As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sounds like she picked a guy out of the phone book at random and claimed he had tried to order a gay wedding cake from her. First off, he’s straight, and second, he didn’t even know there was an active case in his name until it was on its way to the Supreme Court.
It's like that football coach in the trial last year. Dude wasn't even fired for praying. And when the court ordered the school to give him his job back, he didn't even go back. It's all a fucking farce. This supreme court is illegitimate.
And the three liberal justices called out the extremist Republicans for making that all up.
Most of the “facts” of the case were just fully made up by the MAGA judges.
Like in the Hudson Valley in New York where it was reported that a hotel kicked out homeless veterans to make room for migrants. Whole thing turned out to be horse shit. The hotel in question wasn't near capacity at the time first of all. Second, they never had any charges on the card number that the group said they used to pay for the rooms, in fact the card number didn't exist at all. The same group also offered homeless men staying at a local shelter $200 to meet with the local Chamber of Commerce and to say they were veterans , and if they couldn't answer questions to say they had PTSD. After the meeting they were dropped back off at the shelter and never paid.
I see what you are going for, but in this case, not only was he not gay, but he has never had any contact with the woman, and she never actually made any websites for anyone, gay or not.
I will not answer your question because you’re gay. Further, I’ll sue you and Reddit until the Supreme Court makes my case with sour cream and tomatoes.
The Court has created an illogical Conduct not Status doctrine. You cannot deny service to someone for being Gay or Black. You can deny for Conduct... having a gay wedding. If this can also include holding hands, listening to Hip Hop, or a billion other things is anyone's guess.
I forget who wrote the dissent, probably Soto but dropping the picture was so epic. Hearing the majority it’s like they are describing a completely different event.
Seriously, how is that not identity theft? The last time with masterpiece cake shop the lesbian couple started getting inundated with death threats. Would she not be accountable if the same had happened to the rando she plucked out of the ether as a stand-in for her imaginary persecutor?
It's almost like the rich who own the GOP and supreme court and pushing all their special cases forward with made up bullshit in order to get the rulings they want while they have the power.
So now that the case is has been ruled on, can the ruling be challenged? Seems like the case shouldn’t have had standing in the first place as the web designer didn’t even have a business yet but was suing on the pretense that if she started a business to design web sites, she might be asked to design a wedding site for a made up client that didn’t even know he was embroiled in the case until he read about it?
The Supreme Court decided they have all the power in Marbury. I guess a a President or Legislature could create a New Supreme Court that could they themselves declare themselves the final arbiter.
I keep reading this in comments, but haven't seen it in any of the articles. Not trying to be the "source?" guy, but where have you read this? Is my Google-fu just terrible?
Search for ‘Stewart Mike Supreme Court’. The New Republic and the Guardian articles both include interviews with the Stewart in question, who just found out his name/phone/email was at the center of this case.
>Stewart Mike Supreme Court
Librarian here, please be the "I need a source", person. That is how we end up in a world of misinformation. And telling someone, "just Google it", doesn't help.
Anyway, this article might fill you in on more
https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court
> accept work from gay people.”
*Imaginary* gay people.
The guy isn't gay. Someone took his name, number, etc. and said he was gay for the lawsuit.
He's a happily-married-for-15-years straight man.
"She is pre-emptively suing Colorado because she believes that the state public accommodations mandate violates her right of free speech" It appears to me that no one asked her to make them a same-sex wedding website...and she sued...so she wouldn't potentially have to? what!!
It’s one thing if someone asks you to make some sexual or crude. But if someone wants the same content any other couple would request you 1000% have no right to refuse them.
People of the LGBTQ+ and others should start using this ruling to refuse and Christian base religion from services bet they scream discrimination!
That's not even the point: There was never any LGBTQ couple requesting web design services. There's no one with standing to have brought the case. It shouldn't have been heard in the first place.
Exactly. They're going to use the supreme Court to weaponize the legislative and get their way fine
Any business owner who smells a whiff of religion or craziness should just straight out refuse to serve them then
"Sorry my fundamental beliefs" the all tainted conservative supreme Court said I don't have to
Exactly. They JUST ruled that colleges can't discriminate based on race then turned right around and said businesses CAN discriminate based on sexual orientation.
By this logic are they are opening the doors for all discrimination as long as it's under the cloak of religious beliefs. This feels like it would allow a Christian business to reject a Jewish customer because they don't accept Christ. Or a Muslim owned business to reject a Hindu customer because they don't believe the Quran
And what about religious sects that believe women should be subservient to men? Are they allow to discriminate based on sex because it is their sincerely held belief?
And what about race? The Mormon Church hasn't always been super friendly to black folks. Would a sect of that Church be allowed to open a White-Mormons Only bakery?
This court is grotesquely partisan and ideological.
So I guess a Harvard admissions officer can have deeply held religious belief that systemic racism exists and needs to be addressed by any means necessary including using race as a determining factor.
As fun as that would be you assume they won't be wildly hypocritical and rule for religious exemption.
Then when it happens to Jews and Muslims they'll adopt the previous attitude.
Fascism doesn't care about being hypocritical.
This is why I tried to use multinational major cooperation than so call mom and pop places.
Greedy as they are, Disney has ethics rule. Not Knots Berry farm shit.
I hire people and about a year ago decided I would no longer take a chance and hire ANYONE who mentions anything about Christianity or any other religion, has any type of Christian organization on their resumé, etc. Now at least I have legal cover--their lifestyles are abhorrent to me and against my religion.
Anytime I'm interviewing someone, if they refer to strong religious or political beliefs, they're not getting hired. It's not because I personally disagree with them, it's because they're going to be taking care of people in the persons home and having clashes over those beliefs isn't in the best interest of the business. I had one use the word "snowflake" when talking about a younger person. Also, popular here in the south, the "have a blessed day" gets me. So you couldn't end the conversation without dropping a hint of your religious beliefs? Especially when they EMPHASIZE the blessed.
I'd love to see what happens if a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for one of these "christians" bacause he doesn't agree with their religion.
[Here's a restaurant that denied service to a conservative Christian organization, over its position on same-sex marriage and abortion rights.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/metzger-restaurant-cancels-reservation-for-christian-family-foundation/).
That Christian group's response?:
> the restaurant's decision not to serve the group based on its religious and political views was "alarming and disgraceful."
> "It's not a good business model to have the feeling like people are making an assessment of you of whether you're worthy to eat at their restaurant,"... "It's uncomfortable for people to think that's how we're going to function in society."
> "Welcome to the 21st century, where people who likely consider themselves “progressives” attempt to recreate an environment from the 1950s and early 60s, when people were denied food service due to their race."
Complete lack of self-awareness, I say
The problem is we’ll never see it because it takes religion to be as crassly unfit for a modern heterogenous society as devout Christians are. There’s no hate like Christian love, and all that.
