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

originally posted by: Halfswede
This case has nothing to do with refusing to serve a protected class, it has to do with forcing someone to create content they disagree with. She stated she will make websites for clients so long as the content doesn't conflict with her views. This is about forcing someone to make content, not doing the service specifically.

I would ask any who disagree, especially a rep of the LGBQ group, if you were a business owner and someone came in and said I want you to design a website full of religious quotes from prior popes, the Bible, and Quran verses condemning homosexuality, would you feel that you should be legally compelled to do it?

No, this is not about forcing anyone to do anything. In fact, nobody has even asked her to make them a website of that sort.

Here is a similar hypothetical situation, to put things in context:

Let's say I was thinking about opening up a cake making business. I haven't registered it yet and I've never made a cake and sold one before. I am Christian and I decide it would be horrible if a Muslim asked me to make them a Muslim cake. So I go through a phone book and pick a random Muslim name and file a lawsuit saying that person contacted me and asked me about making them a cake I don't want to make because of my free speech rights.

There is no business, there is no person asking for service, there is no cake.

Can there be a lawsuit?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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 coddle the religious and elevates their rights above the rights of others.

It's fine to disagree.
These matters are not black and white. The rulings depend on many factors.

I don't think they've given more credit to religious views because of this case. Someone has the right to deny providing services to others based on their religion. Just as Muslim parents have the right for example to object against LGBTQ school events or awareness or whatever is called.

In political matters you can't go easily against the majorities.

originally posted by: Mahogany

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...

The reports were made on the 29th of June. The ruling took place on the 30th of June. It means the court found no evidence (in their view) the case is misrepresented.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

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

What you are claiming is a hypothetical fear of gay men, right? That's a phobia. If you're claiming that your phobia prohibits from performing duties or legal obligations, then you need a doctor to back you up. You can't just "self-diagnose" a medical or mental condition and declare yourself legally disabled and exempt from the law.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well, no, Im alluding to people having reasons other than religion not wanting to accept any particular creative work.

You seem to think there is something illegal about this.

And instead of having any empathy whatsoever with the artist, for whatever they may have been thru in their lives, you call this a 'hypothetical fear of gay men'. I never even said men. Like you don't believe anything like this could EVER happen.

The way you respun it is very telling as to your ideas about controlling others.

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: Halfswede
This case has nothing to do with refusing to serve a protected class, it has to do with forcing someone to create content they disagree with. She stated she will make websites for clients so long as the content doesn't conflict with her views. This is about forcing someone to make content, not doing the service specifically.

I would ask any who disagree, especially a rep of the LGBQ group, if you were a business owner and someone came in and said I want you to design a website full of religious quotes from prior popes, the Bible, and Quran verses condemning homosexuality, would you feel that you should be legally compelled to do it?

No, this is not about forcing anyone to do anything. In fact, nobody has even asked her to make them a website of that sort.

Here is a similar hypothetical situation, to put things in context:

Let's say I was thinking about opening up a cake making business. I haven't registered it yet and I've never made a cake and sold one before. I am Christian and I decide it would be horrible if a Muslim asked me to make them a Muslim cake. So I go through a phone book and pick a random Muslim name and file a lawsuit saying that person contacted me and asked me about making them a cake I don't want to make because of my free speech rights.

There is no business, there is no person asking for service, there is no cake.

Can there be a lawsuit?

This is a case where a person has refused to make content they disagree with. And they have every right to do so. They cannot be forced legally to create such content. She said she will continue making websites as long as the content is appropriate for her beliefs. It's hard to go against this and especially when this is a private matter and a private business.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Well, no, Im alluding to people having reasons other than religion not wanting to accept any particular creative work.

A person can refuse service or employment to anyone for any reason, except illegal reasons, like reasons based on race, skin color, religion, disability and sex.

You seem to think there is something illegal about this.

It was illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, skin color, religion, disability or sex. (I think age is in there too) But now you can, as long as you declare your personally held beliefs, i.e. your religion, dictates that you do. You can make a medical disability claim, but you can't claim a personal "ick factor".

And instead of having any empathy whatsoever with the artist, for whatever they may have been thru in their lives, you call this a 'hypothetical fear of gay men'. I never even said men.

Well, I figured I'd pick a side, since you made a hypothetical claim of being abused by homosexuals, therefore you have the right to refuse service to all homosexuals.

A rape victim can have PTSD and a fear of being alone with men, that may prohibit them from being able to perform certain job applications. But a woman can't just say "I don't want to work with a man", or vie-versa, simply because she may have a problem with men.

Remember how Mike Pence has a personal rule of never being alone with a woman, because of his personally held beliefs (weakness). If he was just a normal guy, maybe a plumber, could he refuse work if there was an unchaperoned woman in the house?

a reply to: AlienBorg

We are pretty close to everybody having the right to deny everybody else's rights. Good luck to us!

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: Halfswede
This case has nothing to do with refusing to serve a protected class, it has to do with forcing someone to create content they disagree with. She stated she will make websites for clients so long as the content doesn't conflict with her views. This is about forcing someone to make content, not doing the service specifically.

