Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Supreme Court prepared to rule that businesses can refuse to work with same-sex couples on the basis of religious freedom.

SCOTUS strikes again! Determining that "religious freedom" is more important than human rights or dignity. Just understand that SCOTUS would never rule that "religious freedom" trumps the right to service of any other protected class. That includes a Jew refusing service to a Muslim. This sets the stage for anti-gay sentiment to be protected by religious freedom. And these "religious" people probably don't believe in God, never go to a worship service and lead lives of debauchery.

The LGBTs should be less concerned with the alphabet and more concerned with the forces conspiring against all non-heterosexuals. Conspiracy funded courtesy of flaming gay vampire, Peter Thiel.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 130December 8, 2022 7:26 PM

Hi Sveta

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1December 5, 2022 4:52 PM

Sveta is the plaintiff in the case before SCOTUS. She is receiving quite a bit of deference for someone God has clearly forsaken.

by Anonymousreply 2December 5, 2022 4:58 PM

OP, the case is just starting. Alarmist much???

by Anonymousreply 3December 5, 2022 5:05 PM

Same sex marriage can not be outlawed now that is will be a law. We are okay, just in time, with that one.

Let all things bigots be known so people can shop elsewhere. For me personally, I want to go to an establishment that supports me.

by Anonymousreply 4December 5, 2022 5:12 PM

Worrying about shit like this is part of the reason I resist my doctor's attempts to help me live until I'm ninetysomething. I don't think OP is being alarmist. Or if he is, what he's sounding the alarm about seems entirely plausible. It's what these people have wanted since Jerry Falwell (Senior) and Anita Bryant first started their shrieking forty-plus years ago.

by Anonymousreply 5December 5, 2022 5:15 PM

OP must be a repub in disguise.....

by Anonymousreply 6December 5, 2022 5:17 PM

0/10

by Anonymousreply 7December 5, 2022 5:17 PM

I did appreciate ol’ Clarence asking if the case was “ripe,” given that the plaintiff hasn’t yet opened her business and thus has turned away no clients.

by Anonymousreply 8December 5, 2022 5:34 PM

Actually, the "religious freedom" framing of this by some in the media has been a little weird. The Court decided not to hear the religious vs. secular issue in the second question presented, and it also removed the "sincerely held religious belief" portion from her question that it did grant. Here is the question presented as the Court decided to hear it: "Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the first amendment." So, it seems likely to me, that the Court may make a distinction between things like hotels and hospitals and creative services. This is both broader and narrower in some ways depending on what angle you're looking at it from. So, it's quite possible, OP, that you're wrong about the Jews and Muslim thing. Their answer might be that sure, anyone can discriminate for any reason in these circumstances.

by Anonymousreply 9December 5, 2022 5:46 PM

[quote] Same sex marriage can not be outlawed now that is will be a law. We are okay, just in time, with that one.

Can SCOTUS determine that federal law is unconstitutional?

by Anonymousreply 10December 5, 2022 6:09 PM

It’s a right wing set-up to push their hate agenda. I heard her spout off the talking points this morning on NPR. She’s obviously a set-up to push the agenda of regression.

by Anonymousreply 11December 5, 2022 6:10 PM

OP is an hysterical queen. Whenever concentration camps and forced conversion therapy are mentioned, I tune out. I don't need that conspiracy theory MARY shit.

Btw, SCOTUS does not "strike again." This was a case it decided to take. It will probably rule in favor of the homophobe, because they're idealogues.

by Anonymousreply 12December 5, 2022 6:21 PM

OP read your own stupid poll options, moron. Learn to write a poll or don't post one.

by Anonymousreply 13December 5, 2022 6:28 PM

[quote]Can SCOTUS determine that federal law is unconstitutional?

Yes, as they are the ultimate arbiter of the Constitutionality of any law.

by Anonymousreply 14December 5, 2022 6:31 PM

Religious freedom? Those assholes no nothing of religious teachings.

Matthew 7:12. “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

Luke 6:31. "And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them." IMO, Luke and Matthew were showing kindness as well as approval of gay sex.

Leviticus 19:18. "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord."

Proverbs 10:12. "Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses."

by Anonymousreply 15December 5, 2022 6:34 PM

This is why I “up“ and moved to England.

by Anonymousreply 16December 5, 2022 6:35 PM

THIS is why, R16?

by Anonymousreply 17December 5, 2022 6:59 PM

[quote] Same sex marriage can not be outlawed now that is will be a law

Wrong. It can be overturned. They’re already in record saying they will vote to overturn. It will be thrown back to the states.

by Anonymousreply 18December 5, 2022 7:05 PM

"They’re already in record saying they will vote to overturn."

