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

[reason10]

Boys and girls, here's the reality. This is STILL the free market. And bakers out there who are truly profit minded would see enormous opportunity in this.

If I were a baker and was truly opportunistic (and I lived and a Nazi hell hole city like Portland Oregon), I'd put rainbow flags all over my show, INVITE every queer and freak who wants to get married and CHARGE THEM DOUBLE THE REGULAR RATE FOR THE FLOUR/SUGAR/EGGS COMBINATION. I'd make them feel special and I'd get rich.

A person who is a devout Christian, who believes queers are an abomination according to the Bible, are free to obey their religious beliefs and not make cakes for queers.

The ONLY ones denied the religious freedom would be the Muslim nuts (who usually vote Democrat) who believe in throwing queers off tall buildings. They couldn't get away with that here.

[reason10]

3 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

 

 

 

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

1. There is no such thing as a homophobe. That's a BULLSHIT term coined in the 90s by limp wristed goose stepping freaks. As far as queers getting thrown off  buildings, you'll have to wait until the murder/homicide laws are changed here.  Keep an eye on your state's statutes.

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

Only left wing blue states (where the elect illegal aliens of Muslim faith to the Congress) would you have any kind of anti-Semite bullshit like that. Jew hating (as it was during the Holocaust) is YOUR SIDE OF THE AISLE, FRAULEIN.

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

5 minutes ago, reason10 said:

 

1. There is no such thing as a homophobe.  

You are a homophobe.

You didn't realize that?

You poor dear.

I think most of y'all homophobes and transphobes are actually closeted gays yourselves.

Would you like to read up on yourself?

Well here you go pinhead.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8772014/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjlgtT11-3_AhXZC0QIHXFKCiIQFnoECAkQAg&usg=AOvVaw0E0hIeELK46uYRQo_0Dzp-

Edited July 1, 2023 by CrakHoBarbie

[reason10]

3 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

You are a homophobe.

You didn't realize that?

You poor dear.

I think most of y'all homophobes and transphobes are actually closeted gays yourself.

Would you let me to read up on yourself?

Well here you go pinhead.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8772014/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjlgtT11-3_AhXZC0QIHXFKCiIQFnoECAkQAg&usg=AOvVaw0E0hIeELK46uYRQo_0Dzp-

You're a Nazi and a ret@rd.  You didn't realize that. You poor dear.

And you're not a closeted Nazi, either. You are PROUD of the concentration camps that sent six million Jews to a horrible death. And you're an uneducated IDI0T for finding some hack left wing opinion rag to prove a LIE that is STILL a lie.

Crawl back under your Rock, Fraulien.

Edited July 1, 2023 by reason10

[CrakHoBarbie]

1 minute ago, reason10 said:

You're a Nazi and a ret@rd.  You didn't realize that. You poor dear.

And you're not a closeted Nazi, either. You are PROUD of the concentration camps that sent six million Jews to a horrible death. And you're an uneducated IDI0T for finding some hack left wing opinion rag to prove a LIE that is STILL a lie.

Crawl back under your Rock, Fraulien.

I have some more reading for you, on your "affliction" ( homophobia = closeted gay).

Enjoy!

 

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/overview.html&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjlgtT11-3_AhXZC0QIHXFKCiIQFnoECAQQAg&usg=AOvVaw0E25ZdxCagEszXhIxTJXTW

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.sciencefictions.org/p/are-homophobes-secretly-homosexual&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjEpbHD2e3_AhUAJUQIHXhyATw4ChAWegQICRAC&usg=AOvVaw3hGBM9AF5fEeNZAYzgEW6i

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

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

Why do you support that? 

That's not doing work you disagree with. That's all about the person.

Now- would you complain if the sign said "we don't COOK dogs or jews"?

Again - one is about the person and the other is about what you're being asked to do.

You still haven't managed to address that even once. So you obviously know you're in the wrong here.

[CrakHoBarbie]

11 hours 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.

 

After reading more on it I've realized that the only reason the SCOTUS made this ruling was to legalize discrimination against LGBTQ individuals.

You were right.

I was wrong.

My apologies.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

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.

 

Well, your two hands are headed for a fist fight.??

[Hodad]

52 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

 

After reading more on it I've realized that the only reason the SCOTUS made this ruling was to legalize discrimination against LGBTQ individuals.

You were right.

I was wrong.

My apologies.

Nothing to apologize for. And I'm not sure it's the only reason. There are lots of people who feel conflicted, as you do. And the fact is that non-discrimination IS a trade-off. Freedoms are often in conflict with one another. We just decided a half century ago that the right of minority people to exist and function was more important than the right to mistreat and exclude them from places of public accommodation. The law was clear: if you choose to operate a business that serves the general public, you can't exclude protected classes from service.

No one was forced to work for others, but if they wanted to operate a public service business, that was a condition of doing so.

As it's now done many times, this compromised court has discarded both precedent and decency to reach tortured conclusions that unravel decades of maturation to drag us back to an uglier time.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Hodad

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

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.

