Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[TomC]

Let me be concise, given your tendency to be verbose. Businesses aren't a protected class, and Scardina isn't denying service to a protected class.

Suppose she did.
Suppose a very Christian couple wanted a wedding website announcing their very Christian wedding. Complete with Jesus and Holy Family imagery. References to godly ProLifer vows to remain "open to life" no matter how large their brood got. Etc. Etc.
And they wanted a specific wedding website developer to craft the site. One who looked at their plans and said, "Neah. I don't wanna do it."
So, they go to Scardina and want her to file a lawsuit against the website developer. On the grounds that the website developer is discriminating against their religious beliefs.

Regardless of how stupid it would be to pick Scardina out of all the other scumbag lawyers, do you think Scardina should be required to do the lawsuit?

I don't. But that's just me.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights. It’s not pretty—in fact, it’s quite ugly in cases where someone discriminates on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc.

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

There is nothing to differentiate from. The general public is mandated to have access to both "already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual" equally. If you disagree with the mandate take it up with your local representative or utilize other options available to you, but don't pretend like you're being compelled to not take the liberty to operate privately, jet off to a nation that aligns more with your beliefs, & stopped from privately or publicly practicing your faith considering you have the option to run faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on your own.

WHERE does it specify already created/made/manufactured AND created specifically for an individual equally? Aside from your posts, I mean. It's the 'created specifically for an individual' part that is the issue, apparently with the current SCOTUS who seem to disagree with your interpretation.

Generally, businesses that provide services to the public can't refuse service based on protected characteristics. Anything classified as a service falls under this mandate.

Gosh!

Can you cite federal legislation that agrees with what you posted?

I believed we were discussing the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) and the SCOTUS' examination of its constitutionality. What gave you the impression I was referencing federal law in a conversation centered on state legislation?

I'd recommend being straightforward in our discussion instead of using indirect tactics. Are you trying to say that if it's not a federal law, it doesn't count as a law?

 

[Bomb#20]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights.

This takes for granted that anti-discrimination laws cover creative speech in the first place. The Colorado law appears to; but is there any evidence in the Civil Rights Act's congressional record to imply that Congress ever intended to classify composing advocacy for customers' agendas as "public accommodations"?

 

[Toni]

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

Yeah, that's why Australia is indistinguishable from North Korea.

You Americans don't half love your hyperbole, particularly with regards to your sacred Bill of Rights. It's just a dated list of legal principles of varying quality. The First Amendment isn't a bad principle, but it's not perfect, and it's certainly not an indispensable prerequisite for the very existence of legal rights for citizens.

It seems that the US inspired at least some of Australia’s constitution and bill of rights. However, We haven’t been under a monarchy for more than 250 years. Get back to me when y’all break free.

 

[Toni]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights. It’s not pretty—in fact, it’s quite ugly in cases where someone discriminates on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc.

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

There is nothing to differentiate from. The general public is mandated to have access to both "already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual" equally. If you disagree with the mandate take it up with your local representative or utilize other options available to you, but don't pretend like you're being compelled to not take the liberty to operate privately, jet off to a nation that aligns more with your beliefs, & stopped from privately or publicly practicing your faith considering you have the option to run faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on your own.

WHERE does it specify already created/made/manufactured AND created specifically for an individual equally? Aside from your posts, I mean. It's the 'created specifically for an individual' part that is the issue, apparently with the current SCOTUS who seem to disagree with your interpretation.

Generally, businesses that provide services to the public can't refuse service based on protected characteristics. Anything classified as a service falls under this mandate.

Gosh!

Can you cite federal legislation that agrees with what you posted?

I believed we were discussing the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) and the SCOTUS' examination of its constitutionality. What gave you the impression I was referencing federal law in a conversation centered on state legislation?

I'd recommend being straightforward in our discussion instead of using indirect tactics. Are you trying to say that if it's not a federal law, it doesn't count as a law?

The SCOTUS has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter.

 

[Gospel]

Did it look like I'm asking? Did you see a question mark? I'm assuming you probably still disagree, so I'm challenging you to cough up some empirical evidence for your claim.

What claim?