In the spirit of not allowing misinfoemarion, R18 is wrong. Thomas said the SCOTUS should revisit the same-sex marriage ruling.

by Anonymousreply 19December 5, 2022 7:07 PM

*misinformation

by Anonymousreply 20December 5, 2022 7:07 PM

They just heard arguments, Miss Cleo.

Individual rights are paramount in the US. They are considered more important than group rights when the rights may be in conflict.. If individual members of that group can receive their needs elsewhere and the person they want to seek it from has an individual right protected under the Constitution that would force it to go against that protected right then I think the conflict can be resolved by respecting the individual right of the service provider. This is not a vital service.

But that is just my opinion. I am open to being persuaded otherwise. Forcing people to participate in something that goes against their religion may be - MAY be - considered a violation of their r right to practice their religion. It is not a simple a people want to think it is. Depends on what is being asked to be done and other factors.

Hysteria and kneejerk analysis is not analysis.

by Anonymousreply 21December 5, 2022 7:15 PM

Individual rights are paramount in the US.

I wish I felt even a shred of belief in the SCOTUS related to what is 'paramount' in the U.S. any more.

by Anonymousreply 22December 5, 2022 7:20 PM

The way they wrote the law, even if the SC throws the issue back to the states, they would still be required to recognize marriages performed in other states through the full faith and credit clause. That was the problem with the Defense of Marriage Act, which the new law repealed.

by Anonymousreply 23December 5, 2022 7:26 PM

"I don't even bother to vote anymore because both parties are exactly the same."

by Anonymousreply 24December 5, 2022 7:31 PM

R23, we’re then right back where we started. It’s the if you want an abortion, just go to another state. You’re back to being a second class citizen. Not everyone can just travel out of state, nor should they have to.

by Anonymousreply 25December 5, 2022 7:36 PM

R21 is a gullible moron.

by Anonymousreply 26December 5, 2022 7:37 PM

Samuel Alito compares LGBT people to the KKK

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 27December 5, 2022 7:42 PM

[quote] OP is an hysterical queen. Whenever concentration camps and forced conversion therapy are mentioned, I tune out. I don't need that conspiracy theory MARY shit.

[quote] Btw, SCOTUS does not "strike again." This was a case it decided to take. It will probably rule in favor of the homophobe, because they're idealogues.

This is a conversation for adults. By deciding which cases to take, SCOTUS ruled that the right to have an abortion is not constitutionally protected, it will soon end Affirmative Action, and imminently, any constitutional rights or recognition relating to same-sex marriage. If you don't understand that SCOTUS is now a politically reactionary institution then just go back to fantasizing about licking Aaron Schock's shit-stained asshole.

by Anonymousreply 28December 5, 2022 7:49 PM

Does this mean we can retake our bars and ban the breeders and "queers"?

by Anonymousreply 29December 5, 2022 7:56 PM

R28, you talk about being an adult but you don't write like one. Yes, dear, we all know how reactionary the SCOTUS is. To say that will lead to forced conversion therapy or else a concentration camp is not being adult in any way.

by Anonymousreply 30December 5, 2022 8:13 PM

[quote]Not everyone can just travel out of state, nor should they have to.

This is much as can be done on the matter at this time. The only way to permanently ensure a right to same sex marriage is to put it into the U.S. Constitution, and that isn't going to happen anytime soon or in the remotely foreseeable future. Same with abortion.

by Anonymousreply 31December 5, 2022 8:39 PM

The service provider could also seek different employment that would t bring his religious beliefs into conflict with the performance of that job.

Or we can set the general precedent that religious freedom overrides all other personal freedom.

by Anonymousreply 32December 5, 2022 9:09 PM

Yes, but we have not voted for, nor is our Constitution intended to represent a theocracy.

by Anonymousreply 33December 5, 2022 9:20 PM

SCOTUS is now a majority of corrupt fools. Time to add seats and impartial judges.

by Anonymousreply 34December 5, 2022 9:27 PM

If you find working with the unwashed public sometimes repugnant, maybe you should become a cubefrau, warehouse worker, landscaper, etc.

But it sounds they are picking and choosing which 'sinners' to ban: murderers, adulterers, shellfish-eaters okay. Homos forbidden.

Our option is to create a 'Green Book' of boycotted, homophobic businesses we- and our family and advocates- can refer to.

by Anonymousreply 35December 5, 2022 9:40 PM

I'm lucky to live in a region that is welcoming to all.

Fuck miserable hating assholes. You can't claim to be a decent person and refuse service to people who simply want to share their love.

by Anonymousreply 36December 5, 2022 9:42 PM

I will never understand this one.

