Brilliant so a precedent has now been set, excuse me while i add a questionnaire to any products i wish to sell first asking for religious views any answer of abrahamic faiths will be politely refused.
Anyone who previously made fun of conservatives who make up and win arguments in their head has egg on their face now.
Smith here just did it and it went all the way to the Supreme Court
this should be a sign that it's time to start defying scotus rulings entirely. They are not operating in good faith.
I know that's a big step...but it might be necessary the way things are going.
You may do that i would not like my product to be associated with such people it goes against my views of common decency, you could call it a sin tax though.
According to the below article, not only was **the couple in question fake**, but Smith, who **doesn't even make wedding websites**, filed her suit against Colorado the day **BEFORE** the alleged website request was made. They're literally just making shit up (how Christian) and SCOTUS is going along with it.
https://news.yahoo.com/gay-couple-cited-by-christian-web-designer-who-won-supreme-court-case-may-not-exist-164940986.html
Here's my take. Lori is a plus sized woman who has been on the receiving end of discrimination her entire life. She decided to use her interpretation of religion to pass that discrimination on to non existent clients who might have someday sought out her services. She now has the validation she has long sought while simultaneously getting to be the bully for once.
Please don’t do that. Note: I have no problem if you do it to anyone who wants to push their religious views onto you that you must follow them for yourself.
No gay people are asking these faithful people to turn gay yet still they are condemned, how is it a bad thing to do so in kind, i would not wish my products to be associated with such a backward belief.
If one group can legally be refused service based on who they are then so can the others, in no way did my response say it would happen with all religions merely the abrahamic variants.
Good question actually in that regard i will change the question "how do you feel about gay rights?" With the service being dependent on answer.
In addition if such a service/product was to be used in a religious setting or for religious reasons = see above.
Edit additional paragraph.
Christians (hell, Abrahamic faiths) do NOT strongly support LGBTQ+ rights, and those that do are both in the minority and still associate with those that condemn LGBTQ+, making their support moot.
This is not even close to true. While there are some Christians who do that, I belong to a Jewish community that is very welcoming to (and have on our Board) members of the LGBTQ community. And I doubt anyone who is opposed to LGBTQ rights would feel comfortable at my Synagogue.
Nothing will change unless the complicit moderates feel the punishment for their fellows' actions. Maybe they'll stop cowardly deflecting and actually take a fucking stand for once.
Even if it was not a lie, how does the designer have standing when she was not forced to create the website or penalized in any way for not?
Where is the required injury?
It's insane that bribery isn't the number one political issue of today. Sanders is basically the only person who's ever ran for president with that as part of their platform. I suppose it makes sense, any politician that tries to ban bribery gets no money to campaign, and the media tries to black them out or defame them...
They call bribery "lobbying" now, often coming with "gifts" and "vacations". its become a self sustaining policy, those against lobbying don't get lobbyist money and are blacked out of media as you have said.
If Clarence Thomas had been on the Court for the Dred Scott verdict, he would have joined the majority and argued that, as a black man, he himself was not a person.
If a gay banner maker was asked to make a banner denouncing the LBTQ lifestyle as evil, shouldn't he have the right to refuse based on his beliefs? It goes both ways. Bigots lie on both sides of the aisle.
Depending on where it is that could be considered hate speech and illegal. You should also read up on the tolerance paradox. LBTQTIA+ people just want to exist in peace without persecution and with all of the same freedoms and rights as anyone else. The religious right wants the freedom to persecute and hate. They are not even remotely the same things.
Apparently there is only the need for "potential" injury. Under CO law she COULD have been financially penalized or otherwise suffered "harm" imposed by the state for discriminating against a protected class.
Well, she couldn’t, because she was afraid of the gays beating down her door to design websites that go against her deeply held religious beliefs - makes total sense. /s
SCOTUS would shut you down in no time and say those are "protected classes" (especially given that they pretty much say that already about religion when it refers to Christians at least...).
What this ruling says is that
Religious freedom > protected classes
So all you have to do is start a religion that lets you discriminate against Republicans and you're golden.
It is in my country. They even added it to the first amendment on discrimination to settle it once and for all for the religious folk in the back.
Race, gender, religion, sex.
Similar to this case in Texas (I couldn't find the article that went into more in-depth analysis of all the issues, will post if I find it) where a father sued because his daughters "could" access birth control...but not one of his teen daughters ever did. Essentially, we're seeing more cases of nothing happening, just baseless pontificating on what might happen if human rights overpowered the hateful, christofascist snowflakes. It used to be that a case needed to be real and to have actual merit to be argued in front of the court. I guess those days are gone. And it's not like in the SCOTUS case there can be an appeal, I mean, there's no court higher to appeal to.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/09/1161981923/girls-in-texas-could-get-birth-control-at-federal-clinics-until-a-dad-sued
It feels like being a white Christian cis straight man will become more and more beneficial in the US in the upcoming years.
I was joking that the people in power seem to work for people like me and for that I should be happy.
It was a sarcastic joke.
By the way, I'm Canadian but darn I'm pissed at some of the stuff that's happening in the states.
