"Fake 'Facts' Were Presented to the Supreme Court" in web design case

[candycorn]

i’m it was an actual court case

Really? Who was the defendant?

 

[progressive hunter]

Really? Who was the defendant?

the state of colorado,,,

 

[struth]

Really? Who was the defendant?

The State of Colorado

 

[candycorn]

What theoretical?

1. Designer wanted to expand business to designing wedding sites.
2. Designer asked Colorado Civil Rights Board if they did wedding sites, do they have to do SSM wedding sites?
3. Board said yes
4. Designer said I don't want to do those, but I want to do traditional wedding sites, so I am going to sue to make you not able to fine/ruin me if I deny a SSM wedding site request.

Indeed...

What theoretical?



1. Designer wanted to expand business to designing wedding sites.

2. Designer asked Colorado Civil Rights Board if they did wedding sites, do they have to do SSM wedding sites? Interracial wedding sites.

3. Board said yes

4. Designer said I don't want to do those, but I want to do traditional wedding sites, so I am going to sue to make you not able to fine/ruin me if I deny a SSM wedding interracial wedding site request.

and in a few years...

1. Student chef graduates and wants to open a restaurant.
2. Chef asks regulators if he has to server non-white people
3. Regulators say yes
4. Regualations say "I don't want to serve those, I want to only serve white people and I'm going to sue to make you not be able to fine/ruin me if I deny service to anyone who isn't white.

 

[candycorn]

the state of colorado,,,

The State of Colorado asked her to design a website. Who was the State of Colorado marrying?

 

[progressive hunter]

The State of Colorado asked her to design a website. Who was the State of Colorado marrying?

who said they were marrying people??

 

[progressive hunter]

Indeed...

What theoretical?



1. Designer wanted to expand business to designing wedding sites.

2. Designer asked Colorado Civil Rights Board if they did wedding sites, do they have to do SSM wedding sites? Interracial wedding sites.

3. Board said yes

4. Designer said I don't want to do those, but I want to do traditional wedding sites, so I am going to sue to make you not able to fine/ruin me if I deny a SSM wedding interracial wedding site request.

and in a few years...

1. Student chef graduates and wants to open a restaurant.
2. Chef asks regulators if he has to server non-white people
3. Regulators say yes
4. Regualations say "I don't want to serve those, I want to only serve white people and I'm going to sue to make you not be able to fine/ruin me if I deny service to anyone who isn't white.

false comparison,,,

 

[candycorn]

who said they were marrying people??

The website designer had a problem with Same Sex Marriage.

 

[candycorn]

false comparison,,,

Sure... What you really mean is inconvenient comparison because it highlights where you guys want to go with this court.

 

[struth]

Indeed...

What theoretical?



1. Designer wanted to expand business to designing wedding sites.

2. Designer asked Colorado Civil Rights Board if they did wedding sites, do they have to do SSM wedding sites? Interracial wedding sites.

3. Board said yes

4. Designer said I don't want to do those, but I want to do traditional wedding sites, so I am going to sue to make you not able to fine/ruin me if I deny a SSM wedding interracial wedding site request.

and in a few years...

1. Student chef graduates and wants to open a restaurant.
2. Chef asks regulators if he has to server non-white people
3. Regulators say yes
4. Regualations say "I don't want to serve those, I want to only serve white people and I'm going to sue to make you not be able to fine/ruin me if I deny service to anyone who isn't white.

And?

 

[progressive hunter]

The website designer had a problem with Same Sex Marriage.

OK,, who said anyone was marrying anyone??

their problem was making web sights for gay marriages,,

 

[candycorn]

And?

Thanks for confirming its true. The court legalized discrimination and you guys are okay with that.

 

[progressive hunter]

Sure... What you really mean is inconvenient comparison because it highlights where you guys want to go with this court.

no,, what I mean is thats a false comparison,,,

one is a religious issue the other isnt,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Thanks for confirming its true. The court legalized discrimination and you guys are okay with that.

of course we are in favor of discrimination,, otherwise you have fascism where people are forced against their will,,

 

[struth]

Thanks for confirming its true. The court legalized discrimination and you guys are okay with that.

Haha it’s never not been illegal for an individual to discrimate against someone else

With that said...and? The chef in your hypo is free to file a lawsuit. I’d need more information to determine if it didn’t violate the civil rights act or the Colorado law in question here...

 

[martybegan]

Indeed...

What theoretical?



1. Designer wanted to expand business to designing wedding sites.

2. Designer asked Colorado Civil Rights Board if they did wedding sites, do they have to do SSM wedding sites? Interracial wedding sites.

3. Board said yes

4. Designer said I don't want to do those, but I want to do traditional wedding sites, so I am going to sue to make you not able to fine/ruin me if I deny a SSM wedding interracial wedding site request.

and in a few years...

1. Student chef graduates and wants to open a restaurant.
2. Chef asks regulators if he has to server non-white people
3. Regulators say yes
4. Regualations say "I don't want to serve those, I want to only serve white people and I'm going to sue to make you not be able to fine/ruin me if I deny service to anyone who isn't white.

Race isn't the same as sexuality, stop trying to equate the two in a moral context.

This is about a specific ceremony celebrating something most of the mainstream religious find morally wrong or even morally non-existent.

And your example is an ACTUAL PA, something none of these people want to deny anyone.

When the only argument you have is hyperbole, you have no argument.

 

[candycorn]

Race isn't the same as sexuality, stop trying to equate the two in a moral context.

Moral context? LOL. SCOTUS just legalized discrimination.

This is about a specific ceremony celebrating something most of the mainstream religious find morally wrong or even morally non-existent.

And of course, everyone who must bow to what the "mainstream" wants. right?

And your example is an ACTUAL PA, something none of these people want to deny anyone.

When the only argument you have is hyperbole, you have no argument.

Someone will invent a religion based on excluding someone based on skin color and if the court uses previous rulings as precedent, they will have to honor that religion's preferences.

 

[progressive hunter]

Moral context? LOL. SCOTUS just legalized discrimination.

they decriminalized forced compliance,,

 

[HikerGuy83]

Meanwhile back in reality the entire "case" of the website designer was based on a theoretical question; not on an actual court case. The Supreme Court--back when it was legitimate--would seldom if ever take up cases that were based on, "Suppose X happened...." That is what we have now.

Her challenge to the Colorado court was real. She challenged a statute.

She lost.

That is what went to the court.

 

[candycorn]

they decriminalized forced compliance,,

So nobody should be forced to serve a black man a hamburger?