The primary difference with big tech isn’t about a right to free association, but that they editorialize and then pretend that they don’t editorialize.
Want to editorialize? Fine - you are a publisher and now you are on the hook for ALL Covid deaths whose family want to sue you for misinformation on ivermectin being horse paste. Both what you said directly, and what was said that you didn’t remove.
The libertarian in me use to say, “live and let live, just don’t bother me.”
I killed that version of me—the naive little boy— a long time ago, so that the man could be born. He is a pragmatist, who now sees degenerates for what they are: insatiable sociopaths who are intolerant of real altruism.
"gay rights" is the same as anyone else wanting "rights" ("trans rights", etc). They just want special protection from satire, jokes, negative speech, negative sentiment and to force others to not only acknowledge them but forcibly "affirm" them, and celebrate their deviancy. They want it to be forced into daily life as "normal" and to punish anyone who resists.
Small hats. Ah, a willow reference. I would have given the first two episodes an A except they just immediately had to include a lesbian scene. Like it was somehow necessary for the plot
The gays I know are never happy. It was the end of the world that they couldn't get married. Then, they got gay marriage. Now, they just remain unmarried and bitch incessantly about other stuff.
You can't make the alphabet group happy. So I don't even bother trying anymore.
there is no such thing as "homo"sexual. It is a false equivalent to compare procreation between a man and a woman to a dude sticking his dick in another dude's ass.
it's sodomy, it's fornication...
it's NOT sex.
I've always thought this way too. Even the concept of oral sex, I have a hard time calling it by that title. I feel sexual intercourse is the only sex.
Yes. The blacks issue and the creation of non-discrimination law back then was the only say to stop literal guerilla warfare-wagers who were forcing all areas of the South to be no-blacks-allowed regardless of whether the businesses wanted it or not (they didn't, more customers is more money)
Tye situation with gays is NOT the same and anyone who says so is a racist asshole
There is no opportunity for virtue signaling about how "oppressed" you are if you simply patronize one of the thousands of business that agree with your political beliefs...
This is what kills me, there’s a thousand companies out there that would make a gay wedding website. But no, they decide to target this one. Proof that this is about compelling people to go along with the faggot agenda.
FWIW, the web designer was the one who filed a preemptive lawsuit challenging the state's law. As far as I can tell, it doesn't look like she's being sued for not providing services. Seems like it ought to have standing considering a lower court denied her appeal and this appears to be a constitutional conflict, and because SCOTUS has previously set precedent that this law is unconstitutional.
The United States Supreme Court will hear the case of a Colorado web designer who refuses to build websites for same-sex couples citing her religious beliefs.
Colorado web designer Lorie Smith, owner of 303 Creative, LLC, preemptively filed a lawsuit challenging the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to place a disclaimer on her website stating her reasons for refusing service to same-sex couples in violation of her religious beliefs, The Hill reported Tuesday.
The proposed disclaimer, "I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God's true story of marriage — the very story He is calling me to promote," would violate the accommodation provisions of the state law, which says, "any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public" may not "directly or indirectly ... refuse ... to an individual or a group, because of ... sexual orientation ... the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation."
I think the easiest way around this law would be to agree to do the work but quite like 9 times the normal amount. Basically, the I don’t want the job number contractors sometimes throw out
There was a case quite some time ago. There was a Jewish-oriented therapy group called JONAH, I believe. They did some talk therapy that may (or may not) help change same sex attraction. Of course, you signed documents to say there was no guaranteed cure. (There never is with Psychology) But some people say it helped them, some say it didn't.
They were sued into oblivion by Big Gay and forced to dissolve.
Thats not going to work. They have written special protections for "sexuality" in our legal code. The simple fact of the matter is that a majority of people in this country believe that homosexuality is "natural" and "something you are born with", while religion is something that people can choose.
Not really, the alphabet people could just fuck off and easily get goods and service for 99.9% of the stuff they need from 99.9% of the people selling such things who don't care about their gayness
The whole crux of this issue is that these people ascribe to the false belief that you are born with your sexuality, therefore it deserves more protection than religion. That is the narrative that needs to be challenged. You can't turn it around on them because following a certain religion is a choice. It won't work.
I do believe it is something some people are born with. I just don't believe in 100% unquestioning acceptance. No matter how you spin it most aspects of it are sub-optimal. Gays will always be deviant in the literal sense of the word. Well, guess what? Being deviant from a norm is usually loaded with problems and on net worse. I mean for fuck's sake, I have extra wide feet and it's hard enough for me just to buy shoes and that's just one small tiny aspect of life. Now you talk about a person's SEXUALITY AND ROMANCE, damn, that's a big aspect of life.
