SCOTUS Rules You Can Refuse Service to Same-Sex Couples

[Beatle Bum]

Not intolerant at all. But when they opened the door to banning books, they Bible was fair game with all the sex, violence, etc in it.

Atheists woke liberals like banning books, too. The difference is that conservatives don’t want children reading about blowjobs and anal sex. If you think that is a bad take, let us know, because we will also want to keep you away from kids.

That said, I don’t think the whole Bible is good for kids either.

Finally, your tit-for-tat explanation is really juvenile.

I don’t need to educate you. You easily know what Christians are guilty of. I’m not discriminating against Christians at all. I would do business with them without hesitation. I just call them out (and you) for their hypocrisy.

Call me out.

I am a sinner who loves sinners. My sinner friends are Christian, atheist, gay, straight, adulterers, addicts, liars, single, married, divorced, trans, felons, etc.

Call me out. If you have a problem with that, call me out, atheist.

I am a sinner who supports poor kids and people who live in third world countries. I donate 10-15% of my salary to all sorts of charities and nonprofits.

Call me out.

I am the guy who pulls off on the highway and helps the person change their tire. The panhandler near my office waves to me in my car when I drive by. I take people to lunch who ask me for money on the street.

Call me out, atheist. Call me out. I am sure I deserve it, being the Christian I am.

 

[AIChatGPT]

Nah. You don’t do any of that.

 

[TCurtis75_rivals88839]

Atheists woke liberals like banning books, too. The difference is that conservatives don’t want children reading about blowjobs and anal sex. If you think that is a bad take, let us know, because we will also want to keep you away from kids.

That said, I don’t think the whole Bible is good for kids either.

Finally, your tit-for-tat explanation is really juvenile.



Call me out.

I am a sinner who loves sinners. My sinner friends are Christian, atheist, gay, straight, adulterers, addicts, liars, single, married, divorced, trans, felons, etc.

Call me out. If you have a problem with that, call me out, atheist.

I am a sinner who supports poor kids and people who live in third world countries. I donate 10-15% of my salary to all sorts of charities and nonprofits.

Call me out.

I am the guy who pulls off on the highway and helps the person change their tire. The panhandler near my office waves to me in my car when I drive by. I take people to lunch who ask me for money on the street.

Call me out, atheist. Call me out. I am sure I deserve it, being the Christian I am.

Who said I was an atheist?

 

[Beatle Bum]

You’ve argued relentlessly and still don’t get it.

A Jew should not be forced to make a Nazi themed product if they don’t want to.

A black person shouldn’t be forced to make a KKK themed product if they don’t want to.

Your only context for this is religion because it’s the only lens you have. Even so, our religious freedom is guaranteed. You’ve essentially argued against the 1st Amendment.

I suggested this earlier. Who ever said, “I know she is a Nazi, but man she bakes a wicked cake”? No one. No one patronizes the people they vehemently disagree with. So, the idea that a trans person went to the most infamous baker in Colorado for a trans celebration cake is not conceivable. The baker was targeted and no one rationally disagrees.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Who said I was an atheist?

Fairy tale? Sky daddy? You did.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Nah. You don’t do any of that.

I think you don’t do any of that.

 

[Dionysus444]

First and foremost, in this very thread, I said I was on the cake makers side in his case. He never refused to sell the couple a cake. He said he wouldn’t make them a specific cake. I have no issue with that at all. He still wasn’t sued for his religious beliefs, IMO. He was sued for his business practices. If it was strictly about religious beliefs, then the cake wouldn’t have mattered. He would have been sued regardless of cake. I don’t believe he should have been sued but he was.

The other cake maker (at least I believe it was a 2nd one but it’s been awhile since I read about them) is simply a jackass for not putting blue icing on a pink cake. If it’s the same baker, then he was right in the wedding cake situation and wrong in this one. This situation deserves a lawsuit. The color of icing/cake isn’t asking for anything special.

It is the same baker. He is doing it specifically to be a bigot and 'stand up for his religious rights' by which he means right to discriminate. Whether he was wrong or not in the initial case still remains to be seen as we still have not defined the edges of what constitutes an "expressive service" and what doesn't. Everyone though, including Jack Phillips, agrees that a pink cake with blue frosting has no inherent meaning so shouldn't be considered speech, even though it is a produced custom cake and not off-the-shelf. So this 303 Creative ruling doesn't apply. But back to the original case, does that include wedding cakes? They're for a specific purpose, so it could be argued either way. The second cake case doesn't have that issue though.

