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

[rightwinger]

Southern Baptists were fine with Slavery.

They also used the Bible to justify the ban on mixed race marriage

 

[SweetSue92]

No. It isn’t. Making a sandwich can be an art. Just ask any chef.

That "art" most definitely does not require speech. That's first.

Secondly, let's turn this around and see how you like it. Would you have loved the ruling if it passed, and Christians forced a gay website designer to design a website extoling the evils of same-sex marriage?

Should anyone be forced into speech to which they're morally opposed--by the govt, no less?

 

[SweetSue92]

They also used the Bible to justify the ban on mixed race marriage

You can "use" the Bible for a lot of things. But that's not what the Bible said.

 

[SweetSue92]

Ask any chef and they will tell you that to them cooking is no different than a artist making a painting or a web designer making a web page.

Doesn't matter. Food is not speech. Speech is in the Constitution, not a sandwich.

Now go cry and argue about it or, better yet, move out of the country. Maybe we can start a GoFundMe.

 

[SweetSue92]

Nope, nor should they be compelled to serve a man and a woman who are not married nor should they be compelled to serve a Christian who blames them for killing Jesus




I disagree, I think both provide expressive goods.

Wow, these folks think they're Constitutional Scholars now.

Hey Mac, please point out where sandwiches are in the Constitution. I'll wait.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Bible has nothing to do with this ruling. This is about freedom of expression and whether an individual can be compelled to provide expressive goods of a subject they fundamentally disagree with.

A chef in a restaurant must make and serve that tuna sandwich to anyone that walks into the restaurant. What the chef cannot be compelled to do is create a recipe with chitlins, collard greens and black eyed peas because a black person demands it.

 

[The Duke]

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?

It's that whole 1st Amendment thing. I'm sure you have trouble understanding it.

You wannabe Nazi; You have no clue as to the danger that Americans represent to you.

Good luck with that.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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?

How long before a business refuses to serve a patron due to political affiliation? Do you have a problem with that?

Trump spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders kicked out of Virginia restaurant by owner

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was asked to leave a Virginia restaurant on Friday because of her connection to Donald Trump.

www.usatoday.com

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The case wasn't decided on religious grounds

 

[Stormy Daniels]

How long before a business refuses to serve a patron due to political affiliation? Do you have a problem with that?

Trump spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders kicked out of Virginia restaurant by owner

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was asked to leave a Virginia restaurant on Friday because of her connection to Donald Trump.

www.usatoday.com

Yes, I have a huge problem with that. That incident was completely unacceptable.

 

[TruthNotBS]

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?

You're exaggerating. One can also make it illegal to deny service to a person on the basis of race or sex/gender, irrespective of one's religious ideals. Forcing a Christian or Muslim baker to bake and decorate a cake for a gay or lesbian wedding isn't the same as that. That has nothing to do with race or gender, but with a pattern of behavior. It has happened several times already, where a Christian bakery has been forced to close their business because they wouldn't, or perhaps I should say, couldn't make a cake for a homosexual wedding. They're sued and even fined out of business. If you're gay or lesbian and need a cake baked and decorated for your wedding, go to a bakery that specializes in that or doesn't care about the nature of the wedding.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are bakeries that focus their business on LGBTQA+ weddings. They'll most likely do a better job decorating the cake than a Christian fundamentalist who is like "uuuuuuu yuck, gross, two men kissing each other and poking the other's poopy hole, uuuuuu gross"....You don't want him decorating your gay cake, you want a flaming homosexual, wearing an "I Love Skittles" t-shirt, that specializes in gay cakes. You want a gay cake expert.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Doesn't matter. Food is not speech. Speech is in the Constitution, not a sandwich.

A cake is not speech, the designing of a website is not speech, the making of a flower arrangement is not speech.

Now go cry and argue about it or, better yet, move out of the country. Maybe we can start a GoFundMe.

Why would I cry about it, I agree with the ruling that a baker should not be forced to bake a cake they do not wish to do so, that a web designer should not be forced to create a web page they do not wish to. What I disagree with is either of those being forced to give time off so someone can practice their religion.

But hey, if you wish to give me money, I will take it!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

please point out where sandwiches are in the Constitution.

Please point out where cakes are in the Constitution, I will wait.

Please point out where web sites are in the Constitution, I will wait.

Please point out where flowers are in the Constitution, I will wait.

 

[BlueGin]

Not stupid.

One is feeding someone lunch. It's utilitarian.

The other is artistry to celebrate a life event, in this case, a wedding.

Big difference. Now you will pretend to be stupid and not understand it.

He doesn’t have to pretend.