So argue Christianity (And Judaism, Islam, any other religion) also has special protections. Which it does ... at least according to the first amendment.
One hypothetical I put was if some hater of religions goes to a religious Christian or Jew and says: "Make me a graven image. You know, the one that your Ten Commandments tells you not to make? Make it for me. Or I'll sue."
Again, it's not going to work. They believe that because you (supposedly) can't choose your sexuality it deserves a higher tier of protection than religion, just like race.
For those of you who think this is the same as the Colorado baker case, there's a slight difference. Last time, the SCOTUS never directly ruled on the compelled speech argument, they only ruled on the fine itself. This case should get them to rule on the compelled speech part. Much more important case, in my opinion.
This. The cake guy didn't refuse to bake a gay couple a cake, he just wouldn't do a gay wedding cake. I'm sure this guy is the same "I'll make you a website, just not a gay wedding website."
They would have an argument if either party had called them fags and kicked them out. But despite the media hype that isn't what happened.
As someone who builds websites and does marketing for small businesses, this really shouldn't even be an issue. If someone/businesses come to me and I don't want to work with them, I tell them my schedule is full.
Everything the flows down from that perversion is predictable. Eventually sex with animals, dead corpses, etc… will be justified and if you don’t agree YOUR A BIGOT.
I used to feel a lot compassion and understanding for the gays at an individual level even if I didn't agree with it as a Christian. Now the agenda has been pushed so far in terms of both pressure on society and extremism in depravity that I avoid all gays and lesbians completely, even at the cost of some friendships. It's sad but this is what they've sewed.
No, because they’re relentless busy body faggots with empty souls so in order to feel anything other than dicks up their holes, they try and impose their degenerate lifestyles on people that just want to be left alone. Reasoning with these things is not an option anymore.
That isn't the point. The (((people))) pushing this agenda are using this as a way to force compliance with their narrative and agenda.
Once they can force someone to either act against their own beliefs or lose all of their business/income - then they have the golden ticket to start taking everyone's belongings.
For instance, using this precedent once set, say you are a doctor and a person would have the ability to walk up and demand "cut legs off, I identify as a paraplegic." Either you cut those legs off or you lose everything.
This isn't about a website, this is about power and precedent.
By stopping this nonsense it does stop the dismantling a bit. It restores individual rights to have an opinion and not have some troon force their morality on your business and paycheck.
Social media companies have the right to deny a platform to millions of people they disagree with politically, but this company needs to be compelled to create a gay website
🙄🙄🙄 🤡🌎
Gay people can make their own websites, but that's not the issue. They demand that we have to obey their opinions while they can ignore ours. They want preferential treatment enforced by the government. That's what this is always about.
I think that was Barret at the end -- she was the only one to make a cohesive argument! The others focused all their time wordsmithing and showing off -- but the whole case is really quite simple and Barret understood by explaining that compelling a writer's speech is the same as compelling a designer or a photographer's "speech."
you cant tell a creator they have to create what they don't want to create
eventually there are going to be so many laws and such a convoluted justice system that you can interpret a path to doing anything, legally -- on that day lawyers and judges will be the first target
Mentally ill trannies and their supporters will use their time and money to try and poke holes in the law everywhere they can, often for no other reason than to punish people. They already know that certain people and places will not cater to them so they use the courts as a weapon to punish those people even if they know that ultimately it will go nowhere. It SHOULD be thrown out as SLAP suits which is what they are, but most judges in the US seem to be fucking afraid to stand up to the trannies for fear of getting canceled.
The feds compel all the time. If the states don't pass a seat belt law they lose federal highway money. Ditto for drinking age. If you don't buy health insurance you get slammed with a tax. SCOTUS can go either way on this but if their decision favors Lorie Smith I'll be pleasantly surprised.
Lorie Smith, 38, sued the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in 2016 over state anti-discrimination laws barring her from advertising that she won’t create websites for couples of the same sex.
Hmmm.. That is touchy.and goes into anti-discrimination laws. If she were denying a specific design because she did not want to do it herself she is allowed, but to deny someone something because you do not like them is the root of so many of the Nations problems.
