Supreme Court rules FOR graphic designer who refused to create same sex wedding websites

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, Rebound said:

If a cake baker and a web designer can discriminate against you, who can’t? 
 

You can’t come in my bar because you’re against my religion? You can’t come in my restaurant? You can’t work for my company? You can’t attend my university? You can’t get a bed in my hospital? In my hotel? 
 

I don’t have to bake a cake for gays, so I can refuse Jews and Mormons, too.  In fact, I’ll just organize a boycott in my whole town against all the Jews and gays and Mormons. Cause the Supreme Court said I can. 
 

I got a better idea: NO DISCRIMINATION. 

Would you really want to eat a cake , made by someone that was forced to make it... by someone that does not like you to start with ....You have no idea what they are going to put in it, or do to it... one of the reasons i never complain about the food and send food back to the kitchen... now imigine having to be ordered by a court to make them a cake... sorry your just asking for trouble... it is one thing to be right or uphold your rights, should have just taken your business some place else, and take to social media explain your side of the issue... 

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

7 hours ago, reason10 said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-favor-colorado-graphic-designer-refused-create-same-sex-wedding-websites

Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado graphic designer who refused to create same-sex wedding websites

Supreme Court case 303 Creative v. Elenis pitted First Amendment freedom against LGBTQ non-discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court held that a Colorado graphic designer who wants to make wedding websites does not have to create them for same-sex marriages, in a landmark decision that pit the interests of LGBTQ non-discrimination against First Amendment freedom.

In a 6-3 decision issued Friday, the high court ruled in favor of artist Lorie Smith, who sued the state over its anti-discrimination law that prohibited businesses providing sales or other accommodations to the public from denying service based on a customer's sexual orientation.

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, which said that, "In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance." 

"But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong," Gorsuch continued. 

"But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed," he concluded.

Friday's decision reverses a lower court ruling that sided against Smith, who said the law infringed on her First Amendment rights by forcing her to promote messages that violate her deeply held faith.

Points to ponder:

1. For queers who are upset by this AFFIRMATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, there are plenty of graphic designers who will take your business. I'd imagine there are TONS of queers out there with web skills looking for jobs in web design.  If there are as many queers in this country as they say, this ruling won't even cause a ripple.

2. Once again, those dissenting include two of Obama's hacks (judges who wipe their asses on the constitution) and one judge appointed by Unelected Joe just because she was female and black. Thank GOD for the six defenders of the Constitution and thank BOTH GEORGE BUSHES AND PRESIDENT TRUMP for the majority that gave us this just ruling.

 

Why would any gay couple want their wedding website built by some whacked out religious zealot?

I heard this lady didn't even have a gay couple requesting she work for them. This was her "preemptive strike".

Bottom line is, If I don't want to work for somebody I certainly wouldn't want the government telling me I have to work for someone against my will.

It's really that simple.

Edited July 1, 2023 by CrakHoBarbie

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If they're honest, I think it's both.  ie. "I will make some things for a gay person but not a wedding cake".  Keep in mind that it's still legal to discriminate against gays in Canada, even, in some circumstances... on the religious charter provisions.

2. Well, I assume that they would do different work for gay clients, if they're honest,

3. Well, there may not be "gay cake" but there IS cake for "gay weddings".  I know because I have eaten that.

4. This baker says they had a crisis of conscience... if they're honest that is

Anyway, we're getting towards that area that I didn't want to go to - where you perceive my nitpicks on your arguments as me DEFENDING the decision which I am not doing.  This happens to me all the time here, when people take my "Trudeau isn't great but he's not a Marxist or Nazi" posts to mean "I love Trudeau so much"

Nah, I didn't assume that you were defending the decision. My point was that once you break it down, the argument doesn't hold.

And worse, the decision does set a precedent that could affect any target for any reason. One vendor might serve that's under some circumstances, others might serve none, and others still might not serve blacks or Jews or whomever else--and it's all equally protected.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Why would any gay couple want their wedding website built by some whacked out religious zealot?

I heard this lady didn't even have a gay couple requesting she work for them. This was her "preemptive strike".

Bottom line is, If I don't want to work for somebody I certainly wouldn't want the government telling me I have to work for someone against my will.

It's really that simple.

No, you can refuse service to an individual. If someone is an arsehole, don't serve them. But you, or anyone else, shouldn't be able to refuse service to an entire protected class. This isn't the 1950s. At least it wasn't until this backward-ass court decided that was "society goalz!"

[CrakHoBarbie]

9 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No, you can refuse service to an individual. If someone is an arsehole, don't serve them. But you, or anyone else, shouldn't be able to refuse service to an entire protected class. This isn't the 1950s. At least it wasn't until this backward-ass court decided that was "society goalz!"

I'm afraid in this instance I can't agree.

At it's core, all this is about is not being forced to work for someone against your will.

That's it 

And again, what self respecting gay couple would want a bigoted homophobic religious zealot to write their wedding web page?

There's absolutely no logical reason for this to of gotten to the SCOTUS. 

