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

You claimed I made a personal attack and I'm still waiting for you to prove it.

 

You see, fmw, that was the Court's biggest mistake. The courts should only serve to protect what some libs want to be protected. How dare the justices follow the actual Constitution, law of the land, instead of caving in to protect the hurt feelings of some Gay people.

 

I've been waiting longer for you to point out how on earth that shop is "artistic", when I pointing out it's not.

 

That was responded to long ago. Now you claimed I made a personal attack and I'm still waiting for you to prove it.

 

Read post 120.

 

I already replied that you did not say how this baker is creative.

 

That is my post. Thanks.

 

Then you know why my post was appropriate.

 

You have a link to that?

 

While I can understand and agree with this, I'm pretty sure that under this court ruling that a wedding cake maker will only be allowed to refuse to make anything that has same sex specific content on it. Or any other content that can point to a specific thing a person can object to.

 

Bad argument. Pretty much all artistic creations are made from "dime a dozen" materials. By the logic you presented a painting isn't an artistic product because the one commissioning the painting must choose between dime a dozen colors.

 

You do understand that this does not give businesses the right to refuse gays and trans and such, right? Only the right to refuse to make certain content specific products. They still have to sell items and services that are not content specific to trans and gays.

 

In the end your use of the word is an opinion based use. You might not consider it artistic, others do. Done. What matters here is that artistic or not, it is still a creation. Someone created it. And per this ruling, if the creation is supposed to have specific content that the creator disagrees with, they can refuse to create it. The ruling doesn't care whether it is "artistic" or not.

 

so is mine, and keep reading that OP.

 

The example would be far more accurate in your example when the customer picks 1 color out of a dime a dozen colors for the painter. And the painter always fills the entire canvas with that 1 color to no surprise to the customer. You call that "artistic", while I be laughing in your face.

 

You keep flailing around with this issue and still haven't recognized how wrong you are. Thank God we now have a Court that is faithful to the Constitution.

 

When a dude in an ice cream van gives you a scoop of chocolate and a scoop of vanilla in a cone, on YOUR request... that just aint artistic. Get over it.

 

As I noted, the ruling doesn't care whether the creation is artistic or not. Any argument over whether it is artistic or not is a red herring.

 

Somebody tried to make a point how artistic it is. But it remains a joke.

As for the constitution of it all. The supreme court is a handpicked small group of predominantly rather devoted Christians for being devoted Christians who happen to be rather corrupt too. And they were given the last say if Christians can discriminate the LGBTQ+ when it contradicts Christian values. It's like going to a Saudi Sharia court and asking if Muslims can stick to the Koran and discriminate the LGBTQ+... and than marvel how "freedom" gets applied.

And look at you. Thanking "God" we got the constitution. You don't need to thank that dude. You can thank the way the US arranged that there is a cultural need to let a small group of predominantly very devoted Christians have the last say.

 

Go tell that to the person who dragged in that the artistic theme mattered. lol

 

I'm telling you both. They can read this as easily as you can. You're just the one who replied to me about it, so you are the one I am hitting reply to.

 

I don't believe this is true. Partaking in the event can be considered against someone's religious faith and the courts would have to respect that.

 

The story has been made to disappear. It was a fact too inconvenient to remain in the light of day. The MSM and their backers successfully deleted the story from history and labeled it as a false story on fact-checking websites. But I remember it!

You may think I was listening to conservative talk radio when I heard the story, but no. I wasn't listening to those lies. I was either listening to NPR or a music station that sometimes airs news between songs. So, liberal media.

Censorship is alive and well.

 

I'm not going to retype my answer, here it is...again.

 

It doesn't mention how the bakery was "artistic" or "creative" in any kind of way.
So you gave a reply, but you're just not defending your point.