I don't think it even has to be religious. If she isn't comfortable doing it. It is a bit loaded because she is leaning on the first amendment by declaring that she would not serve a group of people based on something that I haven't seen as being personably controllable which hits on discrimination.... Though, if we let the free market decide which would require her to be open and honest and allow her to deny people if she wants. This could even hit on access to disabled... Because if a business does not want to it doesn't have to... Could be a great opportunity to see who is who in the world all together.
I am all for Government being able to compel action of the corporation to protect their people, but forcing people to do something that they disagree with is very unAmerican in my opinion. Very sticky.
And then choose to get rid of it, one would note that it was never technically allowed in the first place... Their is room for argument with indentured servitism, but that has to be agreed by both parties in a common tongue and comprehension and may not exceed the true value of the good or service being exchanged by more than agreed amount by both parties in common tongue and comprehension not exceeding 10%. (that isn't law, but maybe one day) but slavery was never legal to the extent at which it is portrayed as having happened. I am not saying that it did not happen the way that it was portrayed I am only saying that it was never really legal. That is a common problem with law, if people do not want to follow them they will not, if people do not KNOW them they will not follow them.
Service is not compelled. I cannot go into a Deny's and order a lap dance and Expect that service. I might be able to get it but that is not the point.
She cannot deny based on their orientation, I agree with that, but she can deny specific things that she will not do.
Honestly, all she had to do was individually turn down business that she was not comfortable with accepting, completely her choice to do so. She does have a right to deny service, I think that might be a focus here.
Denying service based on something like orientation or race is anti capitalist at it's root though, isn't it?
It would be one thing if she simply individually denied service as it was requested. The blanket "I refuse to serve you because you are different" though....
I am not a justice so it doesn't matter what I think so settle your tits, mate. Conversation helps us all, k?
I have already agreed that she has a right to deny service, Government cannot force her to serve anyone she doesn't want to and perhaps her promoting that she will not serve a specific group would be best to stream line past the confusion that is sure to happen.
This just pisses me off that special interest groups think they can force companies to do what they want, other than just not taking their business there.
Especially when those same fucking faggots, literally same fucking faggots, banned all conservatives everywhere and said it's their right to "refuse service to Trump supporters". But when others refuse service right back to them, suddenly they butt hurt.
That doesn't piss me off at all after seeing what the communists want companies to do. What pisses me off is what that is and how they circumvent the law of the land in partnership with the state. This is what we are seeing here.
A website specifically for a wedding? I doubt it. This is targeted harassment. They're asking for him to make that website specifically because they want him to refuse so they can sue.
So are leftists saying that it's a private organization it can do what it wants or does that argument just apply to multi billion dollar corporations like Twitter?
no twitter was a private company that could do want it wanted before Elon bought it and made it a private company that now needs to do want the left tell him to do or Elon is Nazi
While this is horrible it had to get this far, it is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to vacate the latest law regarding Churches and having to perform/endorse gay "marriages" or lose tax exempt status.
That precedent would be a damning thing against a lot of the communists' bullshit.
You guys keep saying this recent law will do that but I actually read the thing and it doesn't say that anywhere in the bill and even has protections against that
Yes. Read what it fucking says. Section 6 even has specific protections against that.
Where are you reading that Churches will be able to be sued?
The only possibility, and that's a big maybe, is that some states may consider pastors/priests who can officiate weddings as "agents of the court", and then force them to officiate the legal process of gay couples on threat of punishment. And even then the priests and imams and rabbis could just refuse to be registered as legal marriage officiants and just stick with the religious stuff.
Yes I read the bill. I literally just read the text you linked to. Where the fuck does it say they can sue Churches? Are you people reading shit from ghosts in your head?
You are referring to 6b. But that is the church. The pastor/priest who refused to perform it is in violation under 4c. The church is fine but the person is in violation.
I read the fucking bill.
It means you for refusing to say gay marriage is beautiful in all forms can be sued since it hurt the feelings of gay people.
Acting UNDER COLOR OF LAW. Pastors priests rabbis and imams do not claim to be acting under law. They are religious figures. Again, MAYBE if the state says that officiating a wedding is acting as an agent of the court, but even then all the religious people could just not be the legal officiant. In general the whole bill is very specific in saying that it's referring to legal matters
Worst case scenario religious heads lose the right to sign a marriage certificate. Big whoop.
