SCOTUS LGBTQ Ruling? No thread?

[seafoam1 1,911]

2 hours ago, squistion said:

They can be discriminated against for who they are. 

Good.

[crackattack 513]

1 hour ago, GutterBoy said:

No, Nazis aren't a protected class in our society, nor should they be.

Should a Muslim, who actively practices Islam, be compelled to design a website with a drawn image of Muhammad? The customer is gay too.

 

[Gepetto 1,011]

I wouldn't turn down any business if it's not overly time and energy consuming for the financial gain.

[Cdub100 3,468]

Poor GutterBoy. Now he can't force normal people to participate in his degenerate behavior.

[seafoam1 1,911]

2 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

No, Nazis aren't a protected class in our society, nor should they be.

Cool. We finally getting rid of the democrats then? 

[Thornton Melon 549]

2 hours ago, Ultra Max Power said:

This was a protection for the first amendment ruling.

The victim mentality sees this as discrimination.

I see it as a protection of the 9th Amendment. 

[League Champion 1,593]

4 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

It sucks, it's wrong, but the hope is that there are enough people out there willing to support everyone in their communities, so that lgbtq don't have to hire bigots to work for them

It means you're not forced to hire some purple haired freak with a nose ring, Disney tattoos who drives a Subaru. 

[Tree of Knowledge 933]

4 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

No, Nazis aren't a protected class in our society, nor should they be.

Would you make a Muslim restaurant serve you a ham sandwich?

[shorepatrol 1,741]

5 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

It sucks, it's wrong, but the hope is that there are enough people out there willing to support everyone in their communities, so that lgbtq don't have to hire bigots to work for them

lol phag 

 

[Pimpadeaux 2,362]

Trannies! MSM!

 

[League Champion 1,593]

We should give Trannies free boob jobs, compliments of the Biden Administration. 

[zsasz 220]

4 hours ago, crackattack said:

Should a Muslim, who actively practices Islam, be compelled to design a website with a drawn image of Muhammad? The customer is gay too.

 

Does he have to depict Muhammad as gay?

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

6 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

Anyone really.  You're arguing in favor of discrimination now?

 

 

Supreme Court rules Colorado web designer can refuse business to LGBTQ people

....The decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Coloradan, puts some closure on the tension between public accommodations laws that protect LGBTQ people and the business owners who say they don’t want to create products or “messages” they don’t believe in. Colorado has been at the epicenter of this fight for more than a decade. ....“The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment," Gorsuch wrote....

....Colorado’s state statute attempted to prohibit businesses from discriminating against customers based on race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, marital status, disability and — as of 2008 — sexual orientation.....The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion and expression and the High Court has ruled before that the government can’t compel speech or expression. On Friday the court said “creative” or "expressive" businesses do not have to speak a message or create content they don't believe in based on their religious beliefs....

....That means a hotel or a bus company would still not be able to turn someone away because of who they are, but the state can’t force a business to create a message or content — like a wedding cake, a wedding website or even a floral arrangement — that may go against what they believe. ....In the current case, 303 Creative v. Elenis, Littleton website designer Lorie Smith sued Colorado because she said she wants to start making wedding websites but she doesn’t want to make them for gay couples. She told state officials she wanted to put a disclaimer on her business website explicitly saying she would not create websites for same-sex marriages “or any other marriages not between a man and a woman.”

.....State officials told her that would be considered discriminatory based on the state’s public accommodations laws, and so, in 2016, she preemptively sued them. ...For Smith, she said she will happily serve any client for the majority of her business and says she has had LGBTQ clients in the past who have asked her to create websites that don’t have anything to do with religion. But she said she didn’t want to be compelled to create wedding websites because, as a Christian, she only believes in marriages between a man and a woman.....“It matters not to me how an individual identifies....What’s important to me is what message I’m being asked to create and design for. And those messages must be consistent with my convictions.” 

https://www.cpr.org/2023/06/30/supreme-court-303-creative-case-lgbtq/

[squistion 1,000]

6 hours ago, iam90sbaby said:

Business owners should be able to refuse service to whoever they please, it's their business. If a small business doesn't want to service chomos that's their prerogative 

Including black folks?

