Supreme Court allows certain businesses to discriminate who they will serve

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 135
Topic's author
#1
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said that because Lorie Smith’s designs are recognized as speech, the state cannot compel her to create a message she does not believe in, even if she offers her talents for hire.
So this time, instead of saying a business can discriminate based on their religious beliefs, like the cake for a gay couple, this time they said the business can discriminate based on their right to free speech (or not exercise free speech) for a website for a gay wedding. This is truly a stretch of the imagination.

So you can’t deny someone a seat at a restaurant because they are gay.
You cannot deny someone a hotel room because they are a gay couple.

But a creative cake or a “speech” containing webpage, those can be denied to someone for being gay. Ridiculous. 

#2
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Things get silly when trying to force interactions people don't want to have.
Topic's author
#3
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said her colleagues were abandoning principles of inclusion and protection for gay people that past Supreme Courts extended to women and people of color during the civil rights and women’s rights movements.


Topic's author
#4
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Things get silly when trying to force interactions people don't want to have.
Silly you say? Like forcing schools to accept black students?

Forcing bus lines to allow blacks to sit anywhere there is a seat available instead of the back of the bus?

Next thing you know, we will be using the same drinking fountain! White power
#5
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Activists judges disgust me, not because they fail to do their job and follow the law; but because their morals for which they abandon their duty are always so shallow and soaked in hypocrisy.

"balance the interests" those fuckers couldn't balance mass standards. Excuse the language.
Topic's author
#6
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
The government should no more punish Lorie for speaking consistent with her beliefs about marriage than it should punish an LGBT graphic designer for declining to criticize same-sex marriage,” Waggoner said in a statement. “If we desire freedom for ourselves, we must defend it for others.”
Lol, if a gay graphic designer declined to criticize same-sex marriage for a client, they would be refusing the client for being a bigot, not for being heterosexual.

#7
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Lol, if gay graphic designer declined to criticize same-sex marriage for a client they would be refusing the client for being a bigot, not for being heterosexual.
Two can play that game. Suppose the designer turned down the couple because of all that gay sex they were having, not for being homosexual.


Topic's author
#8
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Suppose the designer turned down the couple because of all that gay sex they were having, not for being homosexual.
Exactly how would the designer know anything about a couples’ sexual activity?



#9
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Suppose the designer turned down the couple because of all that gay sex they were having, not for being homosexual.
Exactly how would the designer know anything about a couples’ sexual activity?
How would the deviant designer know anything about bigotry?
#10
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Can you be forced to make a anti gay webpage?
#11
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,076
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
They can't refuse to serve gay people, but they can refuse to endorse certain messages they disagree with. They can't refuse to sell gay people a design that they've sold before to someone else, but they don't have to make a custom design if it's not a design they'd make for anyone. I wouldn't be surprised if they've already made plenty of websites for gay people having to do with completely different topics.
#12
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,076
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Vegasgiants
That's a good comparison to use. Few people tend to realize that the issue is the speech itself, not which customer is being served.
Topic's author
#13
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
How would the deviant designer know anything about bigotry?
That’s dumb

Topic's author
#14
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Vegasgiants
Can you be forced to make a anti gay webpage?
See again, no.

Because you are not declining to make the page because the client is heterosexual, you are declining to make the page because the page is homophobic.



Topic's author
#15
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Savant
That's a good comparison to use. 
No, it’s not

Few people tend to realize that the issue is the speech itself, not which customer is being served.
That’s what Gorsuch tried to argue in his opinion but it is flawed.

If you make a webpage for some gay couple THAT IS NOT YOUR SPEECH
#16
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,076
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Because you are not declining to make the page because the client is heterosexual, you are declining to make the page because the page is homophobic.
That's what happened in this case. The designer objected to the design itself, not the fact that the customer was gay.

If you make a webpage for some gay couple THAT IS NOT YOUR SPEECH
It is if the particular webpage includes messages you disagree with. We already established that views on the webpage count as speech (such as if the webpage is anti-gay).
Topic's author
#17
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Savant
The designer objected to the design itself, not the fact that the customer was gay.
That’s bullshit. That’s like saying if you hired a contractor to paint your house pink, the contractor is choosing to paint your house pink. The reality is you are choosing to paint your house pink.

#18
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,076
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The reality is you are choosing to paint your house pink.
If you hire a Jewish designer to paint your house with Nazi symbols, the designer can refuse because they don't want to endorse views they disagree with. They can also refuse to paint houses pink. People can refuse to express speech even if the idea doesn't come from them.
Topic's author
#19
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Savant
It is if the particular webpage includes messages you disagree with.
No, it’s not. It’s not the web designer’s speech.

#20
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,076
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It’s not the web designer’s speech.
It's not their idea, but they can refuse to express that speech by making the webpage. Even if the speech isn't their idea, they don't have to repeat it.
Topic's author
#21
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Savant
If you hire a Jewish designer to paint your house with Nazi symbols, the designer can refuse because they don't want to endorse views they disagree with.
Or a non Jewish designer. Because it’s appropriate to not support Nazis. It is inappropriate to not support gay marriage. How do we know this? Gay marriage is legal in the United States. Being a Nazi is universally unacceptable. Get it genius?

#22
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,076
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It is inappropriate to not support gay marriage.
Yet people are under no legal obligation to support it. Do you really think people should only be allowed to support legal things? That's a bad precedent to set. Gay marriage was illegal not too long ago.
#23
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Because it’s appropriate to not support Nazis. It is inappropriate to not support gay marriage.
and there we have the root of the matter. No principles, nothing about the constitution or the civil rights act. Just the plain old fact that you believe the designer is wrong.

Judges are a lot like you, but they are excellent at hiding it.
Topic's author
#24
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
and there we have the root of the matter. No principles, nothing about the constitution or the civil rights act. Just the plain old fact that you believe the designer is wrong.
It is principle and law that says you can’t discriminate against people with your business. You can choose to not marry a person of the same sex, you can tell your children it’s wrong, you can refuse to go to a gay wedding you have been invited to, but you cannot use you business to express your bigotry.

I own several rental properties in Florida. Should I be able to refuse to rent to people who are divorced on religious grounds? You know God hates divorce.
Should hotels be able to deny a divorced person a room on religious grounds?

Topic's author
#25
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Savant
Yet people are under no legal obligation to support it. 
Not personally, just like people can choose to be racist. But you can’t exercise that choice is matters of business or public accommodation.

Topic's author
#26
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Savant
That's a bad precedent to set. Gay marriage was illegal not too long ago.
Right, so the Supreme Court is making a mistake creating a “free speech” loophole for bigots to exploit.

Topic's author
#27
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Savant
Do you really think people should only be allowed to support legal things?
Which side of the argument are you making here, both?

People should be REQUIRED to support legal things. It is not a choice.

Topic's author
#28
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Savant
It's not their idea, but they can refuse to express that speech by making the webpage.
They are in the idea expression business. This couple wasn’t asking the designer to make a website explaining why gay marriage should be accepted by society or why gay marriages should be legal. It was a webpage for their wedding. Their personal wedding day.

#29
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So what?  Free speech means I have to create something I don't believe in.....right?
#30
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So I have to make a web page for a nazi themed wedding?