What the Supreme Court’s LGBTQ rights decision means

[Social Media]

 

 

The Supreme Court’s decision in favor of a Christian web designer in Colorado who refuses to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings out of religious objections will have a far-reaching impact on other minority groups and could open the door to a slew of cases seeking to further chip away at civil rights protections in the US.

In a 6-3 opinion delivered Friday by Justice Neil Gorsuch that was joined by the court’s five other conservatives, the justices said that the First Amendment’s free speech protections permitted the web designer, Lorie Smith, to refuse to extend her services for same-sex weddings.

The ruling was rooted in free speech grounds and could create a massive hole in state public accommodation laws for businesses who sell so-called “expressive” goods, allowing for companies that provide customized, expressive products and services to pick and choose who they work with.

 

FULL STORY

[Jingthing]

Turns out it was based on a FAKE example. Hopefully, it will be overturned. The mean spirited lady who brought this to SCOTUS "Christian" though she may be, appears to lack basic ethics and morality.

 

 

[Jingthing]

If it stands, this is problem with it:

 

Read Justice Sotomayor's dissent in same-sex wedding website case : NPR

 

While wedding websites may not be an essential service, it this stands, there is no doubt that the horrible precedent it establishes will be used to test discrimination for many of other PUBLIC ACCOMODATION goods and services that are more essential. 

 

This court which was created by STEALING two seats does not reflect the nation. It has gone rogue.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Jingthing

[Skipalongcassidy]

Let's make American citizens do things that are against their conscience... after all the Bill of Rights wasn't written for them

[Jingthing]

27 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Let's make American citizens do things that are against their conscience... after all the Bill of Rights wasn't written for them

Businesses open to the public. 

[KhunLA]

Always been in favor of businesses having the right to refuse services to who ever they wish.  It's their business, it's their right, IMHO

 

May or may not be profitable, but that's their problem.

 

Though some of that does go against current laws.  Oh well ... so be it.   Let supply & demand, and the customers decide whether to frequent or use a business.

 

Free enterprise should not be dictated who to serve ... IMHO

 

Yes, I know, days past that was not a good thing, but this is the 21st Century, and people are more aware, and won't support what they don't believe is right. 

 

Businesses should have the same right as the customer.

 

I'm not a Christian, Jew or Muslim, and don't believe in many aspects of their religion, but it's their right to do what they believe in.

 

I've refused sales to people before, when I had no legal right to.  But a moral obligation to myself and others.

[Credo]

4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

 

<snipped>

I've refused sales to people before, when I had no legal right to.  But a moral obligation to myself and others.

So, do you consider yourself to be morally superior to gays, or are they just morally inferior?   

Who are the others that you are upholding your moral obligations for?

[KhunLA]

5 minutes ago, Credo said:

So, do you consider yourself to be morally superior to gays, or are they just morally inferior?   

Who are the others that you are upholding your moral obligations for?

I didn't mention gays at all in my reply.  Simply business have the right to refuse services to who ever the decide not to.

 

In my case, I sold firearms, and didn't care if you could legally buy one or not.  If I thought you were an A-hole and a danger with one, I wasn't going to sell you one.  Always felt good about my decisions.

 

Local PoPo backed my thoughts, and thanked me, when I informed them which local idiot was looking for a firearm.

 

I have to live with me decisions, I take them seriously.

[Bkk Brian]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Turns out it was based on a FAKE example. Hopefully, it will be overturned. The mean spirited lady who brought this to SCOTUS "Christian" though she may be, appears to lack basic ethics and morality.

 

 

Indeed, it would appear that the Supreme Court needs to do some basic fact checking before handing out verdicts.

 

 The man was identified as “Stewart” in court filings and as someone who requested graphic designs for invitations and other materials for a same-sex wedding with his fiancé, Mike. CNN contacted Stewart through information in court filings. He asked for his last name, which is not in the filing, not to be used.

In an interview with CNN Friday, Stewart said that he “did not submit a request” to the company, 303 Creative, and is a “happily married man to a woman of 15 years.”

“I don’t know Mike,” Stewart said. “I’ve never asked anybody to design a website for me, so it’s all very strange. I certainly didn’t contact her, and whatever the information in that request is, is fake.” 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/colorado-web-designer-court-filings/index.html

[Hanaguma]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

If it stands, this is problem with it:

 

Read Justice Sotomayor's dissent in same-sex wedding website case : NPR

 

While wedding websites may not be an essential service, it this stands, there is no doubt that the horrible precedent it establishes will be used to test discrimination for many of other PUBLIC ACCOMODATION goods and services that are more essential. 

 

This court which was created by STEALING two seats does not reflect the nation. It has gone rogue.

 

 

 

 

Difference perhaps is that they are discriminating based on the job and not the client? A straight person who wants a website for their gay friends who are getting married would also be refused. A gay person who wants a basic business website design would be accepted.

 

The court is, and always will be, legitimate. Let your hate and resentment go. All that acid is doing your stomach no good- you might just anger your way into an ulcer, my friend. 

[KhunLA]

18 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I didn't mention gays at all in my reply.  Simply business have the right to refuse services to who ever the decide not to.

 

In my case, I sold firearms, and didn't care if you could legally buy one or not.  If I thought you were an A-hole and a danger with one, I wasn't going to sell you one.  Always felt good about my decisions.

 

Local PoPo backed my thoughts, and thanked me, when I informed them which local idiot was looking for a firearm.

 

I have to live with me decisions, I take them seriously.

To add to my reply, since I had a triplex rental property, I'd refuse renting to someone, if it would disrupt the calm of my current tenants.

 

One of my renters was gay / bisexual, so I certainly wouldn't rent to an anti-gay person looking to lease an open apartment if I had one.

 

That falls under common sense, law or no law.

 

On the reverse, if having 2 anti gay renters, I certainly wouldn't rent to a gay person, if 3rd apartment was open.   For the same reason, though I can't imagine me renting to anyone anti gay, if I know beforehand.

 

Not a fan of bigots of any type.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by KhunLA

[LosLobo]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Turns out it was based on a FAKE example. Hopefully, it will be overturned. The mean spirited lady who brought this to SCOTUS "Christian" though she may be, appears to lack basic ethics and morality.

 

 

The decision seems like a solution looking for problem.

 

What I found particularly poignant in a similar article was this protesters sign.

 

'THERE'S  NO HATE  LIKE CHRISTIAN LOVE'

 

 

 

Gay couple cited by Christian web designer who won Supreme Court case may not exist (yahoo.com)

[Skipalongcassidy]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Businesses open to the public. 

private businesses not government businesses... big difference