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

The supreme Court is killing it lately!

 

No, we're educating you since you asked for clarity and an example. If you've bought firearms before you would know what the process is and you wouldn't have asked such a stupid question.

And I deflected nothing. I answered the only question in your post directly and completely.

 

you've bought hundreds of guns? Okie Dokie

 

so did you fill out the multiple purchase form required by the ATF?

 

It doesn't matter. Either way the Colorado law is unconstitutional!

 

A fair post from a reasonable liberal who I respect. Certainly the idea that a website design business is a "public accommodation" is totally FARCICAL.

 

We all know what this was about: wedding services for same sex weddings. So in a way, it WAS a rule against gay people, since anyone who is asking a website designer to create a website for their gay wedding is probably gay. However, it should be perfectly legal to deny such a request, on the grounds of not only the First Amendment, but also just freedom in general. However, if a gay person asked a website designer to create a website for their construction business, and that request was denied, that should also be perfectly legal in my opinion, but I would have no problem condemning it.

 

I think so! This Supreme Court opinion goes WAY further than the WEAK SAUCE 'Masterpiece Cakeshop' pro-conservative-opinion from 2017, also relating to Colorado law.

 

Who did she discriminate against and on what basis?

 

Why would they want to?

 

Fine but don’t complain if you are barred from, say a restaurant because of skin colour, sex or even smell

 

Why not?

 

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with fearing laws which violate rights.

 

What are the First Amendment implications in this scenario?

 

Uh no, her belief is that she should be permitted to choose the type of content to create. Pretty simple really. It's not at all complicated.

 

Should that be expanded to permit hotels and restaurants to choose their customers, even being permitted to deny black people?

 

There can never be any 'design' to creating a cake? It's only ever just BAKING?

 

Oh, so then it cannot be about discriminating against gay people?

 

You think that "racial equality" applies to this case! Also, why are you pretending that the First Amendment is just all about "church?"

 

Who the hell are you even talking about?

Whose website?

 

You, educating me?

That's a laugh.

And you are still dodging the question.

 

I disagree. It was a rule against people being forced to do things that oppose their religious beliefs. I don't doubt that the baker had a problem with same sex marriages. But the decision had nothing to do with it. Sorry.

 

Baker? Wait, which decision are we talking about now?

 

I answered the question and educated you since you did not know the answer to a very basic question.

You're welcome. Let me know if you have any other questions that you need answered. I don't mind educating you.

 

Dude, that's not really an example. it's an isolated incident that never recieved official attention.