You all are trying to read into this law something that isn't there. Just because globohomo wants to arrest religious people doesn't mean they have the legal means to do so yet, or are even close to law getting that bad. It would take a LOT more precedents and ruling before it could get that bad
Yes, exactly like I said could potentially be a way they could hound religious figures. Like I said, depending on the state, being a registered type of person who can sign off on marriages might count as being an "agent of the court", and then that's how they could go after people. But it's a meaningless non-problen of a problem, as couples could just do their own paperwork and the clergy would just stick to the religious stuff. There would be maybe one clergyman who gets hassled once by the law and then from then on everyone else would know not to register to be able to perform legal marriages
compelled speech is not free speech.
"Gay rights" is NOT the same as race/ interracial rights
This is the greatest trick the Left has snuck in. Call it out EVERY time.
Homosexuality is a counterfeit degenerate lifestyle, it is NOT equal to the color of people's skin
Even if it was - why should you be forced to do creative work for anyone you don’t like?
This is NOT the same as saying that someone won’t serve you a burger because of your color.
If someone were to refuse to serve me a burger because of my lack of color, then I would simply take my monies elsewhere 🤷🏻♂️
Yes but that is a very slippery slope. Think about how conservatives have been unpersoned in big tech.
Here the equivalent might be trying to force an artist to do some Wakanda bs or something…whereas you really can’t force artistic expression.
Freedom of Association is in the Constitution
It isn't, but has been upheld as part of the 1A.
I only eat artisanal burgers. no ass burgers for me
The primary difference with big tech isn’t about a right to free association, but that they editorialize and then pretend that they don’t editorialize.
Absolutely, however…
Want to editorialize? Fine - you are a publisher and now you are on the hook for ALL Covid deaths whose family want to sue you for misinformation on ivermectin being horse paste. Both what you said directly, and what was said that you didn’t remove.
Well said.
Unless no business will serve you...
Or unless no critical business will serve you...
Google, Apple, AA, Delta, Chase, BoA, Visa....
Don't need to corrupt them all, just the important ones.
don't forget GoFuckMe
And if they did that to enough people, someone would come along and grab that market share, maybe even run the other guy out of business.
Yep, GET WOKE GO BROKE has been pretty prevalent!
Colorado wants "rights" for all customers, so if Ye walks into a cake shop and asks for a Hitler Nazi cake, the shop must make it for him.
The libertarian in me use to say, “live and let live, just don’t bother me.”
I killed that version of me—the naive little boy— a long time ago, so that the man could be born. He is a pragmatist, who now sees degenerates for what they are: insatiable sociopaths who are intolerant of real altruism.
And incompatible with a functioning society.
Name checks out.
"gay rights" is the same as anyone else wanting "rights" ("trans rights", etc). They just want special protection from satire, jokes, negative speech, negative sentiment and to force others to not only acknowledge them but forcibly "affirm" them, and celebrate their deviancy. They want it to be forced into daily life as "normal" and to punish anyone who resists.
Like smallhats.
Small hats. Ah, a willow reference. I would have given the first two episodes an A except they just immediately had to include a lesbian scene. Like it was somehow necessary for the plot
The gays I know are never happy. It was the end of the world that they couldn't get married. Then, they got gay marriage. Now, they just remain unmarried and bitch incessantly about other stuff.
You can't make the alphabet group happy. So I don't even bother trying anymore.
there is no such thing as "homo"sexual. It is a false equivalent to compare procreation between a man and a woman to a dude sticking his dick in another dude's ass. it's sodomy, it's fornication... it's NOT sex.
I've always thought this way too. Even the concept of oral sex, I have a hard time calling it by that title. I feel sexual intercourse is the only sex.
Slick Willy, is that you?
Never forget Will Smith said he loved "dude wipes" - I always felt that was odd... Big Mike likes em too
Yes. The blacks issue and the creation of non-discrimination law back then was the only say to stop literal guerilla warfare-wagers who were forcing all areas of the South to be no-blacks-allowed regardless of whether the businesses wanted it or not (they didn't, more customers is more money)
Tye situation with gays is NOT the same and anyone who says so is a racist asshole
"MUH PRIVATE COMPANY"
Like mandatory volunteer hours
More of the same old shit, faggots pushing lawsuits for political gain.
Websites for gay weddings? I think this would fall into the gay wedding cake category.
With that said, why don't gays want to help gay web designers? Why is it always make my webcake bigot?
There is no opportunity for virtue signaling about how "oppressed" you are if you simply patronize one of the thousands of business that agree with your political beliefs...
This is what kills me, there’s a thousand companies out there that would make a gay wedding website. But no, they decide to target this one. Proof that this is about compelling people to go along with the faggot agenda.
It's all about lawfare.