According to you, "Its primary purpose is to ensure that US citizens adhere to its provisions." According to it, there are about nine hundred things public officials must do and one thing US citizens must do. So show your work. Show some evidence that ensuring that US citizens adhere to its provisions is its primary purpose.

Ok seems I have to make myself clearing for the people in the back. I'd prefer not to take a side quest especially one that is not clearly related to the topic. I didn't intend to delve into but I can at least keep it brief. I only ask that you do the curtesy of tying it into the argument I've been making on this topic.

The Constitution was ratified as the supreme law of the land, and once established, its authority became binding on all states and their citizens.

I'd like to remain focused on the primary discussion regarding the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) and its review by the SCOTUS in the context of the web designer's case. Could you clarify how this question ties into our main topic before I delve into any tangential discussions?

 

[Gospel]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights. It’s not pretty—in fact, it’s quite ugly in cases where someone discriminates on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc.

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

There is nothing to differentiate from. The general public is mandated to have access to both "already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual" equally. If you disagree with the mandate take it up with your local representative or utilize other options available to you, but don't pretend like you're being compelled to not take the liberty to operate privately, jet off to a nation that aligns more with your beliefs, & stopped from privately or publicly practicing your faith considering you have the option to run faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on your own.

WHERE does it specify already created/made/manufactured AND created specifically for an individual equally? Aside from your posts, I mean. It's the 'created specifically for an individual' part that is the issue, apparently with the current SCOTUS who seem to disagree with your interpretation.

Generally, businesses that provide services to the public can't refuse service based on protected characteristics. Anything classified as a service falls under this mandate.

Gosh!

Can you cite federal legislation that agrees with what you posted?

I believed we were discussing the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) and the SCOTUS' examination of its constitutionality. What gave you the impression I was referencing federal law in a conversation centered on state legislation?

I'd recommend being straightforward in our discussion instead of using indirect tactics. Are you trying to say that if it's not a federal law, it doesn't count as a law?

The SCOTUS has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter.

And that's what we are discussing. Your point?

 

[Bomb#20]

Right. So what makes you think it's constitutional for those labeled "business owners" to be singled out for different treatment? Phillips doesn't get to compel Scardina to speak and create what Phillips wants by force of government; why would it be constitutional for Scardina to get to compel Phillips to speak and create what Scardina wants by force of government? The same rules we are all being compelled by are "(1) You have the right to remain silent." and "(2) When somebody won't say or create what you want, your legal recourse against him is limited to not paying him. The government will back your right not to pay him to the hilt, but will take no further action, because see (1)."

Let me be concise, given your tendency to be verbose. Businesses aren't a protected class, and Scardina isn't denying service to a protected class.

So when you wrote:

"Believing that certain mandates don't apply universally reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of equality embedded within the document. In essence, we are all being compelled by the same rules. To single out one group for different treatment is constitutionally counterintuitive."​

you were just blowing smoke out your ass? What you actually meant was:

"Believing that certain mandates don't apply universally reflects a fundamental correct understanding of the principle of inequality embedded within the document. In essence, we are all being compelled by the same rules about whom to protect and whom not to. To single out one 'protected class' for different treatment is constitutionally counterintuitive but to single out a class for different treatment is constitutionally intuitive provided we choose not to protect that class."?​

Thinking of antidiscrimination in terms of "protected classes" leads to illogical conclusions.

 

[Gospel]

Right. So what makes you think it's constitutional for those labeled "business owners" to be singled out for different treatment? Phillips doesn't get to compel Scardina to speak and create what Phillips wants by force of government; why would it be constitutional for Scardina to get to compel Phillips to speak and create what Scardina wants by force of government? The same rules we are all being compelled by are "(1) You have the right to remain silent." and "(2) When somebody won't say or create what you want, your legal recourse against him is limited to not paying him. The government will back your right not to pay him to the hilt, but will take no further action, because see (1)."

Let me be concise, given your tendency to be verbose. Businesses aren't a protected class, and Scardina isn't denying service to a protected class.