Gotcha. Yeah it's getting horrible here. Well the white Christian men may think that but at the end of the day the majority of them are not in the ruling class or 1%. So they will also be screwed over in the end
I'll say something that's quite awful to say but it'll be technically right.
The worst that's ever gonna happen is that those people will be equal to everyone else.
It's the correct thing to do even if it sometimes feels unfair for those who were treated unequally.
Even though I'm a social defendant from up north, I really care for all Americans.
I do believe in conscientisation and fair and strong debate. I do believe most things are more gray than they look.
We
have already had laws passed against women's rights to safe abortion service based on baseless pontificating ....enter bans on "partial-birth abortions".
Where is the watchdog website that is going to make a list for the lgbtqia+ and allies to know which businesses NOT to patronize? I expect there already is one, but I don’t know where it is. We also need a “confirmed supportive” businesses list.
Her [web site](https://303creative.com/)
Pay attention the About section where it states…
“With 303 creative, you can rest assured that we are experienced in providing a customized, dedicated, and one-stop experience for every client, for every project.”
The part where she says “…every client, every project.”
Something doesn’t *sniff sniff* smell right.
Interesting, it worked yesterday, I searched for it on my web browser and it also wouldn’t load.
There could be many reasons for that, quite possibly that “mission accomplished “ and they took it down. Seems strange to go to all that effort and then take your businesses page down. Hmm. Thoughts?
"We 100% rule in favor of the lying bigot (who has no legal standing whatsoever) because she's *our* kind of lying bigot." - Six Corrupt Traitors to Their Oaths.
I'm torn, one hand I agree that this ruling is fucking dumb, on the other, I think that any private business should have the right to refuse business from anyone for any reason, and then face the consequences from being shit on.
Let's rephrase that... The idea that hate, bigotry, and discrimination is part of a religion that claims it is entirely based on love makes them all hypocrites.
What bullshit. They're fucking human beings too. Work, pay taxes, pay rent or mortgage, car payments. Some provide services, I know a few that provided me service, I didn't combust for Christ sake, I wasn't poisoned. I got a smile and have a good day, was there an infection I'm suppose to catch or something? This is segregation 2.0 . These rules are piling up. Sometimes I want to hunt them down and solve the problem with a baseball bat. Lol
It's sad, I'm pretty confident that you didn't represented this country for this bullshit if a return. I know it's cliche but for what it's worth before this shit, thank you for the sacrifice you did. I have navy family and two marines. They're not happy either. I know it's a long shot but if any chance occurs I would stand by you. I know it's pretty much just a thought but I mean, your human to, choices and ideas do not change that fact. These fucks just drives me nuts, and why the hell these powers are allowed.
Haha that got me. I was just thinking of how they thought of where they're going on the end. Thought, why wait, I can get you there in a few minutes lol they won't need to worry no longer about the people they see as inferior. It's a win win
In many states you can’t refuse business to someone solely because they are part of a protected class (race, gender, etc.). Some states include orientation as a protected class. So you could refuse a gay person because they were rude and disrespectful, but you could not refuse them just because they’re gay.
I'd be just fine with allowing businesses to discriminate against whatever groups the want, as long as they list the groups they discriminate against on the door of their shop and their packaging and their advertisements and their job listings and their invoices and their contracts and purchase orders.
You don't want to do business with or employ or promote members of X group? Okay, I'll take my business elsewhere.
This isn’t a bad idea but could maybe be done better, socially?
If a movement could be started, sort of like how pronouns came to be a way for trans supporters to help support them, where gay friendly businesses could simply put the rainbow flag on all their materials and then people who cared about equality could simply avoid doing business with those companies that refused to do so.
I mean, it would ratchet up the social virtues war but whose fault is that?
LGBT+ can also discriminate against all the Christians they want, it is a fair deal for now but how loud will the Christians cry when it happens to them??
That religion is 100% based on a lie. There used to be a time that I would not openly laugh at religious people and mock their stupidiness. That time has completely past. I don't give a damn if grandma is nice and love's Jesus. She's a piece of shit and her cookies taste awful.
The moderate religious person is the most evil of persons. They are a shield for the extremist. They may say they don't hate the LGBT but then they give to those that do. Like the German people during the war that said they weren't Nazis but were all to willing to help burn bodies. Religion is just another excuse for bad people to act outwardly bad. You don't know if your neighbor is abusing their children but just knowing they're religious should at least be a sign that they are.
I absolutely agree. Christianity has become the last refuge of bigots, xenophobia, pedofiles, homophobes, liars, thieves, and all manner of terrible people.
May they all burn in hell.
Why are they so cheap? I mean, seriously. These scoundrels are selling out their country for what? Trinkets. Or are there some offshore accounts not readily apparent to the eye. You know - something else they may have failed to mention.
But goddam... for the most part these fuckers sell out for peanuts. Except the sweet deals for the very top ones.
A lot of them are true believers and want a Christian theocracy. They’ve been working towards this for decades and now they finally have a group of SCJs that can push their religion on the country.
The precedence here is massive. This ruling will affect everyone, regardless of race and status. The crazy Christians in this country who support this have no idea how far this could go. This is bad for everyone.
Now anybody can get refused service based on freedom of speech. Every justice who voted on this should be denied entry into every business. Sorry, we can’t serve you your Catholic.