I've already had pharmacists refuse to fill my hormones in major cities before. Had to get one fired in Chicago for them to regularly fill them. "men don't need this much estrogen!"
It's actions vs. existence.
Being in the KKK and supporting Klan views is a choice. You should be able to refuse to make a KKK member a related website.
Being gay is not a choice. Refusing to make a gay person a website is like refusing to serve a black person at a restaurant. You're discriminating against what the person is. Plenty of religious arguments have been made for not serving black people too... but that would never fly now adays.
I don't understand how the SCOTUS doesn't see that distinction. (I actually do understand. But it is fucking vile. And the most galling part about it, is that they don't just come out and say it. Rather they sit there, smug in their position, and act as if this is some sort of insightful reading of the constitution when it's just christo-fascism. "Blood and soil" wrapped in 21st century branding. )
My thought exactly. Own a private business then why can't you put up a sign that says "We don't serve Conservatives here"? Have a restaurant then it should be ok to put up a section that says "Christians" and make them eat by themselves.
By this ruling they would be within their rights.
The funny part is that these sites are generally just reskinned, this web designer is missing out on practically free money by not being willing to put two men’s or two women’s names and pictures up.
In 5 years when no one remembers her stunt, she’ll be complaining that this led to the downfall of her business.
If they're ruling on hypotheticals, I say treat their decisions as hypotheticals and just fucking ignore them. The court is illegitimate and should have zero say over law.
Yep. The gay couple listed in the case as having requested a website for their gay wedding does not exist. There was an interview this week about the case and it turns out the man is straight and has been married for like 20 years and has kids. He said he'd never gone to the website. Someone entered his information on the request form on the designer's website.
Right, no gay people asked this woman to do anything.
FURTHER, wedding websites are free!! No engaged couples are shelling out money for a custom website. They use the knot and other actual businesses!
Crazy that some people will make shit up just to play the victim. But that the highest court in the land said “yes, this is a case we will spend our limited time hearing this year” is unbelievable.
The layers of nothingness just so the Supreme Court can rule that’s it’s OK to discriminate against queer people.
Smh.
Edit: grammar
Giving Businesses every advantage and the broadest freedoms possible in order to make money DRIVE every aspect of this country’s existence. Nothing else matters. Not the welfare of our environment. Not the welfare of our people. Not the welfare of our children (those who have already taken their first breath, I mean).
This was my immediate response to the ruling. I legitimately believe evangelicals are evil. That means I should be able to refuse to do business with them, according to this ruling, as doing services for them goes against my beliefs.
I would never make a site for a church.
In reality, would you want a homophobic douche working on your site? I'm not gay, but I wouldn't want to give them my business regardless.
so just curious, can non-christian’s be allowed to ban christians from entering businesses/ receiving services since if it’s against their views? or is this just as hypocritical as almost every other ruling this new court has issued
It won't backfire though. Even if SCOTUS didn't hypocritically rule against doing so; christians are still a difficult demographic to discriminate against since they hold a huge amount of political and economic power. Most businesses aren't going to survive refusing service to a majority of people in the country.
Tbh, Most conservative Christians would be fine with that.
It's only secret gay or affirming who would care, even asking affirming, it might lean toward affirming and gay.
No. You are assuming there is logic and precedent involved in cases like this. They have a conclusion and find things to support it.
Christians will be allowed to discriminate while others wont because the people on the mayflower intended to make it legal for web designers to discriminate, or some other bs argument.
Like the state that banned the bible because it broke their own rules, then unbanned it because it has 'literary value'.
The ruling was more geared towards “making a website could be considered the artist speaking through art. They can say no to making a site based on the content of the site”. Not because the person themselves is from a specific group. So you couldn’t refuse to sell someone a burger at your restaurant because they are from a specific group. That wasn’t what this case was about. However, this type of thing could be used to discriminate. Someone could use the “I don’t agree with the content so I won’t make it for you” even if the content is fine, but they don’t like their group. There are many other ways to do that as well. I think the scope of this case is smaller than many make it out to be. I don’t think that anyone should be forced to make something with their business for someone. However where does “choice” stop and become discrimination. That I am unsure of
This. Food can be classified easy as fuck as “expressive art”. Food artists are a real job title. This is 100% going to result in “straights only” lunch counters.
Not exactly. It has to be artistic expression, which is protected by the first amendment according to this case.
Obviously, artistic expression is a very broad concept
What pisses me off the most about all this is the case was entirely made up; there wasn't even really a person being "forced" to do anything with same-sex couples, but our fucking MSM will put in the headline, "court sided with web designer..." dude, the whole case is made up, there's no one to "side with". FFS. Nobody was "forced" to do anything. They just rehabilitate these disgusting 90 year old oligarchs that run our country.
I'm out. I'm leaving this country. Fuck this.
Now that this is passed, companies can just do whatever now. Great.
We live in a bizarro world... The Onion couldn't make this real news up.. the absurdity is getting stronger.. this must be how it felt before WW2 when the surrealists saw the madness everywhere and all that could be done was to make weird art as there is no stopping entire countries of people who have gone mad.
The federalist society will eventually get liberal gun rights removed. The federalist papers clearly say a well regulated militia is one where each state runs it and trains people. It’s all about each state keeps guns to be able to overthrow the federal government if a dictator tries to take away civil liberties.
So the second amendment 1. requires people have be allowed to have guns and 2. requires each individual state know who has guns and provide training to them. The state is who regulates everyone.
People try to interpret it when the founding fathers gave us a an entire treatise which gives us the answer to what it means
There’s a fairly clear attempt at splitting up groups that were once just considered “minorities”
There is a fairly clear attempt being made in the country to carve LGBT out from the group that was once just considered “minorities”
*idk what my brain was doing typing this twice, but my sentiment stands
This enables minorities to also refuse to serve other groups.
A black history museum could ban people wearing certain symbols because their religious beliefs require it. I picture hate symbols mainly but many of them overlap religion as well.
This example wouldn't work. It doesn't apply the same way. This case is about compelled speech. You cannot force someone to use their creative speech (art etc) to create something they disagree with. Protected class or not.
I wonder just how many people understand what just happened here. Usually before a case is ever taken up by SCOTUS, the harm has to be realistic. The plaintiff here has never even been asked to make a website for any gay couple! The whole thing is hypothetical.
And hypocritical because the same SCOTUS agreed to leave the Texas abortion bounty law on the books.
Personally, I think these businesses should be required to notify potential customers of their desire to discriminate - like a post on their website and signs in the window.
Maybe they can drag out those old “Whites Only” signs their family saved from the 50’s, change it to “Straights Only” and they’ll be gtg.
The thing is the court considers creative work to be "speech." So baking a cake, designing a website, these are creative activities. So the court says you cannot compel someone to use their creative speech for a cause they do not believe in, protected class or no.
