Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Elixir]

wouldn't a fart in a hurricane pass the sniff test?

Not unless the hurricane first ate the sniff test.

 

[southernhybrid]

Now, speaking of art, let me do my Dionne Warwick impersonation.....

What this thread needs now is love, sweet love
It's the only thing that there's just too little of
What this thread needs now is love, sweet love
No, not just for some but for everyone.

*sigh*

How long has this been going on?

What do you all expect to accomplish by repeating the same things over and over again and do attacks and criticisms of others help change the viewpoint's of others? That's news to me.

And btw, Black people do own guns, even here in the South. Lots of them do and it's just as easy for a Black person to buy a gun as it is for anyone who is of a different race or ethnicity. I hate guns, but I'm married to a gun owner and the last time I went to a shooting range with him and his brother, we were the only three white people in the place. Actually, I was the only white one. My husband and his brother are of Arabic descent, which is now considered brown. I just call them "Whitish". And Michelle Obama can "bare" her arms anytime she wants.

This thread certainly needs some humor along with some love.

Who is more likely to be killed by cops on the mere suspicion of exercising their right to carry a gun--a white American male, or a black American male?

That has nothing to do with my comment, which was meant to be partly humorous and partly to help y'all see that this discussion isn't accomplishing a damn thing other than attacking each other and repeating the same things again and again.

And, I'm happy to say that as of today, no innocent Black person has been shot by the police where I live. The police will likely shoot a suspect with a gun, regardless of race, if they feel threatened, so it's not always a racial thing and only a fool would pull out a gun if stopped by the police.

Sadly, there are too many racist/prejudice police who shoot or attack unarmed Black people, although sometimes they kill unarmed white people too. Many of our police departments are out of control, but that's not the topic of this thread. We have one for that where you can post. People of all ethnicities tend to have haters who dislike anyone who is different from themselves. That's not just an American problem, nor is it just a white problem. It's a human problem.

I personally think the SCOTUS decision was an outrage, but based on how this discussion was going, I decided to back out of it early on because it's obvious that people weren't listening to each other. To me, it was simple. The decision was made, whether purposely or otherwise, to take away the civil rights of gay people. Both free speech and religious freedom have limits. Apparently, the conservatives on SCOTUS give special rights to conservative Christians, even fake ones, while denying gay people the right to sit at the lunch counter, metaphorically speaking. No need to say more. I've read the opposing viewpoints. I just strongly disagree, but I don't hate or judge the people who don't understand it like I do.

There are ways to disagree while remaining civil, but apparently, things most everywhere have gotten to the point where those with a different viewpoint are the enemies.

 

[Gospel]

... Rather, I can so easily see how, if speech/creative expression/religious expression can be compelled in one instance, it can be compelled in any case.

And if this were about freedom, civil rights, etc... I'd quite agree with your take on this. But this isn't about a freedom, it is about creating an excuse. This finding wasn't about ensuring or expanding rights, but the creation of a legal glitch to ensure the legal protection of those who aim to restrict the rights of others.

This was never about religious convictions or compelled speech. It was about allowing certain whites to be supreme again and asserting their conservative moral authority on others.

Yeah, it's funny that socially conservative Christian homophobes are never black or Latino, isn't it?

Clearly, such obstacles haven't deterred some folks from supporting Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo bigotry.

 

[Toni]

And some of us believe that the Klan has a constitutional right to march in public streets ( assuming they obtained relevant permits) however disgusting, un-American, hateful, immoral and horrifying we find their bigotry.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And some of us believe that the Klan has a constitutional right to march in public streets ( assuming they obtained relevant permits) however disgusting, un-American, hateful, immoral and horrifying we find their bigotry.

And whether the Klan members are gay or not should have no bearing on their right to obtaining a permit.

 

[Elixir]

And some of us believe that the Klan has a constitutional right to march in public streets ( assuming they obtained relevant permits) however disgusting, un-American, hateful, immoral and horrifying we find their bigotry.

And whether the Klan members are gay or not should have no bearing on their right to obtaining a permit.

Unless they're gay black women.

 

[Gospel]

And some of us believe that the Klan has a constitutional right to march in public streets ( assuming they obtained relevant permits) however disgusting, un-American, hateful, immoral and horrifying we find their bigotry.

I agree. (looks up down left right B A B A around the thread). I don't see where I stated that they couldn't.

 

[Toni]

And some of us believe that the Klan has a constitutional right to march in public streets ( assuming they obtained relevant permits) however disgusting, un-American, hateful, immoral and horrifying we find their bigotry.

And whether the Klan members are gay or not should have no bearing on their right to obtaining a permit.

Unless they're gay black women.

No, it should not. But no one is arguing that the government has any right to discriminate with respect to issuing parade permits. It does not.

The argument, from my perspective, is whether or not someone can be compelled to create something custom for another person, even if their reasons for not wishing to do so are bigoted, racist, abhorrent, disgusting and completely reprehensible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Does anyone wonder why Muslims don't open liquor stores and Jews don't open pork processing facilities? But the Christian wants special dispensation.

There are businesses which butcher individual customer-provided animals. If a Jew is running such a business is he free to say they will not process pigs?

(These exist primarily to process animals brought in by hunters. Bring them a deer, get a bunch of venison back.)

We've discussed this before. If they choose not to process pigs for everyone, then they're not singling out any group. However, if they selectively process pigs for one specific group based on a protected class, then it breaches anti-discrimination laws.

And the webmaster won't make gay wedding websites for anyone.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And some of us believe that the Klan has a constitutional right to march in public streets ( assuming they obtained relevant permits) however disgusting, un-American, hateful, immoral and horrifying we find their bigotry.