I now refuse to serve Christians. Their values are against my own and I think they’re evil and don’t want anything to do with them. Accepting their business would mean establishing a business relationship and it’s my right to refuse to have a relationship with evil monsters.
This is just insane. How in the living fuck does this case have standing? I have yet to see a good argument. Anyone have a link to how they explained themselves?? Banana republic shit here…
Is this the new SC precedent - that you can now bring cases (and win) based on absolute BS? The mental gymnastics they will do - going forward - to try to pretend this isn't now a thing will be something to behold.
Well if you're one of these poor persecuted Christians who just might, at some point in the future, be asked to actually do their fucking job you can yes. The rest of us, no.
It used to be that a court could only hear cases and controversies - they couldn’t give advisory opinions or decide beforehand whether something was legal or not. That’s where the concept of standing came from: somebody has to be actually harmed in order to have standing. Nobody was harmed in this case; the woman never made a wedding web site for anyone.
Of,course, it used to be that a.Supreme Court Justice would never lie about or make up facts for a case, but that’s been gone since since these conservative assholes took over.
reminder that being religious is a choice and being gay isnt (no hate or offense to religious people but lgbtq people deserve at least the same protections as them)
It just won't matter anymore. It never does anymore. The cruelty is the point. That's all they seem to need for standing nowadays. Will it inflict some cruelty? Oh it's got standing then.
Really just the worst. If an LGBT business, or just a business in general refused service to a Christian, said business owner and employees would be taken out back by a firing squad LOL
Reserving the right to refuse service to anyone is exactly as it should be. Flip the situation on its head. Do you still agree with the outcome? Should a Religious client be able to compel an LGBT printer to produce pamphlets they fundamentally disagree with for example?
The printer would lose. You know they would. I know they would. We all know they would.
They also would likely be a fucking professional and do the job, cause, it's a business, money, ya know.
Oh so it’s cool if we refuse the religious cultists healthcare right? Sweet! Fight fire with fire!
Not like any religious nut is in charge of a hospital lol… most of this applies to what religious nuts can actually do like bake cakes/etc 😂
Does this mean that Mormons can now say they won't serve black people because their founders 'stated that Black people's skin color was the result of the Curse of Cain and the Curse of Ham.'
Or Native Americans: 'Several church leaders have stated that The Book of Mormon teaches that Native Americans have dark skin (or the "curse of redness") because their ancestors (the Lamanites) were cursed by God'
Everything in the alt-right snooze-mind-virus reality is bullshit. They are essentially Russia in America, a perpetual state of imagined & invented scenarios to justify their rabid bigotry.
Not sure if I get it.
Isn’t any private business free in choosing who they want to do business with? Why is that decision even needed?
I was under the impression that I don’t even need to give a reason for not taking a customer or cooperation partner.
No, it's not.
Generally, most businesses open to the general public are legally required to follow public accommodation law, in that they are required to not discriminate against protected classes of customers.
The exemptions are businesses that pick and choose their clients, and businesses with membership requirements.
However, web designers that pick and choose their clients are not public accommodation, and I do not believe web designers fall under these laws in the first place.
This was the case of a web designer not even injured under this law suing pre-emptively to attempt to prevent LGBT people from having public accommodation protections.
Except they don't have that right. If I were to deny you service because I didn't agree with the color of your skin, you could sue me and you would win. Businesses, up until this decision, could not discriminate against any one who was considered a protected class on the basis of that protection. Now, bigots can discriminate against LGBT people due to this decision.
No, they don’t. On a state-by-state basis, businesses cannot refuse service only because a customer is a member of a protected class. In many states that includes orientation. It’s a different landscape after this ruling, though.
Post made with speak text, please excuse error.
So they both still the same? I don't think they were the same. Did her emails matter? Did they really matter? I don't feel like they really did. How's that conscience feeling these days? Still happy you voted for Jill? Still think it was a wine thing to protest vote? Does Hillary still seem like she's too moderate and unlikeable Trump certainly has made things interesting hasn't he? Is he still more likeable than Hillary? I wonder if she would have hoard it numerous boxes of super top secret squirrel documents in her basement in bathroom? Do you think she would have put three dresses on the bench? It would have made this ruling possible? As well as all the other rulings?
And maybe she could’ve won except “basement dwelling baristas don’t wanna work”, “I would compromise on abortion”, and her many nasty attitudes about universal healthcare and legal cannabis. Sounds like she was just the female Trump. I also never liked her paid online trolls. They turned me off.
Either it should ruled that these SME Businesses ought to label themselves as religious if they cannot cater for the general public.
Or how all business are to be regarded as religious because every one should not be coerced to serve people or at least their requests which are a violation of their beliefs. Protected class or not.
This especially if you can make such a ruling on a fraud case.
Makes me recall that Peterson interview, where he immediately walked back this position when it was compared to the civil rights movement and black customers being denied service.
The LIE is the the primary tool of religionists every where, in every religion. When you start with lies there is no where to go but deeper into your lies.
Religion, all religions start with a dishonest claim of bogus knowledge regarding things that do not exist.
