Supreme Court leans in favor of a Christian website designer's right to turn away gay weddings

So you looked at it but you didn't read it, and you don't understand how standing works. That's lovely. I'm sure your opinion is quite valuable and should be taken seriously.

You said "A “christian” should be able to be denied service if their product has any religious or personal references on them just as the same sex couple does and patrons should be informed of the desires not to serve them before they enter the facility or shop there.

Agree?"

I have no idea what you're saying here. Are you saying that people should refuse service to people based upon that persons perceived religion? Because that would violate those laws you were so hot on earlier.
Now, if you can find me someone whose religion explicitly bars them from helping Christians get married you have a one to one comparison, and yes they could do that.
Here, she's not allowed to blanket not serve the gays. She's only allowed to refuse service for gay weddings and post a notice stipulating same.
So no I wouldn't agree because your statement as written is overbroad.
If that's not what you're saying, rewrite your sentence because it is non-sensical. Whose product? What references? Be specific as the example you're comparing to is rather specific.

 

What I want is a situation where people are generally free to associate with whom they want to and not associate with those whom they don't want to. I feel that this liberty-oriented attitude is very much in line with, for example, my defense of the right to freely express oneself. If some small minority choose to use that right to shout the N word at people of color, well, I think that's detestable, but not reason enough to abolish the First Amendment. If some people choose to use their right to freely associate with whom they choose in ways that I find abhorrent, such as discriminating against Christians or white men, well, that's unfortunate, but not reason enough to abandon the whole enterprise of liberty, in my opinion at least. YMMV (and apparently it does).

Well tough, because I've got the same influence you do, (maybe even a bit more if you buy all those arguments about the electoral college being unfair).

 

Restaurants are not personal services like custom cakes and graphic design.
They are a place of public accomodation, explicitly, under federal law. Ask mdrobster to quote you the statute, he's got the link.
So no, they can't do that and it is different to what ms. graphic design or mr. no penis cakes is doing.
Art is speech, and that speech is what allows them to have protection.
Your conception of what is occurring, blanket discrimination in all cases based on sexual orientation, is not what's occurring.
She's not allowed to not serve gays period. She's allowed to not do gay weddings only, and to post a sign stipulating that only.
Some gay cake designer wants to not design custom cakes for a christian wedding? Ok that was always allowed, good for them.

 

And the law prevents her from posting the notice, causing an injury, giving her standing.

See how that works?

 

AA is allowed specifically on a sunset basis only, and is explicitly only allowed because of prior knowing and intentional violations of the equal protection clause.
That doesn't mean that equal protection only applies to the brown ffs, or that its not race neutral when you're saying "who can shelter here".
The whole point of AA was to 'give at the office' for a bit to balance the scales so that that basis would never be used again.
You can't just have a little discrimination against whitey in the modern day as a treat or something.

When you draw a map specifically to give 'the blacks' a district, you're discriminating against every other ethnicity.
I don't want to ever see a post of yours bitching about gerrymandering. If I do, I'll mock you more mercilessly on it than I do destoyerofillusions and his ****ing mop up thread.

 

ISPs are, again, pretty much the definition of a public accommodation or common carrier.

Social media websites are not, but ATT can't refuse you service because you're a bigot.

 

Didn't you just ****ing quote the public accommodations law? Weren't you all hot for it?
Restaurants don't get to refuse service for religious reasons, unlike artists.
Read what it applies to ffs.

 

And which law applies to graphic designers and custom wedding cake makers?
Go on, cite chapter and verse for us. Ask MDrobster how it worked out for him.

 

And actually subject to the federal public accommodations law as a restaurant.

 

Yes as I noted

" and restaurants come under federal civil rights public accommodation law"

 

You don't believe gay couples would seek her services?

They baker would have sold them a cake from his window. The web designer would design a birthday website for a gay person. They were being asked to create something special about an occasion, a celebration not just provide a standard service. The restaurant is not being asked to create a special meal just serve off the menu. They are not being ask to help plan an occasion just to merely serve them as the cake baker would sell a gay person a cake. So if you are going to say the restaurant can decline service because of the persons religious faith then certainly you would support an artist not being required to CREATE something.

This is the standard YOU created that they should far more than the baker or webpage maker.

Read the OP it was do to their religious faith and their moral beliefs.

The cake baker would sell them a cake so equal treatment would be the restaurant must serve them.

Not the distinctions I pointed out above.

 

web hosting sites are just private servers people can use, they can deny bigots that violate their TOS if they choose

 

I will keep it short for you.

