Supreme Court leans toward web designer

[RLLD 4,275]

Supreme Court leans toward web designer over refusal to work on same-sex weddings

Quote

Conservative Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared sympathetic toward an evangelical Christian web designer’s bid to avoid working on same-sex weddings as they weighed the latest clash between religious conservatives and LGBTQ rights.

But after two-and-a-half hours of arguments that included a broad array of tough hypothetical questions directed at both sides, involving far-fetched scenarios like a "Black Santa" at a shopping mall refusing to serve children dressed in Ku Klux Klan outfits, it is unclear how exactly the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, will rule.

 

I would think that liberals would love it that someone was willing to cancel others because they do not share the same beliefs....

[Djgb13 2,339]

It’s only Christians they attack like this. If it was against Muslims they’d demand you apologize to them and give them whatever rights they want to refuse service 

[Strike 5,975]

Colorado is going to lose, just like in the cake baking case.  Here is one good little excerpt:

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,908]

This is what the new marriage act is about.  

[MDC 7,825]

I was told nobody cares about gay marriage anymore.  

[Mike Honcho 5,412]

Can't believe a case about SOMETHING that hasn't happened made it to the Court.  And Roberts wonders why respect for the court has plummeted.  

[Raven Fan 362]

I agree with the court here.  This isn't providing a concrete service liking baking a cake.  This is creating a communication platform with messages the developer isn't comfortable with.  Should the developer be forced to put up a Nazi site?  Messaging and communication are much different than creating a tangible good. 

Plenty of web developers out there.  The free market will decide if this one is hurt or helped by their decision. 

[Sean Mooney 2,045]

Is there only one web designer in Colorado?

[Shooter McGavin 618]

8 minutes ago, Raven Fan said:

I agree with the court here.  This isn't providing a concrete service liking baking a cake.  This is creating a communication platform with messages the developer isn't comfortable with.  Should the developer be forced to put up a Nazi site?  Messaging and communication are much different than creating a tangible good. 

Plenty of web developers out there.  The free market will decide if this one is hurt or helped by their decision. 

I agree in theory, but we're not even letting the free market decide.

She's suing the state, before she even gets asked by a gay for a website.  She's scared of being sued.

If we could just act like adults this wouldn't be an issue

[Shooter McGavin 618]

6 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Is there only one web designer in Colorado?

She isn't denying service, shes proactively suing just in case she does refuse service 

[MDC 7,825]

1 minute ago, Shooter McGavin said:

I agree in theory, but we're not even letting the free market decide.

She's suing the state, before she even gets asked by a gay for a website.  She's scared of being sued.

If we could just act like adults this wouldn't be an issue

Key quote here:

“Smith, like Phillips before her, is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group, which has had success arguing religious rights cases at the Supreme Court in recent years.”

[Sean Mooney 2,045]

3 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

She isn't denying service, shes proactively suing just in case she does refuse service 

So apparently just saying "I'm sorry I'm really busy right now and it would take me a while to get to your website..." is not an option for her? She has to jump right to "I don't want to do a website for DA GAYZ!!!"

[Engorgeous George 2,332]

Prognosticating rulings by the Court based upon questioning during oral argument has historically been very uncertain.  Prognostication based upon political and philosophical voting patterns and willingness to hear certain matters has been more accurate.  In this matter all the factors seem to align.  I do find it unusual that the Court stretched to find a case or controversy here ripe enough upon which to rule. 

[Strike 5,975]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

So apparently just saying "I'm sorry I'm really busy right now and it would take me a while to get to your website..." is not an option for her? She has to jump right to "I don't want to do a website for DA GAYZ!!!"

Yes for two reasons:

1)  As the wedding cake baker case showed, once the alphabet people find out that you don't want to work with them they single you out and put you on the spot.  She has also said she wants to put a disclaimer on her website to indicate that she can't offer her services in cases that would violate her religious beliefs.

2)  Why should she have to lie?  That would be a sin.  She should be able to honestly tell people why she can't offer her services to them.

[Sean Mooney 2,045]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

Yes for two reasons:

1)  As the wedding cake baker case showed, once the alphabet people find out that you don't want to work with them they single you out and put you on the spot.  She has also said she wants to put a disclaimer on her website to indicate that she can't offer her services in cases that would violate her religious beliefs.

2)  Why should she have to lie?  That would be a sin.  She should be able to honestly tell people why she can't offer her services to them.

1.) You can just refuse service for whatever reason you concoct.

2.) I'm sure she's never lied in her life.

[Strike 5,975]

8 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

1.) You can just refuse service for whatever reason you concoct.

2.) I'm sure she's never lied in her life.