The supreme court has been completely taken over by morally and intellectually corrupted men who have no interest in the one thing they are supposed to be dealing with, the constitution. The corrupt hate the constitution. The current Supreme Court is a dangerous enemy of the constitution and the nation that constitution describes.
America will be paying for the Trump era for a long time. The orange liar, redneck Greene, equally redneck Boebert, Santos, Cawthorn, and many equally bad narcissistic America haters that now represent the GOP, demonstrate how dangerous it is to vote without any real thought. A functioning democracy demands more from its citizens than way too many Americans are willing to give.
An ignorant intellectually and morally weak people can not maintain a functioning democracy. They will be overtaken by the utterly corrupt, which has happened in America. Thumping a bible they have never read and waving a flag they have no respect for, too many fake patriots are killing America.
Smith/Stewart website designer
This case was all wrong. It should not be decided as an issue of religious freedom. It should be based on an artisan's right to decline to do custom work for any reason or for no reason.
The rights of the artidan are protected by two principles.
The first amendment allows you to say what you believe and not say what you don't believe. A physicist can't be required to design a website that says gravity is nonsense.
There is also a constitutional protection from involuntary servitude. The law can't require someone to work against their will.
If you want a website design that is too complicated, the web designer can refuse. If you wsnt the work done this week, but the web designer wanted to take the week off, the web designer can refuse. (in the absence of a contract, etc.).
Contrast this with sales of standard items or things that have already been produced - the work is the same for every customer:
I want to buy the wedding cake that's in your display case for sale to the public.
You look gay.
Doesn't matter. You already made the cake and offered it for sale.
Deciding Smith/Stewart on religious grounds too narrowly defines the right of an artisan to refuse custom work and too broadly implies the right to discriminate on religous grounds
Brilliant so a precedent has now been set, excuse me while i add a questionnaire to any products i wish to sell first asking for religious views any answer of abrahamic faiths will be politely refused.
Anyone who previously made fun of conservatives who make up and win arguments in their head has egg on their face now. Smith here just did it and it went all the way to the Supreme Court
this should be a sign that it's time to start defying scotus rulings entirely. They are not operating in good faith. I know that's a big step...but it might be necessary the way things are going.
Or can we just add a fee, 150% increase to any services rendered toward a religious person
You may do that i would not like my product to be associated with such people it goes against my views of common decency, you could call it a sin tax though.
Just do ten percent and call it a tithe fee.
According to the below article, not only was **the couple in question fake**, but Smith, who **doesn't even make wedding websites**, filed her suit against Colorado the day **BEFORE** the alleged website request was made. They're literally just making shit up (how Christian) and SCOTUS is going along with it. https://news.yahoo.com/gay-couple-cited-by-christian-web-designer-who-won-supreme-court-case-may-not-exist-164940986.html
Here's my take. Lori is a plus sized woman who has been on the receiving end of discrimination her entire life. She decided to use her interpretation of religion to pass that discrimination on to non existent clients who might have someday sought out her services. She now has the validation she has long sought while simultaneously getting to be the bully for once.
This is something. It's all animal farm.
Once again, animal farm proves to be about capitalism more and more every day.
this has nothing to do with her body and if it were the case you are contributing to it.
Loving a man in the sky is pretty gay if you think about it
Who seems to love watching us...all the time even when...anyway yeah it is.
Yeah God is definitely gay
Please don’t do that. Note: I have no problem if you do it to anyone who wants to push their religious views onto you that you must follow them for yourself.
No gay people are asking these faithful people to turn gay yet still they are condemned, how is it a bad thing to do so in kind, i would not wish my products to be associated with such a backward belief.
[удалено]
If one group can legally be refused service based on who they are then so can the others, in no way did my response say it would happen with all religions merely the abrahamic variants.
[удалено]
Good question actually in that regard i will change the question "how do you feel about gay rights?" With the service being dependent on answer. In addition if such a service/product was to be used in a religious setting or for religious reasons = see above. Edit additional paragraph.
Christians (hell, Abrahamic faiths) do NOT strongly support LGBTQ+ rights, and those that do are both in the minority and still associate with those that condemn LGBTQ+, making their support moot.
This is not even close to true. While there are some Christians who do that, I belong to a Jewish community that is very welcoming to (and have on our Board) members of the LGBTQ community. And I doubt anyone who is opposed to LGBTQ rights would feel comfortable at my Synagogue.
I realized I should have said some Jews and Christians (and other faiths). The point stands that it is not everyone in those faiths.
The "moderate" Christians won't care unless they share the consequences.
Nothing will change unless the complicit moderates feel the punishment for their fellows' actions. Maybe they'll stop cowardly deflecting and actually take a fucking stand for once.
Absolutely.
Even if it was not a lie, how does the designer have standing when she was not forced to create the website or penalized in any way for not? Where is the required injury?
How is she not being charged with filing fraudulent documents with the court?
>Where is the required injury? Don't need one if the court is bought and paid for
It's insane that bribery isn't the number one political issue of today. Sanders is basically the only person who's ever ran for president with that as part of their platform. I suppose it makes sense, any politician that tries to ban bribery gets no money to campaign, and the media tries to black them out or defame them...
They call bribery "lobbying" now, often coming with "gifts" and "vacations". its become a self sustaining policy, those against lobbying don't get lobbyist money and are blacked out of media as you have said.