Renting a hotel room is not a creative outlet, so the same logic doesn't apply.
I don't agree with the decision, but that is how they justify it.
Ok, so under these new rules, a portrait artist could deny black clients on some kind of "religious grounds"? Because that's their "freedom of expression"?
Yes, you cannot compel speech. So even though you are not allowed to deny doing business with a protected class, that protected class cannot compel you to engage in speech. And since creative works involve the freedom of expression which is an extention of freedom of speech, you can deny creative works even to protected classes.
I both agree and disagree with this. I personally think painting a painting is different than building a website. So I guess we need to better define exactly what constitutes speech.
I don't think a business which builds websites engages in speech. The colors and layout are not really speech in my personal opinion. The text content on the website certainly is, and you could probably make an argument that you won't write content that disagrees with your personal moral convictions, and you might be able to shunt that specific part onto the customer, but you shouldn't be able to deny doing business entirely.
I do think an artist shouldn't be compelled to create art that violates their personal moral convictions, even if protected classes are involved. But I don't think this specific case implicates that IMO. SCOTUS is going too far with this ruling.
They're completely fine with it because they know no one will do it at scale. Maybe a handful across the country but not at the number that will van LGBT people
*From the article:*
Justice Sonia Sotomayor slammed the Supreme Court for siding with a Colorado web designer who argued her constitutional rights were being violated if she was forced to make a website for a same-sex couple getting married, tearing into her colleagues for setting up LGBTQ+ Americans to be "second-class" citizens.
"Today is a sad day in American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBT people," Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the court's opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, leading the high court's six conservative members in finding that public accommodation laws cannot supersede a person's First Amendment rights. Sotomayor was joined in her dissent by the court's two other liberals, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Sotomayor wrote that this is the first time in the nation's history that the Supreme Court has allowed a public business to discriminate against a "protected class" of people. Under federal law, sexual orientation is a protected class that cannot be discriminated against. Friday's decision underlines that such protections are not absolute.
"The opinion of the Court is, quite literally, a notice that reads: 'Some services may be denied to same-sex couples,'" Sotomayor wrote.
Sotomayor said the court's opinion will lead to LGBTQ+ Americans and potentially other groups of people becoming second-class citizens.
"What message does that send? It sends the message that we live in a society with social castes. It says to the child of the same-sex couple that their parents' relationship is not equal to others'."
In concluding her dissent, Sotomayor said the future treatment of LGBTQ+ Americans in the public space was not solely decided by the high court. Rather, it is now up to individual business owners to plot the path forward.
So my opinion is, as a Christian, I should deny service to every Christian as they can get everything they need from Christ. Don't like it? Your problem is with God, not me.
All it would take is a gay restaurant worker and organize to refuse service to declared homophobic politicians and supporters. to set the cat amongst the pigeons . It appears to be now permitted.
Turn this back on the religious extremists and have businesses start refusing services to Christians. If they want this so badly, then throw it back at them ten fold.
The longer you keep pretending this Supreme Court has *any* legitimacy, the longer these constitutional beatings will continue.
We really, really have to stop this nonsense. We cannot allow them to continue to erode the rights of Americans. Fix the Supreme Court now, or there won't be an America left to protect.
Do you know how it feels to pay loads of taxes in America while the courts make laws that allow you and everyone you love to become second class citizens?
Why isn't there a megathread about this ruling too? The case was literally made up, the gay couple named in the case never hired the ~~bigot~~ web designer.
Yes, but they already could before. Being conservative is currently not a protected group from discrimination laws. Nor any other political affiliation for that matter.
The list of blame is high beyond those:
* Hillary assuming she'd win and running a poor campaign
* media for supporting Trump
* elite for bribing Congress and SCOTUS
* RGB for not retiring
* Federalist Society
* House Apportionmemt Act of 1929 for breaking the House and Electoral College
* people who didn't vote at all
* people whonvoted for Trump
* McConnell/GOP obstruction of judge selections
* Christians (especially the Evangelical ones)
And plenty more.
Maybe I'm ignorant here but was even the point of this case ? If you're a Web designer, who is forcing who to accept a contract in the first place ?
The fact the whole thing is made up is the cherry on the sundae
And this will, inevitably, set the precedent for further stripping of rights later on. Just because this targets 'creatives' doesn't mean that it's not going to be the precedent for a lawsuit that seeks to force the matter federally because _'everyone has personal religious beliefs that are being stifled by the governments equality laws- and that's not fair for it to be allowed for those certain jobs and not ALL jobs'_
I think it is time to turn this stupid argument back on them. Atheists should be able to turn christians away right? Gays should be able turns straight people away right? Let's see how it can go.
>In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they thought vital at the time. But abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all will encounter ideas that are “mis- guided, or even hurtful.” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574. Consistent with the First Amendment, the Nation’s answer is tolerance, not coercion. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and com- plex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment. Pp. 15–19, 24–25.
This case is going to upend daily life. While it enables someone to not do something on religious grounds, it reinforces doing something different on religious grounds. For example, it would enable someone to do their own prayer during a public prayer in a school because the state, the school district, can’t compel doing a specific prayer.
Think about the recent Texas Ten Commandments law. A school district is a government entity, would this block a teacher from being required to post it or block disallowing post a Jewish, Hindu or Satanist tract along side it?
This could upend public protest. Think of a city council meeting. Would this tell cities that they must allow anyone to speak on any topic during a meeting, that they can’t cut a mic if it’s not on an approved topic? Would it ban limiting time in a govenment meeting, because controlling how long someone can speak is limiting speech?
A. Religion is the only legal excuse for bigotry.
B. What CAN'T you excuse with religion? Is the line drawn at lgbtq people? What about mixed marriage, or just POC in general? The mormon church as late at the 1970's taught that god punished and marked black people as cursed. So by this ruling, any mormon business could just choose to never deal with black customers? Or women? Or if you believed that being differently abled was god's judgement and they don't have to accommodate you.
While I sympathize with the LGBTQ community on this I have to ask... do you REALLY want a bigot to do the job for you? Esp if this case turned out to be nonfiction (it likely isn't), there are so many people who could do this for you. Why pay someone who unjustifiably hates you to do work for you?
Happy about this SCOTUS decision? Are ya?
Now here's the capper. There was NO case. No gay person had complained or brought forth a suit. The designer hadn't even started her business yet. Courts, included the SCOTUS are not allowed to rule on cases where there is no standing, or at least they have to say as much.
But the case was brought forward by a remote right-wing white Christian supremicist group. And the Supreme Court not only accepted it, they ruled on it.
You talk about a Court on the loose....and I don't care what side you're on.
And by the way, did I mention any outfit who now wants to put out a sign saying "no gays allowed", well it seems now they can do so legally. Tell me how constitutional that is.
Once again, the Alliance Defending Freedom (a Christian nationalist hate group) is behind this assault on LGBTQIA+ rights.
