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

[EvilCat Breath]

Fine.... Then let them get a wedding cake. It doesn't have to have a specific theme. It can just be a wedding cake.
It doesn't have to say Adam and Steve on it.

The baker should just have gone to the cake case, got out a buttercream with the pink flowers. Hand it over. "Here's your wedding cake."

 

[Rigby5]

I agree with Gorsuch.

In what way?
Since Gorsuch only said nonsense in my opinion, you should be a little more difinitive.
Like how is filling in a website app template, a free speech issue at all?
It is done alone, in silence.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I agree with Gorsuch.

Wonderful. How about that for a conversation killer? Bye

 

[Rigby5]

You can't be serious.

Serious about what?
Web sites are not nearly as artistic as a cake, where you have to carefully draw their names with a frosting gun.

 

[HikerGuy83]

And he is clearly wrong because doing a web site is a silent activity, alone, sitting in front of a computer for about 20 minutes.

You seem to miss the heart of the argument.

And no one has the right to speak what they think about someone else's wedding.

Really ? You are seriously going to make that claim ?

 

[scruffy]

If you think it's a lie that copyright infringement is illegal than I don't know what to tell you, other than to stop breathing.

That's not what you said.

You lie YET AGAIN.

You know no other way.

Therefore you have no credibility.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You can't be serious.

He thinks all web sites are from Go Daddy. My son is a web developer for a major company. He uses several languages, Angular, React, C+, JQuery, etc. That's custom. If someone wants a template web page just get the app and spend 15 minutes putting it together.

It's like custom invitations. If Staples is too pedestrian try Vista print. They can come up with custom designs from templates. But, if you want each invitation written by hand in Calligraphy with watercolor love birds, that's an artist.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You seem to miss the heart of the argument.



Really ? You are seriously going to make that claim ?

He thinks the Supreme Court is wrong because he knows better.

 

[Rigby5]

Or maybe they are following the Constitution.

Civil war ? Hyperbole much ?

The constitution says discrimination is illegal.
{...

Fourteenth Amendment​

Section 1​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...}

 

[scruffy]

He thinks the Supreme Court is wrong because he knows better.

Most of us do.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The constitution says discrimination is illegal.
{...

Fourteenth Amendment​

Section 1​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...}

Wrong moron.

That amendment applies to government not individual citizens who may discriminate as they wish

 

[Rigby5]

He thinks all web sites are from Go Daddy. My son is a web developer for a major company. He uses several languages, Angular, React, C+, JQuery, etc. That's custom. If someone wants a template web page just get the app and spend 15 minutes putting it together.

It's like custom invitations. If Staples is too pedestrian try Vista print. They can come up with custom designs from templates. But, if you want each invitation written by hand in Calligraphy with watercolor love birds, that's an artist.

This was not "invitations" but just the generic web site.
And that is the point of why an actual case should have been required.
What the customer actually wants changes the effect on the provider.
For example, what if there was absolutely nothing that allowed anyone to infer it was a gay wedding?
In contrast, what if the customer wanted nude images?
Huge difference.
So a ruling without an actual case, should be impossible.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Most of us do.

No. You just disagree. Going into business confers a degree of slavery. You do what you're told and you're told by the state.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This was not "invitations" but just the generic web site.
And that is the point of why an actual case should have been required.
What the customer actually wants changes the effect on the provider.
For example, what if there was absolutely nothing that allowed anyone to infer it was a gay wedding?
In contrast, what if the customer wanted nude images?
Huge difference.
So a ruling without an actual case, should be impossible.

Should be. But since it's looking for an injunction doesn't need to be. Not required.

 

[Soupnazi630]

This was not "invitations" but just the generic web site.
And that is the point of why an actual case should have been required.
What the customer actually wants changes the effect on the provider.
For example, what if there was absolutely nothing that allowed anyone to infer it was a gay wedding?
In contrast, what if the customer wanted nude images?
Huge difference.
So a ruling without an actual case, should be impossible.

All irrelevant

It was a correct ruling

 

[HikerGuy83]

Serious about what?
Web sites are not nearly as artistic as a cake, where you have to carefully draw their names with a frosting gun.

 

[scruffy]

No. You just disagree. Going into business confers a degree of slavery. You do what you're told and you're told by the state.

Of course. Business is regulated, it says yo right in the Constitution. What's your point?

 

[HikerGuy83]

The constitution says discrimination is illegal.
{...

Fourteenth Amendment​

Section 1​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...}

Colorado should not be making laws that infringe upon people's religous beliefs.

Bye.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

No one should ever ever EVER tell an artist what to create.

 

[HikerGuy83]

This was not "invitations" but just the generic web site.
And that is the point of why an actual case should have been required.
What the customer actually wants changes the effect on the provider.
For example, what if there was absolutely nothing that allowed anyone to infer it was a gay wedding?
In contrast, what if the customer wanted nude images?
Huge difference.
So a ruling without an actual case, should be impossible.

There was a case.

She's been pushing it since 2016.

Colorado ruled against her twicce.