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

Talk about going off on tangets......... And Hey, you even managed to get in a Nazi reference......

No need to reply, you're not interested in discussing this topic.

 

Yeah !!!
The rules on this site and their enforcement seem more subjective than objective.

 

Yes she has a business she wants to open and cannot until she can get the law clarified else she could lose everything she has trying to defend the claim even if she wins, we don't have loser pays here. It is all explained in the news report, stop beating a dead horse and deal with the issue.

What do you think of this restaurants recent action here, and restaurants come under federal civil rights public accommodation law

"Metzger Bar and Butchery, in Richmond’s Union Hill neighborhood, posted a statement Thursday night on Instagram about the decision to cancel the Family Foundation’s reservation Wednesday. “Metzger Bar and Butchery has always prided itself on being an inclusive environment for people to dine in,” the restaurant said in the statement. “In eight years of service, we have very rarely refused service to anyone who wished to dine with us. Recently we refused service to a group that had booked an event with us after the owners of Metzger found out it was a group of donors to a political organization that seeks to deprive women and LGBTQ+ persons of their basic human rights in Virginia.”

Family Foundation President Victoria Cobb wrote in a blog post Thursday that the foundation’s vice president of operations got a call from Metzger about an hour and a half before the 7 p.m. Wednesday reservation notifying her of the cancellation.

“One of the restaurant’s owners called our team to cancel the event,” Cobb wrote in the post, which linked to Metzger’s Yelp page. “As our VP of operations explained that guests were arriving at their restaurant shortly, she asked for an explanation. Sure enough, an employee looked up our organization, and their waitstaff refused to serve us.”
https://www.virginiabusiness.com/article/richmond-restaurant-refuses-service-to-family-foundation/

Refused service because of their religious beliefs which is a protected class.

 

Helps to read the actual OP and link. She already has a business which she was looking into expanding into the wedding announcements (web based). She already has dozens of clients and projects she has developed.

 

I'm not too sure about that, I have quite an extensive rap sheet here.

 

I don’t care as long as the law is applied equally to all

I would much rather the group have been served unless they caused a disturbance and don’t agree with them being denied services due to their beliefs just as I would rather a baker make a good unless it contained something vulgar.

But this is what you people are demanding.

Are you satisfied?

 

She doesn’t have the business being referenced
“She wants to “open” one and she wants to make sure she doesn’t have to work with specific groups of people.”

 

yes......she....does. It's like owning a coffee shop and you want to add tea. You don't have to start an entire new business selling tea, it's added to your current offerings.

 

She's exercising her right under the 1st Amendment to petition the government for redress of grievances.

 

Splitting hairs, she does not currently engage in a specific business activity and wants to do so but only if she can deny services to specific groups of customers.

 

What grievance?

 

Why should anyone be FORCED by a government to enter into a business entanglement with ANYONE else? Until you can provide a plausible defense for that, then, yes, there is nothing for us to discuss.... The radical Left has peculiar ideas about what FREEDOM really is!

 

Your question implies that you believe that we should roll back rules that prevent business from discriminating based on race.

Would that be a correct assumption?

 

I can't speak for Pollycy, but generally I think that the idea of freedom of association should generally include a business's right to choose who they do and do not associate with.

 

So you would support removing restrictions that prevent people from refusing to serve people based on race?

 

Just answer THE QUESTION. Should anyone be forced by the government to enter into a business involvement, or not?

If you refuse to answer that simple question don't feel that you are unique... radical liberals are always big proponents of 'liberty' and 'freedom' -- UNTIL THEY AREN'T....

 

Yes (and gender, national origin, religion, etc.), for private parties, not for government entities.

 

Then your opinion on this topic is not important to me. You are too naive IMO to be part of this conversation.

 

Yeah... sure. And if the government threatened you with fines or prison because you refused to enter into a business arrangement with someone you did not CHOOSE to have a business relationship with, you would support that government's command?

"Hypocrite, thy name is DEMOCRAT!"

 

*shrug* authoritarians hate liberty. That's not news.

 

At least we are aware that what you guys are actually wanting is a situation where businesses and corporations are allowed to discriminate against people for any reason they want, including gender and race.

It's the endgame. A return to a situation that allows for "whites only" counters and water fountains in businesses.

We should be able to remember why we put those rules in place, if you can't, then you shouldn't have any power to influence how the country is run.

 

???? But the law isnt applied equally. AND the laws intent is to treat people unequally.

 

So this restaurant should be sued and have to allow the group?

ROFL now come the butt-monkeys and qualifications. There is NO indication this group would cause a disturbance the objection was SOLELY to their religious beliefs. So should the restaurant have to give them the reservation and serve them?

OH so it's OK for the baker to turn down an artistic project based on moral beliefs as long as they are you moral beliefs.

The baker and the website designer aren't demanding anything of anyone it is your side that is demanding someone do something for which they have personal moral objections.

Are you satisfied?

 

Don't play deflection now. The law you cited explicitly does not apply to her sort of business. Your argument is so invalid I want to hit it with a stick.
READ a link before you post it in so blase a manner.

 

The baker didn’t have to make a cake and this graphic arts woman will likely prevail in her imaginary scenario and be allowed to refuse service to gay couples.

So by that standard, no. The restaurant and its employees should be able to decline to serve whoever they want.

By the standard y’all are setting here. Absolutely not.

Their rejection wasn’t due to their religious belief but rather their actions. I am sure they have serviced Christians numerous times in the past — it’s the exact same argument y’all are making against same sex couples but I guess by this point I don’t expect consistency.

That isn’t what I said

I am demanding equal treatment. If that equal treatment is the ability for anyone to deny service based on moral principle then I am fine with that outcome. If it is everyone must be served equally unless they are creating a disturbance then that is also fine.

You didn’t answer the question, you are fine with same sex couples being denied service, are you likewise satisfied by this group being denied service?