If some bigot doesn't want to bake you a cake, go elsewhere. Why would you trust and give money these MAGAts anyway?

Find a friendly bakery and stop letting these freaks make headlines. Even if you won the case, would you really want to serve something made by these eyesores?

by Anonymousreply 37December 5, 2022 10:23 PM

[quote] [R28], you talk about being an adult but you don't write like one. Yes, dear, we all know how reactionary the SCOTUS is. To say that will lead to forced conversion therapy or else a concentration camp is not being adult in any way.

Being willfully blind is dangerous. Today you are just gay, tomorrow you will be a "groomer." It is happening already.

by Anonymousreply 38December 5, 2022 10:25 PM

R38, stop acting as if the narrative you're suggesting is right around the corner. Despite the current SCOTUS and instances of domestic terrorism, LGBTQ rights are at an all-time high. Gay people are doing better than women are at the moment.

by Anonymousreply 39December 5, 2022 11:13 PM

R37, good point. Who knows what those bigots might slip into your cake?

by Anonymousreply 40December 5, 2022 11:54 PM

At a certain point (and I'm not prepared to say at exactly what point) infringement on our autonomy would justifiably meet with a violent response if no other means could be effective.

by Anonymousreply 41December 6, 2022 12:06 AM

That’s not how any of this works R18. Supreme Court cannot “overturn” a law made by Congress. That’s why there was such a push to get it codified. The law states that ALL STATES HAVE TO RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGE, whether or not they allow gay marriage in their own state, in anticipation of Obergefell being overturned. There will be no overturning of the new law.

by Anonymousreply 42December 6, 2022 12:11 AM

BUT THEY CAN MAKE BUSINESS FIRE PPL 4 BEIN GAY

by Anonymousreply 43December 6, 2022 12:17 AM

There’s a real misunderstanding of US law, how it is enshrined, and how SCOTUS and Congress work in this thread and on DL in general. Half of this thread is nonsense.

by Anonymousreply 44December 6, 2022 12:18 AM

SCOTUS cannot force businesses to fire people because they’re gay. Shut up.

by Anonymousreply 45December 6, 2022 12:18 AM

The only thing Scotus can do is send stuff back to the states. They don't make law they are just supposed to interpret the law.

by Anonymousreply 46December 6, 2022 12:24 AM

Amy’s cunt has cobwebs!

by Anonymousreply 47December 6, 2022 12:24 AM

I bet this company never produces a single wedding website, regardless of the decision.

by Anonymousreply 48December 6, 2022 2:22 AM

I wouldn't have a problem with this if the person had to PROVE that they practiced to so-called religion they claimed was opposed to same-sex couples.

Also, while proving it, if they demonstrated any contrary or hypocritical behaviors or condoned other expressly forbidden behaviors, then their objection would be nullified and they would be obligated to pay costs.

If your'e soooooooo adamantly religious and utterly devout that making a cake or some such would impinge on your faith, that shouldn't be a problem, right?

by Anonymousreply 49December 6, 2022 2:26 AM

[quote]BUT THEY CAN MAKE BUSINESS FIRE PPL 4 BEIN GAY

No, they can't, you hysterical dipshit.

by Anonymousreply 50December 6, 2022 4:51 AM

[quote]Our option is to create a 'Green Book' of boycotted, homophobic businesses we- and our family and advocates- can refer to.

But that would be InCiViL!!!!

by Anonymousreply 51December 6, 2022 4:57 AM

Why would you even care? As someone up thread pointed out if they know you are gay and they hate you for being gay why trust them with food? They might put tons of laxatives in it or something equally disturbing. And why give them money instead of boycotting their product? They can't keep you from buying generic stuff but I can see the SC saying they don't have to work with you. I don't agree but I do understand it.

by Anonymousreply 52December 6, 2022 5:03 AM

[quote] That’s not how any of this works [R18]. Supreme Court cannot “overturn” a law made by Congress.

Um, the Court can rule that a law is unconstitutional. That's their job. That, in effect, "overturns", or whatever you want to call it, a law or the part of the law that is unconstitutional.

They've been doing this for centuries now.

by Anonymousreply 53December 6, 2022 5:05 AM

In this case, is there a wronged party that has sued this woman? Or is the SCOTUS now open to opining on hypothetical cases, as long as they are conservative leaning?

by Anonymousreply 54December 6, 2022 5:05 AM

Yes, R54. There has to be standing. Why do you think there wouldn't be?

by Anonymousreply 55December 6, 2022 5:07 AM

R54/R55, no one has sued her. She has taken the proactive initiative to take what she sees as her first amendment right of free speech as an "artist" directly to SCOTUS, knowing they will side with her. She started all of this without provocation.

by Anonymousreply 56December 6, 2022 5:12 AM

[quote]In this case, is there a wronged party that has sued this woman?