 

[TCurtis75_rivals88839]

Fairy tale? Sky daddy? You did.

Nope. I am agnostic. There is a big difference but you assume away.

 

[revcort]

If he was attacked for his religious beliefs, he would have been attacked for those beliefs long before a gay couple asked him to make a cake. He was only sued because of his business practices. The courts in Colorado said he was wrong. SCOTUS said he was right. However, he was never sued or attacked for those religious beliefs. This suit and subsequent backlash was about his business practices.

You're just flat-out wrong TCurtis- the business practice is directly tied to his faith. Only YOU can separate them with a straight face. Nobody would have attacked him before because they had no cause. He shouldn't have been attacked in this case, but he was targeted because they knew he would refuse to do the wedding because of his faith. These people only attack when they don't get what they want or find someone who refuse to go along with their specific morality. But they nearly put him out of business. not that they care. It was all for show, anyway, to force the court's hand, so they could force Christians everywhere to acknowledge their lifestyle. Looks like a loss- for now at least. I'm sure they're not done.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Nope. I am agnostic. There is a big difference but you assume away.

Nah, I have been both agnostic and atheist. Agnostics don’t make fun of others’ beliefs, because they are still questioning and admit they don’t have the answers. Childish atheists make fun of theists. Mature atheists live their lives respecting people with different faith traditions.

 

[Beatle Bum]

You're just flat-out wrong TCurtis- the business practice is directly tied to his faith. Only YOU can separate them with a straight face. Nobody would have attacked him before because they had no cause. He shouldn't have been attacked in this case, but he was targeted because they knew he would refuse to do the wedding because of his faith. These people only attack when they don't get what they want or find someone who refuse to go along with their specific morality. But they nearly put him out of business. not that they care. It was all for show, anyway, to force the court's hand, so they could force Christians everywhere to acknowledge their lifestyle. Looks like a loss- for now at least. I'm sure they're not done.

The man serves people in the LGTQB community, but won’t act in a way that violates his faith. Only bigots without faith would call him a bigot for that.

 

[TCurtis75_rivals88839]

You're just flat-out wrong TCurtis- the business practice is directly tied to his faith. Only YOU can separate them with a straight face. Nobody would have attacked him before because they had no cause. He shouldn't have been attacked in this case, but he was targeted because they knew he would refuse to do the wedding because of his faith. These people only attack when they don't get what they want or find someone who refuse to go along with their specific morality. But they nearly put him out of business. not that they care. It was all for show, anyway, to force the court's hand, so they could force Christians everywhere to acknowledge their lifestyle. Looks like a loss- for now at least. I'm sure they're not done.

The reason was his business practices. He uses faith as a reason but is it the true reason. When someone practices bigotry regardless of reason, he loses credibility. Not to mention the pink cake with blue icing issue. Where does his religion say that is wrong? I will repeat I was in his side in the wedding cake scenario. The fact you earlier said that buskers should be able to use any reason to refuse service is all anyone needs to know about your stance. Don’t want to be sued, don’t practice discriminatory business practices. Most here said earlier that society will weed out those they don’t want to do business with. They weeded this guy out and now you are mad he was close to closing when earlier in the thread that was the solution everyone agreed upon. Was that for only the business you all don’t agree with the way they conduct business? He still was never sued for religious beliefs until he discriminated against someone. There is a big difference there.

 

[TCurtis75_rivals88839]

Nah, I have been both agnostic and atheist. Agnostics don’t make fun of others’ beliefs, because they are still questioning and admit they don’t have the answers. Childish atheists make fun of theists. Mature atheists live their lives respecting people with different faith traditions.

False but go ahead and make assumptions about me.

 

[Beatle Bum]

False.

Best of luck to you trying to decide if you believe a “fairytale” or want to trust the “sky daddy.” I would watch an episode of that show, maybe not two, but one just to see the disconnect from reality.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

303 Creative was invented out of whole cloth by Alliance Defending Freedom just like you're alleging the Jack Phillips case was. Lorie Smith has never made a wedding website for anyone, let alone a gay couple. The supposed request she filed with the court asking for one was completely fabricated, the man whose information was used had no knowledge of it and is already married to a woman. You can't use that standard of a manufactured case against one side but not the other.

