New SCOTUS case, web designer refuses gay couple

It is the ceremony being rejected. The sexual preference of the person placing the order is wholly irrelevant.

 

Yep, it's the sexual orientation of the people participating in the ceremony that is being objected to, not the ceremony itself.

 

The ten commandments are all in the New Testament.

 

Should have been a 9-0 decision . But who's counting?

 

I'm going to take it a step further: Take religion out of it and just ask the poster to justify having the state compel speech. He can't. He realizes that is the slipperiest of slopes.

 

As they should, no one should be able to force someone else to participate in an act they find morally offensive especially when it involves that person creative talents.

 

I don't like Thai food so I discriminate against Thai restaurant owners and don't spend my money at their restaurants. I don't like Rap music so I discriminate against Rap musicians and concerts and night clubs and don't give them my money. There is no federal law which requires this web designer or the baker from providing their services especially those having to do with their innate talents at creating certain things to participate in the activities these people are trying to force upon them. Federal law and our guarantied federal rights should preclude the Colorado law which the plaintiffs claim gives them the right to FORCE these people to act as THEY wish them to act.

Go find another web designer or baker.

 

NOPE.

 

“Prohibiting companies from displaying what would amount to ‘Straight Couples Only’ messages is permissible because it restricts speech that proposes illegal activity and is therefore unprotected by the First Amendment,” Colorado Attorney General Phillip J. Weiser (D) said in a filing to the Supreme Court.

Agreed.

 

Nope what, why not? Why would you hire someone to design you web page or design your wedding cake knowing the could not do the job properly due to the personal moral offense they would take for the project?

 

Like this

 

To expose him as the unprofessional bigot he is.

 

Well, no, not exactly true. But again if I have to tell you that you'd never understand. I'm also pretty sure having a website is not a civil right.

 

It is the ceremony that is being rejected based on their religious belief that a marriage is a sacrament intended only for a man and a woman, which is why the sexuality of the person actually placing the order does not make any difference.

 

No its not, it's the sexual orientation of the people participating in the ceremony that is being objected to, not the ceremony itself.

 

Who are you to judge? So you admit it was or about the right to a cake or a web page.

 

Wrong it was the celebration of their homosexuality. He had sold standard fare to them before, they were requesting he become part of the ceremony as has been explained over and over including in the SCOTUS decision. No one, I repeat NO ONE should be able to force another person into an act for which they have deep moral objections especially forcing them tobuse their unique artistic talents to do so. It is absurd to even propose as such.

 

It is the ceremony that is being rejected based on their religious belief that a marriage is a sacrament intended only for a man and a woman, which is why the sexuality of the person actually placing the order does not make any difference.

 

This is not being considered.

 

Of course it is not because the objection is to the ceremony.

 

Nope, the people in the ceremony.

 

The ceremony itself

 

No ceremony without the people.

 

The baker is happy to serve the people a doughnut or any baked good if it does not include a ceremony to which they object on religious grounds.

Is there a point where you stop repeating one line responses that continue in a circle? Or does this go on forever?

 

It's the sexual orientation of the people participating in the ceremony that is being objected to, not the ceremony itself.