discussion Supreme Court Ready To Rule That Businesses Can Discriminate Against Gays

[Horizon Flame]

 

 

[Sheep]

We shouldn't be putting coins in the pockets of bigots anyway. 

[Bloodflowers.]

As if gays would want to give their coins to you anyways  pls 

 

The bigots hate gays so much they refuse money over their delusions

 

[Pheromosa]

Can’t they do this already? 

[Navy4Life]

Ok. 
 

That money would end up being donated to some pedophile run church anyways. 

[americanlife]

Isn't this similar to the Supreme Court's ruling on the wedding cake case?

[infrared]

50 minutes ago, americanlife said:

Isn't this similar to the Supreme Court's ruling on the wedding cake case?

Yes and no, but the court has gone more right since then. 
 

The biggest difference is that there isn’t an actual client to begin with 

 

1 hour ago, Bloodflowers. said:

As if gays would want to give their coins to you anyways  pls 

 

The bigots hate gays so much they refuse money over their delusions

 

it’s not about gays, but anywhere you go they can start saying they won’t serve you because of religious freedom - it’s incredibly stupid.

 

I could see an argument if it was a faith based design agency who ONLY worked on sites for religious but when you market to one and not the other it’s stupid. 
 

is she going to say the same about women who have abortions? People who commit other sins described in the Bible - they need to throw that book in the trash and leave it there 

Edited December 5, 2022 by infrared

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Century said:

We shouldn't be putting coins in the pockets of bigots anyway. 

 

2 hours ago, Bloodflowers. said:

As if gays would want to give their coins to you anyways  pls 

 

The bigots hate gays so much they refuse money over their delusions

 

 

2 hours ago, Pheromosa said:

Can’t they do this already? 

 

2 hours ago, Navy4Life said:

Ok. 
 

That money would end up being donated to some pedophile run church anyways. 

/endthread

[VOSS]

And what if one’s religion is firmly anti-miscegenation, would businesses be allowed to turn away mixed-race couples?

[Vermillion]

 

[fauxtography]

2 hours ago, VOSS said:

And what if one’s religion is firmly anti-miscegenation, would businesses be allowed to turn away mixed-race couples?

I mean, yes. I believe so - assuming you make cause that it is your religion.

 

What we need is a business to do this and take it to court.

[VOSS]

2 hours ago, fauxtography said:

I mean, yes. I believe so - assuming you make cause that it is your religion.

 

What we need is a business to do this and take it to court.

I just don’t think businesses should be allowed to use religion to skirt around anti-discrimination laws. ******* Hobby Lobby.

[spree]

well in my wedding I won't have "god" (and yes its lowercase cuz there is no such thing) in any part of it, so I won't be contacting her anyways.  Let her have her bigotry.  It'll bit her in the ass eventually.

[Communion]

10 minutes ago, spree said:

well in my wedding I won't have "god" (and yes its lowercase cuz there is no such thing) in any part of it, so I won't be contacting her anyways.  Let her have her bigotry.  It'll bit her in the ass eventually.

Her business has nothing to do with weddings, despite trying to frame it as such, which is what complicates the case. It's posted deeper down in one of the threads linked below, but her website from 2015 before the case was largely generic web design. Once she was found to file the case against no specific defendant, her website was redone to emphasize she designs websites especially for weddings, but she's suing for general right to her "religious views":

Quote

In their legal brief, Smith’s lawyers argued she does not seek a right to discriminate against gay people in every instance, but only wants the right to avoid being required to — in her view — express support for same-sex marriages that contradict her religion.

She “is willing to create custom websites for anyone, including those who identify as LGBT,” they wrote, “provided their message does not conflict with her religious views. But she cannot create websites that promote messages contrary to her faith, such as messages that condone violence or promote sexual immorality, abortion or same-sex marriage.”

Could she claim a website promotes sexual immorality if it's for a business whose owner happens to be gay?