Exactly.

The set of what is prohibited is smaller than the set of what is repugnant.

This is a case that to me belongs in the repugnant but not prohibited category, like Klan marches.

 

[TomC]

And the webmaster won't make gay wedding websites for anyone.

I'm pretty sure that's how it is.

Back in January of 2021, a private concern decided not to do business with a private individual. So they refused to do so. The individual hasn't been convicted of any crime. The private company simply exercised their right to not do business with someone.

Plenty of people have criticized this private concern for refusing to do business with the individual. But not many here on this forum. Certainly not me, I'm fine with private concerns deciding not to do business if they don't want to. From bakers and website developers to social media platforms, I may find their reasons appalling but I support their rights to do as they see fit under near all circumstances.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Does anyone wonder why Muslims don't open liquor stores and Jews don't open pork processing facilities? But the Christian wants special dispensation.

There are businesses which butcher individual customer-provided animals. If a Jew is running such a business is he free to say they will not process pigs?

(These exist primarily to process animals brought in by hunters. Bring them a deer, get a bunch of venison back.)

We've discussed this before. If they choose not to process pigs for everyone, then they're not singling out any group. However, if they selectively process pigs for one specific group based on a protected class, then it breaches anti-discrimination laws.

And the webmaster won't make gay wedding websites for anyone.

The web designer creates wedding websites for all couples except those of the same sex. According to the BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA decision, sexual orientation is a protected class. In that case, Justice Alito seemed to overlook that terminating someone based on their choice of sexual partner inherently implies disapproval of behaviors associated with one's gender, which is directly related to sex.

 

[Elixir]

Bigoted, racist, abhorrent, disgusting and completely reprehensible people do, IMO, have a right to be bigoted, racist, abhorrent, disgusting and completely reprehensible as long as they don’t impinge on anyone else’s rights (except gay black female KKK members of course).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And some of us believe that the Klan has a constitutional right to march in public streets ( assuming they obtained relevant permits) however disgusting, un-American, hateful, immoral and horrifying we find their bigotry.

And whether the Klan members are gay or not should have no bearing on their right to obtaining a permit.

Unless they're gay black women.

No, it should not. But no one is arguing that the government has any right to discriminate with respect to issuing parade permits.

Your argument is hedging towards publicly acceptable Jim Crow... it isn't the government, so it is okay. This whole, "But it is expression...." is such a hyper technical excuse to invade in the dignity of *insert whatever minority*.

We need endure the KkK parade, but a gay couple has to drive 45 miles further to get a damn cake for a wedding?

We must remain tolerant to intolerance to the point that we violate the dignity of the intolerated?

 

[Shadowy Man]

And some of us believe that the Klan has a constitutional right to march in public streets ( assuming they obtained relevant permits) however disgusting, un-American, hateful, immoral and horrifying we find their bigotry.

And whether the Klan members are gay or not should have no bearing on their right to obtaining a permit.

But what if they want a gay permit?

 

[Toni]

And some of us believe that the Klan has a constitutional right to march in public streets ( assuming they obtained relevant permits) however disgusting, un-American, hateful, immoral and horrifying we find their bigotry.

And whether the Klan members are gay or not should have no bearing on their right to obtaining a permit.

But what if they want a gay permit?

That’s not a special custom made by a private individual thing.

 

[Shadowy Man]

And some of us believe that the Klan has a constitutional right to march in public streets ( assuming they obtained relevant permits) however disgusting, un-American, hateful, immoral and horrifying we find their bigotry.

And whether the Klan members are gay or not should have no bearing on their right to obtaining a permit.

But what if they want a gay permit?

That’s not a special custom made by a private individual thing.

It would seem all agree that if the woman wouldn’t make a wedding website for a heterosexual wedding commissioned by a homosexual person* that would be illegal discrimination, right? So, it’s the gayness of the product that’s at issue here not the orientation of the customer. I was just making a joke based on that comparison.

*note that right wingers used to say that not having gay marriage wasn’t discriminatory because gays could marry, as long as it was to an opposite sex partner. So this would be consistent with that philosophy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

They're not going to give kkk a permit to march at 1am in the morning in front of my house. That affects my freedom to sleep. People's actions impact others' opportunities. It isn't related to how repugnant it is, but instead it is blocking of others.

 

[Gospel]

Regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof, everyone holds convictions. It's crucial for all to respect public norms and laws to maintain equal treatment. While a Christian might modify their behavior in public spaces out of fairness to same-sex couples, those couples, in turn, should offer understanding to Christians with contrasting perspectives. As much as a Christian might choose not to provide services to same-sex couples, these couples have an equal right to voice their concerns, even through organized events. That's the normal process. What is not normal is the fucking Jussie Smollett of web designers lying to the SCOTUS to alter foundational laws in a way that unduly favors Christian beliefs which also challenges the Constitution's directive against favoring any religion.

 

[laughing dog]

And the webmaster won't make gay wedding websites for anyone.

I'm pretty sure that's how it is.

Back in January of 2021, a private concern decided not to do business with a private individual. So they refused to do so. The individual hasn't been convicted of any crime. The private company simply exercised their right to not do business with someone.

Plenty of people have criticized this private concern for refusing to do business with the individual. But not many here on this forum. Certainly not me, I'm fine with private concerns deciding not to do business if they don't want to. From bakers and website developers to social media platforms, I may find their reasons appalling but I support their rights to do as they see fit under near all circumstances.
Tom

The "separate but equal" in private business makes the unwilling separated second class citizens.