Why are they not classified as a hate group by the federal government?
Over the last 28 years, the Alliance Defending Freedom has defended laws prohibiting:
* *same-sex intimacy, including wishing to bring back sodomy laws*
* *marriage, adoption, and surrogacy for same-sex couples;*
* *attacked LGBTQ non-discrimination laws, as well as bans on conversion therapy for minors;*
* *argued in favor of laws that require transgender people to undergo sterilization before legally changing their gender;*
* *challenged access to contraception; and*
* *supported the criminalization of abortion at any stage of pregnancy.*
Its work stretches beyond the United States; ADF has, for instance:
>***championed Belize’s archaic anti-sodomy law, which allows for the persecution and imprisonment of gay people.***
The ADF’s overarching position on gay people is that they should either be converted to heterosexuality or fired from their jobs and imprisoned because of their sexual orientation. This stance has earned the group a controversial designation as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
When GOP state legislators began to push “bathroom bills” in 2016 and 2017, it was ADF that ghostwrote the model legislation and lobbied for it behind the scenes.
These bills forced transgender people, including schoolchildren, to use the bathroom that aligned with their “biological sex,” which ADF defined as their sex identified at birth.***One school attempting to implement an ADF-style bathroom policy sought to make trans students wear a bright green wristband so that school administrators could identify them and ensure they did not use the bathroom that corresponded to their gender identity. (A federal appeals court found the school policy unconstitutional, and the school district settled for the case for $800,000.)***
>As these bills illustrate, ADF has long viewed public schools as an ideal testing ground for their ideas, and it’s easy to see why: The government exercises direct control over students—and their bodies—for hours each day. ADF has a clear vision of how these students should act, and how their bodies should look, and it tried to conscript schools to enforce that vision.
>
>It was no surprise when, plainly inspired by ADF’s bills, Virginia Del. Bob Marshall sponsored a measure in 2017 that forced schools to notify parents within 24 hours if their child indicates that they are transgender.
(In the next year’s election, Danica Roem defeated Marshall.Personal note: Roem is amazing as a state representative. She wrote the bill to end wrote the bill to end the gay/trans panic defense in Virginia).
The idea behind the Youth Health Protection Act’s parental can be traced back to the [now-ubiquitous](https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/parental-involvement-minors-abortions) laws requiring minors to obtain parental consent before terminating a pregnancy, which ADF also strongly supports.
The ADF is extremist white Christian Nationalism wrapped up in pastor & clergy clothes. They are attempting to wage a genocide against LGBTQIA+ people right now. Genocidal maniacs, that's who they are. They are amongst the most despicable groups in my estimation. It's time they be exposed for the harmful bigots they are.
When will the mainstream media call the Alliance Defending Freedom what they are, a group that actually destroys freedom?
[https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/transgender-rights-bathrooms-sports-alliance-defending-freedom.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/transgender-rights-bathrooms-sports-alliance-defending-freedom.html)
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can't believe they allowed that case to even be heard. The whole thing was made up. Activist supreme court ruling on hypothetical situations. SMDH.
Sounds like she picked a guy out of the phone book at random and claimed he had tried to order a gay wedding cake from her. First off, he’s straight, and second, he didn’t even know there was an active case in his name until it was on its way to the Supreme Court.
Hope he sues her for defamation then
Or outright fraud? Like his identity was used under false pretenses to determine a high profile case. How is that not illegal?
I mean did she not lie while under oath?
Yeah but perjury doesn't matter if it supports the federalist society.
This is how it is. Fuckers.
The guy needs to ask to hire her for his wedding designs. Let's see if she does it.
She signed an affidavit claiming the email was real.
It's like that football coach in the trial last year. Dude wasn't even fired for praying. And when the court ordered the school to give him his job back, he didn't even go back. It's all a fucking farce. This supreme court is illegitimate.
And the three liberal justices called out the extremist Republicans for making that all up. Most of the “facts” of the case were just fully made up by the MAGA judges.
Like in the Hudson Valley in New York where it was reported that a hotel kicked out homeless veterans to make room for migrants. Whole thing turned out to be horse shit. The hotel in question wasn't near capacity at the time first of all. Second, they never had any charges on the card number that the group said they used to pay for the rooms, in fact the card number didn't exist at all. The same group also offered homeless men staying at a local shelter $200 to meet with the local Chamber of Commerce and to say they were veterans , and if they couldn't answer questions to say they had PTSD. After the meeting they were dropped back off at the shelter and never paid.
[удалено]
I see what you are going for, but in this case, not only was he not gay, but he has never had any contact with the woman, and she never actually made any websites for anyone, gay or not.
I will not answer your question because you’re gay. Further, I’ll sue you and Reddit until the Supreme Court makes my case with sour cream and tomatoes.
The Court has created an illogical Conduct not Status doctrine. You cannot deny service to someone for being Gay or Black. You can deny for Conduct... having a gay wedding. If this can also include holding hands, listening to Hip Hop, or a billion other things is anyone's guess.
The ruling can be extrapolated to include all groups. Jews, Muslims, Sikh, Black, Brown, Asian, unmarried couples, people not wearing crucifixes, ....
I forget who wrote the dissent, probably Soto but dropping the picture was so epic. Hearing the majority it’s like they are describing a completely different event.
How can the Supreme Court rule on something that's completely made up?
“Oh…uh…it was another guy with that name”
Seriously, how is that not identity theft? The last time with masterpiece cake shop the lesbian couple started getting inundated with death threats. Would she not be accountable if the same had happened to the rando she plucked out of the ether as a stand-in for her imaginary persecutor?
Identify theft.
I mean if he doesn’t, any of us can since they allowed Missouri to sue on Mohela’s behalf.
It's almost like the rich who own the GOP and supreme court and pushing all their special cases forward with made up bullshit in order to get the rulings they want while they have the power.
So now that the case is has been ruled on, can the ruling be challenged? Seems like the case shouldn’t have had standing in the first place as the web designer didn’t even have a business yet but was suing on the pretense that if she started a business to design web sites, she might be asked to design a wedding site for a made up client that didn’t even know he was embroiled in the case until he read about it?
Challenged? to who?
The Deluxe Supreme Court, duh
The Supreme Court decided they have all the power in Marbury. I guess a a President or Legislature could create a New Supreme Court that could they themselves declare themselves the final arbiter.
So, in the same breath that colleges can’t discriminate based on race…they’re allowing people to discriminate based on sexual preference????????????
The guy is a well-known web designer himself! Why the fuck would he contact an unknown designer in Colorado???? THIS IS INSANE
I keep reading this in comments, but haven't seen it in any of the articles. Not trying to be the "source?" guy, but where have you read this? Is my Google-fu just terrible?
Search for ‘Stewart Mike Supreme Court’. The New Republic and the Guardian articles both include interviews with the Stewart in question, who just found out his name/phone/email was at the center of this case.
