The whole point of the case was that a lady didn't want to make a website for same-sex couples! Is that not a service?
SCOTUS Rules You Can Refuse Service to Same-Sex Couples
- Thread starter CrittendenWildcat
- Start date
Read the whole thread.
IF A HOSPITAL TAKES SUBSIDIES FROM THE GOVT THEN THEY CANT DENY SERVICE, MOST HOSPITALS DO AND ID ASSUME ESPECIALLY RURAL HOSPITALS.
Also, when has this happened? When has it caused problems? Do you know of a case where this happened or are you what iffing and making up things that could happen?
How many gays live in rural areas with one hospital and how many of those hospitals are going to say no?
How would the hospital know you’re gay anyway?
Doctors take the Hippocratic oath which says do no harm. How many docs are going to turn someone dying away? Probably about zero.
Quit making up scenarios to be mad about.
“WHAT IF THE DOCTOR GOES TO A SNAKE HANDLING CHURCH AND SOMEONE COMES IN WITH A SNAKE BITE AND THEN THEY DONT THINK THE SNAKE WAS IN THE WRONG AND THINKS YOU SHOULD HAVE TO SUFFWR THE CONSEQUENCES OF MESSING WITH GODS CREATURES!!!!!!!!!!”
Yes please do that and encouraged to do so because no straight people would protest against it and you could use your new alphabet soup for all the freaks to patronize your business. Great idea and we are all for it
I just did right before your post. They didn't deny service to the gay couple at all. They were perfectly fine to sell the gay couple any cake they were willing to make. They just weren't going to draw dicks on it.
FWIW, I don't agree you should deny service to anyone just because of their religion, beliefs, color, etc. Again,. this is something I bet all conservatives agree with. What they SHOULDN'T be forced to do is make their business cater to specific wants and needs of those groups, if they don't want to.
You are missing the point. The point is that this ruling opens the door for these things to happen. It is only a matter of time before it happens. It has sent social norms back decades once this pandora's box was opened.
You’ve either not read the actual case, or you’re completely misunderstanding the ruling.
Pandora’s box? This ruling reiterates that we have the freedom to act on our religious convictions.
Social norms? What’s normal about demanding that others adhere to your ideology to the point that you sue them?
Sanity has been restored. That’s it. That’s the outcome.
Then I ask you what I asked before. The service in this case was designing a website (ie drawing dicks on a cake). The good was the website (the cake). In this case, you can't have the good of a website without the design. How do we prevent the denial of a good to a protected class when that good actually depends on a service as well? This designer seems to be in violation and following the law at the same time based on SCOTUS ruling. How do we get past something like that?
You sure do have a firm grasp on realityYes please do that and encouraged to do so because no straight people would protest against it and you could use your new alphabet soup for all the freaks to patronize your business. Great idea and we are all for it
You're saying designing a gay website? In that, the product, in and of it self, is literally the message? Let me know if I'm understanding you.
I would say if the web developers don't want to make a pro-anything website, they don't need to. But they will still build a website for the group of something different. They aren't refusing ALL their services to the client, there's just some things they don't work on. Web developers shouldn't be forced to build a website they don;t feel comfortable building.
No one asked this lady to do anything! She was in the process of wanting to make websites but had never actually made one. She may or may not have been asked by a guy in a same-sex relationship (jury is still out on if this was even a real request) to make a website and sued because she didn't want to.
That's exactly what it did under the guise of religious freedom. In this case, the web designer said her religious beliefs went against a gay couple so she couldn't design a website for them. They were denied a service simply because they were gay regardless of the reason. SCOTUS said the reason was legal but it doesn't mean that they weren't denied service because of sexual orientation.
Also, why would you want to use the services to build something, that the owners clearly don't want to do? Just go somewhere else. This feels more like "getting your way" and being spiteful, than actually looking for a service.
If I walked into a gay bakery and they didn't make straight cakes, I'd just leave. And before you say it, there are PLENTY of bakeries who will make gay-inspired things.
If I walked into a gay bakery and they didn't make straight cakes, I'd just leave. And before you say it, there are PLENTY of bakeries who will make gay-inspired things.