Apparently you can't, or there wouldn't be a case at the SCOTUS. 

[Sean Mooney 2,045]

7 minutes ago, Strike said:

Apparently you can't, or there wouldn't be a case at the SCOTUS. 

What I mean- obviously- is while you can't just say "I hate DA GAYZ!!" you can say "I'm really busy at this time" or "I'm not really sure I can fit what you are looking for." or something like that...There are ways to get out of doing business with someone without wearing your personal thoughts/potential bias on your sleeve

[Strike 5,975]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

What I mean- obviously- is while you can't just say "I hate DA GAYZ!!" you can say "I'm really busy at this time" or "I'm not really sure I can fit what you are looking for." or something like that...There are ways to get out of doing business with someone without wearing your personal thoughts/potential bias on your sleeve

She shouldn't have to make up excuses.  That's why there's a court case.  The way you keep the government in check is by slapping them down when they violate your constitutional rights.  I get that you libs want to be able to violate people's constitutional rights when it suits your ideology, but many of us would prefer the government just stay the fock out of our business.  In this specific case/issue, anyone can file a complaint with the government and that starts a whole process going.  Even if she "wins", another complaint may be just around the corner.  This court case will stop that whole process in it's tracks.

[Shooter McGavin 618]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

So apparently just saying "I'm sorry I'm really busy right now and it would take me a while to get to your website..." is not an option for her? She has to jump right to "I don't want to do a website for DA GAYZ!!!"

No it's not, because it's against the law, this is why the case is with the supreme court.

What she should do is keep her mouth shut about her beliefs, and if and when a gay wants to hire her, she should act like a complete so they don't, and if they do, she should do a sh1tty job so they don't hire her again.  If she says, I deny you service since you're gay, then that's illegal*

[Shooter McGavin 618]

11 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

What I mean- obviously- is while you can't just say "I hate DA GAYZ!!" you can say "I'm really busy at this time" or "I'm not really sure I can fit what you are looking for." or something like that...There are ways to get out of doing business with someone without wearing your personal thoughts/potential bias on your sleeve

If she tells the gays she's too busy but then takes other work, that's the groundwork for a discrimination lawsuit.

[Sean Mooney 2,045]

10 minutes ago, Strike said:

She shouldn't have to make up excuses.  That's why there's a court case.  The way you keep the government in check is by slapping them down when they violate your constitutional rights.  I get that you libs want to be able to violate people's constitutional rights when it suits your ideology, but many of us would prefer the government just stay the fock out of our business.  In this specific case/issue, anyone can file a complaint with the government and that starts a whole process going.  Even if she "wins", another complaint may be just around the corner.  This court case will stop that whole process in it's tracks.

I fully believe it's a personal business and she has the right to make whatever decision she chooses. If people disagree with it they have every right to go elsewhere with their business. I don't think it's a thing that needs government involvement. She made this a thing

But hey- one of you guy's got to use the whole "you libs" line at me....score one for your BINGO card. When you guys hit BINGO do you get an old box of Trump steaks or something, get to press your lips to the glass on Fox & Friends or a free ticket to a Charlie Kirk show?

[Horseman 2,684]

24 minutes ago, Strike said:

Apparently you can't, or there wouldn't be a case at the SCOTUS. 

Mooney is dumber that a box of rocks. He's got foot in the mouth disease. 

[Sean Mooney 2,045]

3 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

If she tells the gays she's too busy but then takes other work, that's the groundwork for a discrimination lawsuit.

Not if she can somehow prove that the new project was less work for her. Or again- just pricing herself higher or something like that. Not all jobs pay the same I'm sure. I'm just saying- there are ways around this stuff that an intelligent person can finagle their way around. 

[Shooter McGavin 618]

3 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

But hey- one of you guy's got to use the whole "you libs" line at me....score one for your BINGO card. When you guys hit BINGO do you get an old box of Trump steaks or something, get to press your lips to the glass on Fox & Friends or a free ticket to a Charlie Kirk show?

This is what they call intelligent debate/discussion

[Mike Honcho 5,412]

Quote

But after two-and-a-half hours of arguments that included a broad array of tough hypothetical questions directed at both sides, involving far-fetched scenarios like a "Black Santa" at a shopping mall refusing to serve children dressed in Ku Klux Klan outfits, it is unclear how exactly the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, will rule.

Another reason why the current court is a joke.  

Real question would it be okay for a white Santa Claus to refuse to be in a photo with a black kid.  Obviously, yes, that's discrimination.

Alito: Would it be discrimination if a black Santa Claus refused to be in a photo with a child dressed in  a KKK outfit?  WTF, is it discrimination to not want to be photographed with someone dressed as a terrorist?   