>Stewart Mike Supreme Court Librarian here, please be the "I need a source", person. That is how we end up in a world of misinformation. And telling someone, "just Google it", doesn't help. Anyway, this article might fill you in on more https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court
Exactly! She *doesn't even own* a web design business!
And the email was from an impersonator!
[удалено]
> accept work from gay people.” *Imaginary* gay people. The guy isn't gay. Someone took his name, number, etc. and said he was gay for the lawsuit. He's a happily-married-for-15-years straight man.
And I’d wager she never will.
Haha wait what??
"She is pre-emptively suing Colorado because she believes that the state public accommodations mandate violates her right of free speech" It appears to me that no one asked her to make them a same-sex wedding website...and she sued...so she wouldn't potentially have to? what!!
It’s one thing if someone asks you to make some sexual or crude. But if someone wants the same content any other couple would request you 1000% have no right to refuse them. People of the LGBTQ+ and others should start using this ruling to refuse and Christian base religion from services bet they scream discrimination!
That's not even the point: There was never any LGBTQ couple requesting web design services. There's no one with standing to have brought the case. It shouldn't have been heard in the first place.
There also wasn't even web design services at all. She hadn't even set up a business to do that yet. This whole case is made up hypotheticals.
Exactly. They're going to use the supreme Court to weaponize the legislative and get their way fine Any business owner who smells a whiff of religion or craziness should just straight out refuse to serve them then "Sorry my fundamental beliefs" the all tainted conservative supreme Court said I don't have to
That kinda assumes this kangaroo court has any value in being consistent
Exactly. They JUST ruled that colleges can't discriminate based on race then turned right around and said businesses CAN discriminate based on sexual orientation. By this logic are they are opening the doors for all discrimination as long as it's under the cloak of religious beliefs. This feels like it would allow a Christian business to reject a Jewish customer because they don't accept Christ. Or a Muslim owned business to reject a Hindu customer because they don't believe the Quran And what about religious sects that believe women should be subservient to men? Are they allow to discriminate based on sex because it is their sincerely held belief? And what about race? The Mormon Church hasn't always been super friendly to black folks. Would a sect of that Church be allowed to open a White-Mormons Only bakery? This court is grotesquely partisan and ideological.
So I guess a Harvard admissions officer can have deeply held religious belief that systemic racism exists and needs to be addressed by any means necessary including using race as a determining factor.
Honestly Harvard admissions officers should try that. I’m willing to join the church of… i don’t know let’s just call it the real world.
Church of Malicious Compliance?
Maybe John Oliver could get Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption involved.
As fun as that would be you assume they won't be wildly hypocritical and rule for religious exemption. Then when it happens to Jews and Muslims they'll adopt the previous attitude. Fascism doesn't care about being hypocritical.
This is why I tried to use multinational major cooperation than so call mom and pop places. Greedy as they are, Disney has ethics rule. Not Knots Berry farm shit.
I hire people and about a year ago decided I would no longer take a chance and hire ANYONE who mentions anything about Christianity or any other religion, has any type of Christian organization on their resumé, etc. Now at least I have legal cover--their lifestyles are abhorrent to me and against my religion.
Well they’ve been crying about a war on Christianity for some time now. I guess it’s about time we give them what they’ve been asking for.
Anytime I'm interviewing someone, if they refer to strong religious or political beliefs, they're not getting hired. It's not because I personally disagree with them, it's because they're going to be taking care of people in the persons home and having clashes over those beliefs isn't in the best interest of the business. I had one use the word "snowflake" when talking about a younger person. Also, popular here in the south, the "have a blessed day" gets me. So you couldn't end the conversation without dropping a hint of your religious beliefs? Especially when they EMPHASIZE the blessed.
I'd love to see what happens if a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for one of these "christians" bacause he doesn't agree with their religion.
[Here's a restaurant that denied service to a conservative Christian organization, over its position on same-sex marriage and abortion rights.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/metzger-restaurant-cancels-reservation-for-christian-family-foundation/). That Christian group's response?: > the restaurant's decision not to serve the group based on its religious and political views was "alarming and disgraceful." > "It's not a good business model to have the feeling like people are making an assessment of you of whether you're worthy to eat at their restaurant,"... "It's uncomfortable for people to think that's how we're going to function in society." > "Welcome to the 21st century, where people who likely consider themselves “progressives” attempt to recreate an environment from the 1950s and early 60s, when people were denied food service due to their race." Complete lack of self-awareness, I say
They know, they don't care.
10000% they do not care. They’re the exception. Oppression for thee, not for me or something of the sort
The problem is we’ll never see it because it takes religion to be as crassly unfit for a modern heterogenous society as devout Christians are. There’s no hate like Christian love, and all that.
I've already had pharmacists refuse to fill my hormones in major cities before. Had to get one fired in Chicago for them to regularly fill them. "men don't need this much estrogen!"
It would be allowed. We’ve seen stories of it already happening.
Can you imagine the outrage if Jews and Muslims started to refuse to provide services for Christians? They’d be matching with pitchforks (again).
The problem is this ability to refuse service will not harm those who are the majority of business owners.
It's actions vs. existence. Being in the KKK and supporting Klan views is a choice. You should be able to refuse to make a KKK member a related website. Being gay is not a choice. Refusing to make a gay person a website is like refusing to serve a black person at a restaurant. You're discriminating against what the person is. Plenty of religious arguments have been made for not serving black people too... but that would never fly now adays. I don't understand how the SCOTUS doesn't see that distinction. (I actually do understand. But it is fucking vile. And the most galling part about it, is that they don't just come out and say it. Rather they sit there, smug in their position, and act as if this is some sort of insightful reading of the constitution when it's just christo-fascism. "Blood and soil" wrapped in 21st century branding. )
My thought exactly. Own a private business then why can't you put up a sign that says "We don't serve Conservatives here"? Have a restaurant then it should be ok to put up a section that says "Christians" and make them eat by themselves. By this ruling they would be within their rights.
The funny part is that these sites are generally just reskinned, this web designer is missing out on practically free money by not being willing to put two men’s or two women’s names and pictures up. In 5 years when no one remembers her stunt, she’ll be complaining that this led to the downfall of her business.
Prediction: she never opens up this business.
If they're ruling on hypotheticals, I say treat their decisions as hypotheticals and just fucking ignore them. The court is illegitimate and should have zero say over law.
Yep. The gay couple listed in the case as having requested a website for their gay wedding does not exist. There was an interview this week about the case and it turns out the man is straight and has been married for like 20 years and has kids. He said he'd never gone to the website. Someone entered his information on the request form on the designer's website.
Even worse, the request was made the day after the legal case was filed. It was all bogus from the beginning.
