MI Salon Owner "Bans" Trans, Etc. She Is Wrong.

[SweetSue92]

Making a faggot look good is promoting homosexuality and that is a sin.

Great quote. Might include it in my signature.

 

[Hellbilly]

Making a faggot look good is promoting homosexuality and that is a sin.

What sin?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Um

Does no one understand this case at all?

Are people this thick-headed or uninformed?

Um

Of course I understand the case. And so do the many other people who are telling you you're wrong.

You were saying something about being thick-headed and uninformed?

 

[Blues Man]

Great quote. Might include it in my signature.

it suits a bigot like you.

 

[Blues Man]

What sin?

Turn on your sarcasm detector.

 

[SweetSue92]

Absolutely. Personally I wouldn't write a song degrading to anyone.

Right. So you should have the right to refuse to create that song, even though you have put yourself out there as a songwriter-for-hire. It's not the PERSON you're rejecting; it's the specific request.

Look here everyone, it seems at least one poster can understand the nuances here...

 

[Blues Man]

Right. So you should have the right to refuse to create that song, even though you have put yourself out there as a songwriter-for-hire. It's not the PERSON you're rejecting; it's the specific request.

Look here everyone, it seems at least one poster can understand the nuances here...

If a religion says the Whites are evil sinful devils then they can be denied service.

 

[SweetSue92]

it suits a bigot like you.

It's your quote dude, not mine

 

[Rogue AI]

This was inevitable.

The baker doesn't have to bake the cake, the florist doesn't need to serve Republicans, and the salon owner doesn't need to serve trans people.

It's ridiculous and petty. But it's at least consistent and fair.

Freedom has responsibilities and consequences. It's about time the government got out of the way.

 

[Couchpotato]

Either a business owner can deny service for any reason or he can't.

You have to pick one.

If some religious nut says he can't do business with gays because of religion then people should be able to refuse service to religious people if they want to.

If a hairdresser doesn't want to do business with people she thinks are delusional what's the big deal?

That's not even remotely close to what the SCOTUS decision said.

 

[Blues Man]

It's your quote dude, not mine

another one who doesn't understand sarcasm. And you're talking about nuances of language

That's called irony.

 

[Blues Man]

That's not even remotely close to what the SCOTUS decision said.

All anyone has to do is state "religious" reasons for denying service to anyone they want.

 

[Hellbilly]

Turn on your sarcasm detector.

It's in the shop.

 

[bodecea]

Next up: Whites Only.

 

[Hellbilly]

Right. So you should have the right to refuse to create that song, even though you have put yourself out there as a songwriter-for-hire. It's not the PERSON you're rejecting; it's the specific request.

Look here everyone, it seems at least one poster can understand the nuances here...

Hell I'd write a pro Trump song....for a very large amount of money. LOL

 

[Couchpotato]

All anyone has to do is state "religious" reasons for denying service to anyone they want.

Again not what the case stated. I cant refuse to sell a gay person a pack of gum if I'm selling the same gum to everyone else. That would be a violation of the public accommodation laws.

If you all really want to go down this road though what you are saying would invalidate the Civil Rights Act and essentially make what was happening in the Jim Crow south ok.

 

[SweetSue92]

If a religion says the Whites are evil sinful devils then they can be denied service.

This case was about Free Speech. From the opinion:

States may “protect gay persons, just as [they] can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public. And there are no doubt innumerable goods and services that no one could argue implicate the First Amendment.” Ibid.; see also Hurley, 515 U. S., at 571–572; 6 F. 4th, at 1203 (Tymkovich, C. J., dissenting). Consistent with all of this, Ms. Smith herself recognizes that Colorado and other States are generally free to apply their public accommodations laws, including their provisions protecting gay persons, to a vast array of businesses. Reply Brief 15; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 45–46. At the same time, this Court has also recognized that no public accommodations law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. In particular, this Court has held, public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech. In Hurley, the Court commented favorably on Massachusetts’ public accommodations law, but made plain it could not be “applied to expressive activity” to compel speech. 515 U. S., at 571, 578. In Dale, the Court observed that New Jersey’s public accommodations law had many lawful applications but held that it could “not justify such a severe intrusion on the Boy Scouts’ rights to freedom of expressive association.” 530 U. S., at 659. And, once more, what was true in those cases must hold true here. When a state public accommodations law and the Constitution collide, there can be no question which must prevail. U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2

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

 

[Couchpotato]

Hell I'd write a pro Trump song....for a very large amount of money. LOL

Thats a choice, not something you should be forced to do.

 

[elektra]

You are creating art on top of someone's head. That's like the cake baker who said he would provide anyone--gay, straight etc--with birthday, retirement or other cakes and baked goods. He ONLY objected to wedding cakes for gay people because he opposes gay MARRIAGE.

Along those lines:

If the salon owner was asked to lend her talents for hairstyles for a gay wedding she would be in her rights to refuse.

But just to refuse gay people as a class? No.

people have a right to express themselves how they say fit,

gay people, if they decide to identify as a class, then we have a right to deny them our personal attention, our personal labor.

you do not have a right to force me to do anything,

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That's your opinion. The SC disagrees. They have the say and not you.

So they decided that hair styling is not art or speech? Did I miss that ruling?