 

And if a man owns the only grocery store in an isolated rural town, do you support his right to refuse service to anyone he finds repugnant according to his "religious" beliefs? AKA, discrimination.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

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

UNLIKE YOU, I NEVER SAID that *I* can do that. Duh.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

That's not doing work you disagree with. That's all about the person.

Now- would you complain if the sign said "we don't COOK dogs or jews"?

Again - one is about the person and the other is about what you're being asked to do.

You still haven't managed to address that even once. So you obviously know you're in the wrong here.

^Stupid fool believes cooking food and serving it to people in a restaurant is NOT "doing work." LMAO

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^Stupid fool believes cooking food and serving it to people in a restaurant is NOT "doing work." LMAO

Stupid fool missed the entire point and looks even more stupid, which is hard to imagine

If you pay REAAAAAAAAL close attention you'd note that the difference is in what food.  IF you deny serving someone food you normally make just because of their skin colour that's one thing.  if someone asks you to cook something you don't normally cook and never would that's asking them to do work they don't agree with ';)

Man - drinking a half litre of nyquil a day really is catching up to you isn't it'  

 

[Deluge]

55 minutes ago, robosmith said:

UNLIKE YOU, I NEVER SAID that *I* can do that. Duh.

Then you agree with the SC's ruling. 

Good for you, robo! There's some fight for freedom still left in you! 

[reason10]

3 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

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.

 

If you say you do not support discrimination of any kind, you are either terminally STUPID or a LIAR.

In life, discrimination happens EVERYWHERE.

Hospitals DISCRIMINATE against allowing a janitor to perform open heart surgery. That's DISCRIMINATION.

Airlines DISCRIMINATE against allowing the BLIND to pilot a commercial jet. That's a HANDICAP DISCRIMINATION.

Pretty girls DISCRIMINATE against fat ugly guys who don't have a job. They DISCRIMINATE against marrying poor men over the age of 100. That's AGEISM.

Local and state government (at least in sane Florida) DISCRIMINATE against allowing convicted pedophiles and sex offenders within a certain distance of a public school. That's LEGAL DISCRIMINATION.

Convicted felons are not permitted to own firearms. That's DISCRIMINATION in the Constitution.

A gentleman of some means who wishes to dine out is often attracted by ads appealing to DISCRIMINATING TASTES.

If you or any liberal here wanted to join MENSA, they would DISCRIMINATE against you because you all are so stupid.

 

In law, there are only a few categories where DISCRIMINATION is illegal. And today with your goose stepping HItler Youth wanting special treatment for one race over another, that DISCRIMINATION is a sliding scale.

If you say you're against ALL discrimination, you are a liar.

 

[robosmith]

5 minutes ago, reason10 said:

If you say you do not support discrimination of any kind, you are either terminally STUPID or a LIAR.

In life, discrimination happens EVERYWHERE.

Hospitals DISCRIMINATE against allowing a janitor to perform open heart surgery. That's DISCRIMINATION.

Airlines DISCRIMINATE against allowing the BLIND to pilot a commercial jet. That's a HANDICAP DISCRIMINATION.

Pretty girls DISCRIMINATE against fat ugly guys who don't have a job. They DISCRIMINATE against marrying poor men over the age of 100. That's AGEISM.

Local and state government (at least in sane Florida) DISCRIMINATE against allowing convicted pedophiles and sex offenders within a certain distance of a public school. That's LEGAL DISCRIMINATION.

Convicted felons are not permitted to own firearms. That's DISCRIMINATION in the Constitution.

A gentleman of some means who wishes to dine out is often attracted by ads appealing to DISCRIMINATING TASTES.

If you or any liberal here wanted to join MENSA, they would DISCRIMINATE against you because you all are so stupid.

 

In law, there are only a few categories where DISCRIMINATION is illegal. And today with your goose stepping HItler Youth wanting special treatment for one race over another, that DISCRIMINATION is a sliding scale.

If you say you're against ALL discrimination, you are a liar.

 

YOU CLEARLY do NOT UNDERSTAND the meaning of discrimination in the CONTEXT with which it is used in this case.

Thanks for demonstrating ONCE AGAIN the shallowness of your lack of understanding.

AS USED in this case, definition #1 is the use IN THIS CONTEXT:

AKA NOT #2

Google

Quote

dis·crim·i·na·tion

noun

1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.

"victims of racial discrimination"

Similar: prejudice bias bigotry intolerance narrow-mindedness unfairness inequity favoritism one-sidedness chauvinism partisanship sexism racism racialism anti-Semitism heterosexism ageism classism ableism apartheid

Opposite: impartiality

2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

"discrimination between right and wrong"

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

YOU CLEARLY do NOT UNDERSTAND the meaning of discrimination in the CONTEXT with which it is used in this case.

Thanks for demonstrating ONCE AGAIN the shallowness of your lack of understanding.