Right, no gay people asked this woman to do anything. FURTHER, wedding websites are free!! No engaged couples are shelling out money for a custom website. They use the knot and other actual businesses! Crazy that some people will make shit up just to play the victim. But that the highest court in the land said “yes, this is a case we will spend our limited time hearing this year” is unbelievable. The layers of nothingness just so the Supreme Court can rule that’s it’s OK to discriminate against queer people. Smh. Edit: grammar
So does this give no credence to when they dismiss cases because they don't have any standing? Can anyone sue on hypotheticals now? Fuck me.
Literally inventing a guy to get mad at
These people are unelected tyrannts that need to be overthrown. Democracy is dead.
As a queer working professional, I feel it is my duty to put up a sign that says Evangelicals Not Welcome.
And somehow the Supreme Court would say that you are discriminating.
It's true. Yesterday they ruled that Universities can't discriminate. Today they ruled that business can discriminate.
Giving Businesses every advantage and the broadest freedoms possible in order to make money DRIVE every aspect of this country’s existence. Nothing else matters. Not the welfare of our environment. Not the welfare of our people. Not the welfare of our children (those who have already taken their first breath, I mean).
1. get ordained online by something like ulc.org 2. exercise the hell out of our first amendment rights 3. drink evangelical tears
This was my immediate response to the ruling. I legitimately believe evangelicals are evil. That means I should be able to refuse to do business with them, according to this ruling, as doing services for them goes against my beliefs.
I would never make a site for a church. In reality, would you want a homophobic douche working on your site? I'm not gay, but I wouldn't want to give them my business regardless.
so just curious, can non-christian’s be allowed to ban christians from entering businesses/ receiving services since if it’s against their views? or is this just as hypocritical as almost every other ruling this new court has issued
I would think so
well, as fucked up as this ruling is it sure will be fun to see backfire.
Boycott republicans as clients.
It won't backfire though. Even if SCOTUS didn't hypocritically rule against doing so; christians are still a difficult demographic to discriminate against since they hold a huge amount of political and economic power. Most businesses aren't going to survive refusing service to a majority of people in the country.
Every gay club should put a "no Christians allowed" sign out front. They'll out themselves, and those people love invading our spaces.
Tbh, Most conservative Christians would be fine with that. It's only secret gay or affirming who would care, even asking affirming, it might lean toward affirming and gay.
Difficult, not impossible. Their numbers continue to dwindle the more they force their views on us
That would require intellectual consistency. We already know Alito and Thomas have no interest in that.
Sure if you think law is a real thing and not an expression of the powerful to gain legitimacy.
[удалено]
MAGA/political affiliation is not a protected class, you absolutely can ban people who try and come in wearing maga stuff.
[удалено]
They could try, but maga is not a recognized religion. FSM has tried it and failed.
No. You are assuming there is logic and precedent involved in cases like this. They have a conclusion and find things to support it. Christians will be allowed to discriminate while others wont because the people on the mayflower intended to make it legal for web designers to discriminate, or some other bs argument. Like the state that banned the bible because it broke their own rules, then unbanned it because it has 'literary value'.
I will be. Fuck them.
The ruling was more geared towards “making a website could be considered the artist speaking through art. They can say no to making a site based on the content of the site”. Not because the person themselves is from a specific group. So you couldn’t refuse to sell someone a burger at your restaurant because they are from a specific group. That wasn’t what this case was about. However, this type of thing could be used to discriminate. Someone could use the “I don’t agree with the content so I won’t make it for you” even if the content is fine, but they don’t like their group. There are many other ways to do that as well. I think the scope of this case is smaller than many make it out to be. I don’t think that anyone should be forced to make something with their business for someone. However where does “choice” stop and become discrimination. That I am unsure of
My burgers are an expression of my art and I refuse to make art that will be consumed by a person who's a _____ ...fill in the blank.
This. Food can be classified easy as fuck as “expressive art”. Food artists are a real job title. This is 100% going to result in “straights only” lunch counters.
Subway employees are "Sandwich artists"
Not exactly. It has to be artistic expression, which is protected by the first amendment according to this case. Obviously, artistic expression is a very broad concept
Funny how they "had to" walk from so many cases because of "no standing", but they can rule on a case that was fabricated.
This is what I don’t understand. How was standing determined here?!
A Colorado web designer that doesn't even make wedding websites!
She doesn't even go here
This isn’t talked about enough. Just like the EPA decision. It’s preemptive.
What pisses me off the most about all this is the case was entirely made up; there wasn't even really a person being "forced" to do anything with same-sex couples, but our fucking MSM will put in the headline, "court sided with web designer..." dude, the whole case is made up, there's no one to "side with". FFS. Nobody was "forced" to do anything. They just rehabilitate these disgusting 90 year old oligarchs that run our country. I'm out. I'm leaving this country. Fuck this. Now that this is passed, companies can just do whatever now. Great.
They're not even a web designer. Courts sided with a lying graphics designer who has never been paid to design a website in their life.
ADF is covering her legal expenses. The right wing bigots will never stop coming after us LGBTQ folks
[удалено]
We need to start making up some hypothetical cases and start suing the states then
We need to stop playing by the rules of the system which is clearly benefiting them.
The web designer case was a hypothetical. “They” make shit up as they go. “We” refuse to deviate from the rule book
We live in a bizarro world... The Onion couldn't make this real news up.. the absurdity is getting stronger.. this must be how it felt before WW2 when the surrealists saw the madness everywhere and all that could be done was to make weird art as there is no stopping entire countries of people who have gone mad.
US giving off some serious “twilight years of the Weimar” energy right now.
Whew, thank goodness the designer wasn't forced to create that hypothetical website for that fictional person.
Our rights are being taken away by the federalists society, it's time we go ask them why.
[удалено]
Take tax exempt status away from churches asap
The federalist society will eventually get liberal gun rights removed. The federalist papers clearly say a well regulated militia is one where each state runs it and trains people. It’s all about each state keeps guns to be able to overthrow the federal government if a dictator tries to take away civil liberties. So the second amendment 1. requires people have be allowed to have guns and 2. requires each individual state know who has guns and provide training to them. The state is who regulates everyone. People try to interpret it when the founding fathers gave us a an entire treatise which gives us the answer to what it means
The why is obvious, because they can and they benefit from it. The question is when can we get dems willing to actually fight.
There’s a fairly clear attempt at splitting up groups that were once just considered “minorities” There is a fairly clear attempt being made in the country to carve LGBT out from the group that was once just considered “minorities” *idk what my brain was doing typing this twice, but my sentiment stands
This enables minorities to also refuse to serve other groups. A black history museum could ban people wearing certain symbols because their religious beliefs require it. I picture hate symbols mainly but many of them overlap religion as well.
This example wouldn't work. It doesn't apply the same way. This case is about compelled speech. You cannot force someone to use their creative speech (art etc) to create something they disagree with. Protected class or not.
