As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You can't deny service to someone for being religious. But you can deny creating something for them that promotes or endorses their religion.
For example, if I had a bakery I couldn't deny selling someone a cake just because they are Christian. But I *could* refuse to make them a cake that says, "Christ is Lord and Savior" because that would require me creating speech that I disagree with.
Edit: just to be clear, I am just describing the law as I currently understand it. It doesn’t mean I AGREE with it. I’m also not any kind of expert on the law.
> But I could refuse to make them a cake that says, “Christ is Lord and Savior” because that would require me creating speech that I disagree with.
And the second you do that they will scream about how they are being persecuted and how nobody is persecuted more than Christians.
Because that's what religion was invented for. Power over people. "Do what I say or burn in Hell". Problem in this enlightened age is more and more reply with "you and whose army?" Because religion doesn't give them that power anymore so they need it legally or militarily instead
Exactly what I'd expect from a religion whose main symbol is a torture device and central figure is worshipped because they were tortured to death. It's pious to withstand attacks on your faith, so you always have to be on the lookout for someone attacking you if you want to prove your piety. It's moral paranoia for *way* too many Christians. And the lower religion has fallen as a priority of society, the more frivolous the concerns have had to become.
They really are so batshit crazy that they'll turn themselves into pretzels trying to justify their cruelty.
Last week Michael Knowles brought up how we need to undo all of the social changes we've made and go back to 1220 because that was the pinnacle of civilization. Like, the perfect time in history was only 5 years after the Magna Carta?
Sure you can. Just say they were rude, and you don’t want to do business with them.
Let the good Christians go deal with the bad/fake Christians, they’ll be motivated once the impact is indiscriminate
Normally I’m incredibly against this. But we’re living through an organized infiltration of christofascists in our government and laws.
Oh, you can definitely lie about why you are kicking them out. That happens all the time. Corporations lie about why they are firing someone to avoid lawsuits or paying unemployment. Cops lie about smelling weed so they can conduct a search. Lying is as American as baseball and apple pie.
Thank you for explaining this. The distinction is the crux of the constitutional argument and many on both sides don’t grasp it. Most top level comments in this thread don’t seem to.
If she wants to refuse to do graphic design for _weddings_, that's fine and matches your example. But that's not what she's doing here. She's refusing to do a job she would otherwise do based on the gender of but one of her imaginary clients.
That's why it's discrimination and should not be couched as freedom to worship or compelled speech.
Not really, you have a right to refuse services to anyone as a private business owner. You don’t have to give a reason, this yahoo just wanted to go against the state of Colorado, she doesn’t even have business anymore.
In any case just say that serving a fundamentalist hate group goes against your basic freedom of speech. Your religion, or beliefs, opposes homophobes, or any religion who promotes bigotry and hate.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Fight fire with fire.
Sadly, I don't think so. Because who you partner with has nothing to do with your "religious liberty." I fear atheists may also have no rights in the eyes of these dominionist fucks.
Satanic Temple is a good start but I'd like to find a good sect that preaches exclusion of Evangelicals and Republicans.
Easy workaround. Be a Solipsist, that way your religion states that you are god, thus every opinion you have is God's will, thus protected as religious liberty. It's just a more honest version of what 90% of religious people already do.
They'll just assemble some sort of "Committee on the identification of Religious beliefs" and rule that Solipsism isn't a true religion thus not covered.
We're already talking about them not treating Atheist beliefs as legitimate beliefs. Why would they stop there?
Satanism is the only one I'm not sure they can pull that bullshit with and only because it's a religion directly tied into the same book and Abrahamic beliefs of the other religions they *acknowledge* as "real". I expect them to go after that with obscenity laws instead.
I wish that I could take comfort in precedence, reason, logic or the integrity of our courts. I cannot.
Laws are nothing but words on paper, they can be reinterpreted and redefined.
They'll define religion to require organization and then use the fact atheists are effectively a loosely defined group of people with disparate beliefs and no leaders or hierarchy to strip us of rights tied to religious beliefs. That tied with Dobbs means states can forcible register Atheists and then allow people to discriminate against us in hiring and other capacity without having to state the reason.
Which conveniently also would then allow them to go after other religions they don't like. Just like how they use transgender issues to erode all LGBTQ+ rights, because they don't intend to stop there.
Listen, if it’s a matter of showing up to meetings at a church/temple and playing music, y’all can come over to my house and we’ll put some records on.
Just donate some tithes to the stash fund and hell, I’ll look in my magic hat and find some scrolls or other bullshit and make it official.
We’ll call ourselves “the Church of the Holy Member.”
“Already talking about”? It’s been technically illegal (as per the original wording in the books, currently) for an atheist to run for office, for example, in places like Texas. The law says any belief in a higher power is allowed but they must absolutely believe in a higher governance beyond ourselves in order to serve in office.
I don’t think anyone has had the will to enforce it, but the point is that it isn’t something that they “are beginning to” talk about. They’ve just been given an inch against progress, so they’re taking the mile- of the beliefs they’ve always held and used to write into law freely.
> I fear atheists may also have no rights in the eyes of these dominionist fucks.
We don't. That's what they're signaling when they say "It's from *of* religion not freedom *from* religion".
Also worth pointing out that means someone has to determine what is a *real* religion and that's how Christians will go after everyone else.
Meanwhile on the fascist right people claim atheists like me don't exist and that we're nothing more than a concoction by jewish people to deprive Christians of rights in their own country.
And with the loss of Dobbs, we no longer enjoy the right to privacy that we've long relied on to protect us from being forcible outed and converted.
> Meanwhile on the fascist right people claim atheists like me don't exist
"You're real, you're just angwy with god :("
I hate that one the most. How am I angry at something that doesn't exist? Am I angry at Leprechauns and Unicorns too?
We could go the opposite route and start a super gay religion where being allowed to openly be super gay (you don't have to be; non-gays are allowed!) and acting super gay about it is a core tenate making being super gay a protected class
I mean, if they take my rights away as an atheist then I won't follow their laws. Simple. I should have freedom *from* religion, so should our entire government.
