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

[Stormy Daniels]

the ruling doesn't affect public accommodation

Are you high? The very essence of the case is public accommodation law clashing with purported first amendment rights.

 

[fncceo]

So, if serving a meal to a black person goes against the dictates of a person's conscience, they should be allowed to not do so, correct?

If a restaurant sells meals ... they are required to serve anyone who pays.

They are not required to provide anything which is not on the menu.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Right now, the TRUMPCourt is restricting its accepting religious intolerance only towards homosexuals.

But you are correct.
Their decisions have been open ended and there is nothing preventing someone claiming to be religious to refuse service to mixed race couples, adulterers, those of different faiths, atheists

 

[Stormy Daniels]

If a restaurant sells meals ... they are required to serve anyone who pays.

They are not required to provide anything which is not on the menu.

So if a graphic designer puts wedding websites on their menu......why is that different?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If a restaurant sells meals ... they are required to serve anyone who pays.

They are not required to provide anything which is not on the menu.

So, wedding cakes were not on the menu at the bakery? Websites were not on the menu at the Web designer's shop?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Except for lip service, MAGAfascism is against all religions

.




Admittedly, it is against your cult.




.

 

[fncceo]

So, wedding cakes were not on the menu at the bakery? Websites were not on the menu at the Web designer's shop?

The customer's were always able to buy cakes and web design. That was never contested.

They are not able to demand of the baker or web designer they include decoration or content that offends the baker or web designer.

 

[scruffy]

The customer's were always able to buy cakes and web design. That was never contested.

They are not able to demand of the baker or web designer they include decoration or content that offends the baker or web designer.

Exactly. Facebook has the exact same perogative.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No buts, according to SCOTUS, I decide that.

Yeah... well you don't.
So there is that.
Go ahead and do that, and see how it works out for you.
Of course, if you are in a liberal city - you will have no problem violating a persons civil rights that you don't like.

 

[Blaster]

So, if serving a meal to a black person goes against the dictates of a person's conscience, they should be allowed to not do so, correct?

Now you are being ridiculous.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The customer's were always able to buy cakes and web design. That was never contested.

They are not able to demand of the baker or web designer they include decoration or content that offends the baker or web designer.

So, a black person demanding to eat white people's food could be offending to the wait staff, and thus they should be able to decline service...correct

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Now you are being ridiculous.

Which is the theme of the entire left madness of the past 3 years.
To the point, now, of literal pure madness.

 

[Polishprince]

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?

Being black isn't the same as being a homo, SD.

Homosexuality is something the people DO, not something they are.

Huge difference.

A black dry cleaner can refuse to clean and press some Triple K guys sheets, because unlike being a Honky, being a member of the Trip K's is voluntary. Similarly, taking it in the caboose and violating other men's buttholes is a voluntary activity as well that many object to.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

So, a black person demanding to eat white people's food could be offending to the wait staff, and thus they should be able to decline service...correct

If that is your take on this, the only thing you are proving is supreme ignorance of law.

 

[22lcidw]

So, a black person demanding to eat white people's food could be offending to the wait staff, and thus they should be able to decline service...correct

Tere is arrogance and ignorance in all people. Anyone working in a restaurant as a server knows who does not tip and plays games. It is just percentages. From religious to racial compensation.

 

[Auld Phart]

Where have they been hiding it? It seems to have been missing since 2016.

When Democrats nominated HIllary?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Homosexuality is something the people DO, not something they are.

Huge difference.

So are you saying that religious beliefs based on what people are don't have the same level of constitutional protection as religious beliefs about what people do?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

They are not able to demand of the baker or web designer they include decoration or content that offends the baker or web designer.

So if a GRAPHIC DESIGNER designs a website (content is not the same as design) then they can be obligated to sell to any and all customers, right? As long as the graphic designer isn't obligated to provide CONTENT, right?

 

[Polishprince]

So are you saying that religious beliefs based on what people are don't have the same level of constitutional protection as religious beliefs about what people do?

I don't get your point here, SD.

Are you suggesting that taking another man's butt cheeks is a "religious" act?

I don't see it.

 

[scruffy]

So if a GRAPHIC DESIGNER designs a website (content is not the same as design) then they can be obligated to sell to any and all customers, right? As long as the graphic designer isn't obligated to provide CONTENT, right?

The law is very specific about content. That's why places like Facebook try to disavow any responsibility for it.