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

Dude, it's clearly full of examples. It's okay to admit you were wrong, it's not uncommon.

 

completely different issue but smell is justified. stinking like a skunk is not a protected class.

 

you claimed to have bought hundreds of guns-often in bulk.

I asked you if you ever filled out the multiple purchase form the ATF required

you never answered that so I suspect your claims are specious

 

You can't sell a cake without designing it? I need to inform my local bakery. They have lots of cakes for sale that I didn't have them design.

 

You can, but can some cakes be designed?

 

If you'll read the post of mine you had previously posted, you'll find an easy answer. (Hint: my post, that you quoted, says yes . . . so why the straw man?)

 

Making website for gay wedding is an essentially physical participation in the wedding, because web developer have to collect requirements understand the client's objectives and be fully involved in whole wedding process. Selling the gun off the shelf is definitely not a particpation in a shootout. But, yes if gun dealer give suggestions how to better organize and kill someone it would be assistance with the murder.

 

I'm a free market guy and, frankly, would have very little political problem with businesses that restricted their service based on race, gender, religion, politics, day of the week or whatever. It's a freaking stupid way of doing business but if we try to outlaw stupid then we're going to need a lot more jails. Basically, anyone that chooses to limit their business based on some stupid criteria opens the door for other businesses to cater to those dismissed potential customers. I do start to have a problem when government facilitates such discrimination, as was the case with Jim Crow laws. The free market tends to handle discrimination pretty well but when government puts their finger on the scale too heavily we no longer have a free market.

 

That is exactly what has happened, when government asked web developer to create and keep special product to serve gays.
Free market not supposed to tell business what product they should make.

 

Masterpiece bakery. The baker didn't want to decorate a cake for a gay couple. It was a religious freedom case. The new case is about a web designer who sued over a Colorado law that would require her to include messages she opposed in a web site. It was a free speech case. You talked about a cake. That was the Masterpiece case. Both decisions protected first amendment rights.

 

Since you brought it up, means that you need to prove it.
I'll be declining your requests to help you out.

 

You say this, but lil Mike says it has to do with if it's artistic.
Hence I questioned it.

 

Both statements are true. The courts have long considered artistic expression to be a form of speech. The SCOTUS evaluated the case as a form of expressive speech because the wording, graphics, images, etc, are custom tailored to the project.

 

But I've not seen prove how a dime a dozen tastes baked into a cake is "artistic". And it's a taste the customer even requested because the "artist" wouldn't know what to do.

 

Or-- try to follow me here-- because there was no material really requested, there were no examples for the SCOTUS ruling to use, by way of clarifying what sorts of things are reasonable for a web designer (so, I guess, also a publisher, newspaper, etc., etc.) to decline service over. If then, it is such an ill defined ruling, that a business can refuse service for any language whatsoever, what is to stop a business from objecting to something written by every black prospective customer, or every transexual customer?...the list goes on and on.

 

It's one incident that never recieved official attention.

That's all it is. It's an anecdote, not an example.

 

This is illegible.

 

This isn't true and I suspect you know that, but you're afraid to admit you were wrong.

 

making a hamburger at McD's is just as "artistic".

 

Based on the recent ruling, the Supreme Court would likely disagree. But, you're entitled to your opinion.

 

The below post?

 

I wouldn't know why. There is zero creativity when the baker/hamburger flipper has a menu to pick from and get's told by the customer what to do.

It's not like a photographer who tells the customer what to do / where to stand / where to look, while the photographer also does the rest as in lighting, zoom, angle etc etc etc.

 

This is why the content aspect is the basis and not "artistic". So for food, maybe the restaurant owner is Jewish and as such does not offer up any pork products, including bacon. No matter what the customer wants, the owner still gets to control the content of the food he sells. If he has a religious objection to anything in his food, he gets to make that decision, not the customer. The customer gets to choose from what the owner/creator offers. On the other side, the owner/creator does not get to choose to serve a given item to one person and not to another, especially based on the protected statuses.

 

It is true.

Find a real example or admit you're full of it.