Nope. She’s supposedly “afraid” of what might happen if she refused to provide her services to a same-sex couple.

by Anonymousreply 57December 6, 2022 5:14 AM

Congress can repeal laws. The reactionary shift started in the U.S. Congress which then conspired to put federalist zealots on the Supreme Court. Aside from the trolls, the Russians and the MAGATs, anyone who is mildly observant can see the tides are turning against LGBT equality.

by Anonymousreply 58December 6, 2022 5:32 AM

I don’t know R37. I don’t ask every place I visit whether they will do business with gay people.

Perhaps you and others do.

I can’t stomach the situation where the photographer that Michael hires shows up on the wedding day and then refuses to take any photos when she discovers that Lynn, the new spouse, is a guy.

by Anonymousreply 59December 6, 2022 5:35 AM

R58, the tide is not turning against LGBT equality. These zealots and domestic terrorists are attempting to turn the tide; the tide has not turned. Hysteria and hyperbole serves no one.

by Anonymousreply 60December 6, 2022 5:43 AM

I can see both sides (no not the homophobes but 1. gays not wanting to give money to homophobes by effectively boycotting and ruining their reputation among pro-gay normal people and 2. gays shouldn't even ask every place to begin with).

But if you, as gay, do this kind of business and someone wants a custom designed something that says "Marriage = A man + A woman" or some pro-Nazi symbol or "Allah says homosexuality is a sin", would you want to be forced to make those?

by Anonymousreply 61December 6, 2022 6:59 AM

Why can't the same-sex couples just hire another web designer? This is not a very specific profession that very few people do, like an astronaut or something.

by Anonymousreply 62December 6, 2022 7:22 AM

I had no idea my partner was a sincerely held belief. Is hers?

by Anonymousreply 63December 6, 2022 7:32 AM

Your Supreme Court can overturn any law on the books even if it passed with unanimous votes in the House and Senate and was signed by the president.

by Anonymousreply 64December 6, 2022 11:52 AM

Wrong R64.

by Anonymousreply 65December 6, 2022 12:33 PM

Yes, they can. If SCOTUS finds a law to be unconstitutional, it doesn’t matter how many people supported it. They may be right, they may be wrong, but they can do it.

by Anonymousreply 66December 6, 2022 12:45 PM

[quote] Individual rights are paramount in the US. They are considered more important than group rights when the rights may be in conflict.. If individual members of that group can receive their needs elsewhere and the person they want to seek it from has an individual right protected under the Constitution that would force it to go against that protected right then I think the conflict can be resolved by respecting the individual right of the service provider. This is not a vital service.

No, the marketplace is different. It would be utter chaos if every shop owner could determine whom it wanted to serve and whom it didn't. People would have to go from shop to shop constantly asking--will you serve me?

This Colorado law is not preventing her from creating whatever the hell she wants. The second she wants to sell it, however, she cannot discriminate against a class of buyers.

Why? Everyone pays taxes that help her business thrive--we pay for the fire and police depts, for roads that bring her customers, for the education system that educates her and her customers.

Of course, SCOTUS will ignore all that and just say "Jesus makes her discriminate and that's just fine."

by Anonymousreply 67December 6, 2022 1:07 PM

[quote] Why can't the same-sex couples just hire another web designer? This is not a very specific profession that very few people do, like an astronaut or something.

Why cant she just sell to same-sex couples?

by Anonymousreply 68December 6, 2022 1:08 PM

[quote] But if you, as gay, do this kind of business and someone wants a custom designed something that says "Marriage = A man + A woman" or some pro-Nazi symbol or "Allah says homosexuality is a sin", would you want to be forced to make those?

Not his stupid, irrelevant argument again.

You only have to do what you already do for everyone else. If you already provide Nazi symbols and designs that say "Allah says homosexuality is a sin," then you have to provide them for everyone who asks.

by Anonymousreply 69December 6, 2022 1:11 PM

[quote] That’s not how any of this works [R18]. Supreme Court cannot “overturn” a law made by Congress. That’s why there was such a push to get it codified. The law states that ALL STATES HAVE TO RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGE, whether or not they allow gay marriage in their own state, in anticipation of Obergefell being overturned. There will be no overturning of the new law.

The only thing SCOTUS cannot overturn is a Constitutional Amendment. Congress is not currently trying to codify same sex marriage; instead it is doing the only thing the Federal government can do with regards to marriage (each state's purview) --it says marriages must recognized between states. The new bill would repeal DOMA.

