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

[Rye Catcher]

Yes, a solid reminder.

If they were smarter, they wouldn't be liberals.

LOL: Liberals are much smarter than the faux conservatives and Trumpanzees those who seem not to think, they emote.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The web designer cannot be compelled to express an opinion on something to which they have a sincere religious objection.

So, if the Deli owner has a sincere religious objection to serving infidels, aka white people, they should not be forced to do so....correct?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Expressing opinions is CONTENT, not design. If the GRAPHIC DESIGNER is designing websites and selling them to others, the customers are ones who will use that product to express their own opinion. You can't refuse to sell paper to someone because you don't like what the person might right on that paper.

This court found that designing a website is artistic expression and they artist does not have to express support for something they object to.

Selling paper is not expressive goods.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

So, if the Deli owner has a sincere religious objection to serving infidels, aka white people, they should not be forced to do so....correct?

Is serving infidels considered unique expressive goods within the meaning of this ruling? No. Should a Muslim artist be compelled to paint a portrait even though Allah forbids depictions of living things? Even though the artist paints many pictures and sells them.

Read the ruling this is not about public accommodation. This is about the compelled speech of a provider of unique expressive goods.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Is serving infidels considered unique expressive goods within the meaning of this ruling? No. Should a Muslim artist be compelled to paint a portrait even though Allah forbids depictions of living things? Even though the artist paints many pictures and sells them.

Read the ruling this is not about public accommodation. This is about the compelled speech of a provider of unique expressive goods.

Ask any chef and they will tell you that to them cooking is no different than a artist making a painting or a web designer making a web page.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Ask any chef and they will tell you that to them cooking is no different than a artist making a painting or a web designer making a web page.

You have gone beyond your original example. Can a Jewish chef be compelled to create recipes for barbecued pork?

Serving customers in a restaurant is not providing expressive goods. Writing recipes is.

 

[Soupnazi630]

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?

Who cares?

How long will it be before someone refuses to do business with a christian or wiccan?

One could play that game all day.

Such public accomodation laws are contradictory and rooted in lies. They need to be overturned.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

This court found that designing a website is artistic expression and they artist does not have to express support for something they object to.

Selling paper is not expressive goods.

Designing a website may be an artistic expression. But WEBSITE DESIGN does not include deciding what the website will say.

And that is the point. A wedding website is not a gay wedding website until someone adds specific CONTENT. You can design stationary, and that would constitute an artistic expression. But the customer who buys the stationary is the one who puts in the content.

So if a business can refuse to sell a WEBSITE DESIGN to someone because the designer has a religious objection to the content the customer will insert, then someone selling stationary can also do the same thing. And for that matter, a restaurant owner can refuse to sell food to a black person if the owner professes a religious objection to the black person being there. And it goes on, and on, and on.

 

[whitehall]

"How long will it be"? This isn't political discourse, it's a crazy rant

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The o.p. is a flat out lie.

At least there is a great deal of consistency in that.

 

[JWBooth]

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

As it should be.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Can a Jewish chef be compelled to create recipes for barbecued pork?

Nope, nor should they be compelled to serve a man and a woman who are not married nor should they be compelled to serve a Christian who blames them for killing Jesus

Serving customers in a restaurant is not providing expressive goods. Writing recipes is.

I disagree, I think both provide expressive goods.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Designing a website may be an artistic expression. But WEBSITE DESIGN does not include deciding what the website will say.

And that is the point. A wedding website is not a gay wedding website until someone adds specific CONTENT. You can design stationary, and that would constitute an artistic expression. But the customer who buys the stationary is the one who puts in the content.

So if a business can refuse to sell a WEBSITE DESIGN to someone because the designer has a religious objection to the content the customer will insert, then someone selling stationary can also do the same thing. And for that matter, a restaurant owner can refuse to sell food to a black person if the owner professes a religious objection to the black person being there. And it goes on, and on, and on.

You are just flat wrong. You are conflating web design providers where customers provide their own content, to web site creation where the customer expects the designer to create the content from the customer's concept. What you are contemplating as web design is Go Daddy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, I’m talking about your belief system.

However, if they were, don’t they have a right to just like the website designer?

Not when protected by laws designed to allow them freedom from lawsuits.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Nope, nor should they be compelled to serve a man and a woman who are not married nor should they be compelled to serve a Christian who blames them for killing Jesus




I disagree, I think both provide expressive goods.

You can think whatever you like. Serving customers in a restaurant is not providing unique expressive goods within the meaning of this ruling.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You can think whatever you like. Serving customers in a restaurant is not providing unique expressive goods within the meaning of this ruling.

Which is the problem with the ruling.

 

[AMart]

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?

Very few if any. A business wants your money you ass pirate bigot.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Which is the problem with the ruling.

Then go to law school, get appointed judge, get on the Supreme Court and make your own rulings. This ruling was completely spot on. It has nothing to do with public accommodation laws.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Then go to law school, get appointed judge, get on the Supreme Court and make your own rulings. This ruling was completely spot on. It has nothing to do with public accommodation laws.

So, one is not allowed to disagree with a ruling unless they have law school, get appointed judge, get on the Supreme Court?

You have never, ever, ever disagreed with any ruling by the SCOTUS?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

So, one is not allowed to disagree with a ruling unless they have law school, get appointed judge, get on the Supreme Court?

You have never, ever, ever disagreed with any ruling by the SCOTUS?

I always understand the ruling. I disagreed with the Obergefell ruling but understood the basis for that ruling. See, unlike you, I read the rulings. That way I don't do anything so foolish as to fantasize that this ruling has anything to do with public accommodation laws.