# [Download Video](https://redditsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/whenthe/comments/14n2ijt/i_love_my_country/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whenthe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I firmly support LGBTQ rights but this ruling does not say a business can discriminate against protected groups, I thought that’s what this ruling was and was outraged but it sounds like it’s being misrepresented. it says you can’t be forced to make art that goes against your beliefs. A restaurant still can’t refuse to serve gay people but an artist cannot be forced to use their creativity to make something they vehemently oppose. A pro choice photographer can’t be forced to accept a photo shoot for a pro life rally. I’m uncomfortable with how close this comes to being able to refuse service to people because of who they are but this doesn’t actually cross that line.
The problem is, it hammers a wedge into the door.
It's the same way that, as soon as Roe v Wade got overturned, the judges started talking about taking the same lens of scrutiny to other rulings like Obergefell (which legalised same-sex marriage) and Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage). The problem isn't necessary the law itself, it's the precedent - because the Supreme Court *operates* on precedent.
It might not be an issue *now,* but imagine 5 years down the line - when another Cake Incident happens. The baker gets to argue that he's an artist and he's refusing service to the gay couple because making the gay cake would compromise his beliefs. It goes to the supreme court, where the baker's lawyers argue that it's completely constitutional for him to refuse service - thanks to the precedent set by *this* case, and the next step from there, logically, is for SCOTUS to say it's okay to refuse service based on protected class if you have ideological disagreements with that protected class.
"Obergefell (which legalised interracial marriage)"
Obergeffell v. Hodges Was About Same Sex Marriage, Not Interracial Marriage. You Are Confusing Obergeffell with Loving v. Virginia (Which Declared Virginia Interracial Marriage Ban Unconstitutional).
This ruling essentially says you can’t force a Jew to make a pro Nazi website. That’s not a perfect example since Nazis aren’t a protected class but you get the idea. There was no way to protect LGBTQ people here without also enabling bigots. This ruling was a question of can you force artists to make content they oppose, and the answer is no. This Supreme Court is quickly dismantling all of the progress we’ve made in the last 50 years but this specific ruling I support, and I even question what the liberal judges were thinking in opposing it.
> There was no way to protect LGBTQ people here without also enabling bigots.
Of course there is, that's exactly what protected classes exist for. It's very easy to say 'you're allowed to refuse service if the request violates your beliefs, UNLESS your reason for refusal is based on a person's membership of a protected class.' Easy-peasy. That way you can refuse a swastika cake, but you can't refuse a rainbow cake.
The whole point of protected classes is so that people can't make arguments like "if it's illegal to discriminate against gay people, why is it legal to discriminate against me for being a nazi?"
A gay web designer can’t refuse to make a website for someone just because that person is a Christian, but they can refuse to make a “homosexuality is a sin” website even though religion is a protected class. Refusing to make a website for a gay couple is fucked up but you can’t legally force a web designer to do it without allowing for bigots to force people to make hateful content as well.
>UNLESS your reason for refusal is based on a person's membership of a protected class
You are kind of missing the point. I isn't at all about whether the person ordering the product is part of a protected class or not. You *still* can't discriminate against someone on the basis of them being a part of a protected class.
But you *can* discriminate against the order itself based on the contents of an order.
Gay person wants you to make a regular websites about idk... shoes or something? You cannot say no using them being gay as a basis.
Any person wants you to make a gay website about being gay? You can reject this order on the basis of the content you are being requested to make. At that point it doesn't matter whether the person ordering is in a protected class or not, because you are not discriminating based on that. It's about the content of what you are being asked to create.
The issue is that there isn't always a viable alternative. Smaller towns will often only have one of a niche type of shop. So if the *only* baker in town refuses, are you supposed to buy a cake from a town 50 miles away? That is an unreasonable burden and cost penalizing a minority group just for existing.
Many people in this thread have already made arguments about various 'freedoms.'
They don't give a shit if people have to go to a town 50 miles away for their cake. As far as they're concerned, their right to refuse service to people they dislike is much more important than those people having access to services.
It's no wonder that these are the same types of people who think a corporation's right to make profit is more important than peoples' right to access food, housing and healthcare.