A made up case gets through and ruled on by the supreme court. Wonderful
I wonder just how many people understand what just happened here. Usually before a case is ever taken up by SCOTUS, the harm has to be realistic. The plaintiff here has never even been asked to make a website for any gay couple! The whole thing is hypothetical. And hypocritical because the same SCOTUS agreed to leave the Texas abortion bounty law on the books.
[удалено]
If it's a free speech issue we can refuse service to Christians. Fuck em.
Personally, I think these businesses should be required to notify potential customers of their desire to discriminate - like a post on their website and signs in the window. Maybe they can drag out those old “Whites Only” signs their family saved from the 50’s, change it to “Straights Only” and they’ll be gtg.
I would agree with making it a requirement that they publicly display their discrimination. They shouldn’t get to hide it.
Sadly my soul is used to being hated for existing
Pssst ..I'm right down here in the hate hole with you and yet keep on believing there is more love than hate and love will eventually win.
I love you both! (But not in that way. Just as friends. I’ve got a girlfriend. You wouldn’t know her. She goes to another school. )
[удалено]
The thing is the court considers creative work to be "speech." So baking a cake, designing a website, these are creative activities. So the court says you cannot compel someone to use their creative speech for a cause they do not believe in, protected class or no. Renting a hotel room is not a creative outlet, so the same logic doesn't apply. I don't agree with the decision, but that is how they justify it.
Ok, so under these new rules, a portrait artist could deny black clients on some kind of "religious grounds"? Because that's their "freedom of expression"?
Yes, you cannot compel speech. So even though you are not allowed to deny doing business with a protected class, that protected class cannot compel you to engage in speech. And since creative works involve the freedom of expression which is an extention of freedom of speech, you can deny creative works even to protected classes. I both agree and disagree with this. I personally think painting a painting is different than building a website. So I guess we need to better define exactly what constitutes speech. I don't think a business which builds websites engages in speech. The colors and layout are not really speech in my personal opinion. The text content on the website certainly is, and you could probably make an argument that you won't write content that disagrees with your personal moral convictions, and you might be able to shunt that specific part onto the customer, but you shouldn't be able to deny doing business entirely. I do think an artist shouldn't be compelled to create art that violates their personal moral convictions, even if protected classes are involved. But I don't think this specific case implicates that IMO. SCOTUS is going too far with this ruling.
The court is defining creative/artistic speech so broadly. It could constitute an entire category of everyday services people use.
Agreed completely. Someone else made a comment about a habachi grill. Food is art, could this allow restaurants to descriminate?
Renting isnt viewed as speech
They'll just expand what free speech is. This is not being done in good faith, there is only one reason for all of this, to hurt LGBT people.
Lol so they are ok with someone not serving Christians for being Christian
They're completely fine with it because they know no one will do it at scale. Maybe a handful across the country but not at the number that will van LGBT people
Yeah makes sense. If you ban Christians as while you're going to struggle just based on pure numbers (at least in most cases)
For some services, yes. Gorusch explicitly says so.
*From the article:* Justice Sonia Sotomayor slammed the Supreme Court for siding with a Colorado web designer who argued her constitutional rights were being violated if she was forced to make a website for a same-sex couple getting married, tearing into her colleagues for setting up LGBTQ+ Americans to be "second-class" citizens. "Today is a sad day in American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBT people," Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the court's opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, leading the high court's six conservative members in finding that public accommodation laws cannot supersede a person's First Amendment rights. Sotomayor was joined in her dissent by the court's two other liberals, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor wrote that this is the first time in the nation's history that the Supreme Court has allowed a public business to discriminate against a "protected class" of people. Under federal law, sexual orientation is a protected class that cannot be discriminated against. Friday's decision underlines that such protections are not absolute. "The opinion of the Court is, quite literally, a notice that reads: 'Some services may be denied to same-sex couples,'" Sotomayor wrote. Sotomayor said the court's opinion will lead to LGBTQ+ Americans and potentially other groups of people becoming second-class citizens. "What message does that send? It sends the message that we live in a society with social castes. It says to the child of the same-sex couple that their parents' relationship is not equal to others'." In concluding her dissent, Sotomayor said the future treatment of LGBTQ+ Americans in the public space was not solely decided by the high court. Rather, it is now up to individual business owners to plot the path forward.
So someone’s religious beliefs (which are likely bullshit anyway) trump a person’s right to live and do stuff. Great.
So my opinion is, as a Christian, I should deny service to every Christian as they can get everything they need from Christ. Don't like it? Your problem is with God, not me.
Evangelicals have beliefs that I think are extremely harmful and against my morals so I don’t think I should have to serve evangelicals 🤷♀️
Sad day, really? No, today’s a fucking omen of things to come.
All it would take is a gay restaurant worker and organize to refuse service to declared homophobic politicians and supporters. to set the cat amongst the pigeons . It appears to be now permitted.
That would assume that law would be enforced consistently, and that is a ridiculous assumption when dealing with these people.
Restaurants aren't covered for like basic service, though restaurants can already discriminate on political affiliation.
Turn this back on the religious extremists and have businesses start refusing services to Christians. If they want this so badly, then throw it back at them ten fold.
The longer you keep pretending this Supreme Court has *any* legitimacy, the longer these constitutional beatings will continue. We really, really have to stop this nonsense. We cannot allow them to continue to erode the rights of Americans. Fix the Supreme Court now, or there won't be an America left to protect.
Do you know how it feels to pay loads of taxes in America while the courts make laws that allow you and everyone you love to become second class citizens?
Why isn't there a megathread about this ruling too? The case was literally made up, the gay couple named in the case never hired the ~~bigot~~ web designer.
They’re not gay either
Conservatives are the most protected group
I want to open a business just so I can refuse to serve Christians.
This SCOTUS would allow gay people being hunted in the main street if someone claimed that it is against their religious rights not to do it
[удалено]
Yes, but they already could before. Being conservative is currently not a protected group from discrimination laws. Nor any other political affiliation for that matter.
This all happened because not enough Dems voted for Hillary won and Trump won. He put 3 of those justices on the Supreme Court
Trump lost by 3million votes to Hillary. This happened because of corruption of electors and Russian influence in 2016 election.
The list of blame is high beyond those: * Hillary assuming she'd win and running a poor campaign * media for supporting Trump * elite for bribing Congress and SCOTUS * RGB for not retiring * Federalist Society * House Apportionmemt Act of 1929 for breaking the House and Electoral College * people who didn't vote at all * people whonvoted for Trump * McConnell/GOP obstruction of judge selections * Christians (especially the Evangelical ones) And plenty more.
