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

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: AlienBorg

We all want to be protected and feel special don't we?

All you have to do is claim to be gay or trans and viola you are special!

Maybe this explains the popularity in once rare orientations and identities.

Yes it has become a trend to say I am a minority and want special treatment. But not everyone approves of these demands and reality proves religion and personal beliefs have strong grounds in our culture.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: AlienBorg

We all want to be protected and feel special don't we?

All you have to do is claim to be gay or trans and viola you are special!

Maybe this explains the popularity in once rare orientations and identities.

Yes it has become a trend to say I am a minority and want special treatment. But not everyone approves of these demands and reality proves religion and personal beliefs have strong grounds in our culture.

That special treatment they are asking for is named 'equality' 'equal rights' but it appears the minority demands for legalized discrimination under guise of free speech have been accommodated by a right leaning SCOTUS, but not for long.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Wonder if all of these people saying that this is a bad thing would feel any different if the roles were reversed?

If this was a homosexual baker that refused to make a cake for a anti LGBT rally and they got sued and the same thing came of it, would they not be happy that the LGBT person got to stand up for their beliefs?

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Why do you feel like the only person that might object to creating a gay website is doing it for religious reasons?

That's the only reason SCOTUS gave for legally violating the rights of the other protected groups, including other religious beliefs.

also reply to: Sookiechacha

The constitution specifically protects religious reasons in the 1st, so I'm not surprised that the SCOTUS mentions religion in the ruling at all.

Im saying that people assume the artist being asked to create is refusing for religious reasons, where that might not actually be the case.

Would there ever be a good reason for someone refusing to perform work?

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: AlienBorg

Wonder if all of these people saying that this is a bad thing would feel any different if the roles were reversed?

If this was a homosexual baker that refused to make a cake for a anti LGBT rally and they got sued and the same thing came of it, would they not be happy that the LGBT person got to stand up for their beliefs?

Good point which I think was made earlier but still good point. You would expect an LGBT person to refuse to do something he/she doesn't accept and goes against their views and perceptions. It's common sense.

a reply to: AlienBorg

And they would be praised for standing up for their beliefs. And, on another note, the person wanting the cake for the anti-LBGT rally, would be condemned and probably worse. all for doing the same thing, standing up for their beliefs.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: AlienBorg

We all want to be protected and feel special don't we?

All you have to do is claim to be gay or trans and viola you are special!

Maybe this explains the popularity in once rare orientations and identities.

Yes it has become a trend to say I am a minority and want special treatment. But not everyone approves of these demands and reality proves religion and personal beliefs have strong grounds in our culture.

That special treatment they are asking for is named 'equality' 'equal rights' but it appears the minority demands for legalized discrimination under guise of free speech have been accommodated by a right leaning SCOTUS, but not for long.

You can't say this is a minority. A large number of people hold the same views as the web designer in this case. And their views are based on their religious scripts and religious beliefs. People should be free to accept and reject others. There is no compulsion in religion but equally there is no compulsion in accepting others and their views.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: AlienBorg

And they would be praised for standing up for their beliefs. And, on another note, the person wanting the cake for the anti-LBGT rally, would be condemned and probably worse. all for doing the same thing, standing up for their beliefs.

At the end of the day it comes down to personal-societal and cultural beliefs. Religion is a mixture of all these. You don't know if the person in this story was praised for her stand. I am sure she did by those who feel this way and received some hateful comments by those who don't share her views.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

The constitution specifically protects religious reasons in the 1st, so I'm not surprised that the SCOTUS mentions religion in the ruling at all.

It also mentions free speech/free expression. The Constitution doesn't elevate religious freedom over free speech or free expression. This ruling does.

Im saying that people assume the artist being asked to create is refusing for religious reasons, where that might not actually be the case.

In that case, the artist's refusal to serve a person of a protected class because of their protected class status, i.e., their race, skin color, religion, disability or sex would be an illegal act, not protected by this ruling.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CoyoteAngels

The constitution specifically protects religious reasons in the 1st, so I'm not surprised that the SCOTUS mentions religion in the ruling at all.

It also mentions free speech/free expression. The Constitution doesn't elevate religious freedom over free speech or free expression. This ruling does.

Im saying that people assume the artist being asked to create is refusing for religious reasons, where that might not actually be the case.

In that case, the artist's refusal to serve a person of a protected class because of their protected class status, i.e., their race, skin color, religion, disability or sex would be an illegal act, not protected by this ruling.

Federal law doesn't regard sexual orientation as a protected class/characteristic.

Page 1 for the link.

It leaves this open to the discretion of the States and judges. Some states regard it as a protected characteristic so others don't.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Federal law doesn't regard sexual orientation as a protected class/characteristic.

But the State of Colorado does. The case came out of Colorado. Are you saying that States don't have the right to protect LGBT people from discrimination in their states, even though the Supreme Court ruled their marriages are federally legal?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I described above how suppose someone was abused by a same sex person as a child and are simply emotionally unable to produce a work of art in celebration of that lifestyle.

Would it be illegal for them to refuse the work? Wouldnt it be more honest if they didn't feel they could perform a quality job because of their inner trauma with the subject matter?

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I described above how suppose someone was abused by a same sex person as a child and are simply emotionally unable to produce a work of art in celebration of that lifestyle.

Would it be illegal for them to refuse the work? Wouldnt it be more honest if they didn't feel they could perform a quality job because of their inner trauma with the subject matter?

I guess if they had a doctor's note that said their fear of gay people was a disability that needed to be accommodated under the Disabilities Act, it would fly.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: AlienBorg

Federal law doesn't regard sexual orientation as a protected class/characteristic.

But the State of Colorado does. The case came out of Colorado. Are you saying that States don't have the right to protect LGBT people from discrimination in their states, even though the Supreme Court ruled their marriages are federally legal?

The States can do as they please. Already stated in page 1 with the link I ve given. But the Supreme court can overturn earlier court rulings.

The justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in favor of Denver-area web designer Lorie Smith, who cited her Christian beliefs against gay marriage in challenging a Colorado anti-discrimination law. The justices overturned a lower court's ruling that had rejected Smith's bid for an exemption from a Colorado law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and other factors.

And this is precisely what happened.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

a reply to: Sookiechacha



I shouldn't have to provide a doctors note to refuse work.

That's ludicrous.

a reply to: AlienBorg

The States can do as they please. Already stated in page 1 with the link I ve given. But the Supreme court can overturn earlier court rulings.

And so they did. And by doing so, they elevated the right to religious freedom, through free expression and free speech above the free expression and free speech others. It's why I disagree with the ruling. It molly coddles the religious and elevates their rights above the rights of others.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Sookiechacha



I shouldn't have to provide a doctors note to refuse work.

That's ludicrous.

If you're claiming a disability you do. What you're describing is a phobia, a disability.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Who do you show this dr's note to exactly, if you are an independent artist?

Do you not realize the fascism in this, to require an artist to create whatever another demands, or its not legal unless it's for religious objections?

Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

originally posted by: greendust
a reply to: Mahogany

What is even weirder is how you have no proof of your claim. Also, I highly doubt SCOTUS would take up a false claim and even if they did if the 3 leftist on the court know this, why aren't they saying anything?

I didn't list it because it's literally main stream news. It's all over the news. All you have to do is open up any website and you could read an article on it.

Don't be so sheltered.

Here's a link:

apnews.com...