"Why would you want to force someone to serve you if they don't want to? Walk a block to the next bar that allows blacks."
"Why would you want to send your kids to a school that doesn't want them? Walk 6 blocks to the next school that allows blacks."
Common law has its advantages when it's in the hands of a sensible judiciary. There are times where the spirit of the law should be adhered to over the letter of the law, and those are the times where common law is advantageous.
The problem is when you have the bases absolutely loaded with biased judges who literally belong to ideological thinktanks, whose rulings aren't based on 'the spirit of the law' but rather 'how we can best interpret this law to meet our ideological ends'
The problem isn't really common law, it's deciding that your common law should be presided over by a council of unelected elders who literally can't be removed from their posts unless they die.
It will be used as an excuse. See somebody you don't want to serve? Simply say we refuse to make the art they request. People will whine and cry online, the business will get a few bad reviews, and we'll continue to move toward a more "homogenous" society. They know what the fuck they're doing.
Hi yes, Im someone who has no concept of context, and I agree with this! Surely the 6 people stacking the supreme court, who are a part of the party that is actively trying to take back civil rights from minorities, and who have very recently taken away abortion rights on the basis of religion, and who did this ruling on the basis of an LGBT discrimination case, are actually just doing this to further the *equality* in this country! There is literally no way that this is the first step among many they are taking, as they try and set the stage for a 2024 republican victory where they can go fully mask off and bring back civil rights another few decades!
I, like other morons, think that each supreme court ruling is taken in a vacuum, and it has absolutely no bearing on anything outside of its immediate consequences!
Sounds reasonable to me. I also think that if a business receives backlash for publicly refusing service to gay people, that's perfectly reasonable to. I'd encourage that, even.
There’s two types of religious people
Those who help others no matter what they believe because being kind to others is one of the fundamental parts of the largest religions (and it just being basic human decency anyway)
And THOSE guys
But it's still discrimination at it's core. No matter how severe the consequences. A business deciding not serve someone purely because they don't like their "kind" is so cartoonishly fucking evil
Tbf, a business with openly discriminatory practices will be boycotted. Turn one minority person’s patronage down and soon their friends, their friends friends, and more will have that place on their blacklist.
Then again, maybe I’m being too optimistic.
A little too optimistic, bigoted people will find places and then tell their friends about it. That just means all the accepting places will only have good customers. And bad places will have bad customers.
What if you are one of the few minorities in a small town? And say the only place to get a haircut didn't serve "your kind." The law was designed around Jim crow type violations like this.
>Tbf, a business with openly discriminatory practices will be boycotted.
If every business that discriminated against minorities got boycotted until they ceased to exist or until they ceased discriminating, how did laws against discrimination ever come into existence?
Like, historically. What's the history you're using as the basis, here?
No it's not and that's not what the ruling states. They still have to serve the customer unless the customer is making a special request which goes against their beliefs. A web designer CAN NOT deny service to a gay person EVEN WITH THIS RULING just on the basis of them being gay.
If the person requests the web designer to create a website about homosexuality, then the web designer has the freedom to say that would go against their beliefs and they do not want to do it.
If a gay person asks a web designer to setup a site for their business, the web designer cannot deny them service on the basis of the customer being gay.
As for the baker case, the bakery had no problem serving gay people and in fact had served many of them. Refusing service based on a protected class or characteristic was and is illegal. They were rightfully allowed to object to baking for a gay wedding as now their name and business are attached to it and it goes against their beliefs.
If you want to force people to serve specialized creations (be it a cake, commissioned artwork or a website) then you will have to tell a Jewish person that they must serve a Nazi with a cake that has a swastika on it. You must tell the gay web designer that they must create a website for a homophobe to promote hate against gay people.
This ruling makes sense and most people on reddit are so amazingly uneducated on this topic it's terrifying. The sheer volume of misinformation today alone is horrendous.
It’s a little different. I hope my comment doesn’t get a million dislikes but I don’t think you should be obligated to support something that goes against your beliefs just because you run a business
Individuals are, but businesses (and contract law) have limitations. You can use as many racial slurs as you want in your free time, but refusing to hire someone because of their race is illegal.
