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.
Because she has every right to pick and choose here clientele.
It is discrimination and harms no one
Wrong as usual. People have the ABSOLUTE right to associate with whomever they damned well please! And if that means I don't have to associate with ghetto hoodrats, white trailer trash Micks, nor greasers who don't discipline their kids? Then so be it!I disagree.
People will always make false assumptions about others unless they actually come in contract.
So forced diversity always expands your experiences and makes people learn their assumptions are false.
Forced busing failed, but not because of diversity.
It was the extra distance, time, and lack of neighborhood involvement.
Horseshit as always. If I am running a Christian bookstore, I have every right to hire/fire someone who does not adhere to my code of conduct. And since that will upset the alphabet soup crowd, then I am doing right by G-d.Wrong.
The majority would not notice or care, but clearly is would be very harmful to any and all minorities.
When you get a business license to be open to the public, you have signed a contract to never discriminate against any customers.
So she was in violation of local ordinances that the SCOTUS has no authority to rule over.
Discrimination harms NO ONE
that is fact you keep lying about
When I turn down a date with a fat woman it is discrimination and harms no one. It might hurt her feelings but that is not harm
Obviously if a serial killer wanted a cake with all of his victims names on it????....Wrong.
The majority would not notice or care, but clearly is would be very harmful to any and all minorities.
When you get a business license to be open to the public, you have signed a contract to never discriminate against any customers.
So she was in violation of local ordinances that the SCOTUS has no authority to rule over.
Corruption in broad daylight. A total disgrace and embarrassment to this country.A right wing extremist, Lorie Smith, was thinking about creating websites. Lorie Smith also wanted her 15 minutes of fame, so she created a company called 303 Creative and then filed a lawsuit claiming that a gay couple known as Stewart and Mike had demanded she create a web site for them. This lawsuit ended up at the Supreme Court, and it overturned years of legal precedent which made discrimination illegal. There was just one problem with Lorie Smith’s lawsuit — The so-called email demanding that she create a web site for the gay couple was sent ONE DAY AFTER HER LAWSUIT WAS FILED. In addition, Lorie Smith and her company had never created ANY web site for ANY individual or company. So why was the company formed in the first place? We all know why. Eventually, Stewart was reached, and he not only said he never sent that email, but that he was a heterosexual who has been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years. By submitting false information to the courts, Lorie Smith committed perjury. And, as a result, Lorie Smith had no standing at all to file this lawsuit.
And, because the justices at the Supreme Court knew of the perjury before they began deliberations, they suborned the perjury. In addition, several justices committed perjury during their Senate confirmations by stating that they would abide by precedent, known as Stare Decisis, and then did the opposite. This week, The Supreme Court of the United States officially became a corrupt criminal enterprise
The Supreme Court of the United States is guilty of subornation of perjury
A right wing extremist, Lorie Smith, was thinking about creating websites. Lorie Smith also wanted her 15 minutes of fame, so she created a company called 303 Creative and then filed a lawsuit claiming that a gay couple known as Stewart and Mike had...www.dailykos.com
The most corrupt, and illegitimate court in the nations history.
Once the precedent of illegal and harmful discrimination is at all allowed, it is only a matter of time before signs get put up banning religions, political affiliation, etc.
And there can be no doubt that would end in violent civil war.
Oh, and you cannot, nor will not force Christians to compromise, let alone violate our faith and morals over some pansy.Wrong.
The majority would not notice or care, but clearly is would be very harmful to any and all minorities.
When you get a business license to be open to the public, you have signed a contract to never discriminate against any customers.
So she was in violation of local ordinances that the SCOTUS has no authority to rule over.
You mean, if you invented a fake serial killer, and a fake demand from a fake serial killer, then filed a fake, lying lawsuit in a corrupt court and changed the rules of America.Obviously if a serial killer wanted a cake with all of his victims names on it????....
You're not doing any critical thinking here
Okay, but keep in mind that you severely lower the IQ of your prospective employee pool.Horseshit as always. If I am running a Christian bookstore, I have every right to hire/fire someone who does not adhere to my code of conduct. And since that will upset the alphabet soup crowd, then I am doing right by G-d.
Discrimination is ALWAYS harmful.
Lower IQ freaks are exclusive to the Left.Okay, but keep in mind that you severely lower the IQ of your prospective employee pool.
It wasn't a hypothetical since no one presented a hypothetical. It is an unconstitutional prior restraint. If you say this you will be punished. These rulings have nothing to do with the Supreme Court. These decisions should have been made at the trial court level. I have not seen anything from the original case so I don't know. When it got to the Supreme Court level the harm was having the statute applied against her at the trial in District Court.
How the hell would that even be put into practice?Standing does not really matter that much once it gets to the SCOTUS, since what they have to decide is whether previous rulings by lower courts were wrong or not, regardless of original standing.
And the basic question is whether or not businesses can be allowed to discriminate at will.
And it seems obvious that would destroy society completely.
Do you really want businesses owned by democrats to not allow republican customers?
That would ensure mass violence.
Within a few decades, the whole society would devolve into civil war.
Wrong as usual. People have the ABSOLUTE right to associate with whomever they damned well please! And if that means I don't have to associate with ghetto hoodrats, white trailer trash Micks, nor greasers who don't discipline their kids? Then so be it!
I do not get your point.
If there was no gay customer who wanted a website, that she turned down, then she just lied.
Prior restraint is about speech only, and obviously you can not have caused harm until after you say something libelous.
So prior restraint is wrong, but this is not prior restraint.
This is about whether or not she can illegally harm others by discriminating against minorities for no valid reason.
The statute against discrimination not only does apply but must.
The SCOTUS is so wrong on this one, that everyone is going to start ignoring the SCOTUS at this point.
Those local laws are moot as far as the SCOTUS is concerned and your false morality can go pound sand for all I care. If I as a business owner have every right to refuse sexual perverts, then I should be able to with impunity.Business is NOT ASSOCIATION.
Anyone who discriminates in their business is evil and in violation of the local laws everywhere.
