US Supreme Court backs business that refused service to same-sex couple

originally posted by: frogs453

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: frogs453
A link...

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

Noted. I need to take a look on other sites to see if they're having similar coverage of this case. The mainstream media present the story as it was given in the OP

Other links The Guardian

The Independent

Noted again and thanks for the links.
The articles are from the 29th of June, yesterday The ruling happened today. I assume the supreme court dismissed that one of the key documents is fake.

Actually the story is the following according to the guardian

Christian website designer says she received email request from same-sex couple but ‘author’ says he did not send it – and is not gay

a reply to: AlienBorg

The SCOTUS ruled 5 years ago that business owners can refuse to serve gays, lesbians, queers, transsexuals, heterosexuals, etc..

www.bbc.com...

Why did they revisit the subject again this year?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: AlienBorg

The SCOTUS ruled 5 years ago that business owners can refuse to serve gays, lesbians, queers, transsexuals, heterosexuals, etc..

www.bbc.com...

Why did they revisit the subject again this year?

Thanks for sharing. I find this fascinating because there is already precedent through this case.

5 years ago, yes.

What's this "Protected Class" crap? I thought justice was supposed to be blind? Doesn't the law apply equally to everybody? Yes, it does. (It's supposed to, at least. Don't get me started on how it's being "interpreted" these days.) That means everybody is supposed to be a "protected class" under the law. Creating a "protected class" in the first place is just stupid because it's a moot point.

Why hasn't anybody pointed that out yet?

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind
What's this "Protected Class" crap? I thought justice was supposed to be blind? Doesn't the law apply equally to everybody? Yes, it does. (It's supposed to, at least. Don't get me started on how it's being "interpreted" these days.) That means everybody is supposed to be a "protected class" under the law. Creating a "protected class" in the first place is just stupid because it's a moot point.

Why hasn't anybody pointed that out yet?

It implies minorities or people who may have had trouble in the past are protected. I don't like it either when it comes to laws written specifically for one group of people as it has the potential to discriminate against everyone else or to handle unreasonable privileges and asks everyone else to shut up. As an example see what's happening with gender ideology and those who believe gender identity is a protected characteristic, but it isn't.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

As a business, you have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

a reply to: Mahogany

The other part of this that's worth mentioning is that the group that brought the case before the court has ties to Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, yet none of them recused. It's almost as if this case was created to get this exact result.

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

Because the majority will always rule over the minority... its part of the civil rights act. Some dude named Plato talked about it once.

a reply to: AlienBorg

This can also be used against that same Christian woman for her religious beliefs and LGBTQ people can also refuse her service for insert biased reason here.

a reply to: quintessentone

And? What is your point here, that someone can CHOOSE not to use a service? Wow, what a revelation!!

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

This can also be used against that same Christian woman for her religious beliefs and LGBTQ people can also refuse her service for insert biased reason here.

It could be used if she was demanding or asking a gay person to go about her beliefs. Bearing in mind that religion is a protected characteristic but sexual orientation or gender identity are not. But yes, depending on the state and court, anything can happen.

originally posted by: Turquosie
a reply to: AlienBorg

This is interesting. Would refusal to serve people based on race, gender, or religion be "free speech" as well? Like, where is the line at between free speech and discrimination?

Not unlikely. It will depend on the circumstances-context, the state, and the court. It's not black and white.

a reply to: AlienBorg

The problem we will run into next, more times than not, is that the courts and media will still view everything based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, even if it has nothing to do with the reason they were not served.

As a business owner/manager, you have the right to refuse service to someone for any reason. If someone comes in and they are being an Ahole, then you can refuse them service for that.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

This can also be used against that same Christian woman for her religious beliefs and LGBTQ people can also refuse her service for insert biased reason here.

It could be used if she was demanding or asking a gay person to go about her beliefs. Bearing in mind that religion is a protected characteristic but sexual orientation or gender identity are not. But yes, depending on the state and court, anything can happen.

Religious bias is based on personal interpretation and or following others' interpretations of passages from the Bible. The Bible does not mention anything specific about loving couples of the same sex, only those that engage in lust and debauchery, which can also be applied to heterosexuals. Religious people can pick and choose Bible passages to fit any discrimination of their choosing. It's a choice.

Religious beliefs that rely on various interpretations should not be the basis to enact laws that trample on others' human rights.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Sookiechacha

As a business, you have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Right, except an illegal reason.

But what about the employees? Does an employee have a right to refuse to do an assignment based on their religious peccadillos?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That is an ambiguous grey area, you and I don't get to dicide legality. If someone is coming into my place of business and is being an Ahole, I can refuse to serve them and ask them to leave.

If an employees' beliefs do not align with the company, then I would assume they would not work their in the first place. And, if they do work their, under their own free will, then they have no right to deny an assignment they signed up for.

For instance, I have several female couples that live on my street and next door to me. None of them would be caught dead working at a Chick fil-A, and if they did, they would have no recourse to deny doing a job they signed up to do.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: AlienBorg

The problem we will run into next, more times than not, is that the courts and media will still view everything based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, even if it has nothing to do with the reason they were not served.

As a business owner/manager, you have the right to refuse service to someone for any reason. If someone comes in and they are being an Ahole, then you can refuse them service for that.

Yes I agree strongly with this.
You have the right to refuse services on the basis of personal views, religious and cultural beliefs.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

This can also be used against that same Christian woman for her religious beliefs and LGBTQ people can also refuse her service for insert biased reason here.

It could be used if she was demanding or asking a gay person to go about her beliefs. Bearing in mind that religion is a protected characteristic but sexual orientation or gender identity are not. But yes, depending on the state and court, anything can happen.

Religious bias is based on personal interpretation and or following others' interpretations of passages from the Bible. The Bible does not mention anything specific about loving couples of the same sex, only those that engage in lust and debauchery, which can also be applied to heterosexuals. Religious people can pick and choose Bible passages to fit any discrimination of their choosing. It's a choice.

Religious beliefs that rely on various interpretations should not be the basis to enact laws that trample on others' human rights.

The right to have a religion and religious beliefs is itself a human right. You can be as religious as you want or an atheist/agnostic.

What you said isn't correct that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. In several passages it condemns homosexual practices and calls it an abomination. In all Abrahamic religions homosexuality is a sin.

a reply to: PorkChop96

That doesn't seem very "equal protection under the law" -ish. A constitutional right to Free Speech shouldn't be limited to business owners but denied to a business' employees.