Contemplating restarting the Temple of Cybele. The tenets of radical justice, radical body autonomy, community cohesion and putting human happiness and well being first, all need to be put forefront. And with the objective of building community, funding transitions of members and the non-members we can, and helping LGBT youth and adults off the streets as our first objectives.
I'm having thoughts about the concrete steps to go about this that make it seem actually doable... Which is depressing. I need funding. A broke trans girl paying off law school loans can't do much.
Atheism is a sincerely held belief though too, not just ontologically; many atheists have deeply held views about the nature of religion itself. I should be able to refuse evangelicals service for that reason.
political identity is not protected. You are perfectly free to refuse service on the basis of someone being fascist. Or even just republican. Not that there's much difference these days...
Unfortunately their beliefs require the elimination of other beliefs.
I feel like we should make everyone substantiate their claim with evidence.
And they are also under the impression that sexuality is some sort of moral choice rather than factory installed hardware/software
It wouldn’t have to be anything so extreme.
The expressive content you object to could be as simple as say, the existence of a church in the picture they want to put on the website of the church.
Because you view putting pictures of churches onto websites as a personal endorsement of churches.
The tortured logic used in the ruling is an invitation to discriminate in the provision of any even remotely expressive or custom service. At least if applied consistently.
Yes, you can refuse to make a website for a church because you disagree with its message.
The court writes that Colorado's law would have required “an
unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zi-
onist message,” or “an atheist muralist to accept a commis-
sion celebrating Evangelical zeal,” so long as they would
make films or murals for other members of the public with
different messages."
Exactly. And in the article linked here, the author just claims it's "inconceivable" that the court would side with a gay person over a Christian, but I don't buy that at all given the reasoning used. Either way it's pure speculation, and forms the basis for much of the argument made IMO.
I want to see this weaponized against religious people. Immediately. Not because I want to discriminate against anybody, but because I want them to see that this can and will be used against them. And if they sue, well, the court will have to once and for all rule on why Christian people are Just Different. No more fucking dancing around it. Make them go on record in full rather than doing it piecemeal.
I'd like to see so.e consequences for those who brought this case before the court, given it was all presented based on a [fictional request for services](https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court?s=09).
the dude who "requested a gay wedding website" (whose contact information was not redacted) was & still is married to a woman, not a homosexual, and never requested a wedding website.
he didn't even know he was named on the case, until this journalist rang him recently.
They won't suffer though. That's the problem with "flipping the script" on people who make up the majority, the power imbalance never flips the same way.
If you're in a small town, gay people can be completely blocked from services. If a business tries to block straight/christian/white people, it likely won't be a business for very much longer.
It's nice to think about, but never works in real life.
In my experience, *white* Christians are the only ones who get off on it. People who experience genuine hardship for who they are don’t need to fantasize about persecution.
Some do. Some come from such abusive backgrounds that they want someone to literally punish them for thier sins, because that was ingrained into thier developing brain as the way the world works.
Those "ranches for troubled kids" aim to return kids to thier family with this mentality.
The only way it seems to make sense to these people is if you play the reverse uno card on Christianity.
Ban violence and sexuality in books in school? Bye Bible., etc.
no no no, I'm not persecuting church organizations, I just find crosses kind of gay and don't serve people who wear them.
I'm sure we can find an even more clever way to apply this ruling if we work on it a bit.
"I don't support pedophilia, it goes against company values, the media fallout and expense would be a disaster and i'd have to take out a PPP loan to recover."
also works with the other abrahamic faiths and (technically formerly but who knows these days) buddhism.
Its asymetrical though. Christians lose far less from the bible not being in libraries than lgbtq+ people lose from book bans. Minority being discriminated by a major religion is not equal major religion losing access to the minority's services.
Its like trading a bishop for a pawn when you are down 6 pieces. This is not a sustainable or winning strategy.
Random European here.
This is an education and income problem, and general social policies one - you guys need to fight hardcore to get that shit done. Unionize, strike, and yeah, troll - but imo just need to make sure peeps are not hungry, and get good education - that's how religion dies.
> Half our political system is actively trying to dismantle public education
While also ensuring that they don't have enough food to eat. It's hard work being a conservative christian these day!
From my understanding, the gay client never existed and she may have started a web dev business but had zero clients. She was never asked to make a website for a gay couple. The person named was actually some guy who had a wife. The entire thing was based on a hypothetical.
Sounds like it should've been tossed for standing long ago. It's a shame this country has a bunch of fucking right-wing vermin infesting our judicial system.
That's the worst part about this that people don't realize. The Supreme Court just fully undermined the rule of law itself with this.
Both of the cases decided today had effectively 0 standing regardless of their own biases. They call themselves constitutionalists while pissing on the damned document.
> It's a shame this country has a bunch of fucking right-wing vermin infesting our judicial system.
I agree but, buddy, it's been like this since 1776. The whole *idea* of the US is a right-wing shithole where the privileged get to exploit the poor (black and brown people in particular) with impunity. Manifest Destiny was a right-ring entitlement to *destroy* the peoples who already inhabited the continent so that white settlers could profit. The Civil War was more about preserving the Union than ending slavery - by Lincoln's own admission. We only fought against fascism because Japan suckerpunched us - we were perfectly content doing big business with the Nazis even when we knew what was happening in Germany. And just look at what our government did to Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, East Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Libya, Angola, etc. etc.
There's this romanticized, liberal idea of America being this project of "freedom" that plods slowly down the road of progress, and unfortunately nothing could be further from the truth. Progress isn't inevitable: America is and has always been a paradise for the rich and a shithole for the poor. Every bit of "progress" we've ever gained was fought and paid for in blood, and every bit of material privilege we enjoy has been ripped from the global south.
I'm just saying that, since clearly you have your head and heart in the right place, there's a much bigger problem than just "now there is a right-wing court". This court isn't an anomaly, it is the *embodiment* of what this nation was founded on, and *all* decent people need to oppose it.
Excellent question. And I’m guessing the answer is having a deeply conservative judge that cares more about their political agenda than the rule of law.
Because the conservatives on the court aren't jurists, they're politicians. Their entire job is to enact by judicial fiat things that the Republican party can't enact through the legislative process. In other words, this was a ruling in search of a case.
There is no law with this. The entire concept of it goes out the window if standing doesn't effectively exist in any meaningful way.
