SCOTUS Rules You Can Refuse Service to Same-Sex Couples

[roguemocha]

Dude you’re so deeply imbedded in your beliefs you can’t even fathom you may be wrong about something, same with dumbass republicans. It’s statistically impossible for one side to always be right.

The difference in the sides and why I lean more right than left is that the right at least tries to uphold traditions and values that created this amazing country that allows people to be wrong and try and tear it down from the inside which is EXACTLY what would happen if lefties had ultimate control.

You’ll throw the baby out with the bath water just to have EVERYONE COMPLETELY EQUAL! You’d rather burn the country to the ground and be run by the Chinese than have one person disenfranchised.

That’s a great dream and I hope we get to a point we’re everyone is singing REM’s Shiny Happy People Holding Hands together. But that’s not reality.l there will ALWAYS be splinter groups that feel they’re not equal.

You’re the same as the green energy people. You’re just like them, they’d rather lose world hegemony (which most every other country that doesn’t hate us agrees that the US should be the main superpower) by dumping 50 trillion dollars into a worthless endeavor of trying to stop “climate change” while china and India continue not giving one half a touch about the environment to decrease like 20% of world emissions essentially bankrupting our economy because of touching sea turtles or whatever, that won’t change anything in the long run.

I’d rather the US stay number one and have some tiny groups that don’t “feel” like everything is fair because they can’t get a stupid touching cake and them just have to deal with it than destroy all these small businesses on which this country is built.

Just say I have white guilt because I’m gaping *** and thusly feel anyone that’s not white should be given anything they’ve asked for no matter the circumstance because slavery…

 

[SDC888]

Dude you’re so deeply imbedded in your beliefs you can’t even fathom you may be wrong about something, same with dumbass republicans.

They are "debating" caricatures of one another... two sides of the same coin.

This case should be 9-0.

 

[TCurtis75_rivals88839]

Um, yes. Yes you did.

That part isn’t skepticism. That has been widely reported. Maybe those reports are incorrect but it still isn’t skepticism in my part. My skepticism is she won’t design any website for a gay couple not just a marriage one.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

Just make your own website. Problem solved.

 

[JumperJack]

With a reportedly fake story...that's not questionable at all.

Have you heard the one about the entire government trying to take out a POTUS over a fake story?

 

[CrittendenWildcat]

That part isn’t skepticism. That has been widely reported. Maybe those reports are incorrect but it still isn’t skepticism in my part. My skepticism is she won’t design any website for a gay couple not just a marriage one.

A stipulation is a fact agreed to by both parties in a lawsuit. Since both parties agree, it is an undisputed fact. From the decision:

To facilitate the district court’s resolution of the merits of her case, 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. App. to Pet. for Cert. 184a.

My point is, you asserted your opinion/assumptions to the contrary of this stipulation as fact. The State of Colorado did not doubt the veracity of this statement, so why do you doubt it?

I'll tell you why. Basically you're just an arsehole who thinks the worst of people with whom you don't agree.

 

[TCurtis75_rivals88839]

S

A stipulation is a fact agreed to by both parties in a lawsuit. Since both parties agree, it is an undisputed fact. From the decision:

To facilitate the district court’s resolution of the merits of her case, 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. App. to Pet. for Cert. 184a.

My point is, you asserted your opinion/assumptions to the contrary of this stipulation as fact. The State of Colorado did not doubt the veracity of this statement, so why do you doubt it?

I'll tell you why. Basically you're just an arsehole who thinks the worst of people with whom you don't agree.

i stipulated what has been reported as a fact. I don’t care if both sides agreed to the basis of the case or not. If what is reported is true, the case was based on a lie. I don’t think the worst of people whom I disagree. Some of my best friends and I don’t agree politically. I would do anything in this world for them if they needed me. I think the worst of people like you who call someone an arsehole simply because I disagree with you even though you have no idea who I am.

And I own my skepticism that the statement she will work with anyone on a website. I don’t believe that statement for one single second. It doesn’t matter who says it or agrees with it.

 

[CrittendenWildcat]

I just gave you my source. What's your source?

 

[Beatle Bum]

Some think being homosexual is unnatural, yet no one complains about the idea of a hetrosexual couple having anal sex. Wouldn't that be considered unnatural too?