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by CrakHoBarbie

[Hodad]

9 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

I'm afraid in this instance I can't agree.

At it's core, all this is about is not being forced to work for someone against your will.

That's it 

And again, what self respecting gay couple would want a bigoted homophobic religious zealot to write their wedding web page?

There's absolutely no logical reason for this to of gotten to the SCOTUS. 

 

Sure, why should a restaurant have to serve Blacks? Or gays, or Jews? Why should a hospital? Why should an apartment owner like Trump's father? Why shouldn't a little Black girl pee herself outside of a gas station because the proprietor "disagrees" with the fundamental humanity of Blacks and chooses not to "work" for them.

Sorry, but we've HAD the country you're advocating for, and it was a miserable place full of heartache and abuse for anyone not white, straight and Christian. 

You can keep your apartheid. No thanks.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Hodad

[CrakHoBarbie]

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Sure, why should a restaurant have to serve Blacks? Or gays, or Jews? Why should a hospital? Why should an apartment owner like Trump's father? Why shouldn't a little Black girl pee herself outside of a gas station because the proprietor "disagrees" with the fundamental humanity of Blacks and chooses not to "work" for them.

Sorry, but we've HAD the country you're advocating for, and it was a miserable place full of heartache and abuse for anyone not white, straight and Christian. 

You can keep your apartheid. No thanks.

I do not advocate for any type of discrimination involving essential services.

You know we agree on most topics.

Nice attack though... 

I'll still reserve my right to "not" work for anyone I don't want to work for, and I will hopefully do it without the threat of governmental influence.

[herbie]

1 hour ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

And again, what self respecting gay couple would want a bigoted homophobic religious zealot to write their wedding web page?

True. Stupid fool that pushed this all the way to Supreme Court had it backfire. Nonetheless, it does establish a valid basis for others to discriminate. What next, a Safeway cashier's 'right' to refuse to ring up a gay couple's groceries?

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Why would any gay couple want their wedding website built by some whacked out religious zealot?

 

IT's a thing now -  they're obviously trying to pick a fight to try to look like a hero in their community and soak up some virtue points.

Remember when the idea was 'we leave you alone, and you leave us alone" when it comes to pushing gay and straight ideology on each other? They don't.  And that's how culture wars get going.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

I do not advocate for any type of discrimination involving essential services.

You know we agree on most topics.

Nice attack though... 

I'll still reserve my right to "not" work for anyone I don't want to work for, and I will hopefully do it without the threat of governmental influence.

It's not an attack. That's just reality. There's no mystery. The country has already lived through it. That's simply what life was like before protected classes were protected.

[robosmith]

11 hours ago, Deluge said:

This is familiar territory. Don't these homos understand that they can't just force people to do whatever the f*ck they want? 

Don't you understand that YOU cannot force people do whatever YOU WANT? Like adhere to YOUR declaration of what is "appropriate."

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And to this guy that means don't write pro gay websites.

I think you're finally getting it.

You literally proved my point.

Asking him to partake in activities that are against his religion is not reasonable and they can't do it.

 

that is not the case.  They want a gay website. The owner would not make a gay positive website for straight people either.

First of all, the case involves a WOMAN, NOT a GUY.

And second of all, NO ONE even ASKED her to make a pro gay website.

The whole case was FAKE and INVENTED to serve an agenda, RATHER THAN correct a harm from being done to ANYONE.

That also means that the right wingers on the SCOTUS broke with their STATED precedent that they rule on specific cases rather than making POLICY.

This is a case of a right wing cabal inventing an issue and filing THIS case NOW to get a POLICY CHANGED because the court is clearly staffed by right wing ZEALOTS now.

 

 

 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

IT's a thing now -  they're obviously trying to pick a fight to try to look like a hero in their community and soak up some virtue points.

Remember when the idea was 'we leave you alone, and you leave us alone" when it comes to pushing gay and straight ideology on each other? They don't.  And that's how culture wars get going.

Except it's the right wingers who brought the FAKE case who PICKED THE FIGHT. NO ONE ASKED HER for a gay wedding web site.

Boy, that didn't fit your agenda, and backfired on YOU.

[robosmith]

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court

Quote

Long before the Supreme Court took up one of the last remaining cases it will decide this session—the 303 Creative v. Elenis case, concerning a Colorado web designer named Lorie Smith who refuses to make websites for same-sex weddings and seeks an exemption from anti-discrimination laws—there was a couple named Stewart and Mike. According to court filings from the plaintiff, Stewart contacted Smith in September 2016 about his wedding to Mike “early next year.” He wrote that they “would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website.” Stewart included his phone number, email address, and the URL of his own website—he was a designer too, the site showed.

This week, I decided to call Stewart and ask him about his inquiry.

 

The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its opinion in a case in which Stewart plays a minor role, a case that could be, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated by way of a question at oral argument in December, “the first time in the Court’s history … [that] a commercial business open to the public, serving the public, that it could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.” (Update: On Friday, the court ruled 6-3 in the web designer’s favor.) It took just a few minutes to reach him. I assumed at least some reporters over the years had contacted him about his website inquiry to 303 Creative—his contact information wasn’t redacted in the filing. But my call, he said, was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.”

