3 ms·

> She is “willing to work with all people regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender,” her lawyers told the court. “But she cannot create website

> She is “willing to work with all people regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender,” her lawyers told the court. “But she cannot create websites that promote messages contrary to her faith, such as messages that condone violence or promote sexual immorality, abortion, or same-sex marriage.” It sounds like "willing to work with all people" is a lie then. If you are making a wedding website for a same-sex couple, what kind of message do you think it will contain? Also fairly disgusting of her to put "messages like violence or same-sex marriage" in the same sentence, as if they are remotely comparable things. If you run a wedding business and cannot accommodate all the different types of weddings recognized under the law, you are not capable of running a wedding business. "Oh, yes, I'm more than willing to work with handicapped people, but I can't promote ramps or accessible doorways, I just don't believe in them," would not fly to get out of an ADA lawsuit. The law says you must serve these groups equally, and you can't weasel your way out of it with "oh I just hate the sin, not the sinner!" Also have to love the ridiculous pearl-clutching here: > If left in place, the 10th Circuit’s decision will allow officials to compel Democratic speechwriters to plug Republican candidates and Muslim artists to create cartoon parodies of Allah.” No, this decision would not compel a general-purpose artist to paint a work that they don't want to create. This person is lost in the sauce. They keep thinking it's about the content of the work, ("I don't create gay websites"), and not their behavior of refusing to work with the gay couple. Of course an artist or speechwriter would get in trouble today if they turned down people based just on them being part of a protected class. By the way, political party is not a protected class, so that argument fails twice. These are the same type of people who feel their rights are being violated when they get kicked off Twitter because of their non-protected violent posts, and want to be able to simultaneously deny their own business services to actual protected classes. So square that how you will.

EarlKing 5y ago
Let me turn this around for you... > It sounds like "willing to work with all people" is a lie then. If you are making a wedding website for a same-sex couple, what kind of message do you think it will contain? Substitute "same-sex couple" with "conservatives" and you have Facebook right now. > If you run a wedding business and cannot accommodate all the different types of weddings recognized under the law, you are not capable of running a wedding business. So, just to be clear: You're saying that businesses should effectively operate like public accommodations? Does that apply to everybody, including people you personally dislike? Mind you, I actually favor that position, but I'd just like to get someone to actually admit to it publicly that all men are created equal and endowed with the same rights, not just those groups that happen to be politically favored during the current news cycle. I'm one of those weird people from the early days of the Internet that actually means it when he says he's for civil rights. > These are the same type of people who feel their rights are being violated when they get kicked off Twitter because of their non-protected violent posts And there it is. Anyone who thinks different than you is violent and should be deplatformed. QED. Sorry, sir, but the law applies to everyone or no one. You don't get to play favorites. This isn't Apartheid Zuid Afrika... or Israel for that matter.
- akersten 5y ago
  > Substitute "same-sex couple" with "conservatives" and you have Facebook right now. One is a protected class, and the other isn't. It really is that simple. > So, just to be clear: You're saying that businesses should effectively operate like public accommodations? To be clear: denying service on the basis of your potential customer being a protected class is illegal. Denying service because you don't like their political opinion is not illegal. > Sorry, sir, but the law applies to everyone or no one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - EarlKing 5y ago
    Thanks. I just wanted to have you on record stating your naked bigotry for all to see. It's nice to know that if slavery were still legal today you'd be all in favor of that because black people wouldn't be a protected class.
stale2002 5y ago
> If you run a wedding business and cannot accommodate all the different types of weddings recognized under the law, you are not capable of running a wedding business Thats an interesting opinion, but it is not supported by court precedent. The previous court precedent, was related to the bakery/gay wedding case, and it was ruled in favor of the bakery in a 7-2 decision. (So no, it was not just the conservative judges who voted in favor of it) So on a factual ground, you are wrong, and religious protections are an established precedent that was discussed even specifically related to gay weddings.
- akersten 5y ago
  I don't think precedent has been established here by the cake shop case. The Supreme Court has already turned away cases that it thought were similar to it: > Another predominate case involving anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom that was in the court system during Masterpiece was the Arlene's Flowers lawsuit in Washington, with the issue over flower arrangements being provided for a same-sex wedding. Prior to the decision in Masterpiece, a petition for writ of certiorari had been issued to the Supreme Court. Following the decision of Masterpiece, the flower shop owner used that decision to assert that they were shown similar religious hostility, and requested their case to be reheard. On June 25, 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed the pending petition, and ordered that lower courts review the flower shop's case in a similar light as Masterpiece. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... If this were settled "factual ground," why would they take this case up instead of similarly turning it away?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

EarlKing 5y ago

Let me turn this around for you... > It sounds like "willing to work with all people" is a lie then. If you are making a wedding website for a same-sex couple, what kind of message do you think it will contain? Substitute "same-sex couple" with "conservatives" and you have Facebook right now. > If you run a wedding business and cannot accommodate all the different types of weddings recognized under the law, you are not capable of running a wedding business. So, just to be clear: You're saying that businesses should effectively operate like public accommodations? Does that apply to everybody, including people you personally dislike? Mind you, I actually favor that position, but I'd just like to get someone to actually admit to it publicly that all men are created equal and endowed with the same rights, not just those groups that happen to be politically favored during the current news cycle. I'm one of those weird people from the early days of the Internet that actually means it when he says he's for civil rights. > These are the same type of people who feel their rights are being violated when they get kicked off Twitter because of their non-protected violent posts And there it is. Anyone who thinks different than you is violent and should be deplatformed. QED. Sorry, sir, but the law applies to everyone or no one. You don't get to play favorites. This isn't Apartheid Zuid Afrika... or Israel for that matter.

akersten 5y ago
> Substitute "same-sex couple" with "conservatives" and you have Facebook right now. One is a protected class, and the other isn't. It really is that simple. > So, just to be clear: You're saying that businesses should effectively operate like public accommodations? To be clear: denying service on the basis of your potential customer being a protected class is illegal. Denying service because you don't like their political opinion is not illegal. > Sorry, sir, but the law applies to everyone or no one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- EarlKing 5y ago
  Thanks. I just wanted to have you on record stating your naked bigotry for all to see. It's nice to know that if slavery were still legal today you'd be all in favor of that because black people wouldn't be a protected class.

stale2002 5y ago

> If you run a wedding business and cannot accommodate all the different types of weddings recognized under the law, you are not capable of running a wedding business Thats an interesting opinion, but it is not supported by court precedent. The previous court precedent, was related to the bakery/gay wedding case, and it was ruled in favor of the bakery in a 7-2 decision. (So no, it was not just the conservative judges who voted in favor of it) So on a factual ground, you are wrong, and religious protections are an established precedent that was discussed even specifically related to gay weddings.

akersten 5y ago
I don't think precedent has been established here by the cake shop case. The Supreme Court has already turned away cases that it thought were similar to it: > Another predominate case involving anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom that was in the court system during Masterpiece was the Arlene's Flowers lawsuit in Washington, with the issue over flower arrangements being provided for a same-sex wedding. Prior to the decision in Masterpiece, a petition for writ of certiorari had been issued to the Supreme Court. Following the decision of Masterpiece, the flower shop owner used that decision to assert that they were shown similar religious hostility, and requested their case to be reheard. On June 25, 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed the pending petition, and ordered that lower courts review the flower shop's case in a similar light as Masterpiece. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... If this were settled "factual ground," why would they take this case up instead of similarly turning it away?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]