[Shooter McGavin 618]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

Not if she can somehow prove that the new project was less work for her. Or again- just pricing herself higher or something like that. Not all jobs pay the same I'm sure. I'm just saying- there are ways around this stuff that an intelligent person can finagle their way around. 

You're right, but it's tricky.

I do think that part of her motivation in suing the state is to grandstand here, make a political point, get her 5 mins.

She probably dreamed about being discussed on a lightly trafficked FF message board for years.  Today she gets her wish.

[Sean Mooney 2,045]

5 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

You're right, but it's tricky.

I do think that part of her motivation in suing the state is to grandstand here, make a political point, get her 5 mins.

She probably dreamed about being discussed on a lightly trafficked FF message board for years.  Today she gets her wish.

It's like 95% a publicity stunt. 

[Sean Mooney 2,045]

6 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Another reason why the current court is a joke.  

Real question would it be okay for a white Santa Claus to refuse to be in a photo with a black kid.  Obviously, yes, that's discrimination.

Alito: Would it be discrimination if a black Santa Claus refused to be in a photo with a child dressed in  a KKK outfit?  WTF, is it discrimination to not want to be photographed with someone dressed as a terrorist?   

Yeah that was some argument Alito was presenting...

[Engorgeous George 2,332]

Santa Klaus is White.  If folks want a Black Santa, which would be cultural appropriation, they should write the mythology of Santa Rufus.  Never in the history of the world has there been a black man named Klaus.  They could try a Zwarte Piet, but really he was a Spaniard not a Moor or a Black.

 

As for kids dressed up in Klanwear, do they make it for kids and little people?  Do they wear that around as I have never seen it other than at rallys on the news or more commonly in the movies.  A better question may have been if Zwarte Piet was asked for a yarmulke by a hassidic jew youth would he have been within his rights to go all Krampus on the kid.

[Shooter McGavin 618]

8 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Santa Klaus is White.

It's Santa Claus you focking piece of sh1t.

[Engorgeous George 2,332]

3 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

It's Santa Claus you focking piece of sh1t.

That's a rather strong reaction.  You are, of course, correct about the accepted spelling.  My mistake.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,524]

2 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

Is there only one web designer in Colorado?

Apparently there was only one baker too

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,524]

29 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Another reason why the current court is a joke.  

Real question would it be okay for a white Santa Claus to refuse to be in a photo with a black kid.  Obviously, yes, that's discrimination.

Alito: Would it be discrimination if a black Santa Claus refused to be in a photo with a child dressed in  a KKK outfit?  WTF, is it discrimination to not want to be photographed with someone dressed as a terrorist?   

What if it’s just a ghost costume 

[Sean Mooney 2,045]

11 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Apparently there was only one baker too

Yeah..just go to a different baker.

[Strike 5,975]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

Yeah..just go to a different baker.

You don't seem to get it.  The alphabet people TARGET businesses that don't want to do business with them, then open cases with the state, which then cites them in violation of state law.  The baker in question had to go to reeducation training by state order.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,524]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

You don't seem to get it.  The alphabet people TARGET businesses that don't want to do business with them, then open cases with the state, which then cites them in violation of state law.  The baker in question had to go to reeducation training by state order.

100% true, in the gay baker case, they went to 5 bakeries to get their cake made til they found someone to sue

[MDC 7,825]

3 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

100% true, in the gay baker case, they went to 5 bakeries to get their cake made til they found someone to sue

And in this case the web developer is suing the state without ever having been asked to develop a site for a gay couple, with the backing of a Christian legal group. Sort of seems like the same thing. Children playing games.

[Strike 5,975]

4 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

100% true, in the gay baker case, they went to 5 bakeries to get their cake made til they found someone to sue

And the day the SC agreed to hear his case, another alphabet person started the process all over again:

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/1542/colo-baker-sued-again-over-alleged-lgbtq-bias

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,524]

1 minute ago, MDC said:

And in this case the web developer is suing the state without ever having been asked to develop a site for a gay couple, with the backing of a Christian legal group. Sort of seems like the same thing. Children playing games.

to be fair, the only thing I knew about this is from this thread

 

[Sean Mooney 2,045]

8 minutes ago, Strike said:

You don't seem to get it.  The alphabet people TARGET businesses that don't want to do business with them, then open cases with the state, which then cites them in violation of state law.  The baker in question had to go to reeducation training by state order.

 

6 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

100% true, in the gay baker case, they went to 5 bakeries to get their cake made til they found someone to sue

Oh good....more conspiracy talk.

Is there anything that is not a conspiracy of some kind?