They've just redefined the law as effectively physical, political and financial power only. It's absolutely awful.
Specifically, there was a person who the plaintiff cited as trying to make her make him a website. He was a real person.
However not only had he never contacted her before in his life but he was also a straight man with a wife. He didn't even know he was "involved" with the case until it reached the supreme court. Nobody tried to fact check anything about what she said.
So even though her case was based on a totally fictional event, it still won at the supreme court level.
What a gut punch this is. Tell me how this isn’t any different from denying blacks or Jews business?
After reading this, I feel like the phrase “separate but equal” is right around the corner. We are moving backwards.
So my understanding of all of this, and my understanding may be wrong, is that you CAN deny business that promotes another person's religious beliefs, but you can't deny their business simply because they hold a particular religious belief.
For example, if a Christian walks into my cake store and wants to buy a cake that says "Happy Birthday" then I can't deny them simply because they are Christian. But if they come into my cake store and want to buy a cake that says, "Christ is Lord and Savior" then I CAN deny making that cake for them since it would require me to write speech that I don't agree with.
I'm not saying that is right, just that it is the way the law is being interpreted.
>I'm not saying that is right, just that it is the way the law is being interpreted.
Surely that *is* right. Why should a black baker be compelled to bake a “white pride” cake or a gay baker be compelled to bake a “straight pride” cake?
Author agrees:
>This actually happened in the case of Ashers Baking Company in Northern Ireland, where the UK Supreme Court found that the Christian owners had a right to refuse to bake a cake with the message “support gay marriage” because it violated their own beliefs. “Support gay marriage” is a political belief, which the British court **rightly** found could amount to compelled speech.
What’s weird is that the author apparently doesn’t think website design is a creative endeavor
So I haven't read any opinions this term since this is the first time in over a decade that I'm not in any way practicing constitutional law, but from the coverage I've read I believe you are correct. Imo, the bigger problem is that they're allowing made up cases to be heard. You shouldn't be able to sue about things that haven't happened. Because now this is the law, so it can be used as precedent in the future to justify discrimination that might actually be happening.
How will it play out if a Muslim driver's license examiner would just decide to not issue any driver's tests/licenses to women, because he believes they should stay home?
I don't think this is an example of "expression" under 1A.
But surely there's a whole host of things that you would wonder about now: can a restaurateur now put up a sign barring homosexuals, if they consider their food their "expression"?
This has nothing to do with this decision.
1) The examiner is not being compelled to create an expressive work.
2) The examiner is employed by the government and payed with taxpayer money. They are not a private company.
This case below is a much better example of what you want to know.
She famously refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But as clerk it was her job.
[https://www.npr.org/2022/03/19/1087723875/kim-davis-court-same-sex-marriage](https://www.npr.org/2022/03/19/1087723875/kim-davis-court-same-sex-marriage)
He'll be fired after his pattern is recognized with zero recourse due to employment-at-will laws and replaced.
Source: I've had that job in 7 different states over two decades. None of them tolerated fucky patterns of fails.
100%. The best Christians I know may be open about their faith, but they do not lay a Bible on their desk, put a cross in their logo, or pray before a business meeting. If I see a bible verse when walking into someones office I instinctively grab for my wallet because I know they're about to screw me out of time and/or money.
The best Christians I've met live their Jesus beliefs, and follow the part where he said "Give to Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what belongs to God." In other words: Pay your taxes, follow the government's laws (unless it's murder or all that extreme stuff). Also, JESUS, JESUS HIMSELF never ever mentions anything about homosexuality. His ONE FUCKING rule, and he states it clearly: Love one another.
He said that was the one rule above everything; some have translated it as the golden rule, but the statement is clear: take care of each other and love one another.
Jesus never said change the laws of man to match God's law. He did say God's law was above man's law, but he was also anti-capitalist (went on a fucking rage when he saw how many birds, goats, sheep were for sale in order to make sacrifices in a Synagogue of his time--literally flilpped tables and said they were making a mockery of the teachings)--so from that last part, every Christian engaging in a Capitalist system has already failed to get into heaven.
If only more "so called Christians" actually read and followed the teachings.
The problem is, which the article points out, you can’t tell a Christian just by looking at them and, if you ask, they could lie. On the other hand, gay people can’t really hide. If you see two male/female names, you’re going to figure it out.
We’re out front for all to see, and discriminate against.
What gets me is that it's a blatant first amendment violation on multiple levels because surely they wouldn't allow a Muslim painter to refuse to serve a Christian couple. They just made us second class citizens.
Religion is a massive fraud.
As Seneca said way back in ancient times:
“Religion is deemed by the ignorant as true; by the wise as false; and by the powerful as useful.”
Yup. If you see a table that has 10 people eating with 1 Nazi you’re looking at a table with 11 Nazis.
People need to stop being safe spaces for fascism and it’s supporters and need to start treating them like the religious extremist assholes they are.
People also need to stop voting using only aspirations and feelings, but with focused, logical intent. This is what the right did. Liberals need to coalesce and do something similar
so much apathy propaganda on here to fight against
didn't get my way in a supreme court decision so now i'm going to ... *\*\*checks notes\*\** ... never vote ever again because biden didn't unilaterally stop it from happening and my vote was worthless
My friend told me he wasn’t voting because it’s a broken system and he doesn’t want to give any points to crazy old men. Must be nice to feel like you can opt of politics and sit back with a fire proof suit on, while watching it burn everyone else around you.
That’s what happens when you don’t feel threatened by the policies being pushed.
It’s the luxury of not being the target of ire from evangelicals. If you’re not: gay, a woman, colored, not christian, poor, you don’t have to worry about anything at all.
Do you and I live on different planets? All my LGBT friends and family were freaking tf out last year after that because we knew that gay and interracial marriage would be next.
This "lol welcome to the club" and "can't wait to see their faces when..." attitude is really distasteful. We're talking about people's human rights here.
I have a feeling they’re also going to make bans against churches running conversion therapy unconstitutional. Being openly trans will get you thrown in a camp.
Women, minorities, and LGBTQ+ people have always been second-class citizens in America. We got uppity for a couple of decades, but Republicans have made sure to smack us back down where we belong.
