Supreme Court allows certain businesses to discriminate who they will serve

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,139

3

6

07.01.2023 06:12AM

3

6

07.01.2023 06:12AM

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said that because Lorie Smith’s designs are recognized as speech, the state cannot compel her to create a message she does not believe in, even if she offers her talents for hire.

So this time, instead of saying a business can discriminate based on their religious beliefs, like the cake for a gay couple, this time they said the business can discriminate based on their right to free speech (or not exercise free speech) for a website for a gay wedding. This is truly a stretch of the imagination.

So you can’t deny someone a seat at a restaurant because they are gay.

You cannot deny someone a hotel room because they are a gay couple.

But a creative cake or a “speech” containing webpage, those can be denied to someone for being gay. Ridiculous.

#2

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,918

3

2

07.01.2023 06:18AM

3

2

07.01.2023 06:18AM

Things get silly when trying to force interactions people don't want to have.

Topic's author

#3

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,139

3

6

07.01.2023 06:20AM

3

6

07.01.2023 06:20AM

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said her colleagues were abandoning principles of inclusion and protection for gay people that past Supreme Courts extended to women and people of color during the civil rights and women’s rights movements.

Topic's author

#4

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,139

3

6

07.01.2023 06:22AM

3

6

07.01.2023 06:22AM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Things get silly when trying to force interactions people don't want to have.

Silly you say? Like forcing schools to accept black students?

Forcing bus lines to allow blacks to sit anywhere there is a seat available instead of the back of the bus?

Next thing you know, we will be using the same drinking fountain! White power

#5

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,918

3

2

07.01.2023 06:25AM

3

2

07.01.2023 06:25AM

Activists judges disgust me, not because they fail to do their job and follow the law; but because their morals for which they abandon their duty are always so shallow and soaked in hypocrisy.

"balance the interests" those fuckers couldn't balance mass standards. Excuse the language.

Topic's author

#6

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,139

3

6

07.01.2023 06:31AM

3

6

07.01.2023 06:31AM

The government should no more punish Lorie for speaking consistent with her beliefs about marriage than it should punish an LGBT graphic designer for declining to criticize same-sex marriage,” Waggoner said in a statement. “If we desire freedom for ourselves, we must defend it for others.”

Lol, if a gay graphic designer declined to criticize same-sex marriage for a client, they would be refusing the client for being a bigot, not for being heterosexual.

#7

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,918

3

2

07.01.2023 06:37AM

3

2

07.01.2023 06:37AM

Lol, if gay graphic designer declined to criticize same-sex marriage for a client they would be refusing the client for being a bigot, not for being heterosexual.

Two can play that game. Suppose the designer turned down the couple because of all that gay sex they were having, not for being homosexual.

Topic's author

#8

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,139

3

6

07.01.2023 06:43AM

3

6

07.01.2023 06:43AM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Suppose the designer turned down the couple because of all that gay sex they were having, not for being homosexual.

Exactly how would the designer know anything about a couples’ sexual activity?

#9

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,918

3

2

07.01.2023 06:50AM

3

2

07.01.2023 06:50AM

Suppose the designer turned down the couple because of all that gay sex they were having, not for being homosexual.
Exactly how would the designer know anything about a couples’ sexual activity?

How would the deviant designer know anything about bigotry?

#10

Debates: 4

Posts: 1,327

3

2

07.01.2023 03:30PM

3

2

07.01.2023 03:30PM

-->

@IwantRooseveltagain

Can you be forced to make a anti gay webpage?

#11

Debates: 23

Posts: 560

3

7

6

07.01.2023 04:59PM

3

7

6

07.01.2023 04:59PM

They can't refuse to serve gay people, but they can refuse to endorse certain messages they disagree with. They can't refuse to sell gay people a design that they've sold before to someone else, but they don't have to make a custom design if it's not a design they'd make for anyone. I wouldn't be surprised if they've already made plenty of websites for gay people having to do with completely different topics.

#12

Debates: 23

Posts: 560

3

7

6

07.01.2023 05:03PM

3

7

6

07.01.2023 05:03PM

-->

@Vegasgiants

That's a good comparison to use. Few people tend to realize that the issue is the speech itself, not which customer is being served.

Topic's author

#13

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,139

3

6

07.01.2023 05:13PM

3

6

07.01.2023 05:13PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

How would the deviant designer know anything about bigotry?

That’s dumb

Topic's author

#14

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,139

3

6

07.01.2023 05:17PM

3

6

07.01.2023 05:17PM

-->

@Vegasgiants

Can you be forced to make a anti gay webpage?

See again, no.

Because you are not declining to make the page because the client is heterosexual, you are declining to make the page because the page is homophobic.

Topic's author

#15

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,139

3

6

07.01.2023 05:17PM

3

6

07.01.2023 05:17PM

-->

@Savant

That's a good comparison to use.

No, it’s not

Few people tend to realize that the issue is the speech itself, not which customer is being served.

That’s what Gorsuch tried to argue in his opinion but it is flawed.