 

[BlueGin]

You mean wanting them to stop censoring and shadow banning only certain people?

She only likes it when social media conspires with the Biden Administration and the FBI to target conservatives.

 

[Coyote]

That "art" most definitely does not require speech. That's first.

Secondly, let's turn this around and see how you like it. Would you have loved the ruling if it passed, and Christians forced a gay website designer to design a website extoling the evils of same-sex marriage?

IS this person, in the real case, being asked to extol the evils of traditional marriage?

Lets at least put it as apples and apples.

If someone provides business to the public, then they should serve the public equally. If they provide traditional wedding services (as would shown in the advertising examples) that should be provided to any customer. That would not include special messaging I would think.

How far does “religious freedom” extend? At what point does it impose on the rights of others? I think this is a valid question given recent court decisions.

Religious freedom now seems to include:
refusing to treat or provide medical services to gay people
refusing to dispense medication such as HIV drugs
refusing to dispense contraception to women.

In these cases another person’s rights are being violated. Who’s are more important and why?

And there is an ethical dilemma here. If it is ok to retrict your public service to certain classes of people, is this ok? If not, why not?

Note: religion has been used as a justification for these sorts of things.

Should anyone be forced into speech to which they're morally opposed--by the govt, no less?

At what point does it become “speech” over service opento the public? How far does this stretch and what limits it?

I think these are valid questions.

 

[hadit]

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?

Methinks she doth protest too much. According to the Supreme Court, you know, not a hysterical reactionary site, the decision was:

The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.

How do you get from that to what you're hysterically bleating about?

 

[hadit]

You realize this was a First Amendment case, and that's about speech.

Owning a restaurant and then "refusing to serve black people" (!) is not "speech".

Hysteria reigns, as always in the fever swamp.

 

[berg80]

In a free land with a free people exercising free will, people are allowed to be an asshole.

Not when it comes to discriminating against a protected class, like gay people. Unless you use religious based bigotry as an excuse. However.........

Man cited in Supreme Court LGBTQ rights case says he was never involved

Stewart was working on his couch in his Portland, Ore., home last week when he received a text from a New Republic reporter that left him “flabbergasted.” A request he appeared to have made in 2016 to a Colorado artist to create designs and possibly a website for his same-sex wedding was now part of a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the reporter told him.

Except Stewart — who didn’t want his full name used out of fear of being harassed — is not gay. In fact, he has been married to a woman for 15 years, and he’s a web designer himself.

“I’ve been active and vocal on LGBTQ rights,” he told The Washington Post on Saturday. “So it was frustrating to see my name being used.”

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-to-3 in favor of a Christian graphic artist in Littleton, Colo., who argued that free speech protections allowed her to refuse to design wedding websites for same-sex couples.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/01/supreme-court-colorado-website/

The role of the Court is to settle cases between two parties claiming harm has been done to them. In the case of the CO website designer woman no harm had been done to her since her complaint was based on a hypothetical possibility. Namely, a gay couple might ask her to design a website for their wedding. But she hadn't even started that aspect of her business yet. No gay couple had approached her when the case was filed.
This case was about the majority once again basing their decision on their religious beliefs, not siding with a party that had been harmed. It was created and funneled to them (by the Leonard Leo machine) expressly for the reason of being able to rule against CO's anti-discrimination policy on free speech grounds because it makes the scope of the ruling more broad compared to the wedding cake case.

 

[hadit]

IS this person, in the real case, being asked to extol the evils of traditional marriage?

Lets at least put it as apples and apples.

If someone provides business to the public, then they should serve the public equally. If they provide traditional wedding services (as would shown in the advertising examples) that should be provided to any customer. That would not include special messaging I would think.

How far does “religious freedom” extend? At what point does it impose on the rights of others? I think this is a valid question given recent court decisions.

Religious freedom now seems to include:
refusing to treat or provide medical services to gay people
refusing to dispense medication such as HIV drugs
refusing to dispense contraception to women.

In these cases another person’s rights are being violated. Who’s are more important and why?

And there is an ethical dilemma here. If it is ok to retrict your public service to certain classes of people, is this ok? If not, why not?

View attachment 800720

Note: religion has been used as a justification for these sorts of things.



At what point does it become “speech” over service opento the public? How far does this stretch and what limits it?

I think these are valid questions.

The ruling applies to messages, ala speech. You do realize, don't you, that under this decision, a leftwing comedian can't be forced to accept a gig for a right-wing organization and be forced to make fun of leftists, right? A movie producer can't be forced to portray the nuclear family, and especially dads, in a positive light, correct?

This is about speech, not services. Under this ruling, artists can't be compelled to create messages they don't like, that's it.