NEWS FLASH!!
- Genesis 9:18-27: This passage tells the story of Noah's curse on Ham, one of his sons. The curse says that Ham's descendants will be slaves to Noah's other sons. This passage has been used to justify slavery and racism.
- Leviticus 18:22: This passage prohibits male same-sex sexual relations. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.
- 1 Timothy 2:11-12: This passage says that women should not teach or have authority over men. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against women in leadership roles.
That's what they want. I'm not even going to touch on what other religious groups want at this time because they aren't operating at the SCOTUS level (yet)
Luke 5:
36 He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.
Since it’s an entirely fake case, there is an opportunity for Colorado to challenge the ruling, which it’s expected to do—and which could cause the USSC to throw out the case and the ruling. I am flabbergasted and outraged that this this was not discovered by Colorado before it reached its Supreme Court.What is the difference between a minister and a web designer being compelled to celebrate the wedding of a gay couple?No church in the US has ever been required to marry a gay couple. Organized religion tends to get a lot of exemptions. The church can still deny women entry into the priesthood, for another example. Wall of separation, and all that.Imagine a gay couple approaches the minister or priest of a denomination which is known to oppose gay marriage and asks that clergy member to conduct their wedding.
No. As far as I'm concerned, the more people the church alienates, the better.Does anyone believe that the priest or minister should be compelled to perform the wedding ceremony?
The church and its minister are entities engaging in religious speech, which enjoys robust protection under the First Amendment. Conversely, the web designer, before the recent court rulings, operated in the sphere of commercial speech, providing website creation services to clients. Commercial speech is not as stringently safeguarded by the First Amendment as religious speech.
In other words a web designer's advertisment that does not include restrictions on designing websites for same sex marriage up front would be considered misleading commercial speech. However, If they advertised with religious connotations it would have been protected speech.
Under the new interpretation, there's no distinction between the speech of a minister in a church and commercial speech & they didn't have to use a red herring like Nazis to get there.
Edit: Lets not forget that the web designer's injury was faked.
Many businesses are based upon freedom of speech. By your logic, a newspaper could be compelled to parrot the teachings of anything registered as a church. Or by any protected group.No one has ever been compelled to be a wedding website designer. No one has a right to be a wedding website designer. Someone who finds interracial marriage repugnant can drive a forklift for a living.That involves YOUR free speech and you cannot be compelled to express ideas or sentiments that you find repugnant.
And that is precisely the point here. The right that one has is freedom of speech and expression, not a right to run a business. For that, one has to obey the laws that govern business practices, and one of those is a prohibition on discrimination against protected classes of citizens.
Eh, I rarely attend church but years ago, one of my kids was friends with a minister’s kid ( lovely people and good friends) and actually sang in the choir. We went to hear the choir sing one Sunday and that passage from Luke was part of the sermon, the point being exactly that the New Testament took precedence over the Old Testament. The New Testament focuses on love and not fire and brimstone. This is something that many evangelicals seem to have forgotten.NEWS FLASH!!
- Genesis 9:18-27: This passage tells the story of Noah's curse on Ham, one of his sons. The curse says that Ham's descendants will be slaves to Noah's other sons. This passage has been used to justify slavery and racism.
- Leviticus 18:22: This passage prohibits male same-sex sexual relations. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.
- 1 Timothy 2:11-12: This passage says that women should not teach or have authority over men. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against women in leadership roles.
That's what they want. I'm not even going to touch on what other religious groups want at this time because they aren't operating at the SCOTUS level (yet)
Luke 5:
36 He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.
I wouldn't equate the repeal of laws with their transformation, but everyone is entitled to their own perspective.
Web design is not the same thing as publishing. There is a line somewhere between publishing, hosting content, and pasting in content as requested by a client. Whereever that line is doesn't matter to me in this case because the case we have here is a christofascist camel sticking its nose under the tent under the guise of protecting speech.
Lol, no they couldn't. All they have to do is treat black people, white people, and gay people the same.Many businesses are based upon freedom of speech. By your logic, a newspaper could be compelled to parrot the teachings of anything registered as a church. Or by any protected group.No one has ever been compelled to be a wedding website designer. No one has a right to be a wedding website designer. Someone who finds interracial marriage repugnant can drive a forklift for a living.That involves YOUR free speech and you cannot be compelled to express ideas or sentiments that you find repugnant.
