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

Right. If you produce widgets then you sell widgets to everyone, without regard to race, religion, gender, etc. If, on the other hand, you sell custom widgets made specifically for right handed people you have no obligation to create a widget for left handed people.

 

And to add onto that, the lack of existence of the left handed widget doesn't mean a right to not sell the right handed widget to a left handed person, if said left handed person wanted to buy it.

 

Hey! Let's not get crazy now. If right handed widgets ended up in the hands of lefties there would bee pandemonium! I'm talking about cats and dogs living together type chaos.

 

Human sacrifice

Mass hysteria!

 

The left has been trying to perpetuate this falsehood but the ruling is narrow there is nothing to indicate skin color is included particularly since this is related to religious beliefs and nothing else. You can't force a Muslim to sell pork. You can't force a church to perform a wedding for Satanists. And you can't force a Christian to participate in a gay wedding.

 

Well the problem with the Masterpiece Cakeshop case was, although it was decided in his favour, it was decided on HOPELESSLY narrow religious freedom grounds. The Wikipedia article has a nice summary:

"...the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips's rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

 

You are losing sight of the fact that the purpose of the first amendment was to protect awful speech. Nice speech doesn't need protection. If you think a business has to cater to you no matter what, then you are not being reasonable or realistic.

 

Whatever. I prefer to live a country with as much freedom for everyone as practical. Businesses can't force people to patronize them. People can't force a business to do what it doesn't want to do. It is about freedom.

 

The link I provided you with has numerous real-world examples. I even copy/pasted numerous examples into this thread. You're just ignoring them because you don't want to admit you were wrong. Your position has already become foolish. I don't understand why you're keeping it going.

 

I agree, and it's just a shame that we cannot once and for all have an actual DEFINITIVE ruling on this. But it would seem that before such a ruling can take place, the Civil Rights Act would have to be overturned, which may not be a great idea. Even though we all know that if that did happen, widespread anti-black discrimination would NOT break out.

 

We don't need rulings. We have about 1000 times more laws on the books than are appropriate or effective. I have no problem with the civil rights act. It actually enhances freedom. It does nothing to hurt racists and costs nothing. It simply tells people to treat minorities as they would want those minorities to treat them. It's a shame that we needed such a law but there is nothing bad about civil the rights act.

 

It just seems that all of these ludicrously broad anti-discrimination laws are just extensions of the Civil Rights Act.

 

The point was made that the artistic part of it mattered in regard in specifically that cake bakery. And there is nothing artistic with that cake bakery.

 

Which bakery?

 

And that point was wrong. I've been saying that repeatedly. Content, not artistic, is the controlling factor.

 

What about artistic content?

 

The case was about Colorado law. Not being asked to do something.

I don't think you should force a person who provides a creative service to create something that they don't wish to.

The law needed to be challenged.

 

I believe there was an inciting incident it was just staged. The point was to challenge the law.

 

incorrect you can discriminate against content. I doubt there's going to be a place in Colorado where you can hang up a no gays allowed sign. It's about Don't make me say something that I don't agree with and that's why the courtroom did favor of the web designer.

A state can't compel speech

Why not? If it compelled him to say something he didn't want to say it seems like this ruling protects him.

why because some fake scenario you made up?

You need to look at the ruling.

 

This whole case was about a fake made up scenario.

 

I don't know. If we can reduce the size of the government bureaucracy we can return to something more sensible and normal. There are too many people thinking up ways to increase the power and control of government.

 

No it's about a Colorado law.

 

lol ok.

 

Once again, it's not the person, it is the content. Applying a basis in religious tenet, one could likely think something promoting adultery or premarital sex also violates that position. But it would have to be pretty specific.

One would have to wonder, since this case made it all the way to the SC, if the Colorado laws were too generalized and the 'penalty' for violation not Constitutional, how many more challenges will could come on other States.

How does anyone 'know' if someone is homosexual or transsexual? The assumption that someone 'knows' without being told is pretty assumptive. In today's society, people have a tendency to announce themselves, as though it should matter to other people. And I'm sure it matters to some, but what it does is make people think there is a reason behind the announcement... like they deserve some sort of special treatment?

Back on this particular 'statement':

One, a business versus an individual, free speech (Amendment 1) versus restricted content (i.e. incite to violence). The majority of media have to apply those 'rules' every single day.

 

You aren't providing a take we've never heard.

We just don't think it's genuine. We know what it's about. We aren't hearing the nonsense rationalizations.