Re: "...ruled 6-3 that a creator of wedding websites can legally refuse to design websites for same-sex couples..."
I think it's more accurate to say that creators can refuse to design certain content for anyone. A non-same-sex couple would/should also be refused if they asked for the same content.
It's not about who the buyer is, it's about what the content is.
Re: "...ruled 6-3 that a creator of wedding websites can legally refuse to design websites for same-sex couples..."
I think it's more accurate to say that creators can refuse to design certain content for anyone. A non-same-sex couple would/should also be refused if they asked for the same content.
It's not about who the buyer is, it's about what the content is.
Exactly, are leftists saying an orthodox Jewish baker has to bake anti semitic messages on a cake for a neo-Nazi customer? It beggars belief how the left has zero perspective taking tools unless it’s literally through their narrow one tiny sliver of the prism they look through- tolerant indeed!
I like how the leftists and LGBTQalphabetsoup claim they ar not trying to force their ideas on the rest of us, but they will sue if someone says NO to them
Here is a group of them marching LGBTQ in New York chanting: "We're Here, We're Queer, & We're Coming For Your Children" https://bitchute.com/video/8ad1akbha4AS
Didn't you read the NBC news article on this? It explained for us knuckle-draggers that they've said this for years, it doesn't mean anything, and it's just their little inside joke. The fact that the proles actually take them at their word shows how ignorant and backward we are.
I think this is the best policy at this point. The largely humorless left only uses the line "it was just a joke" like a 12 year old does to prevent being punched in the face.
The artificial trans-movement: Whatever happened to laws against indecent exposure? I guess there are no real men left in these places because in my day if a group of men decided to parade around totally naked in public in front of women and children, a mob of fathers with billy clubs would violently disperse them.
Of course I take them at their word too, you guys wouldn't know sarcasm if it hit you over the head. "Us knuckle-draggers" and "how ignorant and backward we are" should have been your tip-offs.
NBC News put out an article trying to explain away the chant saying it was "pride culture" and that it was meant to mock claims that homosexuals are a threat to children. NBC News was ripped to shreds on social media for trying to whitewash away their ugly and despicable chant.
Ah I see, my apologies. The world has devolved into such a bad parody of itself these days it is very difficult to tell what is satire/sarcasm and what is not.
That prism also includes thinking only of the situations where it works in their favor. The possible scenarios where their own rule is turned against them are endless. And yet they can see only one angle, relevant only for this moment, only in locations where they happen to currently have power. For example, a Muslim customer demanding that a LGBT artist depict a "marriage is between one man and one woman" piece. To refuse would be anti-Muslim discrimination.
My thoughts are for devout Muslims to request a design from a "TQ+,etc" artist, something depicting gays/queers being treated in the traditional manner in some Muslim dominant countries.
Stoning, hanging, thrown off buildings and other unpleasant endings. "What, are you discriminating against my firmly held religious beliefs? You're an Islamaphobe!" Muslims are a "protected class", after all.
Or, would that same artist be grateful for this Supreme Court decision? 🤔
Read an article recently that lefties (in MI, I think) were patting themselves on the back about having elected the first-ever all-Muslim city council (or something like that). Then, the all-Muslim council decided to ban pride flags. LOL. The left doesn't realize that non-leftist people actually believe the things they "identify as." It's not just a virtue-signal to people of faith. It's actual faith. Something the left cannot understand.
It seems more sinister than zero perspective (although it is certainly that), I think they are deliberate in distorting through language what is straight-forward and obvious.
Of course, that wasn't the point - the idea was to target this poor baker (in Colorado) and force him to deny their request. Every product on the shelf was available to them for purchase, even a custom cake, but just not with the message that offended him. So... gotcha and cause for lawsuit.
I live in CO and am familiar with the Jack Phillips story. Once the word was out that Jack refused to decorate the cake for this gay couple, he was targeted by others of the gay persuasion, demanding cakes decorated with all kinds of nefarious themes opposed to his beliefs, attempting to bring his business to ruin. I am so thankful for the integrity of the Justices stepping up to what the Constitution states is true and right. Another reason to be thankful for Donald Trump's Presidency!!!!
