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

[Marener]

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

Lots of levels of dishonesty are also represented.

 

[BS Filter]

I’m the employee in this hypothetical.

Then you're under obligation to perform your assignment. The website designer isn't under an obligation. Who dresses you in the morning?

 

[hadit]

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.

Not if they successfully argue that they are a platform that cannot be held accountable for the content on their website. IOW, no lawsuits because teens commit suicide after being bullied online.

 

[scruffy]

Conservatives have decided that it is a constitutional right to be on Twitter.

I predict you will adopt their dogma the next time this comes up, probably very soon.

So you're okay with denying someone service based on their political beliefs, but not their religious beliefs?

 

[Marener]

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

Please. Conservatives don’t disagree with them.

 

[Kondor3]

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

Rubbish. Typical LibProg shopworn counterpointing.

There is no large-scale broadly-recognized religion on earth whose texts nor traditional teachings stipulate that it is a Sin to be Black.

There are, however, three (3) Abrahamic religions ( Judaism, Christianity and Islam) that hold that homosexuality is a Sin - an abomination before God, Man and Nature.

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?

Unless the employer is a hyper-traditionalist Muslim that's not going to happen either.

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

As many as infringe upon genuinely held and commonly accepted religious perspectives on decency and sin and debauchery?

 

[Rigby5]

They can say it. Why not?

Businesses can not legally say "white supremacists stay out".
That is illegal discrimination.
The fact a customer may have a particular political view, does not harm the business owner, while denial of service does harm the customer.

 

[BS Filter]

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.

There was no harm to the queers. The harm was to the business owner.

 

[Marener]

Not if they successfully argue that they are a platform that cannot be held accountable for the content on their website. IOW, no lawsuits because teens commit suicide after being bullied online.

Irrelevant. Civil liability for content has nothing to do with whether it’s engaging in speech.

If Colorado passed a law saying that 303 Creative wasn’t liable for the content of any websites they produce, the outcome of the case would have been identical.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Businesses can not legally say "white supremacists stay out".
That is illegal discrimination.
The fact a customer may have a particular political view, does not harm the business owner, while denial of service does harm the customer.

Yes they can

It is legal and both are harmless

 

[BS Filter]

Businesses can not legally say "white supremacists stay out".
That is illegal discrimination.
The fact a customer may have a particular political view, does not harm the business owner, while denial of service does harm the customer.

People say crazy stuff all the time. Free speech.

 

[Marener]

Then you're under obligation to perform your assignment. The website designer isn't under an obligation. Who dresses you in the morning?

Nope. Employers can’t force people to violate their religious beliefs.

 

[BS Filter]

Please. Conservatives don’t disagree with them.

Oh yes they do. Listen to what the Republican candidates say about each other up to the end of the campaign and primaries.

 

[Rigby5]

Designing a website for a gay wedding requires the designer to express an opinion that they do not hold and object to.

Just move on. Get someone else.

That makes no sense.
If a news commentator has to announce that there has been a murder, that does not mean the commentator agrees with murder.
What you do as a business does not at all "express an opinion" at all, in any way.

But denying service does "express an opinion", and that is illegal.
That is deliberately trying to harm someone over their beliefs that you do not agree with.
Totally illegal coercion.

 

[BS Filter]

Nope. Employers can’t force people to violate their religious beliefs.

You apply for a job and are told that if hired you will work Sundays. It's up to you whether you take the job or not.

 

[scruffy]

Nope. Employers can’t force people to violate their religious beliefs.

So... in this case it's the customer who's the employer. The customer is paying the bills. So how is this different?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

There is no such religion, dumbass.

 

[TNHarley]

Cancel culture is just freedom of association.

When social media kicks off people they don’t like, it’s freedom of association. That has angered the right who demand that social media be punished for doing so.

But clearly social media companies have first amendment rights to refuse service to whoever they want.

Wanting to use the govt to punish people isnt limited govt is it?

No it wasn’t.

Indeed it was.

 

[BS Filter]

That makes no sense.
If a news commentator has to announce that there has been a murder, that does not mean the commentator agrees with murder.
What you do as a business does not at all "express an opinion" at all, in any way.

But denying service does "express an opinion", and that is illegal.
That is deliberately trying to harm someone over their beliefs that you do not agree with.
Totally illegal coercion.

Yet, by submitting to the demands of the customer harms the business owner is okay?

 

[Soupnazi630]

That makes no sense.
If a news commentator has to announce that there has been a murder, that does not mean the commentator agrees with murder.
What you do as a business does not at all "express an opinion" at all, in any way.

But denying service does "express an opinion", and that is illegal.
That is deliberately trying to harm someone over their beliefs that you do not agree with.
Totally illegal coercion.

Wrong gthey are making valid choice not to associate with someone which causes NO harm