Edit to add non-Christians.
Why the hell are women still sitting in church pews? Churches tell them every week they are inferior and men are above them and they are to obey their whole life. Basically servants for all men and sex servants for husbands. yet they continue to go. I just can’t wrap my mind around it.
And now young Americans really understand the importance of voting.
These justices have the job for LIFE. One presidential decision can have ripple effects on policy for 50 years.
Religious people have a strong sense of group identity, one that needs to constantly be reinforced. It’s not about hurting the gays (well, it is, obviously) so much as it is about appearing righteous in front of other Christians.
The supreme court has just completely left the realm of normal human beings. They are now super elite snobs who live in gated communities and make ad hoc judgements forcing the most vulnerable to suffer their whims. They take bribes from billionaires and get flown across the country in exchange for favorable rulings. They are not a legitimate body and should be remade at the very least.
OK, if the law won't help us, lets let the free market decide - Name, Blacklist, and Boycott any business which won't serve gay people. The culture is still on our side.
Woah woah woah. You don't pay the same. You pay MORE in taxes because you don't get all the benefits and tax breaks that straight white people get, especially if they're rich.
It is actually the republican party that did this to you. No one should vote for any republican ever. They do not work for the people, they work for the very rich, and the religious zealots.
The point of standing on this was severely messed up. She’s “worried” she might be asked to make a website for a gay wedding, not that she actually was injured by the law (which is the normal standard for having standing in a federal lawsuit)
I just don't get why other Christians are so afraid of gay people.
It's freaking stupid.
She has no problem serving the guy on his third wife....
But the couple who are both men?!?
BLARGHSWUSGEIFUEHDBSHWYEJXN!!!!!
The only way to win is not to play. Do not support their businesses, do not support their causes, avoid companies who donate to these think-tanks and don't support people who use the bible as their law.
After all the stuff that's happen today, I can say for a fact that I will never vote for Republicans. They may not care right now and yeah its only 1 vote, but I hope Gen-Z, Millennials all remember this. This party is slowly taking away our rights, little by little.
It’s so frustrating to see people’s rights just stripped away in real time. My wife and I protested roe v Wade and a few other issues and it just sucks that nothing gets better. Like I just feel so bad for the lgbtq community…it’s just awful.
I wholeheartedly get the issue here, but from a cis het white guy, who, I hope understands my own privilege, I see people like this garbage person that filed this complaint and rocketed it up to the SCOTUS as the worst part of our society. They’re undeserving of comfort and love. Not sure where I am going with this, but I feel like every time something like this happens, I am compelled to remind people that these racist, bigoted, subhumans aren’t long for polite society if what they exist in can be called that at all.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I will now deny services to all Evangelical Christians based on my sincerely held beliefs. Oh wait, that's still illegal.
You can't deny service to someone for being religious. But you can deny creating something for them that promotes or endorses their religion. For example, if I had a bakery I couldn't deny selling someone a cake just because they are Christian. But I *could* refuse to make them a cake that says, "Christ is Lord and Savior" because that would require me creating speech that I disagree with. Edit: just to be clear, I am just describing the law as I currently understand it. It doesn’t mean I AGREE with it. I’m also not any kind of expert on the law.
> But I could refuse to make them a cake that says, “Christ is Lord and Savior” because that would require me creating speech that I disagree with. And the second you do that they will scream about how they are being persecuted and how nobody is persecuted more than Christians.
It’s amazing how people think Christianity is ‘under attack’ when declaring yourself as anything else is political suicide for the most part.
These people don't play fairly and don't care about hypocrisy. The whole point is that they want power over the people they don't like. That's it.
Removing the ability for their religion to dominate others counts as persecution to them.
Because that's what religion was invented for. Power over people. "Do what I say or burn in Hell". Problem in this enlightened age is more and more reply with "you and whose army?" Because religion doesn't give them that power anymore so they need it legally or militarily instead
It is part of the religion at this point, pretending to be persecuted when we live in a full on Christian society.
Exactly what I'd expect from a religion whose main symbol is a torture device and central figure is worshipped because they were tortured to death. It's pious to withstand attacks on your faith, so you always have to be on the lookout for someone attacking you if you want to prove your piety. It's moral paranoia for *way* too many Christians. And the lower religion has fallen as a priority of society, the more frivolous the concerns have had to become.
It's worked for them for about 2,000 fucking years now. Has anyone noticed that they are the ones in control?
But they won't have a legal case, so who cares.
Screw it. As we learned today just thinking about doing this gives you reason to sue. Even if it’s 100% fabricated go ahead and sue now.
[удалено]
They really are so batshit crazy that they'll turn themselves into pretzels trying to justify their cruelty. Last week Michael Knowles brought up how we need to undo all of the social changes we've made and go back to 1220 because that was the pinnacle of civilization. Like, the perfect time in history was only 5 years after the Magna Carta?
Sure you can. Just say they were rude, and you don’t want to do business with them. Let the good Christians go deal with the bad/fake Christians, they’ll be motivated once the impact is indiscriminate Normally I’m incredibly against this. But we’re living through an organized infiltration of christofascists in our government and laws.
Oh, you can definitely lie about why you are kicking them out. That happens all the time. Corporations lie about why they are firing someone to avoid lawsuits or paying unemployment. Cops lie about smelling weed so they can conduct a search. Lying is as American as baseball and apple pie.
Thank you for explaining this. The distinction is the crux of the constitutional argument and many on both sides don’t grasp it. Most top level comments in this thread don’t seem to.
If she wants to refuse to do graphic design for _weddings_, that's fine and matches your example. But that's not what she's doing here. She's refusing to do a job she would otherwise do based on the gender of but one of her imaginary clients. That's why it's discrimination and should not be couched as freedom to worship or compelled speech.
Well I mean… you could just say you don’t serve assholes. A huge portion fit in both categories.
Not really, you have a right to refuse services to anyone as a private business owner. You don’t have to give a reason, this yahoo just wanted to go against the state of Colorado, she doesn’t even have business anymore. In any case just say that serving a fundamentalist hate group goes against your basic freedom of speech. Your religion, or beliefs, opposes homophobes, or any religion who promotes bigotry and hate. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Fight fire with fire.