Yeah, but then Rupert Murdoch bought it and then no one uses it anymore.
Because they are specifically looking for places that don't agree with them, and then going after them.
Because it’s not about the website it’s about revenge. They love sin.
This has standing. Got it.
Came here for this. Supreme Court is always real quick to hear bullshit cases about faggots. Meanwhile election fraud….nope.
FWIW, the web designer was the one who filed a preemptive lawsuit challenging the state's law. As far as I can tell, it doesn't look like she's being sued for not providing services. Seems like it ought to have standing considering a lower court denied her appeal and this appears to be a constitutional conflict, and because SCOTUS has previously set precedent that this law is unconstitutional.
"we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason."
Only in a free country.
free country or not im still a free man. and free men make a free nation.
You can say it, but in practice your reason for refusal could be against the law.
my rules or leave my business. no law can force me to serve anyone i dont want to and fuck any law to the contrary!
And laws can be unconstitutional ! And the people the enforce said unconstitutional laws ARE TRAITORS !
and still be against the law.
Yea, not how it works chief.
its how it works or you can gtfo MY place of business ya fucking cunt! if you refuse to leave i will physically remove you. please come again.
Newsmax article: https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/scotus-law-colorado-discrimination/2022/02/22/id/1057987/
it would be cheaper to just make the site a parody.
The dude is saying for the website designer to make a parody site for the gay wedding
or just miss the deadline.
I'm taking about the website she refused to make.
Got it - sorry pede : )
Put Ace and Gary on there on repeat.
I think the easiest way around this law would be to agree to do the work but quite like 9 times the normal amount. Basically, the I don’t want the job number contractors sometimes throw out
enough with the fags. ban faggotry. they overplayed their hand. now the backlash has to be severe to reign them in.
Sodomy is a fetish, not a sexual orientation.
They convinced the American Public otherwise.
You'd never get the Jewish cake to court because any lawyer would be sanctioned by... ... Just for taking your case.
Actually, Gay trump Judaism.
There was a case quite some time ago. There was a Jewish-oriented therapy group called JONAH, I believe. They did some talk therapy that may (or may not) help change same sex attraction. Of course, you signed documents to say there was no guaranteed cure. (There never is with Psychology) But some people say it helped them, some say it didn't.
They were sued into oblivion by Big Gay and forced to dissolve.
plus there are infinite web creation sites and companies... you dont even need to get off your homo ass
Thats not going to work. They have written special protections for "sexuality" in our legal code. The simple fact of the matter is that a majority of people in this country believe that homosexuality is "natural" and "something you are born with", while religion is something that people can choose.
Not really, the alphabet people could just fuck off and easily get goods and service for 99.9% of the stuff they need from 99.9% of the people selling such things who don't care about their gayness
The whole crux of this issue is that these people ascribe to the false belief that you are born with your sexuality, therefore it deserves more protection than religion. That is the narrative that needs to be challenged. You can't turn it around on them because following a certain religion is a choice. It won't work.
you're not very bright are you?
I do believe it is something some people are born with. I just don't believe in 100% unquestioning acceptance. No matter how you spin it most aspects of it are sub-optimal. Gays will always be deviant in the literal sense of the word. Well, guess what? Being deviant from a norm is usually loaded with problems and on net worse. I mean for fuck's sake, I have extra wide feet and it's hard enough for me just to buy shoes and that's just one small tiny aspect of life. Now you talk about a person's SEXUALITY AND ROMANCE, damn, that's a big aspect of life.
So argue Christianity (And Judaism, Islam, any other religion) also has special protections. Which it does ... at least according to the first amendment.
One hypothetical I put was if some hater of religions goes to a religious Christian or Jew and says: "Make me a graven image. You know, the one that your Ten Commandments tells you not to make? Make it for me. Or I'll sue."
What happens then?
Again, it's not going to work. They believe that because you (supposedly) can't choose your sexuality it deserves a higher tier of protection than religion, just like race.
For those of you who think this is the same as the Colorado baker case, there's a slight difference. Last time, the SCOTUS never directly ruled on the compelled speech argument, they only ruled on the fine itself. This case should get them to rule on the compelled speech part. Much more important case, in my opinion.
I’m really not counting on ACB or Kavanaugh on this one. Their alleged catholic backgrounds be damned, I think they’ll side with the libshits on this.
Being forced to make a gay wedding website (or any website with a message you don't agree with) is compelled speech.
