Finally! Supreme Court rules in favor of First Amendment rights for Christians etc.

[Billo_Really]

The whole point of the case is that people WERE being denied based on race. THAT is what has been taken away.

Yeah and up is down and down is up.

 

[Foxfyre]

?? The decision is secular - it's based on the first amendment freedom of speech clause, not based on freedom of religion.

Actually according to many constitutional scholars the argument was based on both free speech and freedom of religion issues. But I hope you are right that the decision was secular. Jonathan Turley seems to agree with you that it was a free speech issue. The effect will be to stop these malicious people who can easily get a product or service elsewhere but target Christians for lawsuits. Up until now 'woke' judges have ruled in favor of the harassers. That kind of thing will hopefully now be much more rare.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, if this is limited to non-essential services like making cakes or graphic designs.

How about healthcare? Is it ok for physicians to refuse to treat gay patients?

No. Nor is it okay for a baker to refuse to sell products he/she normally has for sale to a gay person or a website designer to refuse to design a business website for a gay person. This ruling only says that if a customer orders a product or service that requires contribution or participation that the proprietor objects to morally or ethically, the proprietor is not required to accommodate that customer.

Other examples might be a Jewish baker or website designer might not want to accommodate decorated products or designs for a Nazi rally.

A black person might not want to accommodate decorated products or designs for a KKK rally.

You might not want to accommodate decorated products or designs for an anti or pro abortion event or anti or pro AGW event or anti or pro gun event or any other issue for which you might have strong ethical objections.

A Christian should have no less rights than any other in that regard.

 

[Rawley]

Yes, if this is limited to non-essential services like making cakes or graphic designs.

How about healthcare? Is it ok for physicians to refuse to treat gay patients?

Nope

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I stated fact you did not rebut it.

Wrong boy it was YOUR burden not mine

You made the accusation and it was a lie the fact that you keep dodging any effort to back it up IS EVIDENCE

You made an assertion and I kicked it up your butt. Fact.

 

[BS Filter]

Actually according to many constitutional scholars the argument was based on both free speech and freedom of religion issues. But I hope you are right that the decision was secular. Jonathan Turley seems to agree with you that it was a free speech issue. The effect will be to stop these malicious people who can easily get a product or service elsewhere but target Christians for lawsuits. Up until now 'woke' judges have ruled in favor of the harassers. That kind of thing will hopefully now be much more rare.

Of course they're targeted, but you can't get a leftist to admit it. It's not about rights. It's about submission.

 

[Magnus]

No. Nor is it okay for a baker to refuse to sell products he/she normally has for sale to a gay person or a website designer to refuse to design a business website for a gay person. This ruling only says that if a customer orders a product or service that requires contribution or participation that the proprietor objects to morally or ethically, the proprietor is not required to accommodate that customer.

Other examples might be a Jewish baker or website designer might not want to accommodate decorated products or designs for a Nazi rally.

A black person might not want to accommodate decorated products or designs for a KKK rally.

You might not want to accommodate decorated products or designs for an anti or pro abortion event or anti or pro AGW event or anti or pro gun event or any other issue for which you might have strong ethical objections.

A Christian should have no less rights than any other in that regard.

I know what the law says but my question is more of, where would this end? Can a Christian establishment deny services to a Jew? How about a surgeon who finds out the patient he is going to operate upon, is gay? Is it ok for the surgeon to lay down his scalpel and leave the operating room and to hell with the patient?

All of these provide services. Why would it be limited to bakers and website designers?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Well, let's look at that. Were Asians slaves? Were there laws specifically put on the books to keep them from using the same facilities white people did? Were there laws put on the books to keep them from marrying white people? Did they create laws to imprison them on faulty pretexts to force them into servitude? Nope. Not at all.

Who really cares.

The past is past.

What is now happening is that asians are being selectively excluded.

 

[dblack]

I know what the law says but my question is more of, where would this end? Can a Christian establishment deny services to a Jew? How about a surgeon who finds out the patient he is going to operate upon, is gay? Is it ok for the surgeon to lay down his scalpel and leave the operating room and to hell with the patient?