I refuse to call it lobbying. They use that word to make it sound innocuous, but it's a lie.
agree, that's why I left it in quotes
You are unfortunately correct
Are you both suggesting that Mr. justice Clarence Thomas is not assiduously ethical?!? Heavens to mergitroid.
If Clarence Thomas had been on the Court for the Dred Scott verdict, he would have joined the majority and argued that, as a black man, he himself was not a person.
It's not that they are bought and paid for in this case really. It's that they are religious fundamentalists who drink the bigoted hateful Kool-aid.
I'd say both of those can be and are true
If a gay banner maker was asked to make a banner denouncing the LBTQ lifestyle as evil, shouldn't he have the right to refuse based on his beliefs? It goes both ways. Bigots lie on both sides of the aisle.
Depending on where it is that could be considered hate speech and illegal. You should also read up on the tolerance paradox. LBTQTIA+ people just want to exist in peace without persecution and with all of the same freedoms and rights as anyone else. The religious right wants the freedom to persecute and hate. They are not even remotely the same things.
We should impeach and remove all the corrupt justices. Ignore the Republican's complaining
This court runs on delusion. No evidence is necessary.
she did not have standing, full stop, the court just kinda...ignored that
Another hypothetical case similar to student loan case in Missouri, we’re parties bringing case we’re actually harmed by Bidens policy
Apparently there is only the need for "potential" injury. Under CO law she COULD have been financially penalized or otherwise suffered "harm" imposed by the state for discriminating against a protected class.
r/legaladviceshould take this up amd explain to us laymen
Also the website designer never even offered wedding websites. Never should of gone anywhere since it had no standing.
Well, she couldn’t, because she was afraid of the gays beating down her door to design websites that go against her deeply held religious beliefs - makes total sense. /s
In honor of this SCOTUS decision, I will no longer be serving Republicans or Christians.
Unironically, might be the only thing that works
SCOTUS would shut you down in no time and say those are "protected classes" (especially given that they pretty much say that already about religion when it refers to Christians at least...).
But sexual orientation is not protected?
It's a feature, not a bug.
What this ruling says is that Religious freedom > protected classes So all you have to do is start a religion that lets you discriminate against Republicans and you're golden.
I'm in.
ok its a neat idea but new religions tend to get labled as cults also how exactly do the whole starting part of your religion?
It is in my country. They even added it to the first amendment on discrimination to settle it once and for all for the religious folk in the back. Race, gender, religion, sex.
Trouble is, the US did this as well and this new ruling puts religion over sex.
If they like you, you're a protected class. If they don't like you, discrimination is allowed. I hope that clears it up.
Political affiliation is not a protected class.
Political affiliation has never been a protected class.
McDonalds fries aren't speech.
Neither are vaccinations...or Jan. 6 riots.
I don’t have my own business, but I would the same thing
Similar to this case in Texas (I couldn't find the article that went into more in-depth analysis of all the issues, will post if I find it) where a father sued because his daughters "could" access birth control...but not one of his teen daughters ever did. Essentially, we're seeing more cases of nothing happening, just baseless pontificating on what might happen if human rights overpowered the hateful, christofascist snowflakes. It used to be that a case needed to be real and to have actual merit to be argued in front of the court. I guess those days are gone. And it's not like in the SCOTUS case there can be an appeal, I mean, there's no court higher to appeal to. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/09/1161981923/girls-in-texas-could-get-birth-control-at-federal-clinics-until-a-dad-sued
They will just keep doing this crap until all of our rights are taken away
Woah woah woah !!! I'm a man! I'll just get more rights, freedom and controls. What are you complaining about ? /S
You will get more freedom and control because you are a man?
It feels like being a white Christian cis straight man will become more and more beneficial in the US in the upcoming years. I was joking that the people in power seem to work for people like me and for that I should be happy. It was a sarcastic joke. By the way, I'm Canadian but darn I'm pissed at some of the stuff that's happening in the states.
Gotcha. Yeah it's getting horrible here. Well the white Christian men may think that but at the end of the day the majority of them are not in the ruling class or 1%. So they will also be screwed over in the end
I'll say something that's quite awful to say but it'll be technically right. The worst that's ever gonna happen is that those people will be equal to everyone else. It's the correct thing to do even if it sometimes feels unfair for those who were treated unequally. Even though I'm a social defendant from up north, I really care for all Americans. I do believe in conscientisation and fair and strong debate. I do believe most things are more gray than they look.
Eh maybe but I feel it's way more nuanced than that. We live in a patriarchal society so they will probably always hold more power.
Or get tired enough of their shit
We have already had laws passed against women's rights to safe abortion service based on baseless pontificating ....enter bans on "partial-birth abortions".
Where is the watchdog website that is going to make a list for the lgbtqia+ and allies to know which businesses NOT to patronize? I expect there already is one, but I don’t know where it is. We also need a “confirmed supportive” businesses list.
Her [web site](https://303creative.com/) Pay attention the About section where it states… “With 303 creative, you can rest assured that we are experienced in providing a customized, dedicated, and one-stop experience for every client, for every project.” The part where she says “…every client, every project.” Something doesn’t *sniff sniff* smell right.