I would ask any who disagree, especially a rep of the LGBQ group, if you were a business owner and someone came in and said I want you to design a website full of religious quotes from prior popes, the Bible, and Quran verses condemning homosexuality, would you feel that you should be legally compelled to do it?

No, this is not about forcing anyone to do anything. In fact, nobody has even asked her to make them a website of that sort.

Here is a similar hypothetical situation, to put things in context:

Let's say I was thinking about opening up a cake making business. I haven't registered it yet and I've never made a cake and sold one before. I am Christian and I decide it would be horrible if a Muslim asked me to make them a Muslim cake. So I go through a phone book and pick a random Muslim name and file a lawsuit saying that person contacted me and asked me about making them a cake I don't want to make because of my free speech rights.

There is no business, there is no person asking for service, there is no cake.

Can there be a lawsuit?

This is a case where a person has refused to make content they disagree with. And they have every right to do so. They cannot be forced legally to create such content. She said she will continue making websites as long as the content is appropriate for her beliefs. It's hard to go against this and especially when this is a private matter and a private business.

No, that's wrong and this SC decision will go down in history as wrong, or it will be corrected.

The reason is, even if this really happened and the circumstances of the case weren't made up, her free speech was never infringed on. She has a full right, in her personal life, to say anything she wants to. The problem is you can't discriminate against people in public, and running a business is a public effort.

What this SC decision allowed her to do is to open up an actual store and she would be legally ok to now put up a sign that says 'No Gay People Allowed' or 'We Don't Provide Services to Gay People'.

And she would be ok to do that, because technically she's been allowed to discriminate in public, against a protected class. Why not just put a sign saying that?

And if she can put up a sign like that, what other signs can we put up?

It's wrong, for many reasons, and it can't last.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

We aren't really talking about a person working with others. We are talking about an artist creating and selling an artistic expression.

Seems like an artist should be able to say, 'eh, im not feeling it', and walk away, without a doctors note to prove any particular reason nor claim religion.

If a bricklayer says, after looking at your job, I don't think we are a good fit, (because the person wants something really crazy and not worth the time to try to do it), should they be compelled? What if it's in a bad neighborhood and the bricklayer is afraid of his truck getting ripped off, same ability to refuse the work?

Would you be happier if the artist said, well, since I have to get into a different headspace and really stretch my talent and experience I'm going to have to charge more for the job?

No shirt.
No Shoes.
No Service.

We have the right to refuse service to anyone.

This can either be racist/prejudice...or it can be a business owners rules. You decide and no one else.

This is a good ruling. This is a state issue. That is why the US is so cool. If you have specific views move to where others have the same. Your life will be good. Why go somewhere and find someone who you know you would not go to unless you wanted to create some drama.

I mean, why is it ok to say that people have black owned businesses for black people but not white owned businesses for white people?

It is petty.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Freedom of association.

People who disagree with this should consider the following. It has been said many times that this was about content and even the defendant in the case specifically declared on her website that she would serve anyone, but not CONTENT that she didn't believe. The fact that they claimed they were gay had zero to do with the rejection.

If you think this ruling is incorrect, then imagine being a gay artist and someone comes in and says you must make a painting with god striking down a person holding a pride flag with lightning. The person bringing it in might be brown, gay, woman, etc. It doesn't matter as it is about the content that the business disagrees with.

It doesn't matter even if the content is religious based. It is literally a 1st amendment protection that is implied that you can't force someone to make speech or expression. -- of any kind

If you disagreed with the ruling, please declare here that you also agree that the gay artist has to make paintings of god striking down a person holding a pride flag. You will see someday that this was a rock-solid and good ruling for everyone's protection. You still can't refuse to serve a protected class because of the class, but you can refuse to do things you wouldn't do for anyone.

a reply to: Mahogany
you are so far off base that your in made-up accusations land. Again, it sounds like you are someone who has invested time following this allegedly fake supreme court case. So you clearly have transcripts to verify that the legal defense here was to not serve any gays for being gay, and not because the content that was allegedly (but not really) requested a conflict with their first amendment beliefs.

But this entire case is allegedly made up, you should reach out to NBC or ABC or even NPR to have them set the record straight.

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: Halfswede
This case has nothing to do with refusing to serve a protected class, it has to do with forcing someone to create content they disagree with. She stated she will make websites for clients so long as the content doesn't conflict with her views. This is about forcing someone to make content, not doing the service specifically.

I would ask any who disagree, especially a rep of the LGBQ group, if you were a business owner and someone came in and said I want you to design a website full of religious quotes from prior popes, the Bible, and Quran verses condemning homosexuality, would you feel that you should be legally compelled to do it?

No, this is not about forcing anyone to do anything. In fact, nobody has even asked her to make them a website of that sort.

Here is a similar hypothetical situation, to put things in context:

Let's say I was thinking about opening up a cake making business. I haven't registered it yet and I've never made a cake and sold one before. I am Christian and I decide it would be horrible if a Muslim asked me to make them a Muslim cake. So I go through a phone book and pick a random Muslim name and file a lawsuit saying that person contacted me and asked me about making them a cake I don't want to make because of my free speech rights.

