Now with the Colorado ruling saying that religion can override public accommodation laws

[Coyote]

The ruling applies to messages, ala speech. You do realize, don't you, that under this decision, a leftwing comedian can't be forced to accept a gig for a right-wing organization and be forced to make fun of leftists, right? A movie producer can't be forced to portray the nuclear family, and especially dads, in a positive light, correct?

Is the comedian a public business under the law?

This is about speech, not services. Under this ruling, artists can't be compelled to create messages they don't like, that's it.

The message is the same, the only difference is the client.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Yes, I have a huge problem with that. That incident was completely unacceptable.

I appreciate your consistency.

 

[berg80]

"New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion," she said. "This is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar. When the civil rights and women's rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims."


Five years ago this Court recognized the "general rule" that religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage “do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n, 584 U.S. __, _ (2018) (slip 0p. at 9). The Court also recognized the “serious stigma” that would result if“purveyors of goods and services who abject to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons” were “allowed to put up signs saying "no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.” Id.,at __ (slip op., at 12). Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public. The Court also holds that the company has arightto posta notice that says, “no [wedding websites] will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.”

 

[Rogue AI]

The degenerates brought this on themselves, particularly with the web design nonsense. Web design can be done anywhere in the world that is online, the only purpose of this lawsuit was an immature attempt to force somebody to validate their lifestyle choices. Pretending this will suddenly expand to race or ethnicity is ludicrous, just a childish lashing out by the emotionally stunted.

 

[hadit]

Is the comedian a public business under the law?

They accept payment for presenting their art, just like a web designer, baker, or graphic artist.

The message is the same, the only difference is the client.

Musicians don't like certain politicians using their music on the campaign trail. Same message, different client. Without this ruling, they ultimately could be compelled to do so.

 

[Coyote]

They accept payment for presenting their art, just like a web designer, baker, or graphic artist.

Unless they are a business, public accommodations laws wouldn’t apply.

Musicians don't like certain politicians using their music on the campaign trail. Same message, different client. Without this ruling, they ultimately could be compelled to do so.

Politicians aren’t a protected class.

 

[Coyote]

The degenerates brought this on themselves, particularly with the web design nonsense. Web design can be done anywhere in the world that is online, the only purpose of this lawsuit was an immature attempt to force somebody to validate their lifestyle choices. Pretending this will suddenly expand to race or ethnicity is ludicrous, just a childish lashing out by the emotionally stunted.

No one was forced to do anything. The entire case was about theoreticals. It never happened. In any other situation, it would have been thrown out for lack of standing.

 

[progressive hunter]

How long will it be before some business refuses service to black people because they say it's against the owner's religion?

How long before an employer gets to refuse to hire a woman because the business owner's religious belief is that a woman should be at home serving her husband and raising children?

And how many other laws will get to be ignored on the basis of a religious claim?

what gets me is that who would want to force someone to provide them anything knowing they hate them???

would a black person trust a KKK ran burger joint to make them a burger??


or a gay person trust a cake from someone that hates gays??


better to let them advertise they hate someone and then you know to avoid them,,,

 

[Rogue AI]

No one was forced to do anything. The entire case was about theoreticals. It never happened. In any other situation, it would have been thrown out for lack of standing.

It has happened in the case of bakers and others. Spare us the theatrics. This has always been about forcing compliance on anyone who disagreed with the degenerate agenda.

 

[justoffal]

How long will it be before some business refuses service to black people because they say it's against the owner's religion?

Never happen ... And if it does it will never be supported.

 

[Oddball]

"New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion," she said. "This is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar. When the civil rights and women's rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims."


Five years ago this Court recognized the "general rule" that religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage “do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n, 584 U.S. __, _ (2018) (slip 0p. at 9). The Court also recognized the “serious stigma” that would result if“purveyors of goods and services who abject to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons” were “allowed to put up signs saying "no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.” Id.,at __ (slip op., at 12). Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public. The Court also holds that the company has arightto posta notice that says, “no [wedding websites] will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.”

"....a protected class."....i.e. special exclusive "rights".

Now rights are equal to all....Suck on it.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Musicians don't like certain politicians using their music on the campaign trail. Same message, different client. Without this ruling, they ultimately could be compelled to do so.

That's not even a remotely close comparison. The primary issue with politicians using music in their campaigns is copyright infringement. You have to obtain a license in order to use someone else's protected work.

 

[Invisibleflash]

How long will it be before some business refuses service to black people because they say it's against the owner's religion?

How long before an employer gets to refuse to hire a woman because the business owner's religious belief is that a woman should be at home serving her husband and raising children?

And how many other laws will get to be ignored on the basis of a religious claim?

Don't know, nor care. If the queers had any brains, they would go to a baker that was high on queer to bake their cake or queer web designer and not try to force their mental illness on everyone under the sun.

The queers and racist blacks better pray America never implodes. They as groups have worked tirelessly to destroy America. With no more rule of law what do you think will happen to these dem scum?

You see it is not because they are queer or black...it is because as groups 90% of queers and blacks vote dem...90% of them vote reliably to destroy America.

 

[justoffal]

"....a protected class."....i.e. special exclusive "rights".

Now rights are equal to all....Suck on it.

They keep trying blame gaps in performance on racism. But then the Asians showed up and blew that all to hell.

If they can't prove that it's racism then they are left with the horrible conclusion that it is inherent genealogy that is at the root of the problem. Never wanting to accept that they will continue to try to adjust the real world to make unrealistic goals that will never be reached no matter how desperately you try to accommodate.

In short the complaint will never go away nor will the efforts to correct it. The only thing you can do is eliminate the process and let people do whatever they can do.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Don't know, nor care. If the queers had any brains, they would go to a baker that was high on queer to bake their cake or queer web designer and not try to force their mental illness on everyone under the sun.

The queers and racist blacks better pray America never implodes. They as groups have worked tirelessly to destroy America. With no more rule of law what do you think will happen to these dem scum?

You see it is not because they are queer or black...it is because as groups 90% of queers and blacks vote dem...90% of them vote reliably to destroy America.

View attachment 800809

A teacher's union member on the floor being bludgeoned by Democratic constituency.

 

[hadit]

Unless they are a business, public accommodations laws wouldn’t apply.

At if they are, they could be compelled, without this ruling.

Politicians aren’t a protected class.

But religion is, and if a hard-core Muslim running for a local school board wanted to use Barbra Streisand's music, she would have to allow him to, without this ruling.

 

[hadit]

That's not even a remotely close comparison. The primary issue with politicians using music in their campaigns is copyright infringement. You have to obtain a license in order to use someone else's protected work.

And, without this ruling, the artist would be compelled to grant them the license.

 

[dblack]

How long will it be before some business refuses service to black people because they say it's against the owner's religion?

How long before an employer gets to refuse to hire a woman because the business owner's religious belief is that a woman should be at home serving her husband and raising children?

And how many other laws will get to be ignored on the basis of a religious claim?

Have you read the decision? Despite the headlines, the Court didn't rule that it was freedom of religion issue. They focused on the freedom speech question. That's better than making up another religious exemption, but these laws need to be wiped entirely.

 

[BackAgain]

How long will it be before some business refuses service to black people because they say it's against the owner's religion?

How long before an employer gets to refuse to hire a woman because the business owner's religious belief is that a woman should be at home serving her husband and raising children?

And how many other laws will get to be ignored on the basis of a religious claim?

 

[Coyote]

At if they are, they could be compelled, without this ruling.

But religion is, and if a hard-core Muslim running for a local school board wanted to use Barbra Streisand's music, she would have to allow him to, without this ruling.

No. This ruling has no effect on copyrights.