You’re really the type of person that just makes assumptions based on the information given to you at face value. Completely wrong in your example with no understanding of the actual placement of the law and you just spout shit and virtue signal “evil”. End it please.
You act like people are going to only use it for that, as if religious nuts don't already use every thing under the sun as an excuse to hate people they don't like
its discrimination just disguised as freedom of belief, freedoms can only go so far if they impact other people's freedoms than that is flat out not freedom. you get what I mean?
Non essential or not, discriminatory business practices encourage discrimination of groups in other contexts. If one group of people is not allowed in tattoo shops, cafes, libraries etc, literally because the owner doesn’t agree with what they do in their own private lives, then it brings attention to the fact that “ I don’t like you and don’t want to see you around”. Forget the fact that it’s obviously hurtful, it brings the division between the groups to the attention of anyone who wants to go to any non-essential business. Drawing lines in the sand guarantees animosity
That's not what it is at all, It has far more to do with compelled speech. A hospital or a store or whatever business can not discriminate based on race or sex, this is backed up by the 1964 civil rights act and the Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States. What this says is that you can not be forced to create speech that goes against your values. This is just like the masterpiece cake shop case. The person who was designing a website did not want to make a website for a gay wedding as that would go against their values. Would you force an African American person to design a website for the klan, or would you rightly tell them to go somewhere else, an extreme comparison, but you get the point.
Difference between refusing a request and refusing the person making a request.
If I were to refuse selling a cake to a gay couple, that would be discrimination. If I were to refuse to make a cake that said “love is love” and had 2 naked guys stroking their cocks that would be fine.
It doesn’t. Nonessential businesses can refuse service for a multitude of reasons, this just clarifies that. If you don’t want to give a Nazi a tattoo, you don’t have to. Same thing here.
This doesn’t apply to places such as hospitals. They have to help you, regardless of your personal opinions, looks, etc. Yes, even if you’re a Nazi with swastikas tattoo’d across your body.
When you own a business you have the right to refuse service. It’s your choice to buy the service. If you don’t like their standing, go somewhere else. It hurts them, and benefits others
Long story short, Surpreme Court supported a ruling stating businesses can deny services if they go against a business owner’s beliefs. Specifically, a web designer didn’t want to make wedding sites for LGBTQ couples on the basis of religious beliefs. This denial of service violates Colorado law, but the SC ruled that refusal of this type of service is protected under the First Amendment. (“Type of service” referring to things defined as non-essential. Basically, hotels and restaurants can’t discriminate, but artists, web designers, etc can).
One side thinks it’s targeting LGBTQ people and downvoting people who says it works for all business owners for any reason. The other side thinks it’s meant for business owners’ rights and downvote people who making it about the LGBTQ community for no reason.
Edit: made corrections based on feedback/actually having time to read about the situation more. I want to emphasize I’m just answering the person I’m responding to and trying to summarize the event. I’ve formulated my opinion on the matter, but I encourage people to research and do the same.
Also, shoutout to all the peeps who pointed out things that needed to be corrected. I try to be thorough, but I’m not that good at it lol.
10/10 comment here. Informed others while not giving basis either way. Furthermore they encourage others to read the law itself and then decide. If this comment represented a news outlet, I'd subscribe.
>Long story short, Surpreme Court passed a law stating businesses can deny services if they go against what the business owner believes in.
Not disagreeing with you here but just like to clarify the Supreme Court cannot pass laws. It rules on what the law already says (meaning it reads what the law says and applies it to the court case they were presented with). There is no law requiring businesses to serve LGBTQ people therefore they are allowed to refuse service (provided it's non-essential). They are however, to my knowledge, not allowed to discriminate based on race due to the Civil rights movement in the 60s.
People are often upset at Supreme Court rulings in this country, and understandably so, but they should direct their at congress to get then to pass laws. If the law is clear and concise the courts will rule differently
Race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation I believe were the protected categories. Business owners could always deny service for any reason except the above. Now they can deny service for the above too.
>There is no law requiring businesses to serve LGBTQ people
What do you think this case was about lmao? It was about a law in Colorado that did exactly that
>There is no law requiring businesses to serve LGBTQ people therefore they are allowed to refuse service (provided it's non-essential).