Remember, while DOMA was passed under Clinton, it was only under Obama that SCOTUS said it was unconstitutional. Two SCOTUS judges have stated publicly that they want to revisit that ruling. So, in an effort to head that off, Congress hopes to repeal DOMA altogether (DOMA is still on the books even though SCOTUS said it was unconstitutional).

by Anonymousreply 70December 6, 2022 1:18 PM

[quote] Find a friendly bakery and stop letting these freaks make headlines. Even if you won the case, would you really want to serve something made by these eyesores?

If this wins, it will open the floodgates for any business to deny you services just because you're (fill in the blank). State nondiscrimination laws would have no meaning any more.

by Anonymousreply 71December 6, 2022 1:20 PM

Imagine if you live in a community that generally is disapproving of gays. Many businesses will have no problem denying you services.

by Anonymousreply 72December 6, 2022 1:23 PM

Everything this Supreme Court decides will be overturned within twenty years.

by Anonymousreply 73December 6, 2022 1:31 PM

R73, Thomas has to die under a Dem President and Senate for that to happen. The rest of them are pretty young.

by Anonymousreply 74December 6, 2022 1:32 PM

R74 doesn't realize the anger they are bringing on themselves.

by Anonymousreply 75December 6, 2022 1:35 PM

What R73 says is true: the most egregious SCOTUS rulings will be overturned at some point--maybe longer than 20 years, but nothing the SCOTUS decides is necessarily permanent.

by Anonymousreply 76December 6, 2022 1:36 PM

[quote] Why would you even care? As someone up thread pointed out if they know you are gay and they hate you for being gay why trust them with food? They might put tons of laxatives in it or something equally disturbing. And why give them money instead of boycotting their product? They can't keep you from buying generic stuff but I can see the SC saying they don't have to work with you. I don't agree but I do understand it.

Sure, but there is no law that says businesses have to state "I hate gays." Any business can do the things you fear to you.

Is this woman going to add laxatives to her website?

by Anonymousreply 77December 6, 2022 1:37 PM

Every ruling they make in favor of "religion" brings us closer to antigay discrimination is religious discrimination, though of course they would never find that.

But every ruling they make for religion is a death nail in the coffin of capitalism.

by Anonymousreply 78December 6, 2022 1:37 PM

[quote] Why would you even care?

I care because I don't deserve to be treated like a second-class citizen when I'm paying taxes like everyone else.

by Anonymousreply 79December 6, 2022 1:38 PM

The reason? The motive force of capitalism, the famous "invisible hand", is fagency and fairness. I will work because it will be rewarded and the reward will be commensurate with the work.. Allow discrimination by religion and you have no capitalism.

by Anonymousreply 80December 6, 2022 1:39 PM

I think there should be wide accommodation for religious beliefs and practice, which means sometimes antidiscrimination laws will not override religion beliefs. I think government has to have a very compelling reason to intrude onto or punish people because of their religious faith and practice.

by Anonymousreply 81December 6, 2022 1:44 PM

R81, this country was founded as a secular nation--the separation of church and state. Religion should not take priority over any citizen's rights.

by Anonymousreply 82December 6, 2022 1:47 PM

"Religion should not take priority over any citizen's rights." Nor was religion--or the practice of it-- meant to.

by Anonymousreply 83December 6, 2022 1:48 PM

R81=Amy Coney Barrett

by Anonymousreply 84December 6, 2022 1:49 PM

The freedom of religion means also freedom FROM religion, and the current court is made up of fakes and frauds who don't recognize that.

by Anonymousreply 85December 6, 2022 1:50 PM

[quote] I think there should be wide accommodation for religious beliefs and practice, which means sometimes antidiscrimination laws will not override religion beliefs.

SCOTUS defines religious beliefs as "deeply held beliefs"--so if you deeply believe certain people are terrible (and lots of Americans do), you should be able to discriminate?

by Anonymousreply 86December 6, 2022 1:51 PM

The fact that we can predict the conclusion of almost every controversial SCOTUS case, shows that this is a political body that will make judgments based on the political side they are on.

This is why the right prioritized SCOTUS when electing Presidents. Sadly the left didn't

by Anonymousreply 87December 6, 2022 1:53 PM

D- None of the above

by Anonymousreply 88December 6, 2022 1:54 PM

It's America's constant conflict between its religious founding (Pilgrams, so terrible a group that they were kicked out of England and who came to the US to start a theocracy), and its business roots (symbolized by New York City, founded by the Dutch--religion was so secondary that NYC didn't have its first church of 17 years after its founding.

by Anonymousreply 89December 6, 2022 1:59 PM

The year is 2028. There is no DL as its posters have all been rounded up and imprisoned. The formerly fat old whores who posted there are emaciated, forced to subsist for years on meager rations.