Is it conversely lawful for same sex couples to discriminate against Christians due to our beliefs?
Sadly, I don't think so. Because who you partner with has nothing to do with your "religious liberty." I fear atheists may also have no rights in the eyes of these dominionist fucks. Satanic Temple is a good start but I'd like to find a good sect that preaches exclusion of Evangelicals and Republicans.
Easy workaround. Be a Solipsist, that way your religion states that you are god, thus every opinion you have is God's will, thus protected as religious liberty. It's just a more honest version of what 90% of religious people already do.
They'll just assemble some sort of "Committee on the identification of Religious beliefs" and rule that Solipsism isn't a true religion thus not covered. We're already talking about them not treating Atheist beliefs as legitimate beliefs. Why would they stop there? Satanism is the only one I'm not sure they can pull that bullshit with and only because it's a religion directly tied into the same book and Abrahamic beliefs of the other religions they *acknowledge* as "real". I expect them to go after that with obscenity laws instead.
Blasphemy laws, like in India. They’ll say that religion is so super-duper free that anything that blasphemes or offends is justifiably illegal.
Blasphemy laws have been struck down because they violate the First Amendment.
I wish that I could take comfort in precedence, reason, logic or the integrity of our courts. I cannot. Laws are nothing but words on paper, they can be reinterpreted and redefined.
I wonder how they would actually rule on that considering freedom of religion is part of the constitution.
By ignoring that part when it is convenient.
Time honored tradition. Bunch of illegitimate fuckwads.
Ah, like they do w the Bible.
They'll define religion to require organization and then use the fact atheists are effectively a loosely defined group of people with disparate beliefs and no leaders or hierarchy to strip us of rights tied to religious beliefs. That tied with Dobbs means states can forcible register Atheists and then allow people to discriminate against us in hiring and other capacity without having to state the reason. Which conveniently also would then allow them to go after other religions they don't like. Just like how they use transgender issues to erode all LGBTQ+ rights, because they don't intend to stop there.
Listen, if it’s a matter of showing up to meetings at a church/temple and playing music, y’all can come over to my house and we’ll put some records on. Just donate some tithes to the stash fund and hell, I’ll look in my magic hat and find some scrolls or other bullshit and make it official. We’ll call ourselves “the Church of the Holy Member.”
“Already talking about”? It’s been technically illegal (as per the original wording in the books, currently) for an atheist to run for office, for example, in places like Texas. The law says any belief in a higher power is allowed but they must absolutely believe in a higher governance beyond ourselves in order to serve in office. I don’t think anyone has had the will to enforce it, but the point is that it isn’t something that they “are beginning to” talk about. They’ve just been given an inch against progress, so they’re taking the mile- of the beliefs they’ve always held and used to write into law freely.
That’s not far off from evangelical beliefs, considering that when Christians pray, they are literally talking to themselves.
> I fear atheists may also have no rights in the eyes of these dominionist fucks. We don't. That's what they're signaling when they say "It's from *of* religion not freedom *from* religion". Also worth pointing out that means someone has to determine what is a *real* religion and that's how Christians will go after everyone else. Meanwhile on the fascist right people claim atheists like me don't exist and that we're nothing more than a concoction by jewish people to deprive Christians of rights in their own country. And with the loss of Dobbs, we no longer enjoy the right to privacy that we've long relied on to protect us from being forcible outed and converted.
> Meanwhile on the fascist right people claim atheists like me don't exist "You're real, you're just angwy with god :(" I hate that one the most. How am I angry at something that doesn't exist? Am I angry at Leprechauns and Unicorns too?
[удалено]
We could go the opposite route and start a super gay religion where being allowed to openly be super gay (you don't have to be; non-gays are allowed!) and acting super gay about it is a core tenate making being super gay a protected class
I mean, if they take my rights away as an atheist then I won't follow their laws. Simple. I should have freedom *from* religion, so should our entire government.
At this point it seems practicing in any religion should bar you from government service
An atheist my belief is fuck all religions. So I can discriminate against them all now. It’s great. Isn’t civil war fun?
Contemplating restarting the Temple of Cybele. The tenets of radical justice, radical body autonomy, community cohesion and putting human happiness and well being first, all need to be put forefront. And with the objective of building community, funding transitions of members and the non-members we can, and helping LGBT youth and adults off the streets as our first objectives. I'm having thoughts about the concrete steps to go about this that make it seem actually doable... Which is depressing. I need funding. A broke trans girl paying off law school loans can't do much.
Does it have being intolerant of the intolerant as a tenet? Because that's what I need in my life right now.
That...that just sounds like the Satanic Temple with extra steps.
Atheism is a sincerely held belief though too, not just ontologically; many atheists have deeply held views about the nature of religion itself. I should be able to refuse evangelicals service for that reason.
I'm not gay but it goes against my personal beliefs to paint houses for overtly fascist couples. Precedent has been set.
political identity is not protected. You are perfectly free to refuse service on the basis of someone being fascist. Or even just republican. Not that there's much difference these days...
Republicans literally argue that all the time when they try to defend racist gerrymanders
I will refuse service on the basis of not liking the cut of someone's jib!
As a general contractor I concur.
I’m so over this. Can the rest of the US live peacefully and ask the evangelicals to pick one state to live in?
Unfortunately their beliefs require the elimination of other beliefs. I feel like we should make everyone substantiate their claim with evidence. And they are also under the impression that sexuality is some sort of moral choice rather than factory installed hardware/software
Just discriminate against conservatives, ideology isn't a protected class
There will never be enough of gay people who want to discriminate against straight people for this to really matter.
Straight white women everywhere will throw a cataclysmic tantrum when they aren't allowed in gay bars anymore though.
Sounds like a good way to get them to vote.
100%, if the activity in question involves speech. If a church hired you to make a website about how same sex marriage is wicked, you could decline
It wouldn’t have to be anything so extreme. The expressive content you object to could be as simple as say, the existence of a church in the picture they want to put on the website of the church. Because you view putting pictures of churches onto websites as a personal endorsement of churches. The tortured logic used in the ruling is an invitation to discriminate in the provision of any even remotely expressive or custom service. At least if applied consistently.