 

Yes, that was his name, phone number, email address, and website on the inquiry form. But he never sent this form, he said, and at the time it was sent, he was married to a woman. “If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that,” Stewart explained. (Stewart’s last name is not included in the filing, so we will be referring to him by his first name throughout this story.)

“I wouldn’t want anybody to … make me a wedding website?” he continued, sounding a bit puzzled but good-natured about the whole thing. “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.”

 

And on top of that, the woman does NOT EVEN MAKE wedding websites, but says she MIGHT WANT TO.

The whole case is FAKE.

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, robosmith said:

First of all, the case involves a WOMAN, NOT a GUY.

 

Hey - Do NOT assume their gender like that!  How insensitive ! 

Quote

And second of all, NO ONE even ASKED her to make a pro gay website.

Of course 'someone' did. Colorado.  Says so right in the ruling:

"In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance." 

Pretty straight forward.

Quote

The whole case was FAKE and INVENTED to serve an agenda, RATHER THAN correct a harm from being done to ANYONE.

Pretty sure the law was real.

Quote

That also means that the right wingers on the SCOTUS broke with their STATED precedent that they rule on specific cases rather than making POLICY.

It's a specific case.  Colorodo had a specific law that compelled behavior, the court has ruled on this specific law.

Quote

This is a case of a right wing cabal inventing an issue and filing THIS case NOW to get a POLICY CHANGED because the court is clearly staffed by right wing ZEALOTS now.

Awww muffin - after years of the left controlling the courts you mad that sane people are now? Poor little guy

And i love that they're a "Cabal" now 

THe courts ruled on and struck down a law, as they have done about a trillion times over the years. Sorry it's one you liked.  I doubt it'll be the last.

[Rebound]

7 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

I'm afraid in this instance I can't agree.

At it's core, all this is about is not being forced to work for someone against your will.

That's it 

And again, what self respecting gay couple would want a bigoted homophobic religious zealot to write their wedding web page?

There's absolutely no logical reason for this to of gotten to the SCOTUS. 

 

Restaurants used to put up signs that said, “No dogs or Jews allowed.”

Why do you support that? 

[Deluge]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

Don't you understand that YOU cannot force people do whatever YOU WANT? Like adhere to YOUR declaration of what is "appropriate."

Don't you understand that as a homosexual agenda supporter, you can't force people to say and do what you want? 

[Nationalist]

Well now...this sort of concludes Gay Pride Month with a bang.

[Deluge]

13 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Why would any gay couple want their wedding website built by some whacked out religious zealot?

See? Even CrackWhore shows insight into freedom. He understands that Jesus trashing scumbag queers have no right to tell normal people what to do. 

Good for you, CrackWhore. I dare say you grew up a little today.

[CrakHoBarbie]

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

Restaurants used to put up signs that said, “No dogs or Jews allowed.”

Why do you support that? 

I don't support that. 

And I do fear that this ruling might lead to more discrimination.

On one hand, I do not support forcing someone to work for someone against their will 

On the other hand, I do not support discrimination of any kind.

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by CrakHoBarbie

[CrakHoBarbie]

9 hours ago, Hodad said:

It's not an attack. That's just reality. There's no mystery. The country has already lived through it. That's simply what life was like before protected classes were protected.

On one hand, I do not support forcing someone to work for someone against their will 

On the other hand, I do not support discrimination of any kind.

 

[reason10]

13 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Why would any gay couple want their wedding website built by some whacked out religious zealot?

I heard this lady didn't even have a gay couple requesting she work for them. This was her "preemptive strike".

Bottom line is, If I don't want to work for somebody I certainly wouldn't want the government telling me I have to work for someone against my will.

It's really that simple.

Excuse me YOU RACIST NARROW MINDED NAZI, but disagreeing with queers, (which is kind of IN THE BIBLE) is not being a religious zealot. If you're looking for that, you need look no further than Islamic countries like Iran, where they throw queers off tall building.

[CrakHoBarbie]

10 hours ago, herbie said:

True. Stupid fool that pushed this all the way to Supreme Court had it backfire. Nonetheless, it does establish a valid basis for others to discriminate. What next, a Safeway cashier's 'right' to refuse to ring up a gay couple's groceries?

Agreed.

On one hand, I do not support forcing someone to work for someone against their will 

On the other hand, I do not support discrimination of any kind.

 

[reason10]

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

Restaurants used to put up signs that said, “No dogs or Jews allowed.”

Why do you support that? 

Show us such a sign.

(You can't because in America there aren't any.)

[CrakHoBarbie]

Just now, reason10 said:

 you need look no further than Islamic countries like Iran, where they throw queers off tall building.

And if all y'all bigoted homophobic religious zealots get your way, how long before that's happening here?

 

1 minute ago, reason10 said:

Show us such a sign.

(You can't because in America there aren't any.)

Your right.... Dogs are usually treated fairly.