The guards are tall, young, handsome blonde blue-eyed white men. They are incredibly cruel to the prisoners, dehumanizing them and hurling homophobic insults at them. But they let one gay guy live amongst them instead of mixing him with the prisoners.

“He looks happy as a pig in shit,” one prisoner remarks, watching the self-degrading gay guy doing sexual favors for one of the guards.

“He is. He’s enjoying having us locked up here even more than the guards are,” another prisoner says, kind of stunned by how much this whore is willing to debase himself to provide sexual pleasure to a homophobic straight Nazi.

“Why is he like this? Who is he?” another prisoner asks.

“That’s Defacto. We had rights. We had marriage. We were free. But that’s not what that cunt wanted. He wanted to be on his knees for a bunch of straight guys. And now he is,” the oldest and wisest eldergay among the prisoners says.

Defacto then catches the eldergay’s eye as he finishes saying this. Defacto’s mouth is full of the homophobic guard’s dick, he is loudly and disgustingly slurping on it and making pornographic moans of pleasure as he does, and he gives the poor prisoner eldergay the most self-satisfied, smug, glowing, evil smirk the eldergay has ever seen.

by Anonymousreply 90December 6, 2022 2:00 PM

DeForkToe is back, Muriel. And he's sicker than ever. Please dispense with him ASAP.

by Anonymousreply 91December 6, 2022 2:02 PM

[quote]If some bigot doesn't want to bake you a cake, go elsewhere. Why would you trust and give money these MAGAts anyway?

How would you even know if someone was a bigot or not until it was too late?

Many years ago a cat of mine had a feline herpesvirus flare-up, was prescribed Famvir, and a fundie bitch at my pharmacy had a meltdown at me for my "lifestyle" because she assumed the pills were mine, and almost wouldn't fill the script. I imagine the vast majority of all these cases where a fundie doesn't want to bake a cake or fill a script or whatever are surprises to the customer.

by Anonymousreply 92December 6, 2022 2:47 PM

Just flag Defacto a few times and put her on ignore. DL will figure out she's back soon enough.

by Anonymousreply 93December 6, 2022 2:49 PM

Is R90 really defacto?

by Anonymousreply 94December 6, 2022 3:25 PM

R92, particularly when gays have been clients all along (like at some of the bakeries) but then when they want a cake for their marriage, the baker says no. How would gay clients be able to predict that unless there's a sign that says "We will not bake cakes for gay weddings!"

In fact, they specifically fight laws that would require them to put up such signs because they know it'll be bad for business all around.

by Anonymousreply 95December 6, 2022 3:30 PM

If she can say she will not serve gays, can't a doctor say he will not serve gays? What's the difference?

by Anonymousreply 96December 6, 2022 3:32 PM

Don't be fooled by the "I'm only against gay marriage, not gays" routine. This is just to test to the legal waters. The second the court says it's fine to be against gay marriage, the next court case will be about all gays.

by Anonymousreply 97December 6, 2022 3:35 PM

[quote]R94: Is [R90] really defacto?

Yes. The name is in red; the account is authenticated.

by Anonymousreply 98December 6, 2022 3:47 PM

[quote]R45: SCOTUS cannot force businesses to fire people because they’re gay. Shut up.

In all too many cases, the willingness to fire LGBTs is already there. The SCOTUS is well on the path to making that permissible. Companies do this already, but simply make the reason out to be something else.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 99December 6, 2022 3:52 PM

[quote]R43: BUT THEY CAN MAKE 𝐈𝐓 𝐋𝐄𝐆𝐀𝐋 𝐅𝐎𝐑 BUSINESS𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐎 FIRE PPL 4 BEIN GAY

▲ Fixed.

by Anonymousreply 100December 6, 2022 3:57 PM

The Supreme Court is basically a tribunal of radical Catholic neo-traditionalists who are to the right of the Pope. These justices may be book smart, but they're backwards thinking superstitious lunatics. They'll do all they can to hurt people not as pious as them.

by Anonymousreply 101December 6, 2022 4:07 PM

Today, there is no federal protection against private employers firing someone based on sexual orientation. That is all at the state level, and soon SCOTUS will rule that states cannot prevent termination of LBGT people if their continued employment interferes with their employer's "religious freedom."

by Anonymousreply 102December 6, 2022 4:37 PM

[quote] The Supreme Court is basically a tribunal of radical Catholic neo-traditionalists who are to the right of the Pope. These justices may be book smart, but they're backwards thinking superstitious lunatics. They'll do all they can to hurt people not as pious as them.