There is no business, there is no person asking for service, there is no cake.

Can there be a lawsuit?

This is a case where a person has refused to make content they disagree with. And they have every right to do so. They cannot be forced legally to create such content. She said she will continue making websites as long as the content is appropriate for her beliefs. It's hard to go against this and especially when this is a private matter and a private business.

No, that's wrong and this SC decision will go down in history as wrong, or it will be corrected.

The reason is, even if this really happened and the circumstances of the case weren't made up, her free speech was never infringed on. She has a full right, in her personal life, to say anything she wants to. The problem is you can't discriminate against people in public, and running a business is a public effort.

What this SC decision allowed her to do is to open up an actual store and she would be legally ok to now put up a sign that says 'No Gay People Allowed' or 'We Don't Provide Services to Gay People'.

And she would be ok to do that, because technically she's been allowed to discriminate in public, against a protected class. Why not just put a sign saying that?

And if she can put up a sign like that, what other signs can we put up?

It's wrong, for many reasons, and it can't last.

It has been explained to you many times why it isn't wrong. You ve missed the part where this isn't the first decision of its kind. Look at the first few pages and see.

I don't see evidence it didn't happen (and at least in the eyes of the supreme court)

Nobody can be forced to provide services to someone else. In this case create content they don't agree with. And they right about it which has been recognised by the supreme court.

You ve missed the part in the dates given too. The media were challenging some part of this story on the 29th of June but on the 30th of June the ruling took place and it's obvious they didn't have any issue with the legitimacy of this case.

a reply to: Mahogany

www.bbc.co.uk...

Someone provided this link earlier which makes the case even stronger

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a baker in Colorado who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The Colorado state court had found that baker Jack Phillips' decision to turn away David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012 was unlawful discrimination.

But the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 7-2 vote that that decision had violated Mr Phillips' rights.

I am sure we can find more examples if we look around.

It seems the supreme court is much more sensible than state courts that are probably governed by woke judges.

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: Halfswede
This case has nothing to do with refusing to serve a protected class, it has to do with forcing someone to create content they disagree with. She stated she will make websites for clients so long as the content doesn't conflict with her views. This is about forcing someone to make content, not doing the service specifically.

I would ask any who disagree, especially a rep of the LGBQ group, if you were a business owner and someone came in and said I want you to design a website full of religious quotes from prior popes, the Bible, and Quran verses condemning homosexuality, would you feel that you should be legally compelled to do it?

No, this is not about forcing anyone to do anything. In fact, nobody has even asked her to make them a website of that sort.

Here is a similar hypothetical situation, to put things in context:

Let's say I was thinking about opening up a cake making business. I haven't registered it yet and I've never made a cake and sold one before. I am Christian and I decide it would be horrible if a Muslim asked me to make them a Muslim cake. So I go through a phone book and pick a random Muslim name and file a lawsuit saying that person contacted me and asked me about making them a cake I don't want to make because of my free speech rights.

There is no business, there is no person asking for service, there is no cake.

Can there be a lawsuit?

This is a case where a person has refused to make content they disagree with. And they have every right to do so. They cannot be forced legally to create such content. She said she will continue making websites as long as the content is appropriate for her beliefs. It's hard to go against this and especially when this is a private matter and a private business.

No, that's wrong and this SC decision will go down in history as wrong, or it will be corrected.

The reason is, even if this really happened and the circumstances of the case weren't made up, her free speech was never infringed on. She has a full right, in her personal life, to say anything she wants to. The problem is you can't discriminate against people in public, and running a business is a public effort.

What this SC decision allowed her to do is to open up an actual store and she would be legally ok to now put up a sign that says 'No Gay People Allowed' or 'We Don't Provide Services to Gay People'.

And she would be ok to do that, because technically she's been allowed to discriminate in public, against a protected class. Why not just put a sign saying that?

And if she can put up a sign like that, what other signs can we put up?

It's wrong, for many reasons, and it can't last.

I guess if that "slippery slop" circumstance ever happens the wronged party can try to bring their own case infront of the SCOTUS. Its the wonderful part of living in a constitutional Republic; people of good conscience on all sides of an issue can argue civilly to set and change policy to suit the times.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

We aren't really talking about a person working with others. We are talking about an artist creating and selling an artistic expression.

Seems like an artist should be able to say, 'eh, im not feeling it', and walk away, without a doctors note to prove any particular reason nor claim religion.

Subway calls its counter workers "Sandwich Artists". A chef and a cake baker are "artists". An interior designer, a hairdresser and a house painter are artists.

If you're working as a public accommodation, you can't discriminate on the basis of race, skin color, religion, disability or sex unless you have a legal reason. Now, the court has made it easy to legally claim your religion dictates it.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So, to that capacity, you should not be able to take a knee to express your beliefs while working as a public accommodation...right?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Im speaking of an independent artist creating one of a kind product.