Definitely. Your colon has a purpose and it’s not for smudging your sausage.

 

[TCurtis75_rivals88839]

I just gave you my source. What's your source?

And before you claim
Anything about the source, this has been reported in other places. This was just the first one I found on this search. And the quotes about the filings are part of the public record.

“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.

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

 

[Beatle Bum]

That isn’t a loophole. That’s the law. As an attorney, I would expect you to know that.

Someone lacks a sense of humor.

 

[Beatle Bum]

That part isn’t skepticism. That has been widely reported. Maybe those reports are incorrect but it still isn’t skepticism in my part. My skepticism is she won’t design any website for a gay couple not just a marriage one.

Maybe she is being targeted by the bully Alphabet mafia?

 

[Beatle Bum]

S

i stipulated what has been reported as a fact. I don’t care if both sides agreed to the basis of the case or not.

Ignorant post ^^

 

[TCurtis75_rivals88839]

Ignorant post ^^

^^Stalker post

 

[Beatle Bum]

^^Stalker post

You, the guy who said he would not piss on me if I was on fire and who wished tragedy for my family claiming you would do anything for the people in your life who disagree with you politically. Right! No one believes that BS. You are the political lemming who cannot stand people disagreeing or demonstrating your ignorance.

 

[CaptainBoogerBuns]

Actually, that's what this very court decision allows. Sexual orientation is a protected class under federal law. So long as your religious beliefs are gay people are bad you can deny services to them.

You can’t. Denying service period is tantamount to denying entry into your store. The CR Act of 1964 allows access to places of public accommodation like retail stores, theaters, restaurants etc. That will never change. Now if the person was acting looney or threatening—then they should be refused service.

 

[TCurtis75_rivals88839]

You, the guy who said he would not piss on me if I was on fire and who wished tragedy for my family claiming you would do anything for the people in your life who disagree with you politically. Right! No one believes that BS. You are the political lemming who cannot stand people disagreeing or demonstrating your ignorance.

You fail to mention that I apologized for saying that in this very public forum and said I was out of line. Don’t leave out that important little detail.

 

[roguemocha]

Some think being homosexual is unnatural, yet no one complains about the idea of a hetrosexual couple having anal sex. Wouldn't that be considered unnatural too?

Dudes that feel this way have 100% all watched two chicks going at it in the internet and I won’t hear it any other way.

It’s just like all the racists in Alabama yet the number one pornhub search in Alabama is Black Girls. They “HATE” them but in the quiet of their bedroom they’re getting off to black people having sex.

One of the biggest problems is that people are scared to be themselves or be open books. Scared of others opinions, who cares? That’s sad.

 

[TCurtis75_rivals88839]

You, the guy who said he would not piss on me if I was on fire and who wished tragedy for my family claiming you would do anything for the people in your life who disagree with you politically. Right! No one believes that BS. You are the political lemming who cannot stand people disagreeing or demonstrating your ignorance.

And you are free to believe whatever the hell you want. I’m comfortable with what I said and my friends that are Republicans know it’s true. That’s all that matters to me. Your thoughts on it are of exactly zero consequence.

 

[CrittendenWildcat]

Your thoughts on it are of exactly zero consequence.

The feeling is mutual.

 

[TCurtis75_rivals88839]

The feeling is mutual.

I haven’t said anything about your thoughts. I haven’t attacked you. I’ve said my piece. I provided you with a source as you asked for. Only one of us has resorted to namecalling. If you forgot who that was, look in the mirror.

 

[JDHoss]

Any business should have the right to refuse service to whomever they want. Just like customers have the right not to patronize their business. That’s how it is supposed to work but “feelings” too often get in the way.

Agreed, and I think any privately owned business should be free to discriminate against whoever they wish, with the following caveat(s). The business must PROMINENTLY display/mention their discriminatory policies in ALL advertising, be it print, radio, billboard, TV, or social media. In addition, the policies must be displayed prominently at the entrance to their business. Also, businesses with discriminatory policies will not be eligible to receive government grants/funding/loans/relief help. These caveats will help me understand in advance who I'm not doing business with.

 

[DreadLox]

The Good Old Days of Whites Only are just a whisper away.

