He's attempting to argue that she wouldn't deny a website for a gay person that showcases their dogs, or one that plays their favorite music. My guess is the only reason these wouldn't be declined is because she wouldn't know the person was gay.
SCOTUS Rules You Can Refuse Service to Same-Sex Couples
- Thread starter CrittendenWildcat
- Start date
Ahh gotcha, she was fine to make websites but not specifically a marriage website. Well then I think that does sound reasonable then? Does it not?
And, the case says she will build websites for gay people and organizations, just so long as the message does not violate her sincerely held beliefs.
In fact, Colorado stipulated to that fact. It’s indisputable.
Thats why I asked the question. What if she is designing a website for someone and in their biography they want to talk about their family which includes a same sex spouse? Can she deny that as well? That will take it past just denying wedding website to all websites for gay/lesbian?
Under the specific facts of the case, whatever the websites were she was designing, everyone agreed they were speech. I get the sense she included a lot of narrative content, it wasn’t just like a website for a retail plumbing supply shop or something.
Like if she really loved dogs, no one would think she should be forced to make a website celebrating Michael Vick against her will.
If a gay couple walked in and wanted a website for some random e-commerce company, she would not have refused to sell them a website.
She was refusing to design a website celebrating gay marriage.
May not sound like a big difference, but very important.
I highly doubt she would actually design a gay couple any website. The fact her case was based on lies from the get go is a pretty good indicator.
From Bill Cosbys post sounds like it prevents that. I think he’s a lawyer so I’ll take his word for it. You’re using the slippery slope argument but I feel like every side does that even if it doesn’t apply (gay marriage leading to pedophiles for example
) I think ultimately the majority doesn’t want what you’re saying COULD happen.This is not true. If they were denied because of sexual orientation, the appellant would not do any work for the LGTQB community. Both sides stipulated that was not the case. It’s not in dispute.
Thankfully, what you think she would do is completely irrelevant. The case was decided on the facts as stipulated, and all parties agreed she would sell a gay couple a website. Your allegation that the case was based on lies is completely unfounded.
You have more faith in people than I do. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect this designer to refuse to put an about me section into a website if it mentions a life partner etc.From Bill Cosbys post sounds like it prevents that. I think he’s a lawyer so I’ll take his word for it. You’re using the slippery slope argument but I feel like every side does that even if it doesn’t apply (gay marriage leading to pedophiles for example
It is based on lies. She said someone approached her to ask for a website. Even gave a name that wanted a gay marriage website. That person has been married to a woman for 15 years. The entire case was a lie.
I know an article suggests she lied, but the case facts say this is a new venture and she is worried about whether Colorado will force her to express views with which she disagrees. She creates websites, but was entering the wedding website business. That aspect was new to her. I don’t think the case says she was approached by a gay couple seeking to marry. It’s probably a good idea to actually discuss the case and not speculate about things outside of the case.
Everything I have found mentioned a person that she says approached her who has been married to woman for 15 years.
Change the constitution, then. Until smart people like you change the constitution, you should make some attempt to understand it.
BingoBango69 coming in hot! Heard he punched a baby in the face on his way to post this
First, it’s irrelevant.
Second, its irrelevant.
Third, I could have submitted that name as a joke to the website. That doesn’t mean she lied.
At best it makes anything she said questionable if it is indeed true. At worst, it is complete fraud.
For the case, it matters not. The parties stipulated to the relevant facts. The Court ruled on those facts. Anything else is a distraction and just an attempt to demean someone with which you disagree.
Doesn’t make anything questionable, at best. The way you lunatics have harassed bakers in Colorado, I wouldn’t put it past one of you to get the ball rolling by starting to harass a website designer.
She just decided to preemptively move against the state of Colorado to ensure she couldn’t be coerced to speak against her will.
You have to make a sock account to bait?I know you are still upset slavery is outlawed. Until then please stop trying to pretend you the constitution. Make america great again !! lets go back to 1800s !! you know nothing about the constitution you know nothing about religion and you really dont know how much a sh**hole Kentucky is. Ranked near the bottom for a reason.but you keep that mentality alive !! Congrats !!! Imagine the whole world goes electric vehicles !!! Kentuckians will proudly pollute just to spite those WOKE PEOPLE. LOL GO TO SCHOOL AND DONT LEAVE !!! you really need it
. LOL man, LOL.Whether you find it questionable or not, it is completely irrelevant.