This. The cake guy didn't refuse to bake a gay couple a cake, he just wouldn't do a gay wedding cake. I'm sure this guy is the same "I'll make you a website, just not a gay wedding website."
They would have an argument if either party had called them fags and kicked them out. But despite the media hype that isn't what happened.
As someone who builds websites and does marketing for small businesses, this really shouldn't even be an issue. If someone/businesses come to me and I don't want to work with them, I tell them my schedule is full.
This is how you do it without discriminating. You don't say, "I would but wahhh you're gay and I don't wanna." That's how you get sued.
Should be able to though
Yeah ... but you should be able to just tell them THAT YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO BECAUSE THEY ARE UGLY , or BLACK , OR FUCKING GAY !
If you want to be gay, do it in your own fucking house and shut the fuck up about it. The majority are tired of you whiny faggots.
Put fags back in the closet. Kicking and screaming if needed.
-------> this way to gay closet ------> <helicopter sound increases>
Wax my balls, bake my cake and make my website bigot!
Too bad there's only one cake shop and one web designer in the state of Colorado.
If that were the case, they might actually have a compelling argument.
My god... To the person who can't stop coughing, GO OUTSIDE.
They were probably "vaccinated".
Homosexuality is an abomination.
Everything the flows down from that perversion is predictable. Eventually sex with animals, dead corpses, etc… will be justified and if you don’t agree YOUR A BIGOT.
Homosexuality is a fetish. Call it what it is, sodomites.
Just like people who fuck animals are into beastiality, people who fuck the same sex are into sodomy.
Who does she think makes her Apple computer she builds websites with?
Chinese people who aren't gay and believe homosexuality is an abomination as well.
I don’t think 7 year old slaves know what gay is.
Well in this country they better damn well know or their 2nd grade teacher will tell them.
They shouldn't any way 😅
They really lost the plot when it went from you need to accept were here, to now you must participate in our lifestyle.
I used to feel a lot compassion and understanding for the gays at an individual level even if I didn't agree with it as a Christian. Now the agenda has been pushed so far in terms of both pressure on society and extremism in depravity that I avoid all gays and lesbians completely, even at the cost of some friendships. It's sad but this is what they've sewed.
Who is pushing that agenda? Most of the gays I know in the “bear” community don’t pay much attention to it.
I don't know but I live in Oregon and it's very aggressive, hence why I know a lot of gay people and am very sensitive to it now. It's loud here.
Why is this even an issue? Can't the gay people just find another web designer who will create their site? They are a dime a dozen these days.
No, because they’re relentless busy body faggots with empty souls so in order to feel anything other than dicks up their holes, they try and impose their degenerate lifestyles on people that just want to be left alone. Reasoning with these things is not an option anymore.
That isn't the point. The (((people))) pushing this agenda are using this as a way to force compliance with their narrative and agenda.
Once they can force someone to either act against their own beliefs or lose all of their business/income - then they have the golden ticket to start taking everyone's belongings.
For instance, using this precedent once set, say you are a doctor and a person would have the ability to walk up and demand "cut legs off, I identify as a paraplegic." Either you cut those legs off or you lose everything.
This isn't about a website, this is about power and precedent.
Of course they can but they want every principled person to bend to their degeneracy.
The country is being dismantled and this is what scotus is doing? Makes total sense.
By stopping this nonsense it does stop the dismantling a bit. It restores individual rights to have an opinion and not have some troon force their morality on your business and paycheck.
they want gay faghot marriage while they sit on the ashes of america
So would a black owned business have to make a KKK cake?
It's so dumb that I think it would be this simple to make people change their opinions on this issue.
Someone doing that would be called racist etc etc etc, but would they really be like "of course they have to bake the cake"? Hell no.
Although they'd probably just say "being gay is ok being racist isn't so therefore bake the fucking cake"
Would love to see the gymnastics they pull out for that
That's not a "protected" class, so no.
Then do a White Pride cake. Make it very much about race.
Social media companies have the right to deny a platform to millions of people they disagree with politically, but this company needs to be compelled to create a gay website 🙄🙄🙄 🤡🌎
Gay people can make their own websites, but that's not the issue. They demand that we have to obey their opinions while they can ignore ours. They want preferential treatment enforced by the government. That's what this is always about.
We should force gay people make straight pride, pro life, and Christian things for us.
That would be an interesting reversal that would make lefties cry which would make me laugh.