Thankfully, being a blackout-drunk rapist is not inconsistent with the teachings of Catholicism.

by Anonymousreply 103December 6, 2022 4:40 PM

[quote]Today, there is no federal protection against private employers firing someone based on sexual orientation.

Yes, there is.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 104December 6, 2022 6:14 PM

Thanks R98 I almost gave it a WW because I thought it was someone mocking de facto.

Now that I know it is de facto it gets an FF and an ignore

PS de facto does it bother you that your mother sucks dog dicks??

by Anonymousreply 105December 6, 2022 9:32 PM

[quote]does it bother you that your mother sucks dog dicks??

How do you think he/she/it came to be?

by Anonymousreply 106December 6, 2022 10:29 PM

R105 the admission that you found my post amusing enough to want to WW it is enough for me before you snapped out of it and remembered you’re supposed to dislike me along with the rest of the hivemind, ya midwit cunt 😘

by Anonymousreply 107December 7, 2022 1:37 AM

When we get 51 senators, we need to end the filibuster and add 4 supreme court justices to the court. They also need to change the years allowed to be on the court so they can get rid of Alito, Thomas and Sotomayor. She's good but her age is catching up to her. We could add 7 justices to the court. We could also make sure that no one over 40 is put on the court.

by Anonymousreply 108December 7, 2022 1:52 AM

Honestly, I kind of appreciate these people self-identifying themselves as bigots, so I don't accidentally give them my money. Put up a sign in your bakery that says "No same-sex wedding cakes," so I will know not to buy anything from you.

by Anonymousreply 109December 7, 2022 2:10 AM

R108, that would all be great, but virtually none of that can happen with a 51-49 Senate majority.

by Anonymousreply 110December 7, 2022 3:14 AM

Okay goobers, listen up: a red name is not "authenticated." Every poster on here has a red name. They don't authenticate anyone.

Someone could have chosen that name to make fun of Defacto without actually BEING Defacto. We'll see as time goes on whether that account is a Defacto parody or actually Defacto.

("Authenticated" accounts in the old days were just people who signed in with an email address. They weren't exactly "authenticated," either, but that was the term that was used when you logged in so it stuck.)

by Anonymousreply 111December 7, 2022 3:18 AM

[quote]Put up a sign in your bakery that says "No same-sex wedding cakes," so I will know not to buy anything from you.

They don't do that, as we have already discussed, Mr. Too Good To Read The Thread. That's part of the problem.

by Anonymousreply 112December 7, 2022 3:19 AM

R111 What you're saying is true, but I still find it funny.

Every poster with a username is accused of being Defacto.

But when a poster with the username Defacto posts, that person is accused of being an imposter.

Bottoms are such fucking contrarians.

by Anonymousreply 113December 7, 2022 5:06 AM

She has standing because the Colorado law kept her from doing what she wanted to do with her business, i.e., branch into weddings.

Everyone thinks this is such an easy issue when it is far from easy. Whether you like it or not, the freedom to practice your religion is a Constitutional right.

[quote] Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF . . .

If you're going to curtail it then there needs to be an overriding state interest like no mushroom wafers given to children at your ceremony.

I have no idea how the COurt will rule but the argument they are porffering is that the refusal is not based on the status of the people (gay) bit on what specific service they are requesting.

There is another case in the courts where a service provider (maybe another bakery) is refusing to provide service to celebrate a transition.

"The Lakewood baker who won a partial Supreme Court victory after refusing on religious grounds to make a gay couple's wedding cake a decade ago is challenging a separate ruling he violated the state's anti-discrimination law by refusing to make a cake celebrating a gender transition.

A lawyer for Jack Phillips on Wednesday urged Colorado's appeals court — largely on procedural grounds — to overturn last year's ruling in a lawsuit brought by a transgender woman.

The woman, Autumn Scardina, called Phillips' suburban Denver cake shop in 2017 requesting a birthday cake that had blue frosting on the outside and was pink inside to celebrate her gender transition. At trial last year, Phillips, a Christian, testified he did not think someone could change genders and he would not celebrate “somebody who thinks that they can.”

"Scardina, an attorney, attempted to order her cake on the same day in 2017 that the Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’ appeal in the wedding cake case. Scardina testified she wanted to “challenge the veracity” of Phillips statements that he would serve LGBT customers.

Before filing suit, Scardina first filed a complaint against Phillips with the state and the civil rights commission, which found probable cause that Phillips had discriminated against her. Phillips then filed a federal lawsuit against Colorado, accusing it of a “crusade to crush” him by pursuing the complaint."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 114December 7, 2022 5:32 AM

R4, "Same sex marriage can not be outlawed now that is will be a law.'