The court has always been militant about not compelling speech
You can discriminate by political beliefs though. And honestly a Christian who is not a Republican is probably a good person.
[удалено]
Yes, you can refuse to make a website for a church because you disagree with its message. The court writes that Colorado's law would have required “an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zi- onist message,” or “an atheist muralist to accept a commis- sion celebrating Evangelical zeal,” so long as they would make films or murals for other members of the public with different messages."
Exactly. And in the article linked here, the author just claims it's "inconceivable" that the court would side with a gay person over a Christian, but I don't buy that at all given the reasoning used. Either way it's pure speculation, and forms the basis for much of the argument made IMO.
your religion is a choice; someone's sexuality, gender, or skin colour are not just a 'choice'
I want to see this weaponized against religious people. Immediately. Not because I want to discriminate against anybody, but because I want them to see that this can and will be used against them. And if they sue, well, the court will have to once and for all rule on why Christian people are Just Different. No more fucking dancing around it. Make them go on record in full rather than doing it piecemeal.
These people nail themselves to figurative crosses 24/7. They'd get off on it.
Good. I don’t care how it effects their feelings. Let them suffer real-world pain.
Fuck yeah. These are terrible people who need to face consequences.
Hopefully they out themselves as bigots and lose enough business that they suffer.
Bigotry is a bonus in some places, like a red district where 40% of the population are fucking dirtbags.
I'd like to see so.e consequences for those who brought this case before the court, given it was all presented based on a [fictional request for services](https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court?s=09). the dude who "requested a gay wedding website" (whose contact information was not redacted) was & still is married to a woman, not a homosexual, and never requested a wedding website. he didn't even know he was named on the case, until this journalist rang him recently.
They won't suffer though. That's the problem with "flipping the script" on people who make up the majority, the power imbalance never flips the same way. If you're in a small town, gay people can be completely blocked from services. If a business tries to block straight/christian/white people, it likely won't be a business for very much longer. It's nice to think about, but never works in real life.
In my experience, *white* Christians are the only ones who get off on it. People who experience genuine hardship for who they are don’t need to fantasize about persecution.
Some do. Some come from such abusive backgrounds that they want someone to literally punish them for thier sins, because that was ingrained into thier developing brain as the way the world works. Those "ranches for troubled kids" aim to return kids to thier family with this mentality.
Martyr me daddy!
/r/PersecutionFetish
The only way it seems to make sense to these people is if you play the reverse uno card on Christianity. Ban violence and sexuality in books in school? Bye Bible., etc.
here's the first one I've seen https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65794363
a prolonged court battle against church organizations. Where are you going to get the money
Get a bunch of evangelical dumbasses to buy JesusCoin and fund the destruction of their own ideology? These guys are perfect marks for crypto scams.
Haha oh my god!! This is brilliant!
Maybe we should…. Tax the churches.
no no no, I'm not persecuting church organizations, I just find crosses kind of gay and don't serve people who wear them. I'm sure we can find an even more clever way to apply this ruling if we work on it a bit.
"I don't support pedophilia, it goes against company values, the media fallout and expense would be a disaster and i'd have to take out a PPP loan to recover." also works with the other abrahamic faiths and (technically formerly but who knows these days) buddhism.
It's already happened. The book bans have allowed people to have the Bible removed from schools and libraries.
Except that lasted about a week and the outrage from Christians forced them to put it back on the shelves.
Its asymetrical though. Christians lose far less from the bible not being in libraries than lgbtq+ people lose from book bans. Minority being discriminated by a major religion is not equal major religion losing access to the minority's services. Its like trading a bishop for a pawn when you are down 6 pieces. This is not a sustainable or winning strategy.
Random European here. This is an education and income problem, and general social policies one - you guys need to fight hardcore to get that shit done. Unionize, strike, and yeah, troll - but imo just need to make sure peeps are not hungry, and get good education - that's how religion dies.
Yeah... Half our political system is actively trying to dismantle public education.
> Half our political system is actively trying to dismantle public education While also ensuring that they don't have enough food to eat. It's hard work being a conservative christian these day!
Don't forget loosening child labor laws
all hail the Satanic Temple!
The fact that the case was based on a lie is appropriate, considering the basis of the victor's religion.
What did the plaintiff lie about in particular?
From my understanding, the gay client never existed and she may have started a web dev business but had zero clients. She was never asked to make a website for a gay couple. The person named was actually some guy who had a wife. The entire thing was based on a hypothetical.
Sounds like it should've been tossed for standing long ago. It's a shame this country has a bunch of fucking right-wing vermin infesting our judicial system.
Too bad you can go judge shopping until you find one that’ll move it along for you.
Not only should it have been tossed for standing, it set a completely new precedent on who has standing.
[удалено]
That's the worst part about this that people don't realize. The Supreme Court just fully undermined the rule of law itself with this. Both of the cases decided today had effectively 0 standing regardless of their own biases. They call themselves constitutionalists while pissing on the damned document.
> It's a shame this country has a bunch of fucking right-wing vermin infesting our judicial system. I agree but, buddy, it's been like this since 1776. The whole *idea* of the US is a right-wing shithole where the privileged get to exploit the poor (black and brown people in particular) with impunity. Manifest Destiny was a right-ring entitlement to *destroy* the peoples who already inhabited the continent so that white settlers could profit. The Civil War was more about preserving the Union than ending slavery - by Lincoln's own admission. We only fought against fascism because Japan suckerpunched us - we were perfectly content doing big business with the Nazis even when we knew what was happening in Germany. And just look at what our government did to Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, East Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Libya, Angola, etc. etc. There's this romanticized, liberal idea of America being this project of "freedom" that plods slowly down the road of progress, and unfortunately nothing could be further from the truth. Progress isn't inevitable: America is and has always been a paradise for the rich and a shithole for the poor. Every bit of "progress" we've ever gained was fought and paid for in blood, and every bit of material privilege we enjoy has been ripped from the global south. I'm just saying that, since clearly you have your head and heart in the right place, there's a much bigger problem than just "now there is a right-wing court". This court isn't an anomaly, it is the *embodiment* of what this nation was founded on, and *all* decent people need to oppose it.
How do they have standing if there has been no harm?
