't protected classes.

But what if a black couple goes in and asks for a website and the web designer is a racist?

Or what if I go in for a service with my Asian-American fiance and we get told that the web designer believes that mixing the races is against God's plan?

Why would they want to go to a web designer who is racist?

Why would you want that person working for you in both cases?

 

[bodecea]

No.....it was democrats....you can't lie about this.....

Was. Past tense. Show us current Democrats for the KKK.

 

[Foxfyre]

To the people too dense to understand the concept here, I will type slowly.

A proprietor sells blue, red, yellow widgets. He choose not to sell white widgets because he considers those to be against his religious beliefs or ethics or sense of right and wrong.

Everybody, even people the proprietor despises, can come into the store and order blue, red and/or yellow widgets. But according to this Supreme Court ruling, he is not required to offer white widgets regardless of who orders them.

Anybody who wants to, however, can sell white widgets.

So what do you prefer?

Liberty to run your business in a way that is right to you so long as you sell whatever products and services you have to all customers?

Or a government that can order you how you must run your business, what products you must carry, what services you must provide?

And before you answer consider that it may be a strong right wing or a strong left wing government making the policy.

 

[JoeB131]

Why would they want to go to a web designer who is racist?

Why would you want that person working for you in both cases?

Personally, I wouldn't. Would probably leave them a really snarky Yelp review as well.

The point is, if the PA provider was a racist, we simply wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

 

[martybegan]

Was. Past tense. Show us current Democrats for the KKK.

Just look at the soft racism of the latest twitter idiot saying blacks won't be able to do anything in Higher Education now that AA has been curtailed.

 

[Synthaholic]

Why isn't it if it involves 1st amendment protections?

The line has been drawn. PA laws still cover PA's, but for contracted services the laws have to take 1st amendment protections into account. Before places like Colorado could just ignore them.

If you can't answer the question, say so or just don't respond. I'm asking why beliefs or speech are components in a business that renders services for money.

 

[2aguy]

Was. Past tense. Show us current Democrats for the KKK.

The kkk? They ditched them because too many people got tired of their racism...so the democrats now have a new racist, terrorist wing....BLM.......and they also have shock troops ....Antifa.........

No more white sheets...now they have trust fund kids in BLM burning, looting and murdering in black neighborhoods in the cities the democrat party controls....

 

[martybegan]

Personally, I wouldn't. Would probably leave them a really snarky Yelp review as well.

The point is, if the PA provider was a racist, we simply wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

The thing is it's the ACT of a SSM wedding that it at issue here. Being a given race doesn't involve an action.

 

[bodecea]

Just look at the soft racism of the latest twitter idiot saying blacks won't be able to do anything in Higher Education now that AA has been curtailed.

Actually, it's the opposite. White males have no longer have that AA excuse for when they don't get into their chosen college or job.