I love seeing libs claim this. Very competent defense lawyers investigated and plead the case all the way up the supreme court with a set of facts stipulated. There is 0% chance the facts weren't in line with the stipulations. None. If there was no actual controversy, the defense team would've filed a motion to dismiss at the trial level and this never gets off the ground.

The entire "it was fake" is an absolute lie.

 

[TCurtis75_rivals88839]

Best of luck to you trying to decide if you believe a “fairytale” or want to trust the “sky daddy.” I would watch an episode of that show, maybe not two, but one just to see the disconnect from reality.

Christianity is the only disconnect from reality I see. I believe there is some higher power but the book of stories you all hold in the highest regard may as well have been written by Hans Christian Andersen.

 

[TCurtis75_rivals88839]

I love seeing libs claim this. Very competent defense lawyers investigated and plead the case all the way up the supreme court with a set of facts stipulated. There is 0% chance the facts weren't in line with the stipulations. None. If there was no actual controversy, the defense team would've filed a motion to dismiss at the trial level and this never gets off the ground.

The entire "it was fake" is an absolute lie.

It was a what if filed as authentic. I hope the person who she says asked for a website sues the **** out of her. She would deserve it completely.

 

[revcort]

Didn't realize we had a Gemstone as a mod.

Is it too much to ask for both "communities" to shut the hell up for a change and stop painting themselves as nonstop victims? Both sides can't claim victimhood but they sure as heck try. What happened to the "pick yourselves up by your bootstraps" America? Now every side whines, says they're being silenced, or like yourself, makes foolish, dramatic predictions like the Bible (gasp!) is going to be "targeted" next. Next. You make it sound as if being a Christian in America is a constant struggle for survival. Do I need to get out a tiny violin for all these victimized communities, particularly the Christian community? Holy hell...

Where shall I begin? There is too much. I'll just sum up.

I really don't care, to be honest. Just saw a thread that looked somewhat interesting and threw in 2 cents. I don't mind any of the alphabet mafia. Have at it. Live your life. I am no victim. Never claimed to be. I do believe this particular baker was targeted, now twice on 2 different cases, because of his faith and the desire by these communities to force their agenda. You're blind if you can't see that. As for the Bible being next, TCurtis specifically mentioned it in this very thread. Yes, it will likely be next. They'll have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers to make me give it up, though, and that may be coming. If it does, I still won't be crying like a victim, though. We will deal with that when it comes. You guys may still be denying it when it is happening. Romans 1, among other passages, is already labeled as hate speech in Canada. Has been for years. Anyone who thinks it couldn't happen here is naive. But hey, it doesn't affect you, so who cares, right?

Here's a test case for you, though. What do you think of Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter? Do you think Twitter was silencing free speech of people with whom they disagreed or not? Musk is a lifelong liberal, not to an extreme, but would have likely been considered center-left politically. Now he's been labeled a white supremacist by some and a staunch conservative by many others. He was just wanting to protect free speech. He fired something like 80% of the company because they had become another arm of the democrat party and had hired a boatload of people to censor and ban conservative voices. Am I right or wrong? Do those people have the right to speech or not? Now, it was a privately owned company, so they could censor speech if they wanted. Musk owns it now and he can decide to let everyone have free speech on the platform if he wants. If he censors liberal voices, I'm sure we'll hear about it.

 

[Dionysus444]

You're just flat-out wrong TCurtis- the business practice is directly tied to his faith. Only YOU can separate them with a straight face. Nobody would have attacked him before because they had no cause. He shouldn't have been attacked in this case, but he was targeted because they knew he would refuse to do the wedding because of his faith. These people only attack when they don't get what they want or find someone who refuse to go along with their specific morality. But they nearly put him out of business. not that they care. It was all for show, anyway, to force the court's hand, so they could force Christians everywhere to acknowledge their lifestyle. Looks like a loss- for now at least. I'm sure they're not done.

What's your opinion on the second case? A person called up, asked for a pink cake with blue frosting, he agreed. Yada yada, small talk happens, 'I'm so looking forward to getting this cake for my birthday party. I'm trans so it means a lot to me...' and he withdraws service, says no he now won't make a cake he's already at that point agreed to make. Does his right to freely exercise his Christian faith give him the right to refuse service to a particular type of person like that when there are specific laws against it?

