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

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: LSU2018

I don't believe the people filing these lawsuits actually want a cake. I wouldn't eat a cake I forced to be baked for me by threat of law! I never understood why the baker didn't just accidentally measure the salt out where it called for sugar. Oh pardon me! I was stressed out over a lawsuit and got mixed up! Here's your money back!

These are activists FORCING others to kowtow to their protectedness.

Exactly, they're all about that mental illness!

a reply to: LSU2018

I don't call being a control freak a mental illness. I call it being a a control freak. My way or the highway. Personal fascism. We all know people like this and avoid them whenever possible.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: LSU2018

I don't call being a control freak a mental illness. I call it being a a control freak. My way or the highway. Personal fascism. We all know people like this and avoid them whenever possible.

I'm not talking about control freaks. I'm talking about people who go out of their way to find something that will anger them. The people who aren't happy unless they're angry. They hate people like that baker, but want to force him to make their cake. There's a difference between a control freak and people like that. A control freak isn't going to seek you out to demand "my way or the highway".

a reply to: LSU2018

Every major control freak I've ever known was constantly angry and frustrated because control of anything other than your own actions is an illusion. So you go thru life pretty much pissed off. And trying to prop that illusion up.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I swear you live in lala land, but then again you defend cross-dressing homosexual men as literal physical women so what is to be expected?

Your wrong will continue to be wrong on this case, and no amount of mental gymnastics will make you right.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: AlienBorg

Never understood people like this... I would never go to a liberal baker for a MAGA cake, I would never go to a liberal wedding website maker to design a Conservative website for me. If someone doesn't want to serve me then I'd prefer to go elsewhere anyways. Then again, I'm not an angry, miserable human who walks around looking for a reason to be bitter. That's reserved for people with a mental illness.

Can't agree more with you!

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: LSU2018

Every major control freak I've ever known was constantly angry and frustrated because control of anything other than your own actions is an illusion. So you go thru life pretty much pissed off. And trying to prop that illusion up.

Dealing with the woke culture/ideology is a difficult task because it's embedded now in our society. But it seems it has reached its maximum strength and it's rapidly declining.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I swear you live in lala land, but then again you defend cross-dressing homosexual men as literal physical women so what is to be expected?

Please cite where I ever made any such claim. Otherwise, I'll thank you to STOP putting words in my mouth.

If you don't have an argument against my opinion, that this ruling does not address the same rights for employees, Rights for me, but not for thee", that's fine. But resorting to insults and lies because you don't have anything else just doesn't cut it.

originally posted by: Mahogany
Really bizarre case. Names used were fraudulent, and the lady didn't even own a business when she filed, nor has she ever made a single website. It was all hypothetical. Meaning there was no injured party to even file a case upon in the first place. No injured party, no case.

That is truly bizarre... almost as bizarre as

And the SC still used the case as a way to enact an agenda,

Agenda? Ok... if you really consider the protection of the Rights we all have protected by the Constitution as an 'agenda'...

You do realize that the right to free association includes the Right to not associate - including the Right to not have to provide services to someone you don't want to... for any reason, not just for religious reasons.

Weird things happening.

Only if you are some radical leftist that doesn't believe in individual Rights.

The only thing I'm disappointed with is that the Supremes didn't take an opportunity to point out that this isn't just a religion thing, it is a general Liberty thing.

originally posted by: Halfswede
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?

Masterful response, bravo!

Let the what-about-isms begin.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: Halfswede
Still it's a protected class that is not served on the basis of her religious beliefs. But the rest of what you said is correct.

There are no 'protected classes' under the Constitution... we are all supposed to be equal under the law, remember?

I am looking forward to the day that the Supreme Court declares as much in some future ground-breaking case. It will be bigger than the reversal of Roe v Wade.

originally posted by: Turquosie
a reply to: AlienBorg

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?

Any laws purporting to force any business owner to hire or serve anyone they don't want to hire or serve - for any reason, whether based on race or whatever - is patently unconstitutional.

Of course, people have been brainwashed to believe otherwise.

originally posted by: Threadbare
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.

Linky pleasey?

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.

And I'm quite certain she would say that is fine by her...

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg
Religious beliefs that rely on various interpretations should not be the basis to enact laws that trample on others' human rights.

You seem to have a strange concept of what is a Right'...

A Right is something that we all share equally - like the Rights to Life, Liberty and Property.

No one has the Right to force someone else to do anything they don't want to do, whether that is bake a cake for them, hire them, or make a website for them.

Those who support laws that purport to force others to do such things are he tyrant-wanna-be's trampling on the Rights of others.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: PorkChop96
Right, except an illegal reason.

Constitutionally speaking, there is no such thing as an 'illegal' reason - any/all reasons are lawful..

Does an employee have a right to refuse to do an assignment based on their religious peccadillos?

Of course they do, but it works both ways. The employer has the Right to fire them for said refusal too.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: Halfswede
Still it's a protected class that is not served on the basis of her religious beliefs. But the rest of what you said is correct.

There are no 'protected classes' under the Constitution... we are all supposed to be equal under the law, remember?

I am looking forward to the day that the Supreme Court declares as much in some future ground-breaking case. It will be bigger than the reversal of Roe v Wade.

If you see the rest of my message I said under federal law sexual orientation is not a protected class/characteristic. But under state law (depending on the state) it is considered a protected class.

I am looking forward to the day when gender identity is ruled as unconstitutional.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: PorkChop96
A constitutional right to Free Speech shouldn't be limited to business owners but denied to a business' employees.

Like all of those who were praising the censorship of freedom loving Americans on social media the last few years, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to businesses - or employeremployee relationships - remember?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

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.

And I'm quite certain she would say that is fine by her...

They don't understand the meaning of disagreements and civil discussions or live and let live. They believe it's either acceptance or cancellation.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: Sookiechacha
Homosexuality is a sin in all Abrahamic religions regardless of who is participating. It will be absurd by your logic to condemn male homosexuality and allow female homosexuality.

Sookie actually posted a citation to support her claims, and in fact I have never seen a biblical passage that can be read as to support your claim, so, by all means, cie the biblical passage that supports it...