Aw, did the big bad SCOTUS tell you that you can't bully people? Too bad...Who, the graphic designer from the court case? You may be right.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Aw, did the big bad SCOTUS tell you that you can't bully people? Too bad...Who, the graphic designer from the court case? You may be right.
The wedding designer controls who uses her services.
That's right, and a person's creativity is speech....So, hence the ruling, that you can't control speech....Too bad for you.No, that's not what the case was about. You should read it. The case was about first amendment rights.
another idiot that doesn’t understand the ruling or the lawBased on the Supreme Court's precedent, he absolutely has the right.
- He created an expressive work.
- That work is protected by the first amendment.
- Therefore, his free speech rights entitle him to prohibit who will buy that work after all.
/---/ Sure thing Bimbo.No, that's not what the case was about. You should read it. The case was about first amendment rights.
haha it is what it was about…someone can’t control her and make her violate her religious beliefs. another win for freedom and a big L for the demafacist tyrants that want to oppress people and force them into submissionNo, that's not what the case was about. You should read it. The case was about first amendment rights.
no he doesnkr he doesnkr own the work, he ss paid by HBO to act, HbO owns the show.
someone can’t control her and make her violate her religious beliefs.
/----/ It wasn't about religious beliefs, it was about free speech. READ THE OPINION.It wasn't about religious beliefs, it was about free speech. READ THE OPINION.
It was all about her not having to go against her beliefs, you retarded baffoon. If a Muslim Baker doesnt want to bake a dildo for a fagot, should he be forced into doing it? Or would fag end up like most queers, beheaded or thrown from the roof of a tall building? You fuckers always attack Christians about their values, but never try it with Muzzies? That is because you are EVIL mother fuckers.It wasn't about religious beliefs, it was about free speech. READ THE OPINION.
he had a right to object to preforming before he performs she didn’t. He sold his work to HBOYou are talking about copyright law. But the case had nothing to do with copyright law. This is about free speech. The court ruled that free speech rights give a person the right to exclude others from your forms of expression if you have an objection to that person. So a graphic designer can exclude a gay couple from using her design for a website. It therefore follows that an actor can exclude a bigot from using his performance. Or that an author can exclude a Christian from reading his book. It's all part of free speech.
If something constitutes a form of expression (i.e. is a form of speech), then the expressor's first amendment rights allow them to define who is permitted to hear that speech.
she objected to doing the work based on her faith, the court ruled that it was speech, and she couldn’t be compelled by the state to do so.It wasn't about religious beliefs, it was about free speech. READ THE OPINION.
the court ruled that it was speech, and she couldn’t be compelled by the state to do so.
he had a right to object to preforming before he performs she didn’t. He sold his work to HBO
It was all about her not having to go against her beliefs
haha that’s always been the case. The demafasict in CO passed a law trying to violate that and force people to speak even if they didn’t want to. That’s the issueNow you're starting to get it. As a result of the court's decision, speakers are now entitled to regulate who can hear that speech.
haha no it’s not. he had the right not to act if he decided to, he decided to. He was paid for his service. The company paid him, they own the performance…not himThat is a question of copyright law, not free speech.
Now you're starting to catch on..maybe.That is a question of copyright law, not free speech.