 

[revcort]

What's your opinion on the second case? A person called up, asked for a pink cake with blue frosting, he agreed. Yada yada, small talk happens, 'I'm so looking forward to getting this cake for my birthday party. I'm trans so it means a lot to me...' and he withdraws service, says no he now won't make a cake he's already at that point agreed to make. Does his right to freely exercise his Christian faith give him the right to refuse service to a particular type of person like that when there are specific laws against it?

I would say the facts of the case would be very important. Did he know it was for a trans person when he agreed to bake the cake? If so, he should stick to his word. Was he deceived and then hit with a gotcha? If so, he may have a case. Now, I would agree that just any cake, just a cake you would put in your display case to be sold to the public, should be sold to anyone. I can't think of any reason sexuality should ever come into it. It should be noted that to many of the LGBTQIAA++ folks their sexuality is THE defining characteristic of their lives, which is sad and nonsensical in my opinion. When I meet someone, do I lead with "Hey, I'm a heterosexual!" No, never have. I don't believe I've ever discussed it, other than in this kind of context where someone else has made it the most important thing in life. I wouldn't join a straight pride march for all the tea in China.

But I digress- if the cake is considered art or speech, then he should be able to have a say in how it is utilized. If it's a cake he would sell to just any member of the public, not signed and not publicly associated with that baker in any special way, then I don't think he has a case. Pink cake with blue frosting seems pretty standard to me. But let's just be clear- he was targeted again and we all know it. What are the chances that immediately after the SCOTUS threw out the other case, another case would immediately be brought? He was targeted. And how was he targeted? With the ultimate politically correct issue of the day- transgenderism. Oh yeah, this one was designed and conspired. But I'll be honest. I would make the cake, a generic pink cake with blue frosting, and not deal with the court battle. I wouldn't consider that selling out, either. I'd just make the cake and let it go. But you can be sure, the alphabet mafia would be after him now, They hate the man and he's going down one way or another.

 

[Dionysus444]

I love seeing libs claim this. Very competent defense lawyers investigated and plead the case all the way up the supreme court with a set of facts stipulated. There is 0% chance the facts weren't in line with the stipulations. None. If there was no actual controversy, the defense team would've filed a motion to dismiss at the trial level and this never gets off the ground.

The entire "it was fake" is an absolute lie.

No it isn't, it's part of the records of the court itself. If you've read it you'd know that's what the entire contention is about actually, Lorie Smith was looking to move into the wedding website design business so wanted to post a disclaimer on her website saying that she wouldn't design for gay weddings as that goes against her faith. She knew that doing so would run her afoul of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act(CADA) as it covers sexual orientation explicitly so you aren't allowed to post any variation of 'No Gays Allowed.' So, with the backing of Alliance Defending Freedom, she pre-emptively sued for clarification on the law. She had never designed a wedding website for a single client. Again, all of this is indisputable fact, part of the court record.

It's all very legal and very manufactured. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Dionysus444]

I would say the facts of the case would be very important. Did he know it was for a trans person when he agreed to bake the cake? If so, he should stick to his word. Was he deceived and then hit with a gotcha? If so, he may have a case. Now, I would agree that just any cake, just a cake you would put in your display case to be sold to the public, should be sold to anyone. I can't think of any reason sexuality should ever come into it. It should be noted that to many of the LGBTQIAA++ folks their sexuality is THE defining characteristic of their lives, which is sad and nonsensical in my opinion. When I meet someone, do I lead with "Hey, I'm a heterosexual!" No, never have. I don't believe I've ever discussed it, other than in this kind of context where someone else has made it the most important thing in life. I wouldn't join a straight pride march for all the tea in China.

But I digress- if the cake is considered art or speech, then he should be able to have a say in how it is utilized. If it's a cake he would sell to just any member of the public, not signed and not publicly associated with that baker in any special way, then I don't think he has a case. Pink cake with blue frosting seems pretty standard to me. But let's just be clear- he was targeted again and we all know it. What are the chances that immediately after the SCOTUS threw out the other case, another case would immediately be brought? He was targeted. And how was he targeted? With the ultimate politically correct issue of the day- transgenderism. Oh yeah, this one was designed and conspired. But I'll be honest. I would make the cake, a generic pink cake with blue frosting, and not deal with the court battle. I wouldn't consider that selling out, either. I'd just make the cake and let it go. But you can be sure, the alphabet mafia would be after him now, They hate the man and he's going down one way or another.