I think that was Barret at the end -- she was the only one to make a cohesive argument! The others focused all their time wordsmithing and showing off -- but the whole case is really quite simple and Barret understood by explaining that compelling a writer's speech is the same as compelling a designer or a photographer's "speech."
you cant tell a creator they have to create what they don't want to create
Kudos to Barret on this one
She’s right of course but this is about forcing you to submit to globohomo, logic or law be damned
eventually there are going to be so many laws and such a convoluted justice system that you can interpret a path to doing anything, legally -- on that day lawyers and judges will be the first target
Mentally ill faggots (all of them) don't deserve the same rights as normal people.
Wasnt this issue already decided with the bakery case.
They will touch every link in the chain testing for weakness.
Mentally ill trannies and their supporters will use their time and money to try and poke holes in the law everywhere they can, often for no other reason than to punish people. They already know that certain people and places will not cater to them so they use the courts as a weapon to punish those people even if they know that ultimately it will go nowhere. It SHOULD be thrown out as SLAP suits which is what they are, but most judges in the US seem to be fucking afraid to stand up to the trannies for fear of getting canceled.
No, they didn't rule on any first amendment issues there. They only ruled that Colorado was unfair in the process it used to fine the bakery.
Oh
Thanks Mods
So a neonazi can go into a Jewish bakery and force them to make a Hitler cake?
Will instantly get Kanye West treatment. Some animals are more equal than others on this farm.
I used that argument many, many, MANY times on the internet.
And wouldn't you know it -- they NEVER gave a real answer.
You cannot compel another's actions. That is slavery.
The feds compel all the time. If the states don't pass a seat belt law they lose federal highway money. Ditto for drinking age. If you don't buy health insurance you get slammed with a tax. SCOTUS can go either way on this but if their decision favors Lorie Smith I'll be pleasantly surprised.
I seem to have missed it, which is Lorie Smith in this?
The web designer.
Lorie Smith, 38, sued the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in 2016 over state anti-discrimination laws barring her from advertising that she won’t create websites for couples of the same sex.
Hmmm.. That is touchy.and goes into anti-discrimination laws. If she were denying a specific design because she did not want to do it herself she is allowed, but to deny someone something because you do not like them is the root of so many of the Nations problems.
Looks more like she is denying amoral behavior.
I don't know which way to roll on this. I tend to favor the web designer not being forced to do work that violates her religious beliefs.
What if you were a photographer and somebody hired you to photograph them having sex? With cucumbers? Don't be vegan bigot!!
I don't think it even has to be religious. If she isn't comfortable doing it. It is a bit loaded because she is leaning on the first amendment by declaring that she would not serve a group of people based on something that I haven't seen as being personably controllable which hits on discrimination.... Though, if we let the free market decide which would require her to be open and honest and allow her to deny people if she wants. This could even hit on access to disabled... Because if a business does not want to it doesn't have to... Could be a great opportunity to see who is who in the world all together.
I am all for Government being able to compel action of the corporation to protect their people, but forcing people to do something that they disagree with is very unAmerican in my opinion. Very sticky.
I agree, but people already accepted compelled service based on race though.
Black = no choice. Gay = choosing to have gay sex. There's the difference.
Totally irrelevant. Still compelled service.
No one is compelled (yet) to perform homosexual acts but everyone is compelled to belong to a race (and gender) on the basis of their genetics.
"No one is compelled...."
Lol, give it 5 more years
It was necessary to go around the Klan's local guerilla enforcement of anti-black against local businesses who were happy to serve blacks
Black freeman owned slaves too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMDbVd2mkvw
Slavery was not 'just race' - it was an economic system going back eons.
And then choose to get rid of it, one would note that it was never technically allowed in the first place... Their is room for argument with indentured servitism, but that has to be agreed by both parties in a common tongue and comprehension and may not exceed the true value of the good or service being exchanged by more than agreed amount by both parties in common tongue and comprehension not exceeding 10%. (that isn't law, but maybe one day) but slavery was never legal to the extent at which it is portrayed as having happened. I am not saying that it did not happen the way that it was portrayed I am only saying that it was never really legal. That is a common problem with law, if people do not want to follow them they will not, if people do not KNOW them they will not follow them.
I'm talking about right now.
You are not allowed to refuse service based on race. Service is compelled, and this is accepted by most people.
Service is not compelled. I cannot go into a Deny's and order a lap dance and Expect that service. I might be able to get it but that is not the point.
She cannot deny based on their orientation, I agree with that, but she can deny specific things that she will not do.
Honestly, all she had to do was individually turn down business that she was not comfortable with accepting, completely her choice to do so. She does have a right to deny service, I think that might be a focus here.