We're living in the worst times.

 

[august-west]

The sad thing is that this really only applies to a minuscule number of business yet it receives such a large amount of press. One bakery refused service and away we go. The other 99% of businesses don’t need to be told not to discriminate, in the 21st century, because they don’t want to run the risk of losing customers. Just another silly dividing issue.

 

[JumperJack]

The Good Old Days of Whites Only are just a whisper away.

We're living in the worst times.

[laughing]

Probably gonna just skip right back to slavery.

Good lord, Trump broke these people in half.

 

[TCurtis75_rivals88839]

The sad thing is that this really only applies to a minuscule number of business yet it receives such a large amount of press. One bakery refused service and away we go. The other 99% of businesses don’t need to be told not to discriminate, in the 21st century, because they don’t want to run the risk of losing customers. Just another silly dividing issue.

Now apply this same logic to transgender women competing in women’s sports. This logic easily is the same for that topic.

 

[DreadLox]

The sad thing is that this really only applies to a minuscule number of business yet it receives such a large amount of press. One bakery refused service and away we go. The other 99% of businesses don’t need to be told not to discriminate, in the 21st century, because they don’t want to run the risk of losing customers. Just another silly dividing issue.

Because no law is ever generalized. No camel ever follows its nose into a tent.

And the "case" was contrived. The man who was said to have requested the cake is straight and married with kids and claims he didn't do anything. They just used his name.

 

[CB3UK]

Glad to see SCOTUS pass some common sense legislation. Twice this week they've nailed it. Kudos.

 

[BBBLazing]

Thanks triple b

no problem.

 

[zerubbable]

State sponsored Christofascism is here at last. Happy Independence Day y'all!

Wait until Scotus strikes down gay weddings in general...its coming!
You'll have even more heartburn

 

[BBBLazing]

I'm a retired lawyer that is fairly liberal when it comes to social issues. I see what the court did here, and it is not as bad as Tcurtis makes it to be, and it is not as good as some others make it to be. Basically, if you want to have a website created, the designer can't refuse to build your website because you are gay. But, if you want a website advertising gay marriage, they can refuse to build that one. As a practical matter, I'm not sure much changed here other than the spin that most people that are too illiterate to read a Supreme Court opinion put on it. For instance, the title of this thread is horribly inaccurate. The Court did not say you can refuse service to same sex couples. A restaurant can't refuse to allow you to eat there because you are gay. While some of the people that have responded to this thread wish that was the law, it is not. However, a restaurant can refuse to allow you to be married in their restaurant, because their religious beliefs (no matter matter how made up they are) are against gay marriage.

The spin is the problem, because I'm sure small business owners that are bigoted will use this to say i can now discriminate. I've read this entire thread and while everyone says, go to another baker, etc. (yes that is right, the t goes before the c) in a bunch of small towns in Kentucky, there are limited resources. If the shoe store in Barbourville doesn't welcome gays, they have to travel, and sometimes can't afford to do so. So, I hope people respect the limited impact of this decision and move forward knowing that as a populace, we all have to figure out a way to get along and quit calling people liberals and conservatives, lefts and rights, and start treating people as just people that disagree about certain things. I know some of you are incapable of doing that because you have defined yourself by your political beliefs. I'll be 87 next month and I've learned that there isn't enough time to spend some of it worrying about **** like that.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Because no law is ever generalized. No camel ever follows its nose into a tent.

And the "case" was contrived. The man who was said to have requested the cake is straight and married with kids and claims he didn't do anything. They just used his name.

What cake? Read the damn case before commenting.

 

[Dore95]

I'm a retired lawyer that is fairly liberal when it comes to social issues. I see what the court did here, and it is not as bad as Tcurtis makes it to be, and it is not as good as some others make it to be. Basically, if you want to have a website created, the designer can't refuse to build your website because you are gay. But, if you want a website advertising gay marriage, they can refuse to build that one. As a practical matter, I'm not sure much changed here other than the spin that most people that are too illiterate to read a Supreme Court opinion put on it. For instance, the title of this thread is horribly inaccurate. The Court did not say you can refuse service to same sex couples. A restaurant can't refuse to allow you to eat there because you are gay. While some of the people that have responded to this thread wish that was the law, it is not. However, a restaurant can refuse to allow you to be married in their restaurant, because their religious beliefs (no matter matter how made up they are) are against gay marriage.

