You know the answer to that question. We are all talking in hypotheticals since this lady was never asked to design a website in the first place. You can play your games but you are playing by yourself.
SCOTUS Rules You Can Refuse Service to Same-Sex Couples
- Thread starter CrittendenWildcat
- Start date
“Lorie Smith wants to expand her graphic design business, 303 Creative LLC, to include services for couples seeking wedding websites. But Ms. Smith worries that Colorado will use the Colorado Anti-Discrimi- nation Act to compel her—in violation of the First Amendment—to cre- ate websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse. To clarify her rights, Ms. Smith filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create websites celebrating marriages that defy her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions be- tween one man and one woman.”
She also doesn’t want to be compelled to create a website that runs counter to what she thinks is a “biblical truth” (that’s a quote from the ruling)
Like I posted before, all you divorced and remarried people are in relationships that run counter to “biblical truth”.
I bet Ole Lorie has no problem creating a website for those people.
Let’s be real, your idea of “biblical truth” is completely subjective and usually takes a lot of twisting to make it for your worldview. This lady is a bigot. It’s that simple. She doesn’t like gay people.
She also doesn’t want to be compelled to create a website that runs counter to what she thinks is a “biblical truth” (that’s a quote from the ruling)
Like I posted before, all you divorced and remarried people are in relationships that run counter to “biblical truth”.
I bet Ole Lorie has no problem creating a website for those people.
Let’s be real, your idea of “biblical truth” is completely subjective and usually takes a lot of twisting to make it for your worldview. This lady is a bigot. It’s that simple. She doesn’t like gay people.
It’s pretty damn clear I’m alone when it comes to actually citing law and facts, or “games” as you call it.
You haven't cited anything but opinion just like the rest of us with regards to this ruling. We all have the same facts. This lady doesn't want to make a website for a gay couple about their marriage and is citing religious reasons. The situation is completely different than the baker, but you want to play your games and act like you don't know the differences as if that makes you "win" somehow.
Yep. And the state of Colorado can’t force her to say she likes gay people.
Designing a website isn't saying she likes gay people nor is it even saying she agrees with them. I really can't wait until someone uses this ruling on race or religion. You all will bend over backward to argue in support of that too. There is no doubt.
Absolutely I do, you see there will be no 24 hour MSM coverage about it, no riots, no burning down cities and businesses, no street protests, no throwing stuff at cops, you know where I’m going right ? Start your own religion for alphabet freaks and see who cares but you all would be so mad the right doesn’t give a damn and that’s what infuriates you all
If there is compelled speech, I agree. However, the government’s involvement here would not necessarily be relevant to your example unless the state law speaks to religion and the gay person would be compelled to a speech to which they disagree. I believe the Colorado law related to discrimination based only on sexual orientation, race, or disability. So, it would appear that the state law would have permitted the discrimination you suggest well before this decision. Gorsuch uses that as an example. The state’s position would permit a government to compel a gay married man to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage. Gorsuch rejects that position.
Let’s suppose I abhor mixed race couples and cite (errantly) religious reasons.. I then got into your poster shop and ask you to make a poster that speaks negatively of those relationships. Do I have the right to force you to make that poster?
What’s super weird is that this lady had never designed websites for weddings and that the supposed request came from a guy that has been married to a woman for 15 years and never actually sent her an email.
“Thou shalt not lie”.
Which commandment is that one? 9th?
There is also that other commandment about adultery which all you remarried people are committing.
“Thou shalt not lie”.
Which commandment is that one? 9th?
There is also that other commandment about adultery which all you remarried people are committing.
The ruling makes it seem that a nazi can’t go to a bakery and sue a Jew for not making a cake with a swatstika, or a guy can’t go to an African American owned bakery and sue the baker for not baking a cake with a confederate flag on it, yes?
Well whatever gives you purpose, brother. Christians already feel persecuted as it is (for what reason, I have no idea), imagine a world where that actually becomes reality and watch how they scramble.Absolutely I do, you see there will be no 24 hour MSM coverage about it, no riots, no burning down cities and businesses, no street protests, no throwing stuff at cops, you know where I’m going right ? Start your own religion for alphabet freaks and see who cares but you all would be so mad the right doesn’t give a damn and that’s what infuriates you all
I would make it. I don't have to agree with your beliefs to make your product if the religious beliefs were valid. Errant religious beliefs are valid and to decline the product isn't based on your religion. It is based you not really knowing what your religion believes.
