Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The whole Supreme Court majority ruling is based on the premise that nobody should be forced to agree with, accommodate, contribute to, participate in something with which they strongly disagree and that especially applies to those providing custom creative products and services.Not sure of the details of the ruling, but I would say that a baker should provide a basic wedding cake without specific designs to anyone who pays for it. That's my idea of public accommodation, BUT the baker ought to be free to decline specific designs that conflict with his/her religious beliefs, politics, or whatever else. If a baker refuses to design a cake with MAGA stuff on it, fine by me. Here's the cake, pay me first and then put whatever you want to on it.
How are they still trying to destroy the baker?I think the baker actually did.......he sold everything to anyone, except for wedding cakes for gay weddings.......and the left is still trying to destroy him...
I still think the baker should have posted a policy that said he would write a Bible verse on every cake he sold, verse to be chosen by him. It would have been legal and applied to everyone equally, and the gay couple would never have walked into his store.Not sure of the details of the ruling, but I would say that a baker should provide a basic wedding cake without specific designs to anyone who pays for it. That's my idea of public accommodation, BUT the baker ought to be free to decline specific designs that conflict with his/her religious beliefs, politics, or whatever else. If a baker refuses to design a cake with MAGA stuff on it, fine by me. Here's the cake, pay me first and then put whatever you want to on it.
How are they still trying to destroy the baker?
But I always go back to why they sell cakes to obese people. Gluttony too is a sin.I still think the baker should have posted a policy that said he would write a Bible verse on every cake he sold, verse to be chosen by him. It would have been legal and applied to everyone equally, and the gay couple would never have walked into his store.
I was not aware.They came after him again, he is fighting another fake lawsuit.
I wonder if the usual suspects would have cheered had the ruling gone the other way and artists who worked on commission would be forced to produce art they vehemently disagreed with, such as those happily producing blasphemy being forced to produce something that gave glory to God.The whole Supreme Court majority ruling is based on the premise that nobody should be forced to agree with, accommodate, contribute to, participate in something with which they strongly disagree and that especially applies to those providing custom creative products and services.
It does not encourage or promote discrimination of people in any way. It just doesn't allow the government to dictate what products and services a private business must offer.
Because people don't always buy cakes to eat themselves. An obese auntie buying a birthday cake for a beloved niece, for instance, wouldn't raise red flags. In this case, I do believe the gay couple was out to cause the baker problems and made sure he knew what they wanted the cake for.But I always go back to why they sell cakes to obese people. Gluttony too is a sin.
A wedding cake can be quite a bit more complicated than that though as in most cases it has to be set up and finishing touches put on at the venue where it will be served. So in that case you are requiring the baker to set up the cake in a venue which he disapproves, but his delivery truck will be parked outside for all to see, etc. etc.Not sure of the details of the ruling, but I would say that a baker should provide a basic wedding cake without specific designs to anyone who pays for it. That's my idea of public accommodation, BUT the baker ought to be free to decline specific designs that conflict with his/her religious beliefs, politics, or whatever else. If a baker refuses to design a cake with MAGA stuff on it, fine by me. Here's the cake, pay me first and then put whatever you want to on it.
Sotomayor has her head where it doesn't belong. Using her logic, I should be able to hire Hilarity to speak at an event and then have her read a Trump speech. After all, I am paying her for her time. Sotomayor, Kagan and Brown Jackson should be impeached.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.
So far as I know, nobody has ever been sued for refusing to provide a product that gives glory to God or anything like that. The difference between the mentality of the left and right I guess.I wonder if the usual suspects would have cheered had the ruling gone the other way and artists who worked on commission would be forced to produce art they vehemently disagreed with, such as those happily producing blasphemy being forced to produce something that gave glory to God.
No difference in a regular wedding cake and one for gay weddingsI think the baker actually did.......he sold everything to anyone, except for wedding cakes for gay weddings.......and the left is still trying to destroy him...
Makes no senseSotomayor has her head where it doesn't belong. Using her logic, I should be able to hire Hilarity to speak at an event and then have her read a Trump speech. After all, I am paying her for her time. Sotomayor, Kagan and Brown Jackson should be impeached.
I thought the web designer was the defendant?There are dozens of links....just google Christian web designer SCOTUS and virtually every news group has a story on it. I'll offer you this one that emphasizes the majority rationale:
Gorsuch blasts Sotomayor's dissent in Christian web designer ruling: 'Reimagines' facts from 'top to bottom'
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a blistering response to Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent in a case involving a Christian web designer's free speech claim.www.foxnews.com
Fascism discriminates against minorities.
And the fascist will have a convincing argument to support the discrimination. Eventually there will be no minorities left to discriminate against.
Surely everyone has heard: .................. and then they came for me, and nobody was left................
Sadly, extreme right Americans are making the case against themselves.
All three are lawfully appointed and confirmed and are entitled to be on the Court. There is no law that those on the Court must be rational, fair, impartial, honest, smart or exercise common sense but we need to elect more Presidents who will appoint justices who are instead of political activists. We have a majority on the court who are hard core constitutionalists for the first time in a long time and that so far has been a very good thing.Sotomayor has her head where it doesn't belong. Using her logic, I should be able to hire Hilarity to speak at an event and then have her read a Trump speech. After all, I am paying her for her time. Sotomayor, Kagan and Brown Jackson should be impeached.
After decades of Dems legislating from the bench, bypassing the American people the Trump SCOTUS is bringing back the Constitution and it's protections. Suck it Dems!
Somehow, "diversity" never extends to them.Unfortunately there really are no extreme right wingers in the US.
We could use some.
Just for diversity sake.
Lorie Smith, the web designer, was the plaintiff challenging a lower court ruling. Apparently as the harmed party, she did have standing.I thought the web designer was the defendant?
Did she have standing?
Who was the plaintiff?