And that is precisely the point here. The right that one has is freedom of speech and expression, not a right to run a business. For that, one has to obey the laws that govern business practices, and one of those is a prohibition on discrimination against protected classes of citizens.
But it’s not ‘pasting in content as requested by client.’ Clients who are capable of creating their own content would use a template.Web design is not the same thing as publishing. There is a line somewhere between publishing, hosting content, and pasting in content as requested by a client. Whereever that line is doesn't matter to me in this case because the case we have here is a christofascist camel sticking its nose under the tent under the guise of protecting speech.
Compelling someone to create/express something which they find repugnant is a violation of free speech.For the umpteenth time, anti-discrimination laws do not prohibit free speech.Free speech must be free even when it is repugnant.
The anti-discrimination laws that were in place for the last 80 years did not suppress free speech. Bigotry has been alive and well and expressed freely during that time.
And who's doing this? The right. The same right that just radically altered our anti-discrimination laws.Free speech is under serious attack with the newly revived pastime of banning books, forbidding medics professionals from counseling their patients, forbidding teachers from saying gay or teaching actual history, not the aptly described white washed version.
Next step is to require businesses to post restricted consumers up front. I can't wait to see the no niggers allowed signs come back. Wow-wee! So much fun.
Eh, I rarely attend church but years ago, one of my kids was friends with a minister’s kid ( lovely people and good friends) and actually sang in the choir. We went to hear the choir sing one Sunday and that passage from Luke was part of the sermon, the point being exactly that the New Testament took precedence over the Old Testament. The New Testament focuses on love and not fire and brimstone. This is something that many evangelicals seem to have forgotten.NEWS FLASH!!
- Genesis 9:18-27: This passage tells the story of Noah's curse on Ham, one of his sons. The curse says that Ham's descendants will be slaves to Noah's other sons. This passage has been used to justify slavery and racism.
- Leviticus 18:22: This passage prohibits male same-sex sexual relations. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.
- 1 Timothy 2:11-12: This passage says that women should not teach or have authority over men. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against women in leadership roles.
That's what they want. I'm not even going to touch on what other religious groups want at this time because they aren't operating at the SCOTUS level (yet)
Luke 5:
36 He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.
I wouldn't equate the repeal of laws with their transformation, but everyone is entitled to their own perspective.
I think that modern evangelical reliance on the Old Testament explains a lot about their political positions.Eh, I rarely attend church but years ago, one of my kids was friends with a minister’s kid ( lovely people and good friends) and actually sang in the choir. We went to hear the choir sing one Sunday and that passage from Luke was part of the sermon, the point being exactly that the New Testament took precedence over the Old Testament. The New Testament focuses on love and not fire and brimstone. This is something that many evangelicals seem to have forgotten.NEWS FLASH!!
- Genesis 9:18-27: This passage tells the story of Noah's curse on Ham, one of his sons. The curse says that Ham's descendants will be slaves to Noah's other sons. This passage has been used to justify slavery and racism.
- Leviticus 18:22: This passage prohibits male same-sex sexual relations. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.
- 1 Timothy 2:11-12: This passage says that women should not teach or have authority over men. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against women in leadership roles.
That's what they want. I'm not even going to touch on what other religious groups want at this time because they aren't operating at the SCOTUS level (yet)
Luke 5:
36 He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.
I wouldn't equate the repeal of laws with their transformation, but everyone is entitled to their own perspective.
The Supreme Court is interpreting law in a manner that seemingly upholds both a religious institution's rights and draws from Old Testament principles. You've supported this decision by drawing a parallel between the protected class of citizens and those responsible for the Holocaust, ostensibly to clarify the court's ruling. Now, what precisely are you asserting? Are you suggesting that the court's reliance on Old Testament principles for their decision is misguided?
This seems to be one of the bigger issues. I remember the Michael Newdow "Under God" case... the trial... the talk... the decision, 'no standing'. CJ Roberts seemed pissed in one case where it was suggested there was no standing to take the case and he indicated he had the right.
Edit: Lets not forget that the web designer's injury was faked.