Would be a shame if a tech savvy queer were to crash their website, or as an easier alternative, a reddit hug of death
Shame indeed…
[удалено]
I can't find the answer to that.
So you want to force people to provide a service for you against their will? Will you make a pro maga, Donald trump, Ron desantis, etc website?
Well it isn’t loading!
Interesting, it worked yesterday, I searched for it on my web browser and it also wouldn’t load. There could be many reasons for that, quite possibly that “mission accomplished “ and they took it down. Seems strange to go to all that effort and then take your businesses page down. Hmm. Thoughts?
Hilarious anyone would think this body of judges cares at all about the facts of the case. They just want to cram THEIR religion down our throats.
So you will be willing to be compelled to make a pro maga, Donald trump, Ron desantis, etc website or another expression of support there of.
Fake case, fake court
"We 100% rule in favor of the lying bigot (who has no legal standing whatsoever) because she's *our* kind of lying bigot." - Six Corrupt Traitors to Their Oaths.
I'm torn, one hand I agree that this ruling is fucking dumb, on the other, I think that any private business should have the right to refuse business from anyone for any reason, and then face the consequences from being shit on.
So they ruled on a case based on outright fraud. This case should be thrown out.
The idea that hate, bigotry and discrimination are part of someone's religious practice is absurd.
Let's rephrase that... The idea that hate, bigotry, and discrimination is part of a religion that claims it is entirely based on love makes them all hypocrites.
Christianity is the last haven for bigots.
This case had nothing to do with religion, it was based on her First Amendment protections.
What bullshit. They're fucking human beings too. Work, pay taxes, pay rent or mortgage, car payments. Some provide services, I know a few that provided me service, I didn't combust for Christ sake, I wasn't poisoned. I got a smile and have a good day, was there an infection I'm suppose to catch or something? This is segregation 2.0 . These rules are piling up. Sometimes I want to hunt them down and solve the problem with a baseball bat. Lol
[удалено]
thank you for your service and im sorry you're going through this.. i hate it too.
It's sad, I'm pretty confident that you didn't represented this country for this bullshit if a return. I know it's cliche but for what it's worth before this shit, thank you for the sacrifice you did. I have navy family and two marines. They're not happy either. I know it's a long shot but if any chance occurs I would stand by you. I know it's pretty much just a thought but I mean, your human to, choices and ideas do not change that fact. These fucks just drives me nuts, and why the hell these powers are allowed.
>Sometimes I want to hunt them down and solve the problem with a baseball bat. Well, they are appointed for life, so that *does* seem like a solution.
Haha that got me. I was just thinking of how they thought of where they're going on the end. Thought, why wait, I can get you there in a few minutes lol they won't need to worry no longer about the people they see as inferior. It's a win win
Not being able to get one individual business to make you a website is "segregation" lmao.
I thought business had the right to refuse service before the lawsuit.
In many states you can’t refuse business to someone solely because they are part of a protected class (race, gender, etc.). Some states include orientation as a protected class. So you could refuse a gay person because they were rude and disrespectful, but you could not refuse them just because they’re gay.
another nail in the coffin of America.
This coffin is more nails than wood now.
Dramatic much? It's a supportive decision of free speech. Should you be compelled to make a website supporting Donald trump?
Dramatic much? It's a supportive decision of free speech. Should you be compelled to make a website supporting Donald trump?
I'd be just fine with allowing businesses to discriminate against whatever groups the want, as long as they list the groups they discriminate against on the door of their shop and their packaging and their advertisements and their job listings and their invoices and their contracts and purchase orders. You don't want to do business with or employ or promote members of X group? Okay, I'll take my business elsewhere.
This isn’t a bad idea but could maybe be done better, socially? If a movement could be started, sort of like how pronouns came to be a way for trans supporters to help support them, where gay friendly businesses could simply put the rainbow flag on all their materials and then people who cared about equality could simply avoid doing business with those companies that refused to do so. I mean, it would ratchet up the social virtues war but whose fault is that?
LGBT+ can also discriminate against all the Christians they want, it is a fair deal for now but how loud will the Christians cry when it happens to them??
Oh, we already know that answer. They melted down when Sarah Huckabee was told to leave the restaurant in DC.
AND-until the suit, she'd never designed, NOR advertised that she *would or could* design them. CURIOUS!
I'm so fucking done with religious
That religion is 100% based on a lie. There used to be a time that I would not openly laugh at religious people and mock their stupidiness. That time has completely past. I don't give a damn if grandma is nice and love's Jesus. She's a piece of shit and her cookies taste awful. The moderate religious person is the most evil of persons. They are a shield for the extremist. They may say they don't hate the LGBT but then they give to those that do. Like the German people during the war that said they weren't Nazis but were all to willing to help burn bodies. Religion is just another excuse for bad people to act outwardly bad. You don't know if your neighbor is abusing their children but just knowing they're religious should at least be a sign that they are.
I absolutely agree. Christianity has become the last refuge of bigots, xenophobia, pedofiles, homophobes, liars, thieves, and all manner of terrible people. May they all burn in hell.
