SCOTUS Rules You Can Refuse Service to Same-Sex Couples
- Thread starter CrittendenWildcat
- Start date
I’m not “OK” with you continuing to make dumb arguments, but I also don’t think the state should step in to force you to say something you don’t agree with.
And fortunately, the state can’t force you to say something you disagree with.
Ok, so is that a yes? Is “expressive content” where you draw the line oh open minded one. I’m so sorry for my dumb arguments.
From a policy perspective, I don’t think the state should be able to force anyone to say something they disagree with whether gay, straight, white, black, etc.
I know you keep harping on the dissent, but if your take away from the case is that it’s ok to discriminate against gay people, I suggest you actually read the majority opinion.
People are pouring across the border on the daily. Inflation is still out of control. There are multiple bad actors on the world stage that are a legitimate threat to our future.
And here we are spending cycles on gays and religion. Absolutely worthless in the grand scheme of things.
Yea, and i think you and i both know that this is intellectually dishonest and what the true intent and meaning if this is. And this “expressive content” particularly in this instance is bs in a commercial setting. Really, a website design? Cone on. So just call it like it is and quit hiding the behind the ruse.
Not if you are gay and have been/ and are still, being treated as second class citizens.
What is the true intent and meaning?
The website designer, Colorado, the 10th Circuit and the majority of the Supreme Court all agreed the specific websites she was designing were expressive content. Why specifically do you disagree with Colorado, the 10th Circuit and a majority of the Supreme Court?
Seems like you guys jumped to conclusions based on headlines immediately after the ruling was released, formed an opinion without reading the SCOTUS decision, and are now refusing to acknowledge your knee jerk reaction was wrong and want to pretend the facts and ruling are doing what your initial ignorant knee jerk reaction said they were doing.
You can focus on the dissent all you want and talk about the “true intent”, but the rest of us will focus on the actual facts and law.
They get their own damn month for christs sake. Religions get tax breaks and religious leaders have been covering up organized crime for centuries. Neither group has anything to ***** and moan about.
The content creator did not discriminate against homosexuals. The appellant attested she had or would create for homosexuals. She would not, however, create a wedding page for someone celebrating something she believed defiled God’s intent for marriage.
If the state said you cannot refuse providing your business gifts to an adulterer and an adulterer wanted a web page to celebrate his affair and paramour, I suspect she would also seek clarification to deny the artistic services she offers.
The case speaks to the freedom from having speech compelled upon you by government. The examples you must have read given by the majority go beyond homosexuality. I believe that the government should not be able to compel you to say something that defies a deeply held belief.
If Kentucky passed a law that said your business will be taxed ten-fold unless you place a MAGA flag in your window, I would agree with this Court’s interpretation of government exceeding its constitutional authority and expressly invading your right to free expression.
The case involves homosexuality because that was the speech Colorado and other states have legislatively compelled.
From the text:
Consider what a contrary approach would mean. Under Colorado's logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic—no matter the underlying message—if the topic somehow implicates a customer's statutorily protected trait. 6 F.4th at 1198 (Tymkovich, C. J., dissenting). Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty. The government could require “an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message,” or “an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal,” so long as they would make films or murals for other members of the public with different messages. Id., at 1199. Equally, the government could force a male website designer married to another man to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage. See Brief for Petitioners 26–27. Countless other creative professionals, too, could be forced to choose between remaining silent, producing speech that violates their beliefs, or speaking their minds and incurring sanctions for doing so. See, e.g., Brief for Creative Professionals et al. as Amici Curiae 5–10; Brief for First Amendment Scholars as Amici Curiae 19–22. As our precedents recognize, the First Amendment tolerates none of that.
That is what the case is about.
You, as well as anyone with your background, understand though that @Caveman Catfan and others truly believe there is someone up there watching them who created them and the entire universe in which they reside. If that’s true then divining that being’s will and living by it is paramount, doubly so given the actual Christian narrative of eternal salvation or damnation. Religion is exponentially more important than the border to believers. What does a stupid line on a map drawn by humans matter compared to the will of an almighty God?
Actually, “grand schemes” for non-believers interests me. I don’t have to guess the grand plan for God. It’s a map that has been provided.
That said, “reality” is not a “grand scheme.” So, it was disappointing, but predictable.
Which god?Actually, “grand schemes” for non-believers interests me. I don’t have to guess the grand plan for God. It’s a map that has been provided.
That said, “reality” is not a “grand scheme.” So, it was disappointing, but predictable.
If you read the dissent, it specifically addresses this bogus argument by the majority. Again, I encourage you to read it.
And if you think that this case is not a veiled mechanism to allow discrimination against homosexuals, and to open the floodgates to “expressive content” then I don’t know what else to tell you.
lol
I googled “most cited dissents in history” and guess what topped the list?
Exactly. There was no list. Because no one gives a **** about dissents besides thejudddome.
Maybe the first honest thing you said on here - you want them ruined. Hate to rain on your parade by any action (not that one exists) would be against the lawyers who defended their case. That's limited to the .00001% chance they didn't actually investigate any of the facts before agreeing to them. Even still I'm not sure it matters.
The holding. You know the part that became law of the land. Outside of law school noone gives a **** about dissents because they mean zero.