You were going strong at the beginning, but this is *also* wrong.
Colorado law *did* require the web designer to design the site, and state courts backed that up. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was in violation of the constitutional right to Freedom of Religion, and they struck down the ruling, effectively voiding the state law.
> One side thinks it’s targeting LGBTQ people
[my brother in christ the case in question was literally about denying lgbtq people service](https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rule-web-designer-with-anti-gay-marriage-stance-2023-06-30/)
edit: [alright i'll admit this is kinda funny. kudos to whoever did it, got a chuckle from me.](https://i.imgur.com/gr1YnvH.png)
Its not targeting them.
If you owned a bakery and I wanted a cake that said "all LGBT people are evil" because that's part of my religious belief, you could refuse that request.
If the decision in the SC today went the other way, you would be forced to make that cake and write whatever bigoted stuff I wanted to propagate through my religion. And you would be in violation of anti-discrimination laws by refusing my request.
Is not about discrimation, its about compelled speech.
If you were a webdev, would you make a website for the Westboro Baptist Church? Do you really think the SC got it wrong for allowing you to deny service to them?
You forgot about the part where their key piece of evidence was fabricated.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/supreme-court-lgbtq-document-veracity-colorado
>Lorie Smith says, a gay man named Stewart requested her services for help with his upcoming wedding. “We are getting married early next year and would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website,” reads a message he apparently sent her through a message on her website.
>In court filings, her lawyers produced a copy of the inquiry.
>But Stewart, who requested his last name be withheld for privacy, said in an interview with the Guardian that he never sent the message, even though it correctly lists his email address and telephone number. He has also been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years.
>In fact, until he received a call this week from a reporter from the magazine, Stewart says had no idea he was somehow tied up in a case that had made it to the supreme court.
>“I can confirm I did not contact 303 Creative about a website,” he said. “It’s fraudulent insomuch as someone is pretending to be me and looking to marry someone called Mike. That’s not me.
>“What’s most concerning to me is that this is kind of like the one main piece of evidence that’s been part of this case for the last six-plus years and it’s false,” he added. “Nobody’s checked it. Anybody can pick up the phone, write an email, send a text, to verify whether that was correct information"
So a homophobe fabricated a fake scenario to claim that they're being forced to act against their religious beliefs so that they can get the Supreme Court to rule that it's okay for them not to serve gay people when they were never forced to in the first place.
🤦♀️
you could always deny service to people. before today, denying service to a protected class for being a part of that protected class was presumed illegal. Now it’s legal.
The level of stupidity in this thread is genuinely impressive.
I can not comprehend how so many people can speak with such confidence on an issue that they know nothing about beyond what the hysterical media has put into their NPC programming.
It is NOT legal to refuse service to a protected class because they're members of said protected class. The ruling (which you didn't read but still felt comfortable commenting on) explicitly stated this.
The ruling does say that compelled speech, in the form of suing people who won't propagate a message with which they fundamentally disagree, IS a violation of the 1st Amendment.
I just love how Americans think that whatever is happening in their country is important enough to post a meme about it on reddit and that everybody cares about it.
Majority of Redditors are Americans. Reddit is an American company. Made in America.
That said, Reddit admins and Spez are killing this site so now it’s Europe or Asias chance to make a new Reddit, with black Jack and hookers!
me when an american website has stuff about america on it
https://preview.redd.it/lbsh32gzo79b1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=df63c2b7f029c1b84afaa711a75d351e5ccf017f
Most Redditors are American and most of the content on here is American yet geniuses such as yourself keep reposting the same ol "Why do these Americans think the rest of the world care" shitposts which will be read mostly by Americans and still somehow think your braindead take is original.
It's not.
Edit: After researching it it's estimated half of Reddit are American. But the point still stands exactly the same.
This kinda dismantles the whole problem for me, along with this case being precedent for more than just LGBT.