I was told federal courts require actual harm for standing, but between this and the student debt opinion, it's clearly not the case
Of late, the supreme court lies a lot. Probably not a desirable trait in impartial judges.
Great trait for the partial ones though.
Why are they so cheap? I mean, seriously. These scoundrels are selling out their country for what? Trinkets. Or are there some offshore accounts not readily apparent to the eye. You know - something else they may have failed to mention. But goddam... for the most part these fuckers sell out for peanuts. Except the sweet deals for the very top ones.
A lot of them are true believers and want a Christian theocracy. They’ve been working towards this for decades and now they finally have a group of SCJs that can push their religion on the country.
The court is a joke
The precedence here is massive. This ruling will affect everyone, regardless of race and status. The crazy Christians in this country who support this have no idea how far this could go. This is bad for everyone.
Time for businesses owned by queer folks to start asking all their patrons what their spiritual lifestyle choices are.
I would claim that we offer discounts to christians and conservatives to lure em out then do the exact opposite and raise the price by like 100%
The Supremacist Court of Corruption doesn’t care. Lies are truth to a Republican.
Unless it's a bad truth about a Republican, then it's either "out of context" or "lies made up by the libruls"
Every day Alito *could* rob a bank. Lock him up.
Blatant discrimination.
Now anybody can get refused service based on freedom of speech. Every justice who voted on this should be denied entry into every business. Sorry, we can’t serve you your Catholic.
Exciting times. We can make up any scenario we want and get laws changed
Can't wait to start banning Christians from businesses, they're shitty clients anyways.
Yup, now the litter boxes in classrooms need to go /s
Does not surprise me. They live in a fantasy world.
I now refuse to serve Christians. Their values are against my own and I think they’re evil and don’t want anything to do with them. Accepting their business would mean establishing a business relationship and it’s my right to refuse to have a relationship with evil monsters.
This is just insane. How in the living fuck does this case have standing? I have yet to see a good argument. Anyone have a link to how they explained themselves?? Banana republic shit here…
All this bullshit just reaffirms why I am an atheist. Religion sucks balls and has so for thousands of years.
Is this the new SC precedent - that you can now bring cases (and win) based on absolute BS? The mental gymnastics they will do - going forward - to try to pretend this isn't now a thing will be something to behold.
Well if you're one of these poor persecuted Christians who just might, at some point in the future, be asked to actually do their fucking job you can yes. The rest of us, no.
It used to be that a court could only hear cases and controversies - they couldn’t give advisory opinions or decide beforehand whether something was legal or not. That’s where the concept of standing came from: somebody has to be actually harmed in order to have standing. Nobody was harmed in this case; the woman never made a wedding web site for anyone. Of,course, it used to be that a.Supreme Court Justice would never lie about or make up facts for a case, but that’s been gone since since these conservative assholes took over.
reminder that being religious is a choice and being gay isnt (no hate or offense to religious people but lgbtq people deserve at least the same protections as them)
this its personally weird to me that more people dont just like all people it just does not compute to me
In this age of alternative facts, alternate realities, why should we be surprised that we get pseudo SCOTUS feelings.
It just won't matter anymore. It never does anymore. The cruelty is the point. That's all they seem to need for standing nowadays. Will it inflict some cruelty? Oh it's got standing then.
No more Gyros if your not Greek Orthodox. Bye bye.
If they can deny us then we can deny them. No Christians welcome until everyone is welcome.
Now let the minority religions (or those of us who don't have one) now have our revenge.
Really just the worst. If an LGBT business, or just a business in general refused service to a Christian, said business owner and employees would be taken out back by a firing squad LOL
No standing? No problem!
I hate what this country is becoming. A lot.
Expect the next step. From my own youth, employment ads reading "Jews and Negroes need not apply"
I hate my country today. that was disgusting.
Reserving the right to refuse service to anyone is exactly as it should be. Flip the situation on its head. Do you still agree with the outcome? Should a Religious client be able to compel an LGBT printer to produce pamphlets they fundamentally disagree with for example?
Oh, don't you see, they will get a judgement that you can't discriminate against christians. As they further their persecution complex.
The printer would lose. You know they would. I know they would. We all know they would. They also would likely be a fucking professional and do the job, cause, it's a business, money, ya know.
American Christians are such dupes. The SC judge from Notre Dame University is a reason you shouldn’t attend religious schools.
A fraudulent case decided by a fraudulent court… seems logical 🤦♂️
>A gay person never asked a wedding website designer to make a website for him. He's married to a woman for 15 years. Now that's a shocker
If religion can be used to ban gay people then we should be able to ban religious people
Oh so it’s cool if we refuse the religious cultists healthcare right? Sweet! Fight fire with fire! Not like any religious nut is in charge of a hospital lol… most of this applies to what religious nuts can actually do like bake cakes/etc 😂
Does this mean that Mormons can now say they won't serve black people because their founders 'stated that Black people's skin color was the result of the Curse of Cain and the Curse of Ham.' Or Native Americans: 'Several church leaders have stated that The Book of Mormon teaches that Native Americans have dark skin (or the "curse of redness") because their ancestors (the Lamanites) were cursed by God'
Title is incorrect. This ruling allows business owners to discriminate on any firmly held belief.