He's the one bringing sexuality into it by refusing service. All the transgender person wanted was a pink cake with blue frosting. That he agreed to make. Then refused when he found out it was for a transgender person. The transgender person is allowed to be who they are, if that's wearing a shirt that says "I AM TRANSGENDER!" in huge letters that doesn't mean they can be refused service any more than someone wearing a shirt with "I AM A MAN" or "I AM CHRISTIAN." Or a cross.

 

[revcort]

He's the one bringing sexuality into it by refusing service. All the transgender person wanted was a pink cake with blue frosting. That he agreed to make. Then refused when he found out it was for a transgender person. The transgender person is allowed to be who they are, if that's wearing a shirt that says "I AM TRANSGENDER!" in huge letters that doesn't mean they can be refused service any more than someone wearing a shirt with "I AM A MAN" or "I AM CHRISTIAN." Or a cross.

It really is sad a person's entire identity is all about their sexual orientation. It's a symptom of a much deeper issue. From what was said above, the transgender person brought sexuality into it. Before he knew the person wanted to use the cake to make a huge deal of their orientation, he was fine with making the cake. It was fine until the person had to make a huge deal of their sexual orientation. Did he ask "well, before I agree to bake this cake, I have to ask a few standard questions: 1. What is your sexual orientation?" So, the baker didn't bring sexuality into it. That is crystal clear.

As I said above, I would just make the cake. To me, it's not worth the hassle. I'd hand it off to an employee and keep my name out of it. It would just be a standard cake I'd sell to anyone who walked in the door WITHOUT needing to know sexual orientations. It truly is sad that a person leads with or, as you suggest, feels the need to wear a tshirt regarding their sexual orientation. It's a sign of a sickness of the mind. Do you discuss your sexual escapades in general conversation? Do you lead with it? How soon does it need to be addressed? I don't discuss it with anyone but my wife.

 

[revcort]

Along this line regarding feeling the need to make your entire life revolve around your sexual orientation and preferences, if a guy walked up to me at Walmart or the grocery store and I said "Hey, how are you doing?" And then he said, "Well, the first thing you need to know about me is that I'm straight! Yes sir, I like females! When I walk down the street, I carry a sign that says "straight as an arrow" everywhere I go. Hey, did you notice the cashier? Of all the people I've seen today, she is the person I'd prefer to be with. I do not like to be with men, in case you were wondering. And I'm very secure in my masculinity. Yes indeed! I was born with XY chromosomes and I have the genitalia to match! So, that's me! How and with whom do you prefer to have sex?" I think I would run and never look back. That guy has issues.

 

[Dionysus444]

It really is sad a person's entire identity is all about their sexual orientation. It's a symptom of a much deeper issue. From what was said above, the transgender person brought sexuality into it. Before he knew the person wanted to use the cake to make a huge deal of their orientation, he was fine with making the cake. It was fine until the person had to make a huge deal of their sexual orientation. Did he ask "well, before I agree to bake this cake, I have to ask a few standard questions: 1. What is your sexual orientation?" So, the baker didn't bring sexuality into it. That is crystal clear.

As I said above, I would just make the cake. To me, it's not worth the hassle. I'd hand it off to an employee and keep my name out of it. It would just be a standard cake I'd sell to anyone who walked in the door WITHOUT needing to know sexual orientations. It truly is sad that a person leads with or, as you suggest, feels the need to wear a tshirt regarding their sexual orientation. It's a sign of a sickness of the mind. Do you discuss your sexual escapades in general conversation? Do you lead with it? How soon does it need to be addressed? I don't discuss it with anyone but my wife.

It's a protected class that you can't discriminate based on same as religion. Should he be allowed to refuse anyone wearing a cross? Your posit that the person's status must be hidden creates a de facto 'Don't ask, Don't tell' standard where whether or not a transgender person is served is dependent on them being silent about themselves. What if there's a bathroom law like some red states where a person has to use the bathroom of their birth sex? Do you get to deny them service after they come out of the bathroom because you now know they're transgender?

Along this line regarding feeling the need to make your entire life revolve around your sexual orientation and preferences, if a guy walked up to me at Walmart or the grocery store and I said "Hey, how are you doing?" And then he said, "Well, the first thing you need to know about me is that I'm straight! Yes sir, I like females! When I walk down the street, I carry a sign that says "straight as an arrow" everywhere I go. Hey, did you notice the cashier? Of all the people I've seen today, she is the person I'd prefer to be with. I do not like to be with men, in case you were wondering. And I'm very secure in my masculinity. Yes indeed! I was born with XY chromosomes and I have the genitalia to match! So, that's me! How and with whom do you prefer to have sex?" I think I would run and never look back. That guy has issues.