If you make a webpage for some gay couple THAT IS NOT YOUR SPEECH

#16

Debates: 23

Posts: 560

3

7

6

07.01.2023 05:18PM

3

7

6

07.01.2023 05:18PM

-->

@IwantRooseveltagain

Because you are not declining to make the page because the client is heterosexual, you are declining to make the page because the page is homophobic.

That's what happened in this case. The designer objected to the design itself, not the fact that the customer was gay.

If you make a webpage for some gay couple THAT IS NOT YOUR SPEECH

It is if the particular webpage includes messages you disagree with. We already established that views on the webpage count as speech (such as if the webpage is anti-gay).

Topic's author

#17

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,139

3

6

07.01.2023 05:21PM

3

6

07.01.2023 05:21PM

-->

@Savant

The designer objected to the design itself, not the fact that the customer was gay.

That’s bullshit. That’s like saying if you hired a contractor to paint your house pink, the contractor is choosing to paint your house pink. The reality is you are choosing to paint your house pink.

#18

Debates: 23

Posts: 560

3

7

6

07.01.2023 05:23PM

3

7

6

07.01.2023 05:23PM

-->

@IwantRooseveltagain

The reality is you are choosing to paint your house pink.

If you hire a Jewish designer to paint your house with Nazi symbols, the designer can refuse because they don't want to endorse views they disagree with. They can also refuse to paint houses pink. People can refuse to express speech even if the idea doesn't come from them.

Topic's author

#19

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,139

3

6

07.01.2023 05:23PM

3

6

07.01.2023 05:23PM

-->

@Savant

It is if the particular webpage includes messages you disagree with.

No, it’s not. It’s not the web designer’s speech.

#20

Debates: 23

Posts: 560

3

7

6

07.01.2023 05:25PM

3

7

6

07.01.2023 05:25PM

-->

@IwantRooseveltagain

It’s not the web designer’s speech.

It's not their idea, but they can refuse to express that speech by making the webpage. Even if the speech isn't their idea, they don't have to repeat it.

Topic's author

#21

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,139

3

6

07.01.2023 05:27PM

3

6

07.01.2023 05:27PM

-->

@Savant

If you hire a Jewish designer to paint your house with Nazi symbols, the designer can refuse because they don't want to endorse views they disagree with.

Or a non Jewish designer. Because it’s appropriate to not support Nazis. It is inappropriate to not support gay marriage. How do we know this? Gay marriage is legal in the United States. Being a Nazi is universally unacceptable. Get it genius?

#22

Debates: 23

Posts: 560

3

7

6

07.01.2023 05:30PM

3

7

6

07.01.2023 05:30PM

-->

@IwantRooseveltagain

It is inappropriate to not support gay marriage.

Yet people are under no legal obligation to support it. Do you really think people should only be allowed to support legal things? That's a bad precedent to set. Gay marriage was illegal not too long ago.

#23

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,918

3

2

07.01.2023 05:36PM

3

2

07.01.2023 05:36PM

Because it’s appropriate to not support Nazis. It is inappropriate to not support gay marriage.

and there we have the root of the matter. No principles, nothing about the constitution or the civil rights act. Just the plain old fact that you believe the designer is wrong.

Judges are a lot like you, but they are excellent at hiding it.

Topic's author

#24

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,139

3

6

07.01.2023 05:46PM

3

6

07.01.2023 05:46PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

and there we have the root of the matter. No principles, nothing about the constitution or the civil rights act. Just the plain old fact that you believe the designer is wrong.

It is principle and law that says you can’t discriminate against people with your business. You can choose to not marry a person of the same sex, you can tell your children it’s wrong, you can refuse to go to a gay wedding you have been invited to, but you cannot use you business to express your bigotry.

I own several rental properties in Florida. Should I be able to refuse to rent to people who are divorced on religious grounds? You know God hates divorce.

Should hotels be able to deny a divorced person a room on religious grounds?

Topic's author

#25

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,139

3

6

07.01.2023 05:48PM

3

6

07.01.2023 05:48PM

-->

@Savant

Yet people are under no legal obligation to support it.

Not personally, just like people can choose to be racist. But you can’t exercise that choice is matters of business or public accommodation.

Topic's author

#26

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,139

3

6

07.01.2023 05:50PM

3

6

07.01.2023 05:50PM

-->

@Savant

That's a bad precedent to set. Gay marriage was illegal not too long ago.

Right, so the Supreme Court is making a mistake creating a “free speech” loophole for bigots to exploit.

Topic's author

#27

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,139

3

6

07.01.2023 05:52PM

3

6

07.01.2023 05:52PM

-->

@Savant

Do you really think people should only be allowed to support legal things?

Which side of the argument are you making here, both?

People should be REQUIRED to support legal things. It is not a choice.

Topic's author

#28

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,139

3

6

07.01.2023 06:00PM

3

6

07.01.2023 06:00PM

-->

@Savant

It's not their idea, but they can refuse to express that speech by making the webpage.

They are in the idea expression business. This couple wasn’t asking the designer to make a website explaining why gay marriage should be accepted by society or why gay marriages should be legal. It was a webpage for their wedding. Their personal wedding day.

#29

Debates: 4

Posts: 1,327

3

2