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

[HikerGuy83]

No one should ever ever EVER tell an artist what to create.

You mean FORCE them create something.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong moron.

That amendment applies to government not individual citizens who may discriminate as they wish

Wrong.
Read it again.
It says:
{... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...}
Since the business permit laws are written to prevent discrimination, then the government can not ignore and allow any discrimination against any customer, except as stated on signage out front, such as restaurants saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service".
If the businesses put up signs saying no gays, then all customers would then know and have the option to do business with a bigot or not?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Read it again.
It says:
{... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...}
Since the business permit laws are written to prevent discrimination, then the government can not ignore and allow any discrimination against any customer, except as stated on signage out front, such as restaurants saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service".
If the businesses put up signs saying no gays, then all customers would then know and have the option to do business with a bigot or not?

WRONG
Those anti discrimination business laws are discriminatory in nature which means they violate the 14th amendment and are unconstitutional.

Yes and all have the right to do business with a bigot or not to.

 

[Rigby5]

There was a case.

She's been pushing it since 2016.

Colorado ruled against her twicce.

There was no specific case.
There was no gay trying to get her to do a web site.

{...
In fact, her lawyers did not mention “Stewart’s” request until months later. It first came up in February 2017, when her lawyers wrote in response to defense motions, “Notably, any claim that Lorie will never receive a request to create a custom website celebrating a same-sex ceremony is no longer legitimate because Lorie has received such a request.” Smith said in a sworn statement that “Stewart” made a request through the contact form on her site.

Smith is suing with the help of the rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, which is also behind the lawsuit that overturned Roe v. Wade; the active litigation over the abortion pill; and an ongoing case in which it argues that transgender girls shouldn’t be allowed to play on girls’ sports teams. Alliance Defending Freedom did not respond to the New Republic’s requests for comment.

There’s a bigger problem here. Since Smith has never designed a wedding website, and has thereby never actually turned away an LGBTQ couple, that means the court and the public only heard her views, not those of the people she wants to discriminate against.
...}

{...
Smith named Stewart − and included a website service request from him, listing his phone number and email address in 2017 court documents. But Stewart told The Associated Press he never submitted the request and didn’t know his name was invoked in the lawsuit until he was contacted this week by a reporter from The New Republic, which first reported his denial.

“I was incredibly surprised given the fact that I’ve been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years,” said Stewart,
...}

 

[Soupnazi630]

There was no specific case.
There was no gay trying to get her to do a web site.

{...
In fact, her lawyers did not mention “Stewart’s” request until months later. It first came up in February 2017, when her lawyers wrote in response to defense motions, “Notably, any claim that Lorie will never receive a request to create a custom website celebrating a same-sex ceremony is no longer legitimate because Lorie has received such a request.” Smith said in a sworn statement that “Stewart” made a request through the contact form on her site.

Smith is suing with the help of the rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, which is also behind the lawsuit that overturned Roe v. Wade; the active litigation over the abortion pill; and an ongoing case in which it argues that transgender girls shouldn’t be allowed to play on girls’ sports teams. Alliance Defending Freedom did not respond to the New Republic’s requests for comment.

There’s a bigger problem here. Since Smith has never designed a wedding website, and has thereby never actually turned away an LGBTQ couple, that means the court and the public only heard her views, not those of the people she wants to discriminate against.
...}

{...
Smith named Stewart − and included a website service request from him, listing his phone number and email address in 2017 court documents. But Stewart told The Associated Press he never submitted the request and didn’t know his name was invoked in the lawsuit until he was contacted this week by a reporter from The New Republic, which first reported his denial.

“I was incredibly surprised given the fact that I’ve been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years,” said Stewart,
...}

All irrelevant.

the decision was the correct one and good case to weaken the abomination of evil laws.

 

[HikerGuy83]

There was no specific case.
There was no gay trying to get her to do a web site.

{...
In fact, her lawyers did not mention “Stewart’s” request until months later. It first came up in February 2017, when her lawyers wrote in response to defense motions, “Notably, any claim that Lorie will never receive a request to create a custom website celebrating a same-sex ceremony is no longer legitimate because Lorie has received such a request.” Smith said in a sworn statement that “Stewart” made a request through the contact form on her site.

Smith is suing with the help of the rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, which is also behind the lawsuit that overturned Roe v. Wade; the active litigation over the abortion pill; and an ongoing case in which it argues that transgender girls shouldn’t be allowed to play on girls’ sports teams. Alliance Defending Freedom did not respond to the New Republic’s requests for comment.

There’s a bigger problem here. Since Smith has never designed a wedding website, and has thereby never actually turned away an LGBTQ couple, that means the court and the public only heard her views, not those of the people she wants to discriminate against.
...}

{...
Smith named Stewart − and included a website service request from him, listing his phone number and email address in 2017 court documents. But Stewart told The Associated Press he never submitted the request and didn’t know his name was invoked in the lawsuit until he was contacted this week by a reporter from The New Republic, which first reported his denial.

“I was incredibly surprised given the fact that I’ve been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years,” said Stewart,
...}

Meaningless.