So when you wrote:

"Believing that certain mandates don't apply universally reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of equality embedded within the document. In essence, we are all being compelled by the same rules. To single out one group for different treatment is constitutionally counterintuitive."​

you were just blowing smoke out your ass? What you actually meant was:

"Believing that certain mandates don't apply universally reflects a fundamental correct understanding of the principle of inequality embedded within the document. In essence, we are all being compelled by the same rules about whom to protect and whom not to. To single out one 'protected class' for different treatment is constitutionally counterintuitive but to single out a class for different treatment is constitutionally intuitive provided we choose not to protect that class."?​

Thinking of antidiscrimnination in terms of "protected classes" leads to illogical conclusions.

Nah bruh. We're just seeing things differently on the anti-discrimination law's list of protected classes. And that 'smoke' you think you see? Is really a smudge on your cool-guy aviators, Maverick.

 

[Bomb#20]

Did it look like I'm asking? Did you see a question mark? I'm assuming you probably still disagree, so I'm challenging you to cough up some empirical evidence for your claim.

What claim?

According to you, "Its primary purpose is to ensure that US citizens adhere to its provisions." According to it, there are about nine hundred things public officials must do and one thing US citizens must do. So show your work. Show some evidence that ensuring that US citizens adhere to its provisions is its primary purpose.

Ok seems I have to make myself clearing for the people in the back. I'd prefer not to take a side quest especially one that is not clearly related to the topic. I didn't intend to delve into but I can at least keep it brief. I only ask that you do the curtesy of tying it into the argument I've been making on this topic.

The Constitution was ratified as the supreme law of the land, and once established, its authority became binding on all states and their citizens.

I'd like to remain focused on the primary discussion regarding the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) and its review by the SCOTUS in the context of the web designer's case. Could you clarify how this question ties into our main topic before I delve into any tangential discussions?

Sure thing. Toni wrote:

"That said, I do not believe that it furthers justice to compel speech, religion, creativity."​

You replied:

"If that's your stance, then you're essentially opposing the entire US Constitution. Its primary purpose is to ensure that US citizens adhere to its provisions."​

You're wrong. She's upholding the entire US Constitution; you're the one opposing it. The US Constitution's primary purpose is to ensure that public officials adhere to its provisions. Since one of the provisions is equal protection of the law, that means public officials are required to protect everyone's constitutional rights. One of those rights is the right not to have one's "speech, religion, creativity" compelled by the government. "Everyone" includes business owners. If a public official compels a business owner's "speech, religion, creativity", or anyone else's, then he is failing in his duty under the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say "equal protection of the law provided you're in a protected class".

Conversely, since the Constitution doesn't say word one about requiring business owners or any other private citizens to provide the public with equal protection of their personal services, a business owner who discriminates is in no way opposing the US Constitution. She's only opposing a bunch of public officials. The Constitution doesn't prohibit us from opposing public officials. The chief purpose of the First Amendment is to guarantee our right to oppose public officials.

 

[Gospel]

Did it look like I'm asking? Did you see a question mark? I'm assuming you probably still disagree, so I'm challenging you to cough up some empirical evidence for your claim.

What claim?

According to you, "Its primary purpose is to ensure that US citizens adhere to its provisions." According to it, there are about nine hundred things public officials must do and one thing US citizens must do. So show your work. Show some evidence that ensuring that US citizens adhere to its provisions is its primary purpose.

Ok seems I have to make myself clearing for the people in the back. I'd prefer not to take a side quest especially one that is not clearly related to the topic. I didn't intend to delve into but I can at least keep it brief. I only ask that you do the curtesy of tying it into the argument I've been making on this topic.

The Constitution was ratified as the supreme law of the land, and once established, its authority became binding on all states and their citizens.

I'd like to remain focused on the primary discussion regarding the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) and its review by the SCOTUS in the context of the web designer's case. Could you clarify how this question ties into our main topic before I delve into any tangential discussions?

Sure thing. Toni wrote:

"That said, I do not believe that it furthers justice to compel speech, religion, creativity."​

You replied:

"If that's your stance, then you're essentially opposing the entire US Constitution. Its primary purpose is to ensure that US citizens adhere to its provisions."​

You're wrong. She's upholding the entire US Constitution; you're the one opposing it. The US Constitution's primary purpose is to ensure that public officials adhere to its provisions. Since one of the provisions is equal protection of the law, that means public officials are required to protect everyone's constitutional rights. One of those rights is the right not to have one's "speech, religion, creativity" compelled by the government. "Everyone" includes business owners. If a public official compels a business owner's "speech, religion, creativity", or anyone else's, then he is failing in his duty under the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say "equal protection of the law provided you're in a protected class".

