Now with the Colorado ruling saying that religion can override public accommodation laws

[scruffy]

IS this person, in the real case, being asked to extol the evils of traditional marriage?

Lets at least put it as apples and apples.

If someone provides business to the public, then they should serve the public equally. If they provide traditional wedding services (as would shown in the advertising examples) that should be provided to any customer. That would not include special messaging I would think.

How far does “religious freedom” extend? At what point does it impose on the rights of others? I think this is a valid question given recent court decisions.

Religious freedom now seems to include:
refusing to treat or provide medical services to gay people
refusing to dispense medication such as HIV drugs
refusing to dispense contraception to women.

In these cases another person’s rights are being violated. Who’s are more important and why?

And there is an ethical dilemma here. If it is ok to retrict your public service to certain classes of people, is this ok? If not, why not?

View attachment 800720

Note: religion has been used as a justification for these sorts of things.



At what point does it become “speech” over service opento the public? How far does this stretch and what limits it?

I think these are valid questions.

You pull a sign out of your butt from the 50's and you think we're gonna buy that stupid shit?

Not the brightest bulb, are you?

 

[scruffy]

That's not even a remotely close comparison. The primary issue with politicians using music in their campaigns is copyright infringement. You have to obtain a license in order to use someone else's protected work.

BULLSHIT

Dammit you stupid lying fucktards know NOTHING.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

BULLSHIT

Dammit you stupid lying fucktards know NOTHING.

Fuck off, moron.

 

[themirrorthief]

How long will it be before some business refuses service to black people because they say it's against the owner's religion?

How long before an employer gets to refuse to hire a woman because the business owner's religious belief is that a woman should be at home serving her husband and raising children?

And how many other laws will get to be ignored on the basis of a religious claim?

how long before someone uses your pussy because under communism ownership is illegal

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Please point out where cakes are in the Constitution, I will wait.

Please point out where web sites are in the Constitution, I will wait.

Please point out where flowers are in the Constitution, I will wait.

First Amendment.

 

[Rigby5]

Idiot, you can't force me to do something I don't want to do.

Same with your bullshit vaccinations.

You have no right to impose ANYTHING on me. Especially not your moronic morality (or lack thereof).

Wrong.
If you are a cop, can you decide who you do not want to protect?
If you are a banker, do you get to redline against some ethnic minority you don't like?
If you run the only gas station in town, can you refuse anyone, based on religion, race, political affiliation, etc.?

You can have all the beliefs you want as long as they do not harm others.
But once you are open for business to the public, then you can no longer discriminate without harming people.
And causing harm is inherently illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

You realize this was a First Amendment case, and that's about speech.

Owning a restaurant and then "refusing to serve black people" (!) is not "speech".

WRONG!
Nothing at all to do with free speech, in any way at all.
The web designer was free to say to her customer, anything at all she might want to say about her opinions on gay people.
That has NOTHING at all to do with it.
The point is that she was trying to deliberately cause harm to gays, by making it harder for them to get web work done.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Is the comedian a public business under the law?




The message is the same, the only difference is the client.

A comedian is selling his talent as a comedian. No different than a cake decorator selling talent decorating wedding cakes.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Wrong.
If you are a cop, can you decide who you do not want to protect?
If you are a banker, do you get to redline against some ethnic minority you don't like?
If you run the only gas station in town, can you refuse anyone, based on religion, race, political affiliation, etc.?

You can have all the beliefs you want as long as they do not harm others.
But once you are open for business to the public, then you can no longer discriminate without harming people.
And causing harm is inherently illegal.

With this ruling the court carved out an exception to that rule for those that provide expressive goods.

 

[Rigby5]

It is free speech; not compelled speech. That's what the case was about--free speech.

I think it's abhorrent speech, and so do most Americans. So, let some dunderhead try this and see what they get.

Wrong.
There is nothing at all about speech in the case or the ruling.
It was about deliberately refusing service, the same as not serving Blacks at a lunch counter in Selma.
It is inherently illegal because it causes harm.

 

[Rigby5]

With this ruling the court carved out an exception to that rule for those that provide expressive goods.

Web sites about a wedding are not at all "expressive" in any way.
They are cookie-cutter templates, where you just fill in a few blanks.
I do them all the time.

The only time someone should be able to deny a customer is if they want to do something potentially offensive, like nude photos or something obscene.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

No one was forced to do anything. The entire case was about theoreticals. It never happened. In any other situation, it would have been thrown out for lack of standing.

Standing is not an issue. It doesn't matter that no one ever asked for and was refused services. This was a suit for an injunction against the State to enjoin and prevent the state from applying the civil rights statute.

Remember this case didn't start in the Supreme Court. It was filed in the District Court for the State of Colorado in 2016.

 

[Rigby5]

how long before someone uses your pussy because under communism ownership is illegal

In no way does communism outlaw personal property, in any way.
All Karl Marx was talking about was the "means of production", meaning factories, that had to be publicly owned.

 

[blackhawk]

What a brilliant display of stupid.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

How long will it be before some business refuses service to black people because they say it's against the owner's religion?

How long before an employer gets to refuse to hire a woman because the business owner's religious belief is that a woman should be at home serving her husband and raising children?

And how many other laws will get to be ignored on the basis of a religious claim?

And now the hysteria begins.

 

[Rigby5]

Standing is not an issue. It doesn't matter that no one ever asked for and was refused services. This was a suit for an injunction against the State to enjoin and prevent the state from applying the civil rights statute.

Remember this case didn't start in the Supreme Court. It was filed in the District Court for the State of Colorado in 2016.

Totally and completely wrong.
All cases have to wait until AFTER an actually incident has occurred, so that they are both parties, plaintiff and defendant.
That is because ALL judgements always have to deal with real people with real rights, so that the court can weigh the harm done by each party to the other party.
All judgements always need both parties to be real.

It was clearly illegal for the web designer to lie and claim she was harmed by a law that she then had a right to try to appeal.

 

[miketx]

How long will it be before some business refuses service to black people because they say it's against the owner's religion?

How long before an employer gets to refuse to hire a woman because the business owner's religious belief is that a woman should be at home serving her husband and raising children?

And how many other laws will get to be ignored on the basis of a religious claim?

You faggots will have to leave.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Web sites about a wedding are not at all "expressive" in any way.
They are cookie-cutter templates, where you just fill in a few blanks.
I do them all the time.

The only time someone should be able to deny a customer is if they want to do something potentially offensive, like nude photos or something obscene.

The web designer was anticipating something beyond Go Daddy. Not every website comes from a template. If they are asking for a custom design it requires the expression of the designer's talent. Now artists are free to refuse that what they find objectionable.

 

[Rigby5]

And now the hysteria begins.

It could never have been "hysteria" because these forms of illegal, immoral, and divisive discrimination have long been going on in the US.
It is only in the last 50 years we have tried to reduce it with reasonable laws.
There is no way to exaggerate the harm discrimination can do, because we already have seen how utterly evil it was in the past.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Totally and completely wrong.
All cases have to wait until AFTER an actually incident has occurred, so that they are both parties, plaintiff and defendant.
That is because ALL judgements always have to deal with real people with real rights, so that the court can weigh the harm done by each party to the other party.
All judgements always need both parties to be real.

It was clearly illegal for the web designer to lie and claim she was harmed by a law that she then had a right to try to appeal.

Oh I'm wrong. Then how come this case has been decided?

Do you know what an injunction is?