When you wear a cross you're doing just that about your religion. Should you be refused service because of that? You announce your sexuality any time you go somewhere with your wife and/or kids. You only rail against the gay community because it's different from you.

 

[jameslee32]

One would have hoped the superior race fans, bible thumpers and other puritans would have understood victimhood, discrimination and marginalization much much better.

 

[BBBLazing]

I haven’t lied about name calling. I admitted that I called you names in the past. I do not deny it. I admit I called you names in this very thread. I do not deny it. You however refuse to admit you resorted to name calling first in this thread. You can call my comment whatever you want. It is completely true. You have your head so far in the air because of some sense of superiority that you require a damn parachute to get to the ground. If you were have as perfect as you thought you were, they would’ve nailed your *** to a cross. That’s the shoe you choose to wear so if it fits, lace that ***** up and wear it.

The problem with this site anymore is that after about 20 people post, it becomes an argument between people about what each of them said. The issue the OP was about gets lost, and its just people calling each other names and arguing about who is a hypocrite or liar, and the subject of the post gets lost.

 

[Ron Mehico]

Along this line regarding feeling the need to make your entire life revolve around your sexual orientation and preferences, if a guy walked up to me at Walmart or the grocery store and I said "Hey, how are you doing?" And then he said, "Well, the first thing you need to know about me is that I'm straight! Yes sir, I like females! When I walk down the street, I carry a sign that says "straight as an arrow" everywhere I go. Hey, did you notice the cashier? Of all the people I've seen today, she is the person I'd prefer to be with. I do not like to be with men, in case you were wondering. And I'm very secure in my masculinity. Yes indeed! I was born with XY chromosomes and I have the genitalia to match! So, that's me! How and with whom do you prefer to have sex?" I think I would run and never look back. That guy has issues.

While I actually agree with your point about how insane the whole sexuality thing is now, almost like a real life SNL skit, where it’s just a political ploy to garner votes (who needs to go through the difficulties of balancing a budget when you can just garner feverish support by saying you support/don’t support transgenders!), I do disagree about heterosexuality not being a prominent part of your life.

Heterosexuality is basically my entire life now. I have 3 kids and everyone new I’ve met in the last five years I’ve known either through my wife or kids. I even wear a shiny ring around town when I’m not with my wife and kids that says I’m married. And you better believe every guy that I meet at my kids sports practice or dance recital and sees my big tittayed blonde wife knows I’m straight as an arrow (Am I right fellas?!). It’s basically what my entire life is based around. And before I was married as a single guy pretty much all social events centered around me attempting to get laid - preferably with some big ole chest beefers am I right fellas?! I would even eat at places called hooters and the tilted kilt so I could look at some sweet perky bigguns when I was eating wings with my other buds who loved talkin bout titties.

 

[Beatle Bum]

I love seeing libs claim this. Very competent defense lawyers investigated and plead the case all the way up the supreme court with a set of facts stipulated. There is 0% chance the facts weren't in line with the stipulations. None. If there was no actual controversy, the defense team would've filed a motion to dismiss at the trial level and this never gets off the ground.

The entire "it was fake" is an absolute lie.

Yeah, this is non-lawyers being fooled by activists. The facts stipulated to admit that she had not yet begun the business, but was afraid of ramifications for her sincere religious beliefs. Once she won at the Supreme Court, you see the smear job about something that isn’t even relevant. People prone to hate her for her religion will swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Beatle Bum]

It was a what if filed as authentic. I hope the person who she says asked for a website sues the **** out of her. She would deserve it completely.

This ^^ from a poster who has not read the case. Such authority from someone who clearly does not know the case.

 

[Beatle Bum]

No it isn't, it's part of the records of the court itself. If you've read it you'd know that's what the entire contention is about actually, Lorie Smith was looking to move into the wedding website design business so wanted to post a disclaimer on her website saying that she wouldn't design for gay weddings as that goes against her faith. She knew that doing so would run her afoul of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act(CADA) as it covers sexual orientation explicitly so you aren't allowed to post any variation of 'No Gays Allowed.' So, with the backing of Alliance Defending Freedom, she pre-emptively sued for clarification on the law. She had never designed a wedding website for a single client. Again, all of this is indisputable fact, part of the court record.