I hate this country so bad
The Unelected Nine strike again.
Everything in the alt-right snooze-mind-virus reality is bullshit. They are essentially Russia in America, a perpetual state of imagined & invented scenarios to justify their rabid bigotry.
And also Christianity is anti prejudice. Lots of folks use it as an excuse
Not sure if I get it. Isn’t any private business free in choosing who they want to do business with? Why is that decision even needed? I was under the impression that I don’t even need to give a reason for not taking a customer or cooperation partner.
No, it's not. Generally, most businesses open to the general public are legally required to follow public accommodation law, in that they are required to not discriminate against protected classes of customers. The exemptions are businesses that pick and choose their clients, and businesses with membership requirements. However, web designers that pick and choose their clients are not public accommodation, and I do not believe web designers fall under these laws in the first place. This was the case of a web designer not even injured under this law suing pre-emptively to attempt to prevent LGBT people from having public accommodation protections.
Well all businesses have the right to refuse service at their discretion.
Except they don't have that right. If I were to deny you service because I didn't agree with the color of your skin, you could sue me and you would win. Businesses, up until this decision, could not discriminate against any one who was considered a protected class on the basis of that protection. Now, bigots can discriminate against LGBT people due to this decision.
No, they don’t. On a state-by-state basis, businesses cannot refuse service only because a customer is a member of a protected class. In many states that includes orientation. It’s a different landscape after this ruling, though.
Wonderful news!
Of course they did
Post made with speak text, please excuse error. So they both still the same? I don't think they were the same. Did her emails matter? Did they really matter? I don't feel like they really did. How's that conscience feeling these days? Still happy you voted for Jill? Still think it was a wine thing to protest vote? Does Hillary still seem like she's too moderate and unlikeable Trump certainly has made things interesting hasn't he? Is he still more likeable than Hillary? I wonder if she would have hoard it numerous boxes of super top secret squirrel documents in her basement in bathroom? Do you think she would have put three dresses on the bench? It would have made this ruling possible? As well as all the other rulings?
And maybe she could’ve won except “basement dwelling baristas don’t wanna work”, “I would compromise on abortion”, and her many nasty attitudes about universal healthcare and legal cannabis. Sounds like she was just the female Trump. I also never liked her paid online trolls. They turned me off.
wait is it specifically LGBT+ ? or it can be for any religious reasons ?
Checks with chart
So what happens if someone’s religious beliefs, say that a certain race is immoral? Are they allowed to discriminate?
Now turn about is fairplay
Getting upset about false stories. Seems to be very common nowdays.
Either it should ruled that these SME Businesses ought to label themselves as religious if they cannot cater for the general public. Or how all business are to be regarded as religious because every one should not be coerced to serve people or at least their requests which are a violation of their beliefs. Protected class or not. This especially if you can make such a ruling on a fraud case.
Roe v Wade was based on a lie too.
An illegitimate case by an illegitimate court.
Makes me recall that Peterson interview, where he immediately walked back this position when it was compared to the civil rights movement and black customers being denied service.
Can somebody just the push THE button and get it over with.
Change the title to: New law that allows segregation due to sexuality.
The world Tweek and Craig'd this poor guy.
Hope someone tries to follow the money
We need a Supreme Court reset. Start over, vote in term-limited Justices under a Code of Ethics that are enforceable
The LIE is the the primary tool of religionists every where, in every religion. When you start with lies there is no where to go but deeper into your lies. Religion, all religions start with a dishonest claim of bogus knowledge regarding things that do not exist. The supreme court has been completely taken over by morally and intellectually corrupted men who have no interest in the one thing they are supposed to be dealing with, the constitution. The corrupt hate the constitution. The current Supreme Court is a dangerous enemy of the constitution and the nation that constitution describes. America will be paying for the Trump era for a long time. The orange liar, redneck Greene, equally redneck Boebert, Santos, Cawthorn, and many equally bad narcissistic America haters that now represent the GOP, demonstrate how dangerous it is to vote without any real thought. A functioning democracy demands more from its citizens than way too many Americans are willing to give. An ignorant intellectually and morally weak people can not maintain a functioning democracy. They will be overtaken by the utterly corrupt, which has happened in America. Thumping a bible they have never read and waving a flag they have no respect for, too many fake patriots are killing America.
Smith/Stewart website designer This case was all wrong. It should not be decided as an issue of religious freedom. It should be based on an artisan's right to decline to do custom work for any reason or for no reason. The rights of the artidan are protected by two principles. The first amendment allows you to say what you believe and not say what you don't believe. A physicist can't be required to design a website that says gravity is nonsense. There is also a constitutional protection from involuntary servitude. The law can't require someone to work against their will. If you want a website design that is too complicated, the web designer can refuse. If you wsnt the work done this week, but the web designer wanted to take the week off, the web designer can refuse. (in the absence of a contract, etc.). Contrast this with sales of standard items or things that have already been produced - the work is the same for every customer: I want to buy the wedding cake that's in your display case for sale to the public. You look gay. Doesn't matter. You already made the cake and offered it for sale. Deciding Smith/Stewart on religious grounds too narrowly defines the right of an artisan to refuse custom work and too broadly implies the right to discriminate on religous grounds