 

Her business has nothing to do with her personal faith and no gay person has ever asked her to make her a website for their wedding (which is the obscene part of this); I don't even believe the framing being pushed is about making websites for LGBT organizations.

 

She's suing on the claim that anti-discrimination laws that say she can't refuse her business services to someone for simply being gay is the government infringing on her right to practice her religion. 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Communion

[Miss Show Business]

Here's the thing I feel about this case.

 

We'll have to see what they say, but I somewhat agreed with a previous ruling that basically said businesses have a reason to deny anybody they like.

 

For one, I would much rather have an LGBTQ ally / supporter design my wedding website or bake my cake than somebody who's a homophobe who's being forced to do it.

 

Secondly, during the pandemic, this was the basis of many stores and businesses enforcing mask rules. They ultimately have the right to deny anybody they like for almost any reason. Also, most businesses know that discrimination based on race or sexual orientation / gender identity is just simply bad business. I feel like unless this person is working in a very conservative area, they'll probably not get many glowing reviews and feedback due to their refusal to accept customers from different backgrounds.

 

Also, didn't SCOTUS recently rule that the law forbade discrimination in Federal law or something similar?

[infrared]

20 minutes ago, Miss Show Business said:

Here's the thing I feel about this case.

 

We'll have to see what they say, but I somewhat agreed with a previous ruling that basically said businesses have a reason to deny anybody they like.

 

For one, I would much rather have an LGBTQ ally / supporter design my wedding website or bake my cake than somebody who's a homophobe who's being forced to do it.

 

Secondly, during the pandemic, this was the basis of many stores and businesses enforcing mask rules. They ultimately have the right to deny anybody they like for almost any reason. Also, most businesses know that discrimination based on race or sexual orientation / gender identity is just simply bad business. I feel like unless this person is working in a very conservative area, they'll probably not get many glowing reviews and feedback due to their refusal to accept customers from different backgrounds.

 

Also, didn't SCOTUS recently rule that the law forbade discrimination in Federal law or something similar?

A public health crisis seems like a very reasonable reason to deny someone entry. Orientation is not something you can suddenly change, nor race, and in some aspects gender. The comparison is not even remotely the same 

 

 

25 minutes ago, Communion said:

Her business has nothing to do with weddings, despite trying to frame it as such, which is what complicates the case. It's posted deeper down in one of the threads linked below, but her website from 2015 before the case was largely generic web design. Once she was found to file the case against no specific defendant, her website was redone to emphasize she designs websites especially for weddings, but she's suing for general right to her "religious views":

Could she claim a website promotes sexual immorality if it's for a business whose owner happens to be gay?

 

Her business has nothing to do with her personal faith and no gay person has ever asked her to make her a website for their wedding (which is the obscene part of this); I don't even believe the framing being pushed is about making websites for LGBT organizations.

 

She's suing on the claim that anti-discrimination laws that say she can't refuse her business services to someone for simply being gay is the government infringing on her right to practice her religion. 

Most of these lawsuits are a joke. Every year lobbyists and PACs are plotting their next moves with Alito and Thomas. There is honestly no point in even arguing when the court has already made its decision  Just waiting for one of those two to croak so we can move on from this clear level of corruption.

 

 

[Miss Show Business]

5 minutes ago, infrared said:

A public health crisis seems like a very reasonable reason to deny someone entry. Orientation is not something you can suddenly change, nor race, and in some aspects gender. The comparison is not even remotely the same 

 

I'm not trying to compare the two. I'm simply saying that businesses having this power to deny anyone they liked allowed them to enforce their own rules despite conspiracy theorists on the right during the pandemic. I'm simply pointing out that this rule had a mostly positive effect when it came to the pandemic. If officials could overule private businesses, at least in this instance, it would've resulted in alot of the big box stores being forced to forego their own mask rules despite the fact they were following CDC guidelines, at least in red states where officials were not enforcing rules.

Edited December 6, 2022 by Miss Show Business

[Vermillion]

 

[Dula Peep]

there are plenty of gay designers anyways....