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

[Rigby5]

Have you ever designed a web site without a template?

Do you consider paint by number "art"?

Yes, I do all sorts of web sites, for fun, profit, art, etc.
If the web designer felt funny about listing the name of the 2 getting married, they could have just used placeholders, and told them what file to edit in order to change the names.
It is not at all harmful to the web designer to accommodate anyone.

As for what is "art", there are to aspects.
One is the expression of the artist and the other is the impression of the viewer.
Paint by number is both.
But not by the one filling in the numbered area.
The art is by the artist who put the numbered areas on the board.

An artist would have no trouble accommodating anyone, because they would be able to imagine what is going on in their head.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
The whole point of any judgement is to create a balance between the rights of both opposing sides.
If one or both sides are fake, then there is no real rights or facts to consider.
So then any judgement is fake, inappropriate, and impossible to actually ever apply.
To be done correctly, any judge should be directly questioning the actual people involved.

Not wrong

The point of any judgement is not to seek a balance the point is to decide which is right or wrong.

This ruling was correct

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I was obviously referring to the actual subject at hand.

No, that was not obvious at all. In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever. You made a broad, generalized statement and used it as support for the specific instance (i.e. the subject at hand).

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Has that ever happened to you? I have purchased meat from Halal butchers many times. No problem. Oh, and "infidel" doesn't mean "white people."

It can mean whatever the person with the deeply held religious views wants it to mean.

 

[SavannahMann]

NO I DO NOT. I KNOW SHE IS CHRISTIAN. You guys are so saturated with leftist propaganda you can't even follow the natural flow of the conversation.

So the Leftists will in your theory discriminate. But the woman who started it all isn’t?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Then it depends what the contract says.

Most of the time, if the band doesn't show up or refuses to play, they don't get paid.

If the artist refuses to create, they don't get paid. Sounds good to me.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes, I do all sorts of web sites, for fun, profit, art, etc.
If the web designer felt funny about listing the name of the 2 getting married, they could have just used placeholders, and told them what file to edit in order to change the names.
It is not at all harmful to the web designer to accommodate anyone.

As for what is "art", there are to aspects.
One is the expression of the artist and the other is the impression of the viewer.
Paint by number is both.
But not by the one filling in the numbered area.
The art is by the artist who put the numbered areas on the board.

An artist would have no trouble accommodating anyone, because they would be able to imagine what is going on in their head.

It is not harmful if the artist specifically agrees to accomodate anyone it IS harmful if they are forced accomodate someone by law

 

[scruffy]

And invalidating the validity of the entire SCOTUS in the process.

Not sure what the best solution is.
I prefer not pitchforks and torches.

Me too.

Perhaps since the SCOTUS has become politicized, we need a political solution, such as increasing the members of the SCOTUS to 50, one for each state, to increase popular representation?

The SCOTUS is not law, and can not be allowed to rule.

Well.... you're opening a can of worms here.

We DO have ways of amending our Constitution. Which we dont use, much.

Tiny little Switzerland, amends theirs several times every election. It's "not hard" for them, why should it be hard for us?

They have 50 states too (or 20 Cantons, or whatever), so why is it hard for us and easy for them?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They specifically find freedom of expression a form of freedom of speech.

Then the guy making a sandwich should be given the same consideration as each sandwich is handmade by a sandwich artist

 

[BS Filter]

Oh really, why is that? Are you saying gay marriage is even worse than slavery? Does my comparison soil the good name of slavery?

No. It is simply not a good analogy. This isn't CNN or MSNBC where you can say something stupid and not be challenged.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

In a just world yes. But this case has nothing to do with freedom of religion. This is the freedom of an artist to decide what she will or will not create.

The the deli owner making sandwiches should get the same consideration

 

[Rigby5]

That's not what the Ruling said.

The ruling did say that people open for business to the public can discriminate.
Which is a very dangerous idea if it becomes a precedent and repeated.
(This case does not matter because it is fake anyway.)
It did not define what allows an exception, so then it is likely going to become a general precedent.
Which it then was an illegal judgement.
And it threw in religion, when that is a total red herring, since religion has nothing at all to do with the case.
There is no religion that says you can not be employed by anyone, regardless of what religious rule you follow that they may be violating.
Anyone bringing up religion in this case, is just lying.

 

[dblack]

Then the guy making a sandwich should be given the same consideration as each sandwich is handmade by a sandwich artist

Exactly.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Yes, I do all sorts of web sites, for fun, profit, art, etc.
If the web designer felt funny about listing the name of the 2 getting married, they could have just used placeholders, and told them what file to edit in order to change the names.
It is not at all harmful to the web designer to accommodate anyone.

As for what is "art", there are to aspects.
One is the expression of the artist and the other is the impression of the viewer.
Paint by number is both.
But not by the one filling in the numbered area.
The art is by the artist who put the numbered areas on the board.

An artist would have no trouble accommodating anyone, because they would be able to imagine what is going on in their head.

Oh good. Just turn over the template and the parties fill it in themselves. Be Go Daddy.

Artists should be free and unfettered to accept or refuse requests for services at whim.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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?

So, you’re an islamophobe, eh?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Common sense should be used. You can't make up a religious belief as an excuse to not do something.

Why not? Who is to say what is a deeply held belief and what is not?

 

[TNHarley]

No, that was not obvious at all. In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever. You made a broad, generalized statement and used it as support for the specific instance (i.e. the subject at hand).

The subject at hand was about social media and using the govt to get people banned. Learn to forum, dumbass.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The ruling did say that people open for business to the public can discriminate.
Which is a very dangerous idea if it becomes a precedent and repeated.
(This case does not matter because it is fake anyway.)
It did not define what allows an exception, so then it is likely going to become a general precedent.
Which it then was an illegal judgement.
And it threw in religion, when that is a total red herring, since religion has nothing at all to do with the case.
There is no religion that says you can not be employed by anyone, regardless of what religious rule you follow that they may be violating.
Anyone bringing up religion in this case, is just lying.

It is a very good idea which we need to make a precedent

This case is real and a binding decision

 

[BS Filter]

So the Leftists will in your theory discriminate. But the woman who started it all isn’t?

Discrimination isn't against the law. It depends on what is being discriminated.

 

[dblack]

The ruling did say that people open for business to the public can discriminate.
Which is a very dangerous idea if it becomes a precedent and repeated.

Think of it! People deciding for themselves who they will work with, who they will serve and who they won't. Chaos, anarchy! Cats and dogs, living together!