The rare exception, as stated above, is a 5/4 case where you can gauge if there is wiggle room to get bring a case with different facts to get around the outcome and/or if retirement of one of the judges can swing the issue.
6/3? No one cares and it certainly has no actual legal value
I never said I want her ruined however if my information was used without my permission in a court case (in which I am not actually a party or involved in the case), I would be upset as Stewart is. That designer deserves to face consequences for that. If it isn't that big of a deal, why don't you just go ahead and give me your information. I will see what I can do with it.
How do you know one of the guys friends didn’t submit his name to the website as a joke?
My friends and I used to submit each others names and addresses to weird mailing lists in high school.
I guess it is possible that the lady was crafting a false story that was completely irrelevant to her case, was too dumb to google the name of the person who’s name she used, submitted statements under penalties of perjury that were lies, then jezebel cracked the case on something, that again, is completely irrelevant to the Supreme Court case.
All that happened by accident 24 hours after she filed her case? A high school kid doing that to a friend I can see...A man married for over 10 years with a child would not have that sort of thing done. Again, if it isn't a big deal, go ahead and send me your information and I will see what I can do with it.
You have zero clue what actually happened and are assuming the worst because it fits your narrative.
I’m willing to say I don’t know what happened, there are many plausible explanations and I would like to know all the facts before forming a judgment.
Just like you did with the SCOTUS case, you assumed a conclusion that fit your worldview. And when presented with actual facts that show your initial conclusion is, or very well may be wrong, you refuse to acknowledge you jumped to a conclusion and should have withheld judgment until facts are known, like an objective, reasonable person would do.
Well, we have come to the point where revenge takes center stage, because the loser wants to see the winner suffer. All admit that no one named Stewart was the basis of the lawsuit or the decision recently rendered. Everyone associated with the case agrees the web designer sought a ruling and the 10th Circuit and SCOTUS agreed her situation bestowed standing.
Attorneys for Colorado evidently desired to make a standing argument (seems they did at the district court and then the 10th Circuit overturned that issue) and requested information to see if she could meet standing, as they argued standing.
Stewart’s information was provided in 2017. Six years ago. Only after the SCOTUS opinion did a reporter follow up, but that would mean that the attorneys for Colorado never followed up or did and got a different answer.
Smith’s lawyers claim the request naming Stewart was made through her website and denied she fabricated it. She said that it is indisputable that the request was actually made. The lawyer suggested a person may have used Stewart’s info in an attempt to troll Smith. That makes far more sense than Smith offering some dude’s actual information under the guise he sought her services for a gay wedding.
This tangent is laughable, but not actionable.
Attorneys for Colorado evidently desired to make a standing argument (seems they did at the district court and then the 10th Circuit overturned that issue) and requested information to see if she could meet standing, as they argued standing.
Stewart’s information was provided in 2017. Six years ago. Only after the SCOTUS opinion did a reporter follow up, but that would mean that the attorneys for Colorado never followed up or did and got a different answer.
Smith’s lawyers claim the request naming Stewart was made through her website and denied she fabricated it. She said that it is indisputable that the request was actually made. The lawyer suggested a person may have used Stewart’s info in an attempt to troll Smith. That makes far more sense than Smith offering some dude’s actual information under the guise he sought her services for a gay wedding.
This tangent is laughable, but not actionable.
I know what Stewart said. I didn't jump to any conclusion. I wouldn't expect someone who has tunnel vision about the topic to understand that. For someone who thinks everyone is out to get those businesses who aren't willing to help homosexual couples, I would have thought you would have been one to be happy that someone hadn't actually requested this person to design a website when that news came out. Instead, you continue to say we don't know what really happen. You have no problem believing what the designer says but still question everything Stewart says. That certainly isn't objective behavior on your part so I guess that makes you the unreasonable person you accused me of being.
Thank you Colonel Obvious. My point about the dissent is that it if you will read it, shows you why the majority opinion is logically screwed and unjustified from a legal perspective and shows why and how the religious nutcases are running the court. Of course a majority opinion could hold that horses are now dogs and it is binding law. But in reality we all know that horses are not dogs.
Not even worth my time. Believe Smith because she is on your side but question everything Stewart says. That is certainly reasonable behavior.
It evidently was worth your time. Wish it was not.
No one is questioning Stewart unless he is saying that his information was never placed on the website or is claiming Smith flat out lied. But, I have not seen him say any of that.
The losers assuming Smith did something untoward? Yeah, I question them, six years later.
Some of us our attempting to apply common sense to an issue of zero consequence.
Ascribing motives doesn't change the fact that the ruling was correct.
Of course, I’m sure you are still championing Plessy
and hoping for its triumphant return, which given the current court status just might happen.
What a typically boring and baseless assumption, in lieu of making an actual point.
TheJuddDome - "I can't think of anything cogent to say, so I guess I'll just go ad hominem"
Okay, I'll play.
Please get your ENTIRE head in front of the shotgun next time and save everyone the effort of having to scroll past your mindless drivel. LOL
TheJuddDome - "I can't think of anything cogent to say, so I guess I'll just go ad hominem"
Okay, I'll play.
Please get your ENTIRE head in front of the shotgun next time and save everyone the effort of having to scroll past your mindless drivel. LOL
Last edited:
You have no common sense stalker. He flat out said he didn’t put his information on there.