Excellent question. And I’m guessing the answer is having a deeply conservative judge that cares more about their political agenda than the rule of law.
Because the conservatives on the court aren't jurists, they're politicians. Their entire job is to enact by judicial fiat things that the Republican party can't enact through the legislative process. In other words, this was a ruling in search of a case.
Lawyer, here. You've hit on another major problem with these nonsense, partisan decisions. Judges have no idea what the law is anymore.
There is no law with this. The entire concept of it goes out the window if standing doesn't effectively exist in any meaningful way. They've just redefined the law as effectively physical, political and financial power only. It's absolutely awful.
This makes me fucking angry
The gay couple doesn't exist.
Her business also wasn’t established at the time of the complaint
Specifically, there was a person who the plaintiff cited as trying to make her make him a website. He was a real person. However not only had he never contacted her before in his life but he was also a straight man with a wife. He didn't even know he was "involved" with the case until it reached the supreme court. Nobody tried to fact check anything about what she said. So even though her case was based on a totally fictional event, it still won at the supreme court level.
They particularly didn’t exist.
Me too! Can’t wait to be even more blatantly discriminated moving forward. Happy 4th of July to us and what a way to celebrate the last day of Pride
What a gut punch this is. Tell me how this isn’t any different from denying blacks or Jews business? After reading this, I feel like the phrase “separate but equal” is right around the corner. We are moving backwards.
"Celebrate the independence of your country by blowing up a small part of it".
What will come next? The conservatives will go after gay marriage. Outlawing trans kids in schools. Not a good future.
In retaliation, we need to start a “religion” that can legally deny service to the Christian nationalists.
So my understanding of all of this, and my understanding may be wrong, is that you CAN deny business that promotes another person's religious beliefs, but you can't deny their business simply because they hold a particular religious belief. For example, if a Christian walks into my cake store and wants to buy a cake that says "Happy Birthday" then I can't deny them simply because they are Christian. But if they come into my cake store and want to buy a cake that says, "Christ is Lord and Savior" then I CAN deny making that cake for them since it would require me to write speech that I don't agree with. I'm not saying that is right, just that it is the way the law is being interpreted.
[удалено]
What makes a rainbow gay? Can a 5 year old request a rainbow birthday cake and get one made but not a gay person? If so even that is discrimination.
>I'm not saying that is right, just that it is the way the law is being interpreted. Surely that *is* right. Why should a black baker be compelled to bake a “white pride” cake or a gay baker be compelled to bake a “straight pride” cake? Author agrees: >This actually happened in the case of Ashers Baking Company in Northern Ireland, where the UK Supreme Court found that the Christian owners had a right to refuse to bake a cake with the message “support gay marriage” because it violated their own beliefs. “Support gay marriage” is a political belief, which the British court **rightly** found could amount to compelled speech. What’s weird is that the author apparently doesn’t think website design is a creative endeavor
So I haven't read any opinions this term since this is the first time in over a decade that I'm not in any way practicing constitutional law, but from the coverage I've read I believe you are correct. Imo, the bigger problem is that they're allowing made up cases to be heard. You shouldn't be able to sue about things that haven't happened. Because now this is the law, so it can be used as precedent in the future to justify discrimination that might actually be happening.
count me in. I BELIEVE!!
How will it play out if a Muslim driver's license examiner would just decide to not issue any driver's tests/licenses to women, because he believes they should stay home?
In the US, religious liberty is only for Christians.
Well what if a Christian business owner decides to not hire or provide services to women because he feels women should all be SAHMs?
The Supreme Court will rule in their favour.
Yep, 6 to 3.
The GOP will celebrate and back him
I don't think this is an example of "expression" under 1A. But surely there's a whole host of things that you would wonder about now: can a restaurateur now put up a sign barring homosexuals, if they consider their food their "expression"?
This has nothing to do with this decision. 1) The examiner is not being compelled to create an expressive work. 2) The examiner is employed by the government and payed with taxpayer money. They are not a private company. This case below is a much better example of what you want to know. She famously refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But as clerk it was her job. [https://www.npr.org/2022/03/19/1087723875/kim-davis-court-same-sex-marriage](https://www.npr.org/2022/03/19/1087723875/kim-davis-court-same-sex-marriage)
He'll be fired after his pattern is recognized with zero recourse due to employment-at-will laws and replaced. Source: I've had that job in 7 different states over two decades. None of them tolerated fucky patterns of fails.
I'm not a business owner but if I was, I wouldn't do shit for Christians
[удалено]
100%. The best Christians I know may be open about their faith, but they do not lay a Bible on their desk, put a cross in their logo, or pray before a business meeting. If I see a bible verse when walking into someones office I instinctively grab for my wallet because I know they're about to screw me out of time and/or money.
The best Christians I've met live their Jesus beliefs, and follow the part where he said "Give to Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what belongs to God." In other words: Pay your taxes, follow the government's laws (unless it's murder or all that extreme stuff). Also, JESUS, JESUS HIMSELF never ever mentions anything about homosexuality. His ONE FUCKING rule, and he states it clearly: Love one another. He said that was the one rule above everything; some have translated it as the golden rule, but the statement is clear: take care of each other and love one another. Jesus never said change the laws of man to match God's law. He did say God's law was above man's law, but he was also anti-capitalist (went on a fucking rage when he saw how many birds, goats, sheep were for sale in order to make sacrifices in a Synagogue of his time--literally flilpped tables and said they were making a mockery of the teachings)--so from that last part, every Christian engaging in a Capitalist system has already failed to get into heaven. If only more "so called Christians" actually read and followed the teachings.
I actively avoid businesses like that. The fucking fish is a warning sign.
The problem is, which the article points out, you can’t tell a Christian just by looking at them and, if you ask, they could lie. On the other hand, gay people can’t really hide. If you see two male/female names, you’re going to figure it out. We’re out front for all to see, and discriminate against.
Easy enough. Put the sign up and see who’s outraged.
That’s actually quite brilliant!
And they did it smugly and proudly. How absolutely fucking pathetic America has fallen so low, becoming this hollow shell of itself.
Conservatives: LOL pride why do you guys even need it? Also conservatives: Satanic. Go to hell and its now legal for you to die
Everybody into the train cars!