It's all very legal and very manufactured. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

That is not the story about the man who claims to have been her customer. Bait and switch, D-Sus.

There is nothing wrong with what she did and it makes sense. She sees how the government went after the baker for his religious beliefs and she wants guidance. Both the 10th circuit and the SCOTUS said she had standing. Standing is jurisdictional, so no one can waive the argument by not making it below and the Court can consider it sua sponte. She had standing which means her lawsuit was legit. Your harping on this is petty irrelevant sour grapes.

 

[Beatle Bum]

It really is sad a person's entire identity is all about their sexual orientation. It's a symptom of a much deeper issue. From what was said above, the transgender person brought sexuality into it. Before he knew the person wanted to use the cake to make a huge deal of their orientation, he was fine with making the cake. It was fine until the person had to make a huge deal of their sexual orientation. Did he ask "well, before I agree to bake this cake, I have to ask a few standard questions: 1. What is your sexual orientation?" So, the baker didn't bring sexuality into it. That is crystal clear.

As I said above, I would just make the cake. To me, it's not worth the hassle. I'd hand it off to an employee and keep my name out of it. It would just be a standard cake I'd sell to anyone who walked in the door WITHOUT needing to know sexual orientations. It truly is sad that a person leads with or, as you suggest, feels the need to wear a tshirt regarding their sexual orientation. It's a sign of a sickness of the mind. Do you discuss your sexual escapades in general conversation? Do you lead with it? How soon does it need to be addressed? I don't discuss it with anyone but my wife.

The baker was targeted. As soon as he won his prior case, this popped up. He was well known in the gay/trans community. The Alphabet Cult targeted him and set him up.

 

[Beatle Bum]

By the way, complaining about the Alliance Defending Freedom, but praising the ACLU is a special kind of hypocrisy. The ACLU sues on behalf of liberal causes every day.

 

[TCurtis75_rivals88839]

This ^^ from a poster who has not read the case. Such authority from someone who clearly does not know the case.

“In legal filings, Smith claimed that a man named Stewart contacted her on September 21, 2016, to do some wedding design work for him and his fiancé, Mike. On Thursday, the New Republic reported that the request was bogus—they contacted Stewart and he said he is straight, married to a woman (and was even in 2016), and never contacted Smith. And the timing is also suspect: Stewart’s purported request came in less than 24 hours after Smith first filed her lawsuit in state court.”

Stewart’s name, phone number, email, and website are listed on the 303 Creative inquiry form cited in filings, including at the Supreme Court. Stewart, whom the New Republic is identifying only by his first name, told the outlet, “If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that.” He continued: “I wouldn’t want anybody to…make me a wedding website? I’m married, I have a child—I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document.”


In fact, her lawyers did not mention “Stewart’s” request until months later. It first came up in February 2017, when her lawyers wrote in response to defense motions, “Notably, any claim that Lorie will never receive a request to create a custom website celebrating a same-sex ceremony is no longer legitimate because Lorie has received such a request.” Smith said in a sworn statement that “Stewart” made a request through the contact form on her site.

All of this information is public. It has been mentioned in multiple articles. This article was just the first one in my search. I hope Stewart sues the hell out of her.

https://jezebel.com/supreme-court-gay-wedding-website-case-303-creative-lie-1850590742

 

[BBBLazing]

I doubt people are ready to get rid of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. But, I get the point. In today’s age, it is hard to believe the racist establishment would survive with citizens refusing to patronize. On the other hand, it would probably be better to know what businesses you don’t want to give your money to. That is why no one believes that the trans person innocently picked the baker in Colorado. He was targeted because his beliefs are considered abhorrent by a segment of our society, when that person could have gone to any baker with whom they have agreement.

There are other negatives to Title VII. I am sure there is still some very important litigation, but a lot of cases are just people upset and then seeing how they fit into a protected class. We have created a rather litigious society and people get mad about something, so they sue. The Polynesian gay man over 40 claims his discrimination as national origin, race, sex, and age, because he fits into all of those categories. You think, yeah, your employer discriminates on all of those things. Right. Pick one, it’s more convincing.

I agree with you on this, but those cases are generally lost, especially if companies have the balls or insurance to fight them. Most plaintiff's lawyers only get paid when they win, so I don't think too many lawyers (at least those capable of sustaining a practice) take and file too many of these lawsuits. The EEOC and KCHR weed through these cases. Just because someone complains, doesn't mean they ultimately get paid.