Yes, as I’ve mentioned, the fake case gives Colorado the opportunity to challenge the USSC.This seems to be one of the bigger issues. I remember the Michael Newdow "Under God" case... the trial... the talk... the decision, 'no standing'. CJ Roberts seemed pissed in one case where it was suggested there was no standing to take the case and he indicated he had the right.
Edit: Lets not forget that the web designer's injury was faked.
Standing is a technicality that seems to have disappeared as long as the conservatives watch to redact Constitutional Law and redefine words.
I don't go to church too often, but I've never seen an LLC or Inc go to church.I think that modern evangelical reliance on the Old Testament explains a lot about their political positions.Eh, I rarely attend church but years ago, one of my kids was friends with a minister’s kid ( lovely people and good friends) and actually sang in the choir. We went to hear the choir sing one Sunday and that passage from Luke was part of the sermon, the point being exactly that the New Testament took precedence over the Old Testament. The New Testament focuses on love and not fire and brimstone. This is something that many evangelicals seem to have forgotten.NEWS FLASH!!
- Genesis 9:18-27: This passage tells the story of Noah's curse on Ham, one of his sons. The curse says that Ham's descendants will be slaves to Noah's other sons. This passage has been used to justify slavery and racism.
- Leviticus 18:22: This passage prohibits male same-sex sexual relations. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.
- 1 Timothy 2:11-12: This passage says that women should not teach or have authority over men. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against women in leadership roles.
That's what they want. I'm not even going to touch on what other religious groups want at this time because they aren't operating at the SCOTUS level (yet)
Luke 5:
36 He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.
I wouldn't equate the repeal of laws with their transformation, but everyone is entitled to their own perspective.
The Supreme Court is interpreting law in a manner that seemingly upholds both a religious institution's rights and draws from Old Testament principles. You've supported this decision by drawing a parallel between the protected class of citizens and those responsible for the Holocaust, ostensibly to clarify the court's ruling. Now, what precisely are you asserting? Are you suggesting that the court's reliance on Old Testament principles for their decision is misguided?
The purpose of protected classes is to ensure that no one is denied services or the opportunity to equal protection under the law on the basis of inborn characteristics ( and some chosen ones).
But the Constitution also guarantees freedom of ( and when chosen, from) religion.
I have a couple different issues with that.You see it as bigotry ( and I agree that it is bigotry) that is not protected but I see it as a conflict between protecting the rights of a class of individuals who have faced discrimination and and protecting the right of religious freedom and freedom of expression.
The very first amendment is freedom of speech and freedom of/from religion. I think that trumps the need to protect someone from refusal for services, protected class or not.
No it doesn't. What part of the SCOTUS consists of 6 far-right activist judges is hard to understand? SCOTUS can rule however they want. This court have proven that, with nonsensical claims, incomplete or inaccurate history, complete disregard for precedence, etc... So what is one more time in doing that?Yes, as I’ve mentioned, the fake case gives Colorado the opportunity to challenge the USSC.This seems to be one of the bigger issues. I remember the Michael Newdow "Under God" case... the trial... the talk... the decision, 'no standing'. CJ Roberts seemed pissed in one case where it was suggested there was no standing to take the case and he indicated he had the right.Edit: Lets not forget that the web designer's injury was faked.
Standing is a technicality that seems to have disappeared as long as the conservatives watch to redact Constitutional Law and redefine words.
If by "compel", you mean "given a choice to treat everyone equally or find a new line of work", the difference is the "wall of separation".What is the difference between a minister and a web designer being compelled to celebrate the wedding of a gay couple?No church in the US has ever been required to marry a gay couple. Organized religion tends to get a lot of exemptions. The church can still deny women entry into the priesthood, for another example. Wall of separation, and all that.Imagine a gay couple approaches the minister or priest of a denomination which is known to oppose gay marriage and asks that clergy member to conduct their wedding.
No. As far as I'm concerned, the more people the church alienates, the better.Does anyone believe that the priest or minister should be compelled to perform the wedding ceremony?
Why are you flabbergasted and outraged? You agree with the ruling. These are incongruous.I am flabbergasted and outraged that this this was not discovered by Colorado before it reached its Supreme Court.