True! I was just talking this morning with a friend who holds an elected office. The left constantly is trolling her social media for any and every remark that could possibly be construed as offensive, then bombards her with messages, emails and phone calls trying to get her to say something they can call her out on and or use at re-election time. And we wonder why it is so hard to get good people running for office. My advice: do not engage. These people need to get a life. And the ironic part is these same trolls are all cloaked in this fake virtue signaling that is really just the opposite of what they purport to represent.
That concept became illegal with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. SCOTUS has spent the years since pulling back a few rights to people and businesses.
Doesn't GoDaddy already refuse to make sites that carry medical and science 'misinformation' that happens to be true but politically inconvenient, or 9/11 criticism etc.? And no censored customer sues them and wins. Ironic. If all commercial site creators, not just wedding site designers, really can legally refuse to design a site for anyone whose content offends them now, GD is laughing, right? They're a behemoth already part of narrative control. Got a strong legal precedent to block even more content they don't like while having a near monopoly to provide government-approved morally offensive filth we don't like. I wonder if this judgement really does extend beyond wedding website designers. I would like it to work both ways - the legal right to refuse commercial service that offends personal religion or morality, as well as the protected right to publish existential truths that offend the powers in government and sue those site designers who refuse to carry those truths but profitably promote the lies, but can see that it does not.
We certainly don't when Colorado has a law like that on the books. Another word for "at will" is "free" One the ways to fix education, banking, big pharma etc is to open up the marketplace.
Re: "...ruled 6-3 that a creator of wedding websites can legally refuse to design websites for same-sex couples..."
I think it's more accurate to say that creators can refuse to design certain content for anyone. A non-same-sex couple would/should also be refused if they asked for the same content.
It's not about who the buyer is, it's about what the content is.
Exactly, are leftists saying an orthodox Jewish baker has to bake anti semitic messages on a cake for a neo-Nazi customer? It beggars belief how the left has zero perspective taking tools unless it’s literally through their narrow one tiny sliver of the prism they look through- tolerant indeed!
I like how the leftists and LGBTQalphabetsoup claim they ar not trying to force their ideas on the rest of us, but they will sue if someone says NO to them
Here is a group of them marching LGBTQ in New York chanting: "We're Here, We're Queer, & We're Coming For Your Children" https://bitchute.com/video/8ad1akbha4AS
Didn't you read the NBC news article on this? It explained for us knuckle-draggers that they've said this for years, it doesn't mean anything, and it's just their little inside joke. The fact that the proles actually take them at their word shows how ignorant and backward we are.
Uh wut? NBC article? Is that a joke?
When they make songs whose main chorus line is "We're coming for your children":
https://bitchute.com/video/AVsvFzfQ1W1i
As a father, I take them at their word. And yes, they are coming for the children, here is a mountain of evidence:
https://tritorch.com/predator
| As a father, I take them at their word.
I think this is the best policy at this point. The largely humorless left only uses the line "it was just a joke" like a 12 year old does to prevent being punched in the face.
The artificial trans-movement: Whatever happened to laws against indecent exposure? I guess there are no real men left in these places because in my day if a group of men decided to parade around totally naked in public in front of women and children, a mob of fathers with billy clubs would violently disperse them.
https://sovren.media/u/tlavagabond/
Of course I take them at their word too, you guys wouldn't know sarcasm if it hit you over the head. "Us knuckle-draggers" and "how ignorant and backward we are" should have been your tip-offs.
NBC News put out an article trying to explain away the chant saying it was "pride culture" and that it was meant to mock claims that homosexuals are a threat to children. NBC News was ripped to shreds on social media for trying to whitewash away their ugly and despicable chant.
Ah I see, my apologies. The world has devolved into such a bad parody of itself these days it is very difficult to tell what is satire/sarcasm and what is not.
What an evil and distasteful joke. Also, not funny.
I’ve never seen that video until now, and I’m sorry I did. No moral compass!