Conversely, since the Constitution doesn't say word one about requiring business owners or any other private citizens to provide the public with equal protection of their personal services, a business owner who discriminates is in no way opposing the US Constitution. She's only opposing a bunch of public officials. The Constitution doesn't prohibit us from opposing public officials. The chief purpose of the First Amendment is to guarantee our right to oppose public officials.

That quote was intentionally taken out of its original context. To grasp the reason behind my initial statement, one needs to consider the entire comment. It's evident that you're more focused on scoring points than engaging in a genuine discussion."

 

[Toni]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights. It’s not pretty—in fact, it’s quite ugly in cases where someone discriminates on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc.

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

There is nothing to differentiate from. The general public is mandated to have access to both "already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual" equally. If you disagree with the mandate take it up with your local representative or utilize other options available to you, but don't pretend like you're being compelled to not take the liberty to operate privately, jet off to a nation that aligns more with your beliefs, & stopped from privately or publicly practicing your faith considering you have the option to run faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on your own.

WHERE does it specify already created/made/manufactured AND created specifically for an individual equally? Aside from your posts, I mean. It's the 'created specifically for an individual' part that is the issue, apparently with the current SCOTUS who seem to disagree with your interpretation.

Generally, businesses that provide services to the public can't refuse service based on protected characteristics. Anything classified as a service falls under this mandate.

Gosh!

Can you cite federal legislation that agrees with what you posted?

I believed we were discussing the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) and the SCOTUS' examination of its constitutionality. What gave you the impression I was referencing federal law in a conversation centered on state legislation?

I'd recommend being straightforward in our discussion instead of using indirect tactics. Are you trying to say that if it's not a federal law, it doesn't count as a law?

The SCOTUS has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter.

And that's what we are discussing. Your point?

SCOTUS has the legal authority and power to supersede any state law.

 

[bilby]

It seems that the US inspired at least some of Australia’s constitution and bill of rights.

We don't have a "bill of rights", and our constitution almost exclusively concerns the mechanism of government - what the various houses and offices are responsible for, how they are elected (and how often), etc.

Constitutional rights for citizens simply are not a thing in Australian law.

 

[bilby]

We haven’t been under a monarchy for more than 250 years. Get back to me when y’all break free.

Why would I wish to "break free" from an institution whose sole impact on my life is to provide me with regular public holidays?

 

[Toni]

It seems that the US inspired at least some of Australia’s constitution and bill of rights.

We don't have a "bill of rights", and our constitution almost exclusively concerns the mechanism of government - what the various houses and offices are responsible for, how they are elected (and how often), etc.

Constitutional rights for citizens simply are not a thing in Australian law.

How sad.

 

[Toni]

We haven’t been under a monarchy for more than 250 years. Get back to me when y’all break free.

Why would I wish to "break free" from an institution whose sole impact on my life is to provide me with regular public holidays?

I didn’t think you liked being part of a monarchy?

We get regular public holidays without all the bowing and scraping.

 

[Elixir]

So what makes you think it's constitutional for those labeled "business owners" to be singled out for different treatment?

Hmmm. Is it the individual being compelled or the Company entity? This sounds like it trends toward validating the (proven disastrous) finding that Companies are people.

 

[Gospel]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights. It’s not pretty—in fact, it’s quite ugly in cases where someone discriminates on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc.

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

There is nothing to differentiate from. The general public is mandated to have access to both "already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual" equally. If you disagree with the mandate take it up with your local representative or utilize other options available to you, but don't pretend like you're being compelled to not take the liberty to operate privately, jet off to a nation that aligns more with your beliefs, & stopped from privately or publicly practicing your faith considering you have the option to run faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on your own.

WHERE does it specify already created/made/manufactured AND created specifically for an individual equally? Aside from your posts, I mean. It's the 'created specifically for an individual' part that is the issue, apparently with the current SCOTUS who seem to disagree with your interpretation.