The spin is the problem, because I'm sure small business owners that are bigoted will use this to say i can now discriminate. I've read this entire thread and while everyone says, go to another baker, etc. (yes that is right, the t goes before the c) in a bunch of small towns in Kentucky, there are limited resources. If the shoe store in Barbourville doesn't welcome gays, they have to travel, and sometimes can't afford to do so. So, I hope people respect the limited impact of this decision and move forward knowing that as a populace, we all have to figure out a way to get along and quit calling people liberals and conservatives, lefts and rights, and start treating people as just people that disagree about certain things. I know some of you are incapable of doing that because you have defined yourself by your political beliefs. I'll be 87 next month and I've learned that there isn't enough time to spend some of it worrying about **** like that.

I agree with this. This thread is full of people who have no idea what this case was about or why it came down the way it did. You don’t have to be a lawyer to read the syllabus and understand that this case concerns free speech and not LGBT or religion or use of “public funds” or whatever most of you are talking about. The biggest problem in our society today is that everyone thinks they are an expert on every everything.

 

[Beatle Bum]

I agree with this. This thread is full of people who have no idea what this case was about or why it came down the way it did. You don’t have to be a lawyer to read the syllabus and understand that this case concerns free speech and not LGBT or religion or use of “public funds” or whatever most of you are talking about. The biggest problem in our society today is that everyone thinks they are an expert on every everything.

The case involves the government attempting to compel speech that violates a citizen’s sincerely held religious beliefs. Gorsuch focuses on free speech, rather than the stipulated religious belief, but take religion out of the equation and I doubt this case is granted cert.

 

[SDC888]

I agree with this. This thread is full of people who have no idea what this case was about or why it came down the way it did. You don’t have to be a lawyer to read the syllabus and understand that this case concerns free speech and not LGBT or religion or use of “public funds” or whatever most of you are talking about. The biggest problem in our society today is that everyone thinks they are an expert on every everything.

People think they are muchg smarter than they are, especially "smart" people.

 

[Beatle Bum]

"I’ve had my home address put on social media, I have received many threats — death threats, threats of bodily harm," she said in December. "The security system on my home, my child’s school has been on alert. I’ve lost business, my clients have been harassed and my website… people attempt to hack into it, almost regularly by the hour."

Bullying with “tolerance” and “acceptance.”

 

[SDC888]

Which is the (a) serious problem, totally unsustainable. Those people (leftist fanatics), don't just think you are wrong in your beliefs: they think you shouldn't be allowed to exist.

The misguided opinions by the activist judges and the losers we have elected to office, demonizing the ruling and the people who support it, making it out to be something that it isn't, justifies it all to them. It's effectively a call to violence, a whisper.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Which is the (a) serious problem, totally unsustainable. Those people (leftist fanatics), don't just think you are wrong in your beliefs: they think you shouldn't be allowed to exist.

The misguided opinions by the activist judges and the losers we have elected to office, demonizing the ruling and the people who support it, making it out to be something that it isn't, justifies it all to them. It's effectively a call to violence, a whisper.

The rhetoric from selfish politicals who benefit politically and financially from the perceived turmoil is a cause of much of this.

 

[AIChatGPT]

I don’t feel like reading the whole case.

Is gay marriage the only “strongly held biblical belief” that can allow them not to provide a service?

Are there other parts of the Bible that are allowed? New Testament only or also Old Testament? It’s very tricky to figure out what evangelicals are focused on.

What about deeply held Muslim beliefs? Hindu? Buddhist?

Did the lady mention any other services she would be unable to provide because of her beliefs or was it just the one single thing that people stopped caring about 10 years ago?

 

[Dore95]

The case involves the government attempting to compel speech that violates a citizen’s sincerely held religious beliefs. Gorsuch focuses on free speech, rather than the stipulated religious belief, but take religion out of the equation and I doubt this case is granted cert.

Maybe. But it was not analyzed in a first amendment religious framework. He could have done that but didn’t. The interesting thing to me is how the scope of “pure speech” jobs/businesses will be defined.