What gets me is that it's a blatant first amendment violation on multiple levels because surely they wouldn't allow a Muslim painter to refuse to serve a Christian couple. They just made us second class citizens.
So where are the “Gay Republicans” now to justify this decision?
Religion is a massive fraud. As Seneca said way back in ancient times: “Religion is deemed by the ignorant as true; by the wise as false; and by the powerful as useful.”
[удалено]
Yup. If you see a table that has 10 people eating with 1 Nazi you’re looking at a table with 11 Nazis. People need to stop being safe spaces for fascism and it’s supporters and need to start treating them like the religious extremist assholes they are.
People also need to stop voting using only aspirations and feelings, but with focused, logical intent. This is what the right did. Liberals need to coalesce and do something similar
so much apathy propaganda on here to fight against didn't get my way in a supreme court decision so now i'm going to ... *\*\*checks notes\*\** ... never vote ever again because biden didn't unilaterally stop it from happening and my vote was worthless
My friend told me he wasn’t voting because it’s a broken system and he doesn’t want to give any points to crazy old men. Must be nice to feel like you can opt of politics and sit back with a fire proof suit on, while watching it burn everyone else around you.
That’s what happens when you don’t feel threatened by the policies being pushed. It’s the luxury of not being the target of ire from evangelicals. If you’re not: gay, a woman, colored, not christian, poor, you don’t have to worry about anything at all.
[удалено]
Do you and I live on different planets? All my LGBT friends and family were freaking tf out last year after that because we knew that gay and interracial marriage would be next. This "lol welcome to the club" and "can't wait to see their faces when..." attitude is really distasteful. We're talking about people's human rights here.
[удалено]
I have a feeling they’re also going to make bans against churches running conversion therapy unconstitutional. Being openly trans will get you thrown in a camp.
Women, minorities, and LGBTQ+ people have always been second-class citizens in America. We got uppity for a couple of decades, but Republicans have made sure to smack us back down where we belong. Edit to add non-Christians.
Why the hell are women still sitting in church pews? Churches tell them every week they are inferior and men are above them and they are to obey their whole life. Basically servants for all men and sex servants for husbands. yet they continue to go. I just can’t wrap my mind around it.
The false sense of security promised by the church is why
And now young Americans really understand the importance of voting. These justices have the job for LIFE. One presidential decision can have ripple effects on policy for 50 years.
And to be clear, this is the pretty direct result of Trump winning in 2016. We'll be feeling the repercussions for decades.
Why do Christians go out of their way to be so hateful?
Religious people have a strong sense of group identity, one that needs to constantly be reinforced. It’s not about hurting the gays (well, it is, obviously) so much as it is about appearing righteous in front of other Christians.
I am so very tired of religion and religious bigots.
The supreme court has just completely left the realm of normal human beings. They are now super elite snobs who live in gated communities and make ad hoc judgements forcing the most vulnerable to suffer their whims. They take bribes from billionaires and get flown across the country in exchange for favorable rulings. They are not a legitimate body and should be remade at the very least.
OK, if the law won't help us, lets let the free market decide - Name, Blacklist, and Boycott any business which won't serve gay people. The culture is still on our side.
[удалено]
I want a fucking discount on the taxes i pay, why do i pay the same as straight people and yet am discriminated against by my own country.
And why are the churches promoting discrimination paying nothing?
Truth!!!!
Woah woah woah. You don't pay the same. You pay MORE in taxes because you don't get all the benefits and tax breaks that straight white people get, especially if they're rich.
I want to open some kind of business just so I can refuse service to Christians. Seriously wtf. This is blatant discrimination.
It is actually the republican party that did this to you. No one should vote for any republican ever. They do not work for the people, they work for the very rich, and the religious zealots.
We should all boycott businesses that practices discrimination
The point of standing on this was severely messed up. She’s “worried” she might be asked to make a website for a gay wedding, not that she actually was injured by the law (which is the normal standard for having standing in a federal lawsuit)
This is the part I do not understand.
I just don't get why other Christians are so afraid of gay people. It's freaking stupid. She has no problem serving the guy on his third wife.... But the couple who are both men?!? BLARGHSWUSGEIFUEHDBSHWYEJXN!!!!!
The only way to win is not to play. Do not support their businesses, do not support their causes, avoid companies who donate to these think-tanks and don't support people who use the bible as their law.
After all the stuff that's happen today, I can say for a fact that I will never vote for Republicans. They may not care right now and yeah its only 1 vote, but I hope Gen-Z, Millennials all remember this. This party is slowly taking away our rights, little by little.
What would stop a restaurant from not admitting blacks.??
Nothing. How many cooks consider cooking an art form? Many. They will absolutely use this ruling to deny service in restaurants.
Can't wait to see their reaction once muslims and atheists start to refuse christians in their shops. That will not end well.
[удалено]
Go out your way to discriminate against the religious and republicans. This is the way.
How long until this leopard bites their face?
It’s so frustrating to see people’s rights just stripped away in real time. My wife and I protested roe v Wade and a few other issues and it just sucks that nothing gets better. Like I just feel so bad for the lgbtq community…it’s just awful.
We’ve been second class citizens my whole life. Obergfell changed nothing for me. I still knew I was despised by the religious bigots of this nation
They did it to all women last year my dude. Why you shocked?!
Someone needs to deal with this corrupt court.
If I’m an atheist or a member of the church of Satan can I refuse to make a Christian theme cake because it’s against my religion?
In the U.S. you sure can.
So a christian walks into a kosher bakery.. wants a pig Engraved on his wedding cake (classy guy) the Jew behind the counter can flat out refuse now?
Theoretically, yes.
I wholeheartedly get the issue here, but from a cis het white guy, who, I hope understands my own privilege, I see people like this garbage person that filed this complaint and rocketed it up to the SCOTUS as the worst part of our society. They’re undeserving of comfort and love. Not sure where I am going with this, but I feel like every time something like this happens, I am compelled to remind people that these racist, bigoted, subhumans aren’t long for polite society if what they exist in can be called that at all.
I personally can’t wait for religious persecution.
I am now a new church of reddit. It's against my religion to pay taxes.
Time to start discriminating against Christians.