If everyone made their point once, we would have been done on page 2. The same posts are being made over and over again.
I have participated in that behavior. LOL
The decision is in and many people on this thread don’t understand it. Probably because many have not read it.
Neither Nazi or racist are a protected class. They aren't even close to the same thing.
And you are chicken little my friend.
I think people like you want Daddy Government to just make all the rules and control everything so we can all be told what to do because it’s easier to do that than think freely for a lot of people.
Ask the 1000s of Cubans that flee that style of govt every year how they vote in Florida. It isn’t Democrat because they’re not stupid and they’ve seen those promises of everyone being equal and the govt providing everything for everyone.
They are equal in Cuba, equally as poor as everyone else there for the most part.
I just have a relatively free afternoon and am amused by certain people who will argue tooth and nail about a Supreme Court case, while refusing to read the actual case.
If Tcurtis and Matteo had the ability to read and understand the case, this thread would have been less than a page.
Yet you want Daddy government making abortion decisions and rules. I get it. Government can be daddy when you agree with their decisions but not when you dont.
Do you think the poster shop across town from yours should be forced to make it if the merchant disagrees?
I understand fully and it changes nothing with my position. If people like BCos had an ounce of compassion, this thread wouldn't exist period.
Yeah, again, I'm not priivy to the website situation. It seems you at least agree, that it's OK for the baker to deny certain "types" of cakes to be made, rather than simply denying the gay couple of ANY of his business. I think thats what most of us here are arguing for.
They can choose to run the poster shop how they see fit and deal with the legal ramifications on their own. What their business does is up to them. If they want to discriminate, they can deal with the social and legal issues that follow.
You are but not most which is why I brought up the big difference between cake and website design.
Yes, I understand the website design is a unique scenario because of what a website is. I, personally, wouldn't really care. I'd build a website for pretty much anything.
Because it is the case that was heard. Everything in this case was false. This lady was arguing against something that never happened. She was never approached to make the website. She just used fake information to get the case heard. And stated that she wouldn't do anything that went against her religion. Anything except lie to get a case heard I guess.
They aren’t, but being a protected class doesn’t give one a white card to dictate the product that’s made. Same with anyone. Furthermore, if you’re a shop-owner and discriminate who you serve your product to, that would be a scumbag move.
But in the website case, the protected class can't buy any product because there are no other options unlike the baker where they could buy a cake just not have a custom designed one. The website is the product and it has to be designed. So they aren't being told they can't dictate the product made. They are also being told they can't get a product because of their sexual orientation.
The fact that you say "jurisprudence actions or motions" tells me all I need to know about your knowledge of the law and our court system.You’re a clown and have no idea what I do within jurisprudence actions or motions but you keep following your lib hero legal reps “that hold cases for the SC” what a joke
That doesn't matter if there is or not. Someone is being denied a product because of sexual orientation. The ruling in the baker case was the baker could provide them other products besides something custom designed. The website designer can't because there is no products she offers that aren't designed.
So that’s beyond me. I have no idea of the backstory. But the principle remains- we have a right to our convictions.
So you’re saying by nature of the type of business (technical, but dynamic with flexibility), any design should by default be made? I’m just trying to understand your point.
Btw, I appreciate the civil discourse
Ya but that’s like saying “there aren’t other *whatever*?”. I’ll be honest I thought this was about a bakery and haven’t followed and don’t really care but am just bored on a 5 hour car drive but with the bakery example they can just buy another cake. But in this example they just literally can’t use the entire company which seems a little restrictive and a bit much imo
It’s not accurate. All parties in the case agreed if a gay couple wanted a website, Ms. Smith would sell them a website.
What Ms. Smith wouldn’t do is create a highly personalized, custom website celebrating gay marriage. Both the 10th Circuit who ruled against her, and the SCOTUS who reversed the 10th Circuit, agreed her specific websites were a version of speech. Since her websites were speech, the state of Colorado could not compel her to design a website with a message she disagreed with.
She didn’t refuse to sell the website to gay people, she was afraid if she started designing wedding websites the state of Colorado would force her to design websites conveying a message she disagreed with.
But what else is a wedding website other than highly personalized celebrating the marriage? Like what other website was there she could sell?
She is still denying them the product. What happens when someone wants a website with their biography on it mentioning their same sex partner? Can they refuse to put that in too?