Supreme Court sides with web designer who refuses to do gay wedding sites...

It’s all falling apart. Gays need to stop using oil …

 

If the prosecutor can prove the gun shop owner knew the intent then sure. I doubt you’ll convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Is the gay couple also being very vague about the wedding? Seems like it would be difficult to create the web page without knowing the intent of it. Your 2 scenarios are not remotely alike.

 

I am criticizing the ruling for not being clear enough where the guardrails are when creating a seismic shift in the law in a way that may harm folks. Is that clear enough for you?

 

Your recollection is not accurate. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was much broader than that.

In part:
"SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the
premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and...."

Civil Rights Act (1964)

 

Thank you for the correction. Seems they added entertainment to food and shelter. However, I don’t see how that includes a custom cake for a specific occasion, or a website designed for that same specific occasion.

Question for you. Is a male prostitute offering services to the public required to provide services to a gay client, even if the male prostitute is not homosexual and that is not his thing? Is a female prostitute required to provide services to a lesbian, if that is not her thing?

 

The fear of equality, the need to stigmatize

 

Given that prostitution is illegal, I’m gonna go with “no.”

 

What about where it is legal?

 

It’s just silly to me that we allow make believe to legally justify this kind of stuff..

What happened to freedom from religion?

 

My reaction to that was "But it's not HER speech!" She is the catalyst for someone else's speech and she was fully aware of this when she got into the business. I'm guessing she needed more business, so this fit the bill just fine. More maga lovers!

 

Mostly illegal and even if it isn't, they have to have sex with that person. People who do that for a living don't care.

 

She will likely be financially secure the remainder of her life, a hero to the cause, willing to do what it takes, even lie, to validate the right to discriminate

 

That’s harsh!

 

It is what it is. There are scary people out there doing scary things!

 

My usual caveat and apology if this is redundant since I haven't read every post in this thread, it turns out that the named plaintiff in the lawsuit that resulted in the Supreme Court decision was a straight married guy who never requested the services of the web designer and wasn't even aware that the original lawsuit was filed in his name. It seems that the web designer and the right-wing groups that were backing her were perpetuating a fraud on the legal system and the SCOTUS justices really didn't care because they wanted to use the case to make a statement.
Colorado web designer told Supreme Court a man sought her services for his same-sex wedding. He says he didn't -- and he's straight | CNN Politics

 

Interestingly, I think while the business owner's objection to same sex marriage is Biblical, the Opinion was decided under the free speech clause rather than the free exercise clause. So it's really quite broad (although practically, I suppose anybody could ascribe a religious basis for almost any view they hold). I have a hard time imagining that the reasoning here would not also justify refusal to make a wedding website for an interracial couple. Sotomayor pionted that out, but I haven't read the full Opinion and not sure if the majority addressed it.

 

I personally feel prostitution should be legal. I would bet there is a plurality and likely a majority that agree. All that being said, it would make for an interesting case.

 

Bro--ain't NO ONE, stopping you from leaving our "shitthole country."

Btw, when you find one better that our good ol' US of A, drop us a line. Let us know all about it.

I'll be sure to read.

(LOL! OK, prolly not...but hey...).

 

I'd go with utterly ridiculous, but I'll take 'harsh'.

 

bringing us back to separate but equal..

Smh