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

[USAF 2023]

I don't know what you're saying. I don't think you know, either.

Look at post 539 and take your MEDS

 

[Marener]

Well, yeah, you can choose who to do business with. That should be a basic right in a free society.

If only conservatives agreed with you.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Texas House Bill 20 from a few years ago.

Texas social media âcensorshipâ law goes into effect after federal court lifts block

The ruling Friday from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals likely means the case, which could have wide implications for online speech, will go before the U.S. Supreme Court again.

www.texastribune.org

Not what I asked

 

[Marener]

I'm not endorsing anything. I'm closed on Sunday.

My holy day is every day before noon.

So I’m only coming in after lunch.

Fire me and you’ll be violating my religious freedom.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Giving someone Sunday off you are endorsing Sunday as the Holy Day just as much as decorating a cake endorses gay marriage.

There is no affirmative action with giving someone the day off.

 

[Rigby5]

There is no real argument. Instead of arguing, look it up.

People have built in instincts and emotions to stop them from wanton harm to others.
Corporations do not.
They can and will evict orphans and widows, etc., that human individuals would likely refuse to do.
Corporations get people to do evil things by not telling them the details.

 

[Marener]

Not what I asked

Your question is dishonest. Conservatives think the first amendment already gives them a right to be on Twitter. They aren’t passing a new constitutional amendment. They’re distorting the ones we already have.

Which is how they operate these days.

 

[BS Filter]

I will infer from that you do not understand what "the law" is.

Law is NOT mere legislation.
That is obvious since mere legislation can be struck down.
And to do that, there has to be a higher abstraction.
Precedent is often used to make it easier.
But it is more than just going higher up to the constitution.
It is going back to British Common Law, to understand accepted social norms.
And they are all based on the defense of inherent individual rights.
That is what Jefferson explained in the Declaration of Independence.
That the defense of inherent individual rights is supreme.
And judges are only necessary because the rights of multiple individuals can collide, conflict, etc., and a compromise between them had to be stuck with a well considered balance.

So if one could just "follow the law", there would really be no need for judges.
You can't just "follow the law" for many reasons.
One is that the law could be inherently defective, inappropriate for the particular circumstance, unnecessary in some instances and even harmful in others, etc.

If you do not get that, then consider an example, like the castle doctrine where you can shoot intruders.
Obviously it is understandable if a 70 year old frail woman shoots a large male weapon wielding intruder at 4 in the morning. But it would not be understandable for a large healthy male to shoot a teenager who simply was at the wrong address.
You can never just "follow the law".

So getting back to this case, there is no indication at all the web designer would even remotely be harmed in any way by doing a gay wedding web site.

Wrong. She would be forced to violate her personal beliefs. That's harmful.

 

[BS Filter]

If only conservatives agreed with you.

They do. Obviously.

 

[BS Filter]

My holy day is every day before noon.

So I’m only coming in after lunch.

Fire me and you’ll be violating my religious freedom.

Your business, you can do whatever you want.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Being denied a wedding website is absolutely harmless

There were weddings for centuries before any website was invented

There are plenty of places that will design a wedding website. Just go someplace else.

 

[Marener]

They do. Obviously.

I showed you already that Trump and DeSantis don’t.

Weird how the two leaders of the conservative movement fundamentally disagree with what you claim conservatives believe.

 

[Marener]

Your business, you can do whatever you want.

I’m the employee in this hypothetical.

 

[hadit]

A law that forbids a social media website from kicking people off due to content (which is what the Texas law does) is compelling speech from the social media platform.

Only the government can compel speech. A social media platform cannot since your participation on the website is voluntary.

I don't think you're grasping what compelled means. It's forcing them to ALLOW speech, which is not compelling it. A law that forbids me from kicking a person out of my store for saying, "Biden has dementia" doesn't compel me to say, "Biden has dementia", because I'm not forced to say it.

 

[hadit]

I showed you already that Trump and DeSantis don’t.

Weird how the two leaders of the conservative movement fundamentally disagree with what you claim conservatives believe.

Conservatism is a bit tent, with all kinds of viewpoints represented.

 

[Rigby5]

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

It is a good analogy because the Old Testament is full of laws we now consider criminal.
Like slavery, genocide of other religions, rape, women having no rights, forced marriages, stoning adulterers, murdering apostates, etc.

So religion can never be allowed to influence our legal system.
We can try to accommodate religious beliefs, but ONLY if they harm no one else.
And clearly refusing a web site contract is harmful, and has no valid excuse.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It is a good analogy because the Old Testament is full of laws we now consider criminal.
Like slavery, genocide of other religions, rape, women having no rights, forced marriages, stoning adulterers, murdering apostates, etc.

So religion can never be allowed to influence our legal system.
We can try to accommodate religious beliefs, but ONLY if they harm no one else.

WRONG

It is NOT harmful to refuse to associate or do business with anyone

 

[BS Filter]

I showed you already that Trump and DeSantis don’t.

Weird how the two leaders of the conservative movement fundamentally disagree with what you claim conservatives believe.

Okay. Reasonable minds can disagree and still be civil. Too bad leftists can't.

 

[Marener]

I don't think you're grasping what compelled means. It's forcing them to ALLOW speech, which is not compelling it. A law that forbids me from kicking a person out of my store for saying, "Biden has dementia" doesn't compel me to say, "Biden has dementia", because I'm not forced to say it.

If the wedding website designer is engaging in speech, so is every social media website.

The wedding website designer is speaking by making the website. The social media company is speaking by posting your content on their website.

 

[hadit]

Really? Those standard choices are being expressive, contains the site maker's free speech???

that doesn't make any sense?

And when the background banner says, "Congratulations to the happy couple, John and William", it becomes message, ala speech.