The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn’t want to make wedding websites for gay couples

But a court should not be taking a case that does not have a live case or controversy.

She was not asked to make a website. The contact information for the person that she claims wanted the website says he never contacted her about making such a website and, in fact, he is straight and married.

 

Well at the current moment, she has no clients to speak of.

 

I haven’t read through it in a few years, so I don’t know that my understanding has been impacted by any changes that might have occurred since.

I think the right not to speak is important, I just don’t know that that law was in opposition.

 

Then it has opened the door to discrimination against people because of their religion.

 

Taking that concept one step farther, what if, for purely malicious purposes, a gay rights activist intentionally tried to obtain the services of someone known for Christian themed products for a celebration that they KNEW would be antithetical to common Christian beliefs and then, when service was refused, chose to do what activists do and exploit that refusal to bolster their own agenda but also to punish Christians merely because they don't believe the same way gay activists do?

 

Why? Your right to silence doesn't discriminate against anyone or anything.

 

I could picture that happening

 

Nobody suggested she was good at it.

 

You think atheists are forced to perform religious wedding ceremonies?

 

Pretty clear that from the way you wrote that, you don't understand the issue.

 

It's pretty clear from you not understanding the distinction that you are the one not understanding.

 

That gave me a laugh. Thank you!

 

I don't think an atheist baker should be able to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a Catholic person.

 

From what I understand, they can't, but they also can't be forced to write "Catholic marriages are awesome" on the cake. That's where, from what I understand at least, the whole "baker case" makes a distinction. You can't refuse to sell someone something, but you can't be forced to engage in speech you don't agree with.

 

What if that Catholic person wanted "All Atheists are Pedos" written on the cake? Should the atheist baker, as a matter of law, be forced to make and sell that cake?

 

I don't think the court cases require that. Instead, from what I understand, the court cases simply mean you can't say, "I won't sell cakes to Catholics."

 

From what I understand of the multiple bakery cases, the issue revolved around the customer wanting a specialized cake with statements that the bakery establishment disagreed with. There wasn't a case of someone refusing to do business with someone because they were [insert your favorite victim group here].

 

No. That would be legitimate expression.

But they should have to just make a normal cake for a wedding. That is not expression

 

No huh? So the atheist baker shouldn't have to write a message they find offensive...

My work here is done!

 

Baking a wedding cake is not a message.

An atheist should not be able to discriminate against someone because of that person's religion. This ruling opens the door for that though.

 

Baking a wedding cake isn't a message, but that's not what these issues, either the website or the bakery cases, are about. It's about creative expression. If you want me to create a special cake with a message that I find either offensive or abhorrent, I shouldn't have to make that cake for you.

 

That example is just nuts.

Having a movie about Allah being a pedophile is unreasonably being hateful. Being gay is being normal person within society, and they are being discriminated for who they are.

And frankly, your comparison suggests homosexuals are pedophiles. That's just fake backwards 1950's concept. When they aired that idea on tv when it still was flat out totally criminal to have a gay relationship. You seem to have gotten spoon fed that culture by the way you made that sick comparison.

What we got here are just a few handpicked far right wing ultra conservatives who got appointed to be on the US supreme court for being far right wing ultra conservatives so they can vote this way and come up with excuses why they voted that way without making a reference to the bible. So it all looks like church and state are sperate, but that it's just such a total joke. Just like the lot them themselves be bribed around by the insanely rich. It's not as if they can get fired over it. They really are turning the US more and more into a Christian version of Iran.

 

Speech is speech. Even speech you don't like has the same protections. That's kind of the entire point of the First Amendment...

Only if you believe Allah is a homosexual. I don't, but you're free to believe whatever you'd like.

 

Oh give it a rest. Them lot bake a cake like they bake a cake 30 times a day, every day in the week. There is zero creativity in there. No new recepis are being figured out to make some kind of master piece that the world has never seen before. In fact, according to their own website they suggest that the CUSTOMER needs to insert the creative idea, and than they'll make the cake while they even ask you to just pick a flavor from their fixed menu.

A donkey's ass got more creativity when it farts.