I'm referencing the cake incident. I'd need to read more about this one to formulate an opinion.
However, the cake incident still stands, and many libs think the bakery should have done whatever the gay couple asked them to do. And that I disagree with.
She didn't want to make websites for gay people (a bit discriminatory if I might add) and the Supreme Court said that she didn't have to. Thus, she is denying a service to a certain group of society based on her religion. Seems pretty straight forward
The case was a same sex couple who wanted a website for their family. I assume to keep other family members who aren't close geographically up to date with their lives. The designer said her religion didn't believe in same sex marriage so she refused to design anything. This wasn't a pro anything in my understanding. In fact, it now appears this case was nothing but a hypothetical and not something that actually happened.
That I don't agree with. I don't think you should deny a basic service just because of someone's race, religion etc.
But why do I get the sense there's missing information here?
That’s completely wrong.
She didn’t want to make a websites celebrating gay marriages, and was afraid the state of Colorado would force her to do it if she was making any marriage websites. The SCOTUS ruled her personalized, customized websites were speech and the state of Colorado could not compel her to speak in violation of her deeply held personal beliefs. The same way the state can’t force you to say the pledge of allegiance if you hate America.
You just said the exact same thing as me but with more words
Most here will be able to comprehend the difference. You’re clearly a lost cause.
Clearly I am because we said the EXACT same thing. You did give me a good laugh though so I thank you for that
Again, I don't really know the details of this specific case, so I can't really make an opinion on it.
I'll ask this, then.. do YOU think a business should ALSO have to offer special/custom services that might contradict their beliefs or feelings? That seems to be where the divide is. I dont think anyone here believes that a group of people should be denied BASIC services that a business offers.
-this is the crux of the issue. It's about force/power...not a cake/website.
^there are scads of bakeries/web site developers that would love to have the lgbtetc business. If not (in some remote areas)...that's a helluva business opportunity for some entrepreneur.
I don't believe religion should be an excuse to refuse service to people (since that is clearly discrimination) but that would just lead into bigger arguments on the intent of religion and the moral implications that come with how we view religion in our day to day lives and I'm not really trying to get that deep especially on a Friday.
I would disagree with your last comment though, I believe there are PLENTY of people on this forum that would gladly refuse service to gay people with or without the excuse of religious freedom.
Last part first.. I do not think so. And I'd tell those people they are wrong. Now, I'm sure there are some out there who feel this way.. but by and large most conservatives don't care who you are, if you're making yourself a customer. We like money too much, right?
I also didn't quite get an answer on the first part. No one is denying the Hindu's the ability to buy a cake, just that the business might not make a cake SPECIFICALLY with a Hindu message.
In this case though, they are denying “the Hindu the cake.” You can’t have a website without design. That’s what makes this case different than the baker. I agreed that a baker should have the option to refuse baking a specific cake for gay couple if they chose to because that couple could still buy a cake from that baker. In this case, they can’t just buy a generic website out of a display case. Without a web designer, there can be no website. This woman is using religious excuse to prevent them from buying the food in addition to the service. At least the baker could and did say, I will sell them a cake. I just won’t design one due to religious beliefs. That is a huge difference between the 2.
Is there a point that doesn’t include infringing on an individual’s religious convictions?
You don’t even have to read that far into the case to see:
“Ms. Smith and the State stipulated to a number of facts:
-Ms. Smith is ‘willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender,’ and she, ‘will gladly create custom graphics and websites’ for clients of any sexual orientation…”
If you guys would just read the damn case, it may clear up a lot of your confusion.
But no where did Jesus you would burn in Hell for it. As Caveman said, you are missing the forgiveness part.
I read that and it changes nothing in my post. They are still being denied the website about their marriage because of her religious beliefs. Their is no option for anything else for the website they want. The baker can sell the gay couple another cake so they still have options besides one custom from that baker. This couple has no other options for a website from this provider because the website they wanted was about their marriage. That is the difference regardless of however you dance around it.
That's the great thing about capitalism, I can shop elsewhere. So can this couple seeking a website for their ceremony. Web Designers are a dime-a-dozen.
And, at the end of the day, the decision will still be the decision. Enjoy the rest of your day.