NOW THAT IS WILL BE A LAW? REALLY?

by Anonymousreply 115December 7, 2022 6:16 AM

R114. I refuse to believe that failing to provide a service as a business is a legitimate expression of religious practice.

The Constitutional prohibition against limiting religious expression should only cover things that are actually religious. Attending service, receiving the sacraments, preaching (even publicly, provided it isn't disruptive), doing religious charity work, prayer in the home (and possibly publicly), holding religious festivals, performing religious funerals etc. (I could go on).

But failing to provide a cake for a gay wedding or whatever else is not a religious issue. Can I get out of paying tax if I claim it is against my religion?

And the fact that this baker thinks he's being forced to celebrate anything is laughable. He was not invited to the party. His only contribution is baking a cake. He's not being asked to do anything more than his job.

by Anonymousreply 116December 7, 2022 8:04 AM

[quote] Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF . .

Her creating a website does not restrict her religious beliefs in any way. There is no restriction at all on what website she creates (apparently, her artistic expression).

It's when she wants to join the marketplace to sell that website that the problem comes in. What religion says you cannot sell to gays? NONE. She is pushing her personal prejudices as religion.

The BIG problem is SCOTUS defines religion as any "Deeply held belief"--which COULD be a personal prejudice. I'm sure the founding fathers didn't think of religion so vaguely.

by Anonymousreply 117December 7, 2022 4:06 PM

R116 are you just pretending not to get it or do you really not get it?

Say a lesbian comes in and asks for a cake. If you say, “no, I don’t bake for lesbians” that is discrimination.

Say she comes in and asks for a cake that says “Happy Explosive Diarrhea, Rosie.” If you say, “no I won’t put that on a cake because I find it obscene” it is not discrimination.

by Anonymousreply 118December 7, 2022 6:19 PM

R116, the problem with your view of the First Amendment is that you view religion as only applying to an extremely narrow sphere of life. Devoutly religious people view their faith as the most important aspect of their life, the guiding authority that permeates everything for them. I am not certain how far deference to religious conviction should extend, but government generally should accommodate religious beliefs, unless it has a compelling interest in not doing so narrowing tailors that exception.

by Anonymousreply 119December 7, 2022 7:27 PM

And narrowly tailors the exception to accomplish the compelling interest

by Anonymousreply 120December 7, 2022 7:29 PM

Religious freedom is hollow if it doesn't include religious beliefs and convictions

by Anonymousreply 121December 7, 2022 7:31 PM

[quote] Say a lesbian comes in and asks for a cake. If you say, “no, I don’t bake for lesbians” that is discrimination. Say she comes in and asks for a cake that says “Happy Explosive Diarrhea, Rosie.” If you say, “no I won’t put that on a cake because I find it obscene” it is not discrimination.

If the baker does it for everyone else, and won't for you, it's discrimination. If baker wrote "Happy Explosive Diarrhea, Rosie" for someone else, he must do it for you. If he refuses to write it for anyone who asks, it is not discrimination.

by Anonymousreply 122December 8, 2022 6:10 PM

My religion tells me that fundamentalist Christians are deluded hypocrities. Is that a sufficient reason to discriminate against them.

by Anonymousreply 123December 8, 2022 6:24 PM

Freedom FROM religion is also what the founding fathers intended, R121.

by Anonymousreply 124December 8, 2022 6:53 PM

Why is selling a cake for a gay wedding "participating" in the event but selling a gun to a mass shooter isn't?

by Anonymousreply 125December 8, 2022 7:09 PM

[quote] Why can't the same-sex couples just hire another web designer? This is not a very specific profession that very few people do, like an astronaut or something.

It opens the door for ALL BUSINESSES not to sell to gays.

by Anonymousreply 126December 8, 2022 7:14 PM

[quote] Freedom FROM religion is also what the founding fathers intended

That’s debatable.

by Anonymousreply 127December 8, 2022 7:14 PM

[quote] But failing to provide a cake for a gay wedding or whatever else is not a religious issue.

It is if you ask the baker to put something same-sex related on it. Bakers shouldn’t be forced to put a swastika on a cake.

by Anonymousreply 128December 8, 2022 7:16 PM

[quote] Why can't the same-sex couples just hire another web designer?

Why can't Blacks find another restaurant to serve them?

by Anonymousreply 129December 8, 2022 7:17 PM

No, R127, it is not debatable. The founding fathers were pretty clear that freedom from any religion, meaning no one could be yoked to any religion, was as much a right as the freedom to worship. That's exactly what separation of church and state means--the fredom not to worship as much as to worship.

by Anonymousreply 130December 8, 2022 7:26 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!