That prism also includes thinking only of the situations where it works in their favor. The possible scenarios where their own rule is turned against them are endless. And yet they can see only one angle, relevant only for this moment, only in locations where they happen to currently have power. For example, a Muslim customer demanding that a LGBT artist depict a "marriage is between one man and one woman" piece. To refuse would be anti-Muslim discrimination.
My thoughts are for devout Muslims to request a design from a "TQ+,etc" artist, something depicting gays/queers being treated in the traditional manner in some Muslim dominant countries.
Stoning, hanging, thrown off buildings and other unpleasant endings. "What, are you discriminating against my firmly held religious beliefs? You're an Islamaphobe!" Muslims are a "protected class", after all.
Or, would that same artist be grateful for this Supreme Court decision? 🤔
Read an article recently that lefties (in MI, I think) were patting themselves on the back about having elected the first-ever all-Muslim city council (or something like that). Then, the all-Muslim council decided to ban pride flags. LOL. The left doesn't realize that non-leftist people actually believe the things they "identify as." It's not just a virtue-signal to people of faith. It's actual faith. Something the left cannot understand.
“Enemy of my enemy” until the pendulum swings to Sharia.
Yes, these short-sighted leftists are poor candidates for holding power over the citizenry.
It seems more sinister than zero perspective (although it is certainly that), I think they are deliberate in distorting through language what is straight-forward and obvious.
Liberalism is a misnomer, and a mental disorder.
I think you're raycist. Lol. 🤣😅😂 yes. Libbies do not make sense. It is all what they want when they want it.
It’s more that activists and lawyers who look for someone who they can push into a situation they know will cause these conflicts and lawsuits.
Notice they targeted a Christian baker, not a Muslim baker.
Of course, that wasn't the point - the idea was to target this poor baker (in Colorado) and force him to deny their request. Every product on the shelf was available to them for purchase, even a custom cake, but just not with the message that offended him. So... gotcha and cause for lawsuit.
I live in CO and am familiar with the Jack Phillips story. Once the word was out that Jack refused to decorate the cake for this gay couple, he was targeted by others of the gay persuasion, demanding cakes decorated with all kinds of nefarious themes opposed to his beliefs, attempting to bring his business to ruin. I am so thankful for the integrity of the Justices stepping up to what the Constitution states is true and right. Another reason to be thankful for Donald Trump's Presidency!!!!
True! I was just talking this morning with a friend who holds an elected office. The left constantly is trolling her social media for any and every remark that could possibly be construed as offensive, then bombards her with messages, emails and phone calls trying to get her to say something they can call her out on and or use at re-election time. And we wonder why it is so hard to get good people running for office. My advice: do not engage. These people need to get a life. And the ironic part is these same trolls are all cloaked in this fake virtue signaling that is really just the opposite of what they purport to represent.
yes, 100%
He who literally dedicated his book to satan, the antithesis of love and peace.
Cause there's an agenda to fulfill.
Why can’t the seller simply do business with whomever he wants to?
That concept became illegal with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. SCOTUS has spent the years since pulling back a few rights to people and businesses.
Doesn't GoDaddy already refuse to make sites that carry medical and science 'misinformation' that happens to be true but politically inconvenient, or 9/11 criticism etc.? And no censored customer sues them and wins. Ironic. If all commercial site creators, not just wedding site designers, really can legally refuse to design a site for anyone whose content offends them now, GD is laughing, right? They're a behemoth already part of narrative control. Got a strong legal precedent to block even more content they don't like while having a near monopoly to provide government-approved morally offensive filth we don't like. I wonder if this judgement really does extend beyond wedding website designers. I would like it to work both ways - the legal right to refuse commercial service that offends personal religion or morality, as well as the protected right to publish existential truths that offend the powers in government and sue those site designers who refuse to carry those truths but profitably promote the lies, but can see that it does not.
BINGO !!!!!
pretty soon we will have people suing restaurants for their "no shoes, no shirt, no service policies"
We don't have an at-will market.
We certainly don't when Colorado has a law like that on the books. Another word for "at will" is "free" One the ways to fix education, banking, big pharma etc is to open up the marketplace.
…and let the $ (no Fed $, please) follow the kids! That’ll cure it quick!