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

6 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

Too bad your drunk driving incident didn't.

 

 

[squistion 1,000]

6 hours ago, Fireballer said:

JFC you’re lost

No, unlike you and some other folks here, I actually read the history and background of this ruling.

 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,782]

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

No, unlike you and some other folks here, I actually read the history and background of this ruling.

 

Yeah, from The Advocate!! 

Pravda would be proud of the propaganda they push.  Sheep like you fall for it all day, every day.  GTFO.

Maybe someday you'll learn to think for yourself.  Scientology only wishes it had brain dead zealots as loyal as you are to the DNC propaganda.

[Fireballer 2,425]

1 minute ago, squistion said:

No, unlike you and some other folks here, I actually read the history and background of this ruling.

 

You’re posting propaganda tweets like this is specifically targeting LQBTQ people.  It’s a false narrative

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,782]

Just now, Fireballer said:

You’re posting propaganda tweets like this is specifically targeting LQBTQ people.  It’s a false narrative

all he does is post daily propaganda.  Dude literally can't think on his own.

[Patented Phil 876]

5 hours ago, League Champion said:

Fetterman, the poor thing. Bless his little Liberal heart. 

Best laugh I had all day.  Him calling other people “embarrassments.”

[dogcows 1,030]

3 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

You’re posting propaganda tweets like this is specifically targeting LQBTQ people.  It’s a false narrative

Really? Did this lady refuse to do websites for straight weddings? Nope, just gay ones. I’m not sure how you missed the most basic fact of the case.

[Fireballer 2,425]

3 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Really? Did this lady refuse to do websites for straight weddings? Nope, just gay ones. I’m not sure how you missed the most basic fact of the case.

Holy shat.  You’re lost too.  You actually think this is about this specific  case brought forward to the SCOTUS?  

[dogcows 1,030]

3 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Holy shat.  You’re lost too.  You actually think this is about this specific  case brought forward to the SCOTUS?  

So SCOTUS no longer needs to rule on specific cases?

[Patented Phil 876]

6 hours ago, Ultra Max Power said:

This was a protection for the first amendment ruling.

The victim mentality sees this as discrimination.

Leftists have no use for the First Amendment or personal freedom.  Little focking tyrants are the biggest threat our Constitutional Republic has ever seen.  The Michigan Legislature just passed a bill making it a felony for misgendering someone.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

When a law or ruling comes along that favors liberals, the MSM will trmpet it by saying "America has chosen".  When the law or ruling doesn't, headline is divisive and a personal attack like "SCOTUS choose to end Affirmative Action". In the first example, the MSM wants to create an environment where challenging the thing is akin to challenging the American spirit and progress itself.  In the latter, the MSM seeks to open up a space for debate, then anger, then protests.

They do this all the time with congress or the President to.  "America has passed a new liberal law." or "Republicans in congress pass this law.  debate it."

 

[RogerDodger 797]

22 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Really? Did this lady refuse to do websites for straight weddings? Nope, just gay ones. I’m not sure how you missed the most basic fact of the case.

She hasn't even expanded her website business to include weddings yet.  

12 minutes ago, dogcows said:

So SCOTUS no longer needs to rule on specific cases?

She filed a lawsuit ahead of time against the state.  That's what the SCOTUS made a ruling on. 

Where do you get your info from? 

[Patented Phil 876]

5 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

Poor GutterBoy. Now he can't force normal people to participate in his degenerate behavior.

He and the other Leftist pukes in here hate freedom.  And white people.  Never seen anything like it.

[squistion 1,000]

32 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Really? Did this lady refuse to do websites for straight weddings? Nope, just gay ones. I’m not sure how you missed the most basic fact of the case.

She doesn't even have a website. This is based on a hypothetical situation for her, if she did have a website and then if she were asked to do something for a gay wedding. 

Case never should have gotten to SCOTUS, as she has no standing to bring suit as she has suffered no damages.