Generally, businesses that provide services to the public can't refuse service based on protected characteristics. Anything classified as a service falls under this mandate.

Gosh!

Can you cite federal legislation that agrees with what you posted?

I believed we were discussing the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) and the SCOTUS' examination of its constitutionality. What gave you the impression I was referencing federal law in a conversation centered on state legislation?

I'd recommend being straightforward in our discussion instead of using indirect tactics. Are you trying to say that if it's not a federal law, it doesn't count as a law?

The SCOTUS has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter.

And that's what we are discussing. Your point?

SCOTUS has the legal authority and power to supersede any state law.

What's your point? Are you trying to say I need to shut my uppity negro mouth and not question the authoritah of the SCOTUS? Why state the obvious?

 

[Toni]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights. It’s not pretty—in fact, it’s quite ugly in cases where someone discriminates on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc.

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

There is nothing to differentiate from. The general public is mandated to have access to both "already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual" equally. If you disagree with the mandate take it up with your local representative or utilize other options available to you, but don't pretend like you're being compelled to not take the liberty to operate privately, jet off to a nation that aligns more with your beliefs, & stopped from privately or publicly practicing your faith considering you have the option to run faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on your own.

WHERE does it specify already created/made/manufactured AND created specifically for an individual equally? Aside from your posts, I mean. It's the 'created specifically for an individual' part that is the issue, apparently with the current SCOTUS who seem to disagree with your interpretation.

Generally, businesses that provide services to the public can't refuse service based on protected characteristics. Anything classified as a service falls under this mandate.

Gosh!

Can you cite federal legislation that agrees with what you posted?

I believed we were discussing the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) and the SCOTUS' examination of its constitutionality. What gave you the impression I was referencing federal law in a conversation centered on state legislation?

I'd recommend being straightforward in our discussion instead of using indirect tactics. Are you trying to say that if it's not a federal law, it doesn't count as a law?

The SCOTUS has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter.

And that's what we are discussing. Your point?

SCOTUS has the legal authority and power to supersede any state law.

What's your point? Are you trying to say I need to shut my uppity negro mouth and not question the authoritah of the SCOTUS? Why state the obvious?

Nope. I'm saying that the US Supreme Court has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court. As it can and has done with many other states, often in ways that you and I would both agree with.

If you want me to say that I am deeply troubled by the current SCOTUS, yes, I am. I thought that was obvious.

 

[Gospel]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights. It’s not pretty—in fact, it’s quite ugly in cases where someone discriminates on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc.

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

There is nothing to differentiate from. The general public is mandated to have access to both "already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual" equally. If you disagree with the mandate take it up with your local representative or utilize other options available to you, but don't pretend like you're being compelled to not take the liberty to operate privately, jet off to a nation that aligns more with your beliefs, & stopped from privately or publicly practicing your faith considering you have the option to run faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on your own.

WHERE does it specify already created/made/manufactured AND created specifically for an individual equally? Aside from your posts, I mean. It's the 'created specifically for an individual' part that is the issue, apparently with the current SCOTUS who seem to disagree with your interpretation.

Generally, businesses that provide services to the public can't refuse service based on protected characteristics. Anything classified as a service falls under this mandate.

Gosh!

Can you cite federal legislation that agrees with what you posted?

I believed we were discussing the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) and the SCOTUS' examination of its constitutionality. What gave you the impression I was referencing federal law in a conversation centered on state legislation?

I'd recommend being straightforward in our discussion instead of using indirect tactics. Are you trying to say that if it's not a federal law, it doesn't count as a law?

The SCOTUS has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter.

And that's what we are discussing. Your point?

SCOTUS has the legal authority and power to supersede any state law.

What's your point? Are you trying to say I need to shut my uppity negro mouth and not question the authoritah of the SCOTUS? Why state the obvious?

Nope. I'm saying that the US Supreme Court has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court. As it can and has done with many other states, often in ways that you and I would both agree with.

If you want me to say that I am deeply troubled by the current SCOTUS, yes, I am. I thought that was obvious.

Ok yeah. sorry I just don't know what that has to do with my argument.