You said before compelled service is slavery. You just said "She cannot deny based on their orientation, I agree with that".
Ergo, you agree with slavery. All the rest of that is mental gymnastics to avoid that conclusion.
Denying service based on something like orientation or race is anti capitalist at it's root though, isn't it?
It would be one thing if she simply individually denied service as it was requested. The blanket "I refuse to serve you because you are different" though....
I am not a justice so it doesn't matter what I think so settle your tits, mate. Conversation helps us all, k?
I have already agreed that she has a right to deny service, Government cannot force her to serve anyone she doesn't want to and perhaps her promoting that she will not serve a specific group would be best to stream line past the confusion that is sure to happen.
Ladies and gentlemen, we found the big-L Libertarian idiot
This just pisses me off that special interest groups think they can force companies to do what they want, other than just not taking their business there.
Especially when those same fucking faggots, literally same fucking faggots, banned all conservatives everywhere and said it's their right to "refuse service to Trump supporters". But when others refuse service right back to them, suddenly they butt hurt.
Elenis you will never be a real woman!!!
That doesn't piss me off at all after seeing what the communists want companies to do. What pisses me off is what that is and how they circumvent the law of the land in partnership with the state. This is what we are seeing here.
You can't force me to provide someone a service, period.
Oh boy are you in for a surprise
Aint that the truth
IF I was forced to “bake a gay cake” I would do such a fucking poor job at it and then sue them for not paying lol
A website specifically for a wedding? I doubt it. This is targeted harassment. They're asking for him to make that website specifically because they want him to refuse so they can sue.
Man, remember when Twitter could remove the sitting President because private companies can do whatever they want?
So are leftists saying that it's a private organization it can do what it wants or does that argument just apply to multi billion dollar corporations like Twitter?
no twitter was a private company that could do want it wanted before Elon bought it and made it a private company that now needs to do want the left tell him to do or Elon is Nazi
While this is horrible it had to get this far, it is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to vacate the latest law regarding Churches and having to perform/endorse gay "marriages" or lose tax exempt status.
That precedent would be a damning thing against a lot of the communists' bullshit.
Let their be light!
You guys keep saying this recent law will do that but I actually read the thing and it doesn't say that anywhere in the bill and even has protections against that
You read this bill? https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text
Which says that if someone doesn’t recognize and affirm a gay marriage then they can sue you in civil court since you harmed them? Really.
Yes. Read what it fucking says. Section 6 even has specific protections against that.
Where are you reading that Churches will be able to be sued?
The only possibility, and that's a big maybe, is that some states may consider pastors/priests who can officiate weddings as "agents of the court", and then force them to officiate the legal process of gay couples on threat of punishment. And even then the priests and imams and rabbis could just refuse to be registered as legal marriage officiants and just stick with the religious stuff.
Yes I read the bill. I literally just read the text you linked to. Where the fuck does it say they can sue Churches? Are you people reading shit from ghosts in your head?
You are referring to 6b. But that is the church. The pastor/priest who refused to perform it is in violation under 4c. The church is fine but the person is in violation.
I read the fucking bill.
It means you for refusing to say gay marriage is beautiful in all forms can be sued since it hurt the feelings of gay people.
How fucking hard is that to understand?
Acting UNDER COLOR OF LAW. Pastors priests rabbis and imams do not claim to be acting under law. They are religious figures. Again, MAYBE if the state says that officiating a wedding is acting as an agent of the court, but even then all the religious people could just not be the legal officiant. In general the whole bill is very specific in saying that it's referring to legal matters
Worst case scenario religious heads lose the right to sign a marriage certificate. Big whoop.
You all are trying to read into this law something that isn't there. Just because globohomo wants to arrest religious people doesn't mean they have the legal means to do so yet, or are even close to law getting that bad. It would take a LOT more precedents and ruling before it could get that bad
When filling out marriage legal forms it is acting under color of law.
Dude, you ever get married?
Yes, exactly like I said could potentially be a way they could hound religious figures. Like I said, depending on the state, being a registered type of person who can sign off on marriages might count as being an "agent of the court", and then that's how they could go after people. But it's a meaningless non-problen of a problem, as couples could just do their own paperwork and the clergy would just stick to the religious stuff. There would be maybe one clergyman who gets hassled once by the law and then from then on everyone else would know not to register to be able to perform legal marriages
the libs are reeeing over Alito and heaping abuse on him on twatter. So he must be making good points.