This has not gone as well as some had hoped, so the plan now is to shut the thread down. This seems to be the pattern.
You have to make a sock account to bait?
You and I agree about as often as Germany wins world wars, but 100% with you on this one, guy is a loon. The case was not all that close or difficult to decide, at least IMO.
Nope see this is you assuming brody. I’m all for abortions. I’m all for weed. I’m all for same sex marriage.
You people that only think one side has all the answers and you can never betray them are the touching problem.
Like the meme says, I just want to be able to carry my gun and smoke some weed at my gay friends’ wedding after my gf gets an abortion.
All those things can be okay. They are not mutually exclusive.
See how that works?
You thought because I think private business owners should be able to determine who they serve since it’s, you know, their business and the govt shouldn’t force them to serve people they don’t want to, that I was also in agreement with the abortion ban.
I want abortions because I don’t want kids but I love waxing as many attractive gals as possible. It’s a great thing, abortion.
Now do you think a super old Jewish couple that survived the holocaust should have to bake cakes with swastikas and DEATH TO JEWS all over the cakes for a neo-nazi rally as well?
Since you like making up what if scenarios so much, what if you owned a cake shop and some dude raped your mom got out of prison and then wanted you to make a cake that said I Heart Raping T Curtis’ Mom & Will Again ASAP with a bloody penis drawn on it?
Are you making that cake? Or should they be able to say touch that, we’re not doing it.
A cake with a swastika isn’t for a protected class nor is a cake for a rapist. I can refuse to make a cake for a rapist because he is a rapist. I can’t refuse to make a cake for a rapist because he’s an African American.
I see both sides but my overall take is if you disagree with the ruling, then explain to other like-minded individuals that this is why voting matters. Love him or hate him, Trump promised a very conservative SCOTUS and he delivered, which is why you have today's decision, ending RvW (which has actually screwed republicans somewhat in the voting booth since a majority disagree with abortion bans while republicans embrace and enact them), and imo next on the culture war docket will be gay marriage, meaning states with strict abortion laws will eventually have gay marriage bans as well, essentially taking us backwards as a society. Whether you believe polls or not, they've shown the current SCOTUS isn't popular at all and some of their recent decisions aren't jiving with a majority of the country.
I wish people were just more considerate of each other. The customer "is always right," but if a business isn't comfortable with what you want, as long as they're respectful about it, it's okay to take your business elsewhere. As far as the religious aspect of all this goes, I just don't buy it, but that's me. 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? Yet it's gays who've taken the brunt of the jokes and hate over the decades. There's an immaturity there, as straight couples can do whatever they like to each other and no one thinks twice but when someone brings up the idea of a gay couple, people turn into immature teens and immediately equate their relationship with butt sex.
Just my view, but at times religion mutates into something unrecognizable. If you think Jesus Christ would be down with turning people away because they're homosexual, or you think he'd laugh at how someone like Freetaxreturn keeps calling the LGBTQ community "freaks", then you and I learned about two different Jesus Christ's growing up. Mine was accepting of everyone. Maybe yours is a politically obsessed internet troll who hates Pride Month.
I wish people were just more considerate of each other. The customer "is always right," but if a business isn't comfortable with what you want, as long as they're respectful about it, it's okay to take your business elsewhere. As far as the religious aspect of all this goes, I just don't buy it, but that's me. 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? Yet it's gays who've taken the brunt of the jokes and hate over the decades. There's an immaturity there, as straight couples can do whatever they like to each other and no one thinks twice but when someone brings up the idea of a gay couple, people turn into immature teens and immediately equate their relationship with butt sex.
Just my view, but at times religion mutates into something unrecognizable. If you think Jesus Christ would be down with turning people away because they're homosexual, or you think he'd laugh at how someone like Freetaxreturn keeps calling the LGBTQ community "freaks", then you and I learned about two different Jesus Christ's growing up. Mine was accepting of everyone. Maybe yours is a politically obsessed internet troll who hates Pride Month.
So you doubt a statement of fact which both parties stipulated to?
And because you personally doubt it, from your doubt you arrive at the "fact" that her case was based on lies?
Logic escapes you. Your skepticism does not make your personal opinion rise to the level of fact.
That isn’t a loophole. That’s the law. As an attorney, I would expect you to know that.
I didn’t say my skepticism was fact. I still doubt she makes any website for a gay couple regardless of what website they want.