 

[Dionysus444]

Yeah, this is non-lawyers being fooled by activists. The facts stipulated to admit that she had not yet begun the business, but was afraid of ramifications for her sincere religious beliefs. Once she won at the Supreme Court, you see the smear job about something that isn’t even relevant. People prone to hate her for her religion will swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

If someone is criticizing the Jack Phillips cases as setups then pointing out that 303 Creative was also a setup is fair game. It doesn't matter to the legal arguments at hand either way obviously, but some people care about the context.

There is nothing wrong with what she did and it makes sense. She sees how the government went after the baker for his religious beliefs and she wants guidance. Both the 10th circuit and the SCOTUS said she had standing. Standing is jurisdictional, so no one can waive the argument by not making it below and the Court can consider it sua sponte. She had standing which means her lawsuit was legit. Your harping on this is petty irrelevant sour grapes.

I'm not harping, merely rebuffing the argument of people who say they care about that. You yourself claimed to care last time the issue was discussed.

Yes, he was targeted for his sincere religious beliefs. The alphabet cult demands submission. It’s the only religion that matters to you.

Vague or not, if the person is targeted for their religious beliefs while others in their industry are not, would you think that legal.

We have seen it. A baker is targeted only because of his sincere religious beliefs when the person seeking to discriminate could have gone to any number of bakers, but chooses him so a lawsuit can be filed attacking those beliefs.

 

[BBBLazing]

Stating an opinion is ignorant is not the same thing as insulting the opinion giver as ignorant. You simply want to muddy the thread up enough so that it gets closed or punted: that's your goal. You wnat there to be insults.

ignorant doesn't mean stupid. I am ignorant of the rules of lacrosse, but I'm not stupid. I'm sure I could figure them out. So calling someone ignorant is used the wrong way too often.

 

[revcort]

It's a protected class that you can't discriminate based on same as religion. Should he be allowed to refuse anyone wearing a cross? Your posit that the person's status must be hidden creates a de facto 'Don't ask, Don't tell' standard where whether or not a transgender person is served is dependent on them being silent about themselves. What if there's a bathroom law like some red states where a person has to use the bathroom of their birth sex? Do you get to deny them service after they come out of the bathroom because you now know they're transgender?


When you wear a cross you're doing just that about your religion. Should you be refused service because of that? You announce your sexuality any time you go somewhere with your wife and/or kids. You only rail against the gay community because it's different from you.

I never argued what you're saying. I have no clue why you're saying this. I'm simply making an observation about a person obsessed with sexual orientation. You're making a bunch of assumptions here that aren't even close. I don't hate them or refuse to help. I'd do anything I can for any of them. I even said above that I would just bake the cake. Did you actually read what I said or did you just assume your way through? Haha!

 

[revcort]

While I actually agree with your point about how insane the whole sexuality thing is now, almost like a real life SNL skit, where it’s just a political ploy to garner votes (who needs to go through the difficulties of balancing a budget when you can just garner feverish support by saying you support/don’t support transgenders!), I do disagree about heterosexuality not being a prominent part of your life.

Heterosexuality is basically my entire life now. I have 3 kids and everyone new I’ve met in the last five years I’ve known either through my wife or kids. I even wear a shiny ring around town when I’m not with my wife and kids that says I’m married. And you better believe every guy that I meet at my kids sports practice or dance recital and sees my big tittayed blonde wife knows I’m straight as an arrow (Am I right fellas?!). It’s basically what my entire life is based around. And before I was married as a single guy pretty much all social events centered around me attempting to get laid - preferably with some big ole chest beefers am I right fellas?! I would even eat at places called hooters and the tilted kilt so I could look at some sweet perky bigguns when I was eating wings with my other buds who loved talkin bout titties.

I don't think you walk up to people and announce your sexuality to everyone. I doubt you talk freely about your sexual exploits with your wife to others, either. It's not your lead. Your life consists of more than this. It is an unhealthy obsession for many of these folks.

 

[Dionysus444]

That is not the story about the man who claims to have been her customer. Bait and switch, D-Sus.

At least one of the two men whose information was used, Stewart, was never checked by the court no, as it's irrelevant to the case whether that request was real or genuine. Are you arguing they did check? Because the man himself says they didn't, he never filed any request, and he's been married to a woman since the 2000s.