I believe in equality. If she can deny service due to her belief then people should be able to deny service to her because of theirs. If an xtian wants to deny service to gay people they should be able to as long as gay people (or anyone that supports them) should be able to deny service to them.

To summarize: if you want discrimination allow all of it don’t carve out special rights because of someone’s made up beliefs.

 

No clue

I understand what you are saying I just don’t care. It is not equal treatment to tell person A you don’t have to serve person B because of something they are doing but person B must serve person A. Why is the personal belief of one greater than the personal belief of another?

False, it is equal discrimination

And refusing to serve and wait on people that believe you should have no rights is also a moral issue.

Why do you want to force the labor of another?

How about we just let people associate with whom they want?

You’ve got your stacked court, they will affirm that xtians are given rights to discriminate but no one can discriminate against them. Thankfully this is having a pretty significant impact on people’s perception of xtianity and what it stands for.

 

Is it a business license or a religious place ?

 

There has to be a legal difference not your opinion.

 

The cake maker nor the web designer are refusing to serve LGBQT. They are refusing to create items that go against their religious beliefs. A gay person can buy all the cakes they want from the baker. Just do not ask for the baker to make something that goes against their religious beliefs.

Again, should we force a Muslim baker to make an effigy of Mohammad?

 

A web hosting site? Probably though an argument could be made that it is more similar to an ISP in nature. But that's not an ISP and you had mentioned ISPs.

 

I will keep it short for you then: That's not how that works.

She's not denying service to gays in all cases. She's only allowed the incredibly narrow exception we've discussed. In like fashion, a gay person wanted to discriminate against a Christian person for the same reason will need to couch it in the incredibly narrow exception previously discussed.
That's equal, allows conscientious objectors in service of liberty, and does not interfere with interstate commerce by closing off public accommodations.
That's balanced.

If you think she should be able to put up a 'no blacks no dogs no irish' style sign and engage in blanket discrimination against the class listed regardless of circumstance, I'm sure you're also for the other parts of liberty of contract that we used to have like no minimum wage, no maximum hours, etc?

 

There is a legal difference: A graphic design artist is not included in the federal statute you quoted previously and which I've been having to take you to task over.
Instead: A restaurant explicitly is.
See how that effects a legal difference? One is bound by the statute, the other is not.

 

Irrelevant, personal services don't sacrifice such rights.
See Masterpiece Cake Shop. Its the communication provision of the same statute, under essentially the same facts: You want to force a person to create art for a purpose they find religiously repugnant.
That compulsion by the law to forcibly engage in such speech is a cognizable harm to the plaintiff's 1st amendment rights.

Full stop.

 

Person A doesn't have to make custom art for person B when that custom art is expressly for a gay wedding and person A has deeply held religious beliefs against serving gay weddings, because their business is not a place of public accommodation like a restaurant and instead offers personal services in this case art.
Person B is a waitress, and must serve the customers who come in without discriminating against a protected class because her business is a place of public accommodation under federal law. This would be in spite of deeply held religious beliefs.
This was how it worked prior to gorsuch taking the bench, much less kavanaugh and barett.

 

BS, if one is open to business for the public, then they can discriminate at will, then why not blacks or any other minority.

 

Remember that public accommodations law you linked earlier that I told you didn't apply to graphic designers by its express statutory elements as to what it did apply to in section b?
Want to know what section b explicitly covers? Restaurants.

Why? Because places that serve sustenance for travelers, like inns or hotels that house same, enable the efficient movement of persons and the goods they are carrying throughout the nation.
Therefore, if they were to discriminate, it would have an undue effect to interfere with INTERSTATE COMMERCE. That principle is why the public accommodations law you cited exists, and that balancing test (the fact its not applicable to every business whatsoever but only those necessary for interstate commerce to flow) is why its allowed.
Personal services, like custom art, are not included because they don't effect interstate commerce. A trip across country to deliver goods and receive goods and travel back isn't impossible if you can't get a custom cake, your trip would be impossible if no gas stations, restaurants, or hotels would serve you.
If you'd like to read the reasoning, google West Coast Hotel v Parrish a case from the 30s overturning liberty of contract.

In this case, the plaintiff is only allowed to post a notice saying she won't serve gay weddings because of religious objections, and to follow through on that.
If a gay person comes to her for a normal website, say a business website, she is not allowed to say 'you're gay I won't work with you'.
Now, there may be an exception if for instance the business website is to set up an escort service, or porn company, or 10 easy ways to transition without telling your parents step 1 make bathtub hormones, etc type website that related back to the religious belief.

I'm not aware of any religion that says the blacks must be segregated on graphic design. Perhaps you could share with the class?