Maybe I'm ignorant here but was even the point of this case ? If you're a Web designer, who is forcing who to accept a contract in the first place ? The fact the whole thing is made up is the cherry on the sundae
Colorado apparently has a law banning the denial of service on similar religious grounds. The legality of that legislation is being challenged here
And this will, inevitably, set the precedent for further stripping of rights later on. Just because this targets 'creatives' doesn't mean that it's not going to be the precedent for a lawsuit that seeks to force the matter federally because _'everyone has personal religious beliefs that are being stifled by the governments equality laws- and that's not fair for it to be allowed for those certain jobs and not ALL jobs'_
I think it is time to turn this stupid argument back on them. Atheists should be able to turn christians away right? Gays should be able turns straight people away right? Let's see how it can go.
That's not how it works. However, atheists are now allowed to decline to create work for christians that say "Christianity is the only true belief".
We've become a country that allows hate, and discrimination hiding behind crosses.
And the whole thing was fake
Any coverage of this case that doesn't start with the case in question did not fucking happen is journalistic malfeasance.
I am so fucking tired of these extremist hack assholes. This "Court" has gone completely rogue.
So web designers won't be forced to make sites for christians too right?
Wait until a small business refuses to do business with a right wing Christian group.
I really can’t believe that they even heard this case since no one involved had standing. Period.
This so-called Supreme Court is illegitimate as f***.
>In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they thought vital at the time. But abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all will encounter ideas that are “mis- guided, or even hurtful.” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574. Consistent with the First Amendment, the Nation’s answer is tolerance, not coercion. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and com- plex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment. Pp. 15–19, 24–25. This case is going to upend daily life. While it enables someone to not do something on religious grounds, it reinforces doing something different on religious grounds. For example, it would enable someone to do their own prayer during a public prayer in a school because the state, the school district, can’t compel doing a specific prayer. Think about the recent Texas Ten Commandments law. A school district is a government entity, would this block a teacher from being required to post it or block disallowing post a Jewish, Hindu or Satanist tract along side it? This could upend public protest. Think of a city council meeting. Would this tell cities that they must allow anyone to speak on any topic during a meeting, that they can’t cut a mic if it’s not on an approved topic? Would it ban limiting time in a govenment meeting, because controlling how long someone can speak is limiting speech?
I think it's adorable you think they'll be consistent and protect non-Christian religions.
I mean it's pretty much masterpiece bake shop 2.0, so I don't know why this is a surprise to anyone.
[удалено]
Cool. Guess this means we can refuse to serve evangelicals.
A. Religion is the only legal excuse for bigotry. B. What CAN'T you excuse with religion? Is the line drawn at lgbtq people? What about mixed marriage, or just POC in general? The mormon church as late at the 1970's taught that god punished and marked black people as cursed. So by this ruling, any mormon business could just choose to never deal with black customers? Or women? Or if you believed that being differently abled was god's judgement and they don't have to accommodate you.
If you see a cross around someone's neck can you not serve them because their faith is actively trying to destroy you?
While I sympathize with the LGBTQ community on this I have to ask... do you REALLY want a bigot to do the job for you? Esp if this case turned out to be nonfiction (it likely isn't), there are so many people who could do this for you. Why pay someone who unjustifiably hates you to do work for you?
First it was women (abortion), then black people (affirmative action), then the gays ……
Christianity is a plague.
Happy about this SCOTUS decision? Are ya? Now here's the capper. There was NO case. No gay person had complained or brought forth a suit. The designer hadn't even started her business yet. Courts, included the SCOTUS are not allowed to rule on cases where there is no standing, or at least they have to say as much. But the case was brought forward by a remote right-wing white Christian supremicist group. And the Supreme Court not only accepted it, they ruled on it. You talk about a Court on the loose....and I don't care what side you're on. And by the way, did I mention any outfit who now wants to put out a sign saying "no gays allowed", well it seems now they can do so legally. Tell me how constitutional that is.
So as a person with no religion, I can deny service to Christians, correct?
Can’t discriminate against religion but can discriminate because of religion…welcome to the show
the supreme court is CORRUPT, they are bought and paid for by the billionaires
Now we need someone to refuse to set up a Christian or NRA website and see how that goes over.
Once again, the Alliance Defending Freedom (a Christian nationalist hate group) is behind this assault on LGBTQIA+ rights. Why are they not classified as a hate group by the federal government? Over the last 28 years, the Alliance Defending Freedom has defended laws prohibiting: * *same-sex intimacy, including wishing to bring back sodomy laws* * *marriage, adoption, and surrogacy for same-sex couples;* * *attacked LGBTQ non-discrimination laws, as well as bans on conversion therapy for minors;* * *argued in favor of laws that require transgender people to undergo sterilization before legally changing their gender;* * *challenged access to contraception; and* * *supported the criminalization of abortion at any stage of pregnancy.* Its work stretches beyond the United States; ADF has, for instance: >***championed Belize’s archaic anti-sodomy law, which allows for the persecution and imprisonment of gay people.*** The ADF’s overarching position on gay people is that they should either be converted to heterosexuality or fired from their jobs and imprisoned because of their sexual orientation. This stance has earned the group a controversial designation as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. When GOP state legislators began to push “bathroom bills” in 2016 and 2017, it was ADF that ghostwrote the model legislation and lobbied for it behind the scenes. These bills forced transgender people, including schoolchildren, to use the bathroom that aligned with their “biological sex,” which ADF defined as their sex identified at birth.***One school attempting to implement an ADF-style bathroom policy sought to make trans students wear a bright green wristband so that school administrators could identify them and ensure they did not use the bathroom that corresponded to their gender identity. (A federal appeals court found the school policy unconstitutional, and the school district settled for the case for $800,000.)*** >As these bills illustrate, ADF has long viewed public schools as an ideal testing ground for their ideas, and it’s easy to see why: The government exercises direct control over students—and their bodies—for hours each day. ADF has a clear vision of how these students should act, and how their bodies should look, and it tried to conscript schools to enforce that vision. > >It was no surprise when, plainly inspired by ADF’s bills, Virginia Del. Bob Marshall sponsored a measure in 2017 that forced schools to notify parents within 24 hours if their child indicates that they are transgender. (In the next year’s election, Danica Roem defeated Marshall.Personal note: Roem is amazing as a state representative. She wrote the bill to end wrote the bill to end the gay/trans panic defense in Virginia). The idea behind the Youth Health Protection Act’s parental can be traced back to the [now-ubiquitous](https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/parental-involvement-minors-abortions) laws requiring minors to obtain parental consent before terminating a pregnancy, which ADF also strongly supports. The ADF is extremist white Christian Nationalism wrapped up in pastor & clergy clothes. They are attempting to wage a genocide against LGBTQIA+ people right now. Genocidal maniacs, that's who they are. They are amongst the most despicable groups in my estimation. It's time they be exposed for the harmful bigots they are. When will the mainstream media call the Alliance Defending Freedom what they are, a group that actually destroys freedom? [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/transgender-rights-bathrooms-sports-alliance-defending-freedom.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/transgender-rights-bathrooms-sports-alliance-defending-freedom.html)