AS USED in this case, definition #1 is the use IN THIS CONTEXT:

AKA NOT #2

Google

 

Well if it's the "unjust" or 'Prejudicial'  treatment of different catagories of people, then you're wrong.  This is neither unjust nor is it prejudicial treatment against people.  Saying you won't do work that goes against your faith is neither unjust or prejudicial.

[Rebound]

5 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

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.

 

It’s one or the other:  If you are going to provide a service or product to others, you just do so without discrimination.  We don’t get to say, “Oh, we’ll stop discrimination against blacks but not against gay people.”

[CrakHoBarbie]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

It’s one or the other:  If you are going to provide a service or product to others, you just do so without discrimination.  We don’t get to say, “Oh, we’ll stop discrimination against blacks but not against gay people.”

The more I read about this, the more it appears the sole purpose of this ruling was to allow discrimination against LGBTQ.

 

3 hours ago, reason10 said:

If you say you do not support discrimination of any kind, you are either terminally STUPID or a LIAR.

In life, discrimination happens EVERYWHERE.

Hospitals DISCRIMINATE against allowing a janitor to perform open heart surgery. That's DISCRIMINATION.

Airlines DISCRIMINATE against allowing the BLIND to pilot a commercial jet. That's a HANDICAP DISCRIMINATION.

Pretty girls DISCRIMINATE against fat ugly guys who don't have a job. They DISCRIMINATE against marrying poor men over the age of 100. That's AGEISM.

Local and state government (at least in sane Florida) DISCRIMINATE against allowing convicted pedophiles and sex offenders within a certain distance of a public school. That's LEGAL DISCRIMINATION.

Convicted felons are not permitted to own firearms. That's DISCRIMINATION in the Constitution.

A gentleman of some means who wishes to dine out is often attracted by ads appealing to DISCRIMINATING TASTES.

If you or any liberal here wanted to join MENSA, they would DISCRIMINATE against you because you all are so stupid.

 

In law, there are only a few categories where DISCRIMINATION is illegal. And today with your goose stepping HItler Youth wanting special treatment for one race over another, that DISCRIMINATION is a sliding scale.

If you say you're against ALL discrimination, you are a liar.

 

And it looks like the sole purpose of this ruling is to allow discrimination against LGBTQ folks.

A pos like you should be ecstatic, huh ...

[herbie]

7 hours ago, reason10 said:

11 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.)

Until the latest SC(R)OTUS is finished bringing back 1953.

COMING SOON:
  I refuse to build websites for Republicans.
RSVP'd: Will not enter a church that refuses to display Pride flag, but will go to your kids reception.
  No service for Trump supporters in this store.

[West]

2 minutes ago, herbie said:

Until the latest SC(R)OTUS is finished bringing back 1953.

COMING SOON:
  I refuse to build websites for Republicans.
RSVP'd: Will not enter a church that refuses to display Pride flag, but will go to your kids reception.
  No service for Trump supporters in this store.

Triggered lefty 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

It’s one or the other:  If you are going to provide a service or product to others, you just do so without discrimination.  We don’t get to say, “Oh, we’ll stop discrimination against blacks but not against gay people.”

This is where you keep getting confused and honestly it's to the point where you're looking completely dishonest.

They don't build homosexual themed websites.  For anyone .Gay or straight - they won't build you one.  If you want them to build you another type of website and you happen to be gay, no problem.

They probably also don't build satanic worship themed websites.  That is not religious discrimination.

And again you obviously don't believe what you're saying or you'd be able to address this point and not ignore it.

[Guest]

On 6/30/2023 at 1:43 PM, Rebound said:

it’s discrimination.  

How is it discrimination? She doesn't believe in gay marriage. She shouldn't be forced to promote it. 

I see it no different than a vegan who is against slaughterhouses refusing to promote such a business. 

This straddles the line, but I fail to see how that it crosses it, should the same above, be fine with promoting a grocery store, just not the butchering of meat.

This artist is fine with promoting LGBTQ client, but in no shape or form, is she forced to promote their marriage that goes against several religions. It doesn't mean she is against them marrying, which she clarifies.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

I refuse to build websites for Republicans.

This would be your right. I fail to see how you would be able to tell ones political alignment however unless they were politicians or told you.

I come across as a liberal in real life, so people are surprised when they find out am firmly conservative in my views.

I think civil disagreement is a lost art. I feel so old. I remember the days when you could have heated political debates without questioning the character of one disagreeing with you. It was like art, compared to what we see today.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Perspektiv said:

This would be your right. I fail to see how you would be able to tell ones political alignment however unless they were politicians or told you.

Actually that would be wrong.  If he said he refused to build reublican websites - that would be his right. 

Refusing to work for someone just because of their political leaning would not be right (although i do believe it's still legal actually).  But - refusing to build something for someone that goes against your own morals is what we're talking about here.

Remember the person in question didn't say she wouldn't work for gays.  She said she wouldn't build a 'gay website'.