She has sued Colorodo twice on the accomodation laws and lost twice.

That was the case being looked at and legal scholars agree it was just fine.

That DiailyKos is all upset isn't my issue.

 

[Rigby5]

WRONG
Those anti discrimination business laws are discriminatory in nature which means they violate the 14th amendment and are unconstitutional.

Yes and all have the right to do business with a bigot or not to.

Wrong.
When you open for business to the public, you have to sign a license agreement to not discriminate.
That has been that way for over 50 years in my experience, and it protects everyone, avoiding violence.
No one has the right to deny business to anyone.
That would be deliberately causing them harm, for no reason.

 

[HikerGuy83]

He thinks the Supreme Court is wrong because he knows better.

I dunno.

I think we should call John Roberts and tell him that a wannabe lawyer who got his degree out of a CrackerJax box is all upset and that he should consider changing his decision.

I know Roberts will get right on that one.

 

[HikerGuy83]

No one has the right to deny business to anyone.

The SCOTUS does not agree.

We are done.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Wrong.
When you open for business to the public, you have to sign a license agreement to not discriminate.
That has been that way for over 50 years in my experience, and it protects everyone, avoiding violence.
No one has the right to deny business to anyone.
That would be deliberately causing them harm, for no reason.

And now there is an exception to that law.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
When you open for business to the public, you have to sign a license agreement to not discriminate.
That has been that way for over 50 years in my experience, and it protects everyone, avoiding violence.
No one has the right to deny business to anyone.
That would be deliberately causing them harm, for no reason.

Wrong.

Those licences are also unconstitutional and nothing more than a hidden tax

They provent no violence. Disc rimination causes no fucking harm PERIOD
'
yes they do you fucking fool. Business owners have the same right as anyone and have the moral right to discrinminate which harms noone.

You as a marxists simply support SLAVERY

 

[Rigby5]

All irrelevant.

the decision was the correct one and good case to weaken the abomination of evil laws.

How is discrimination "good" or "correct" in any way?
If the only bank owner in a small town decided that only one political party would be allowed to get a mortgage, how would that not be criminal harm?

 

[Rigby5]

And now there is an exception to that law.

Since there was no actual gay customer and the plaintiff did actually do web sites, then how is this a valid exception?

 

[Soupnazi630]

How is discrimination "good" or "correct" in any way?
If the only bank owner in a small town decided that only one political party would be allowed to get a mortgage, how would that not be criminal harm?

It is a personal choice and exercise in personal preference. Personal rights are the founding principle of this nation.

In that scenario everyone else leaves to live where the other side is discriminated against.

However that shit never happens. People who run businesses are not that fucking stupid you moron

They are smarter than you

 

[Soupnazi630]

Since there was no actual gay customer and the plaintiff did actually do web sites, then how is this a valid exception?

Because any weaakening of such laws is a good thing

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Since there was no actual gay customer and the plaintiff did actually do web sites, then how is this a valid exception?

Because the basis of the lawsuit is an INJUNCTION AGAINST THE STATE.
Was there a crime? No.
Was there a tort? Was anyone hurt? No.
Was a contract breached? No.
It was an injunction.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.

Those licences are also unconstitutional and nothing more than a hidden tax

They provent no violence. Disc rimination causes no fucking harm PERIOD
'
yes they do you fucking fool. Business owners have the same right as anyone and have the moral right to discrinminate which harms noone.

You as a marxists simply support SLAVERY

No one has the right to discriminate against others that causes them harm.
Redlining is illegal, landlords not renting to different races, religions, or political affiliations is illegal, etc.

The whole point of Marxism is to prevent slavery.
With the industrial revolution, cottage industries could no longer compete, so most people were forced to become employees.
Marxism was all about preventing those with enough money to fund factories, from turning people into economic slaves, and abusing them.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No one has the right to discriminate against others that causes them harm.
Redlining is illegal, landlords not renting to different races, religions, or political affiliations is illegal, etc.

The whole point of Marxism is to prevent slavery.
With the industrial revolution, cottage industries could no longer compete, so most people were forced to become employees.
Marxism was all about preventing those with enough money to fund factories, from turning people into economic slaves, and abusing them.

Discrimination causes no harm

DEAD WRONG FOOL

The whole point of marxism IS UNIVERSAL slavery


There is no such thing as an economic slave

 

[Rigby5]

Because the basis of the lawsuit is an INJUNCTION AGAINST THE STATE.
Was there a crime? No.
Was there a tort? Was anyone hurt? No.
Was a contract breached? No.
It was an injunction.

Wrong.
Since there was no actual customer or web designer, there was no way any one could judge any pretend case.
There can not be a legal injunction, since that would require an actual customer and web designer.
Without an actual customer and web designed, then this appears to be a ruling that allows ALL discrimination, and that clearly can not possibly be legal.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Since there was no actual customer or web designer, there was no way any one could judge any pretend case.
There can not be a legal injunction, since that would require an actual customer and web designer.
Without an actual customer and web designed, then this appears to be a ruling that allows ALL discrimination, and that clearly can not possibly be legal.

Yes it can