Certainly not then - but before the surgery is even scheduled, yeah. It should be everyone's right to say no. Period.

We can deal with bigotry and racism without creating "thought crimes".

 

[HikerGuy83]

No more than Bush getting in to Yale on a Legacy, (even though he's dumber than a stump) or Trump's dad buying his way into Fordham.

Bush was a moron. Joy Reid is a moron. Nice deflection. But it does not work.

Reid admitted she was an AA admission. And her very breath is just another example of good intentions gone wrong.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Certainly not then - but before the surgery is even scheduled, yeah. It should be everyone's right to say no. Period.

We can deal with bigotry and racism without creating "thought crimes".

Not even sure I agree with that....isn't this about content and the 1st amendment. Focing someone to create something against their will.

Surgery doesn't fit into that one.

 

[Magnus]

Certainly not then - but before the surgery is even scheduled, yeah. It should be everyone's right to say no. Period.

We can deal with bigotry and racism without creating "thought crimes".

So, no problem if a gay couple brings in their kid for a much-needed surgery and the surgeon says - sorry, I don't treat gays or their families.

Nice. Christian compassion be damned, I guess.

 

[HikerGuy83]

So you believe that the states have a right to take away our Constitutional rights. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

The FDR court disagrees with him.

They were a-wipes that came up with incorporation.....a terrible concept.

The constitution was a protection against federal laws. Not state laws.

 

[HikerGuy83]

So, no problem if a gay couple brings in their kid for a much-needed surgery and the physician says - sorry, I don't treat gays or their families.

Nice. Christianity compassion be damned, I guess.

A doctor's oath would prevent that....or else he loses his licence.

And please stop manufacturing stuff.

I've wondered if people could sue to stop gay pride parades unless cities allow straight pride parades.

Wouldn't that be fun.

Wonder if the straights would wear vagina suites like the weirdo's on the left do.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Let's get real... College is a product.

You need this product to get advancement.

Shouldn't be that way, but it is.

So Harvard is more prestigious a product than let's say, UIC!

Harvard is a BMW, UIC is a Ford Focus.

If you want to claim meritocracy, then get rid of athletics, dean's interest, Legacies, children of staff advancement, veteran admissions, and not only affirmative action for race, but for gender as well.

Then come up with a better measure of academic excellence than a flawed standardized test.

Good luck.

Might as well get ride of boy scout merit badges too.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Regardless of which side you're on, this is legislating from the bench and bad practice. If the Colorado legislature wanted to exempt religious people, they would have written the law with the exemption spelled out. They didn't. The law should be struck down in its entirety. Inserting a carve-out for religious people is just playing the identity politics game.

I thought this was about forcing someone to create speech they did not agree with.

It is a very limited case.

 

[BS Filter]

The FDR court disagrees with him.

They were a-wipes that came up with incorporation.....a terrible concept.

The constitution was a protection against federal laws. Not state laws.

So you believe a state law trumps the Constitution?

 

[dblack]

So, no problem if a gay couple brings in their kid for a much-needed surgery and the surgeon says - sorry, I don't treat gays or their families.

I wouldn't say it's not a problem. It sucks, and any decent community would respond to it with censure. But we can't solve this kind of thing through government. The state isn't there to tell us how to think, or how to be decent people.

Nice. Christian compassion be damned, I guess.

I wouldn't know.

 

[Magnus]

A doctor's oath would prevent that....or else he loses his licence.

And please stop manufacturing stuff.

I've wondered if people could sue to stop gay pride parades unless cities allow straight pride parades.

Wouldn't that be fun.

Wonder if the straights would wear vagina suites like the weirdo's on the left do.

No, a doctor's oath does not prevent that at all. The Hippocratic oath is more for a physician to do no harm. Not who they should or should not treat.

Manufacture what? You guys want to only talk about bakers and website designers. But, if they are allowed to refuse service then why should surgeons be exempt?

As for the rest of your gibberish? Meh.

 

[HikerGuy83]

So you believe a state law trumps the Constitution.

How did you get that out of what I said ?