[RogerDodger 797]

4 minutes ago, squistion said:

She doesn't even have a website. This is based on a hypothetical situation for her, if she did have a website and then if she were asked to do something for a gay wedding. 

Case never should have gotten to SCOTUS, as she has no standing to bring suit as she has suffered no damages.

It's the very first sentance of the ruling. 

Quote

Lorie Smith wants to expand her graphic design business,

Both lower courts and SCOTUS ruled on the lawsuit. 

 GTFO hack. 

[Fireballer 2,425]

28 minutes ago, dogcows said:

So SCOTUS no longer needs to rule on specific cases?

No.  The fact that this involves gayness is nothing more than a footnote but @squistion is posting tweets like this is Trumps fault and it’s attack on gay people.  If you don’t like the ruling, you have to concede that this is an “attack” on anyone.  A Christian also can’t compel an atheist to create speech.  Gayness literally means nothing as this was a 21st century 1A issue

[RogerDodger 797]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

Including black folks?

Yep. 

[RogerDodger 797]

This is simple folks.  

If you painted oil paintings for a living would you want to be forced to paint whatever a customer that walked through the door demanded?

[RogerDodger 797]

13 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

No.  The fact that this involves gayness is nothing more than a footnote but @squistion is posting tweets like this is Trumps fault and it’s attack on gay people.  If you don’t like the ruling, you have to concede that this is an “attack” on anyone.  A Christian also can’t compel an atheist to create speech.  Gayness literally means nothing as this was a 21st century 1A issue

And even though gay wedding is the example in the ruling, it's clear that shes not denying service to gay people, she wants to be able to set limits on the content.  

[dogcows 1,030]

30 minutes ago, squistion said:

She doesn't even have a website. This is based on a hypothetical situation for her, if she did have a website and then if she were asked to do something for a gay wedding. 

Case never should have gotten to SCOTUS, as she has no standing to bring suit as she has suffered no damages.

Thank you for this. That was the exact point I was trying to make. The court is supposed to have standing in order to rule. Well, they have decided they have standing even in imaginary cases. This makes them like a super-legislature of unelected, lifetime appointees. And half the conservative members are unashamedly in the pockets of billionaires.

[KSB2424 3,087]

 Common sense.  A gay web designer shouldn’t be “forced” to create an anti-gay website either.  The great thing about America and Capitalism is it creates choices.  Pay another baker, or web designer or anything to provide your paid for good or service.  This is an easy one. 

[Fireballer 2,425]

17 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Thank you for this. That was the exact point I was trying to make. The court is supposed to have standing in order to rule. Well, they have decided they have standing even in imaginary cases. This makes them like a super-legislature of unelected, lifetime appointees. And half the conservative members are unashamedly in the pockets of billionaires.

 

51 minutes ago, squistion said:

She doesn't even have a website. This is based on a hypothetical situation for her, if she did have a website and then if she were asked to do something for a gay wedding. 

Case never should have gotten to SCOTUS, as she has no standing to bring suit as she has suffered no damages.

Y’all are morons.  She was challenging the constitutionality of a Colorado state statute that made her hesitant to exercise her 1A. She doesn’t have to prove that she suffered direct damages from it. 

[RogerDodger 797]

22 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Thank you for this. That was the exact point I was trying to make. The court is supposed to have standing in order to rule. Well, they have decided they have standing even in imaginary cases. This makes them like a super-legislature of unelected, lifetime appointees. And half the conservative members are unashamedly in the pockets of billionaires.

It not imaginary.  It challenging a state law if its unconstitutional or not. Happens ALL THE TIME.  

[FrancieFootball 75]

36 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Thank you for this. That was the exact point I was trying to make. The court is supposed to have standing in order to rule. Well, they have decided they have standing even in imaginary cases. This makes them like a super-legislature of unelected, lifetime appointees. And half the conservative members are unashamedly in the pockets of billionaires.

As a trans woman myself, I'm in 100 percent in agreement with this. 

[jonmx 1,766]

9 hours ago, zsasz said:

That's the next step.  

[crackattack 513]

5 hours ago, zsasz said:

Does he have to depict Muhammad as gay?

Nope.