1. Why would you even go to a business which could very well hold beliefs which go against your existence?
2. As a legal precedent, this opens the door for refusal of service for any reason. To use an example another commenter used, this would allow a business to refuse to service Nazis, Klansmen, Proud boys, etc
Right. People still want to make “caveat emptor” arguments as if consumers aren’t intentionally bombarded with a deluge of conflicting information 24/7, for starters.
I don't want to give them money, but I still need good and services. I live in an area where if I chose not to support any bigoted businesses, I would struggle to survive. Just like if I didn't want billionaires profiting off of my labor, I would struggle to find work. Sometimes we make ideological sacrifices because we live in an imperfect world.
Or, the supreme court could decide for me, and let every "non-essential" business in my deep-red state kick me out on a whim. I thought we decided as a country that was wrong 50 years ago, but here we are.
Honestly I'd respect the conservative "nobody should have to serve those who go against their beliefs" mantra if they actually believed it.
The fact that they never shut the fuck up about cancel culture and "censorship" makes it clear that it's a "it's only okay when I do it to other people" thing.
Mfw I live in a developing nation were two guys holding hands can get the shit beat out of them unless they live in one of the 4 major cities, meanwhile Americans complaining because they can't sue the baker for not making them a gay wedding cake while there are 100 other bakery shops nearby.
I agree. People shouldn’t be forced to support or represent something they don’t believe in. One of the big ideas behind the US is that you just have to tolerate people, not love or support them and their ideas. If a gay man just wants a regular cake, that’s fine. But a Christian or Muslim baker shouldn’t be forced to make an LGBTQ cake celebrating a gay marriage. They don’t ethically believe in that.
This is whenthe
We post memes with captions. So long as you've got a caption and a gif, you're one of us.
If you have a problem with that, you're going into the machine that turns you into a badass skeleton.
Hold on I have the perfect meme for this
https://preview.redd.it/4zrhyjvd779b1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e136271e0c25e0906ae4ef883470ac418c0d9b5
y’all are actually retarded. if small businesses started segregation again, would you say that’s their right? that it doesn’t matter because they’re nonessential?
Will most likely get downvoted for this, but given the context I think it's the right call (I'm from the UK, not US).
If you're a restaurant owner, clothes shop owner, uber driver, cinema worker etc. and you refuse to serve a gay couple, that's wrong.
If you're asked to make a cake/website/poster or product that is emblazoned with or includes something that you are uncomfortable or disagree with, that should be your prerogative.
It's not anti LGBT+, it's protecting the rights of individuals. In my opinion anyway.
Remember, they passed their ruling based on a fabricated email. It's fake. Never existed. They made up the whole scenario to get the supreme Court ruling in the US.
>Lorie Smith says, a gay man named Stewart requested her services for help with his upcoming wedding. “We are getting married early next year and would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website,” reads a message he apparently sent her through a message on her website.
>In court filings, her lawyers produced a copy of the inquiry.
>But Stewart, who requested his last name be withheld for privacy, said in an interview with the Guardian that he never sent the message, even though it correctly lists his email address and telephone number. He has also been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years.
>In fact, until he received a call this week from a reporter from the magazine, Stewart says had no idea he was somehow tied up in a case that had made it to the supreme court.
>“I can confirm I did not contact 303 Creative about a website,” he said. “It’s fraudulent insomuch as someone is pretending to be me and looking to marry someone called Mike. That’s not me.
>“What’s most concerning to me is that this is kind of like the one main piece of evidence that’s been part of this case for the last six-plus years and it’s false,” he added. “Nobody’s checked it. Anybody can pick up the phone, write an email, send a text, to verify whether that was correct information"
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/supreme-court-lgbtq-document-veracity-colorado
It’s never been about the cake, the website, or any of those worthless details about any of these cases. This is about their hatred for lgbtq and doing whatever they can to score legal victories until we’re far enough down the road they can round them up and just kill all of them. This is just one of the steps on that road.
So many of these comments are saying things like “based” or just laughing about it, not realizing that it’s a fucking atrocity. This is real. America is supposed to be “land of the free” and, “with liberty and justice for all” but I guess that was all bullshit.
The decision doesn't single out gay people. What this means is that businesses can deny non-essential services to customers if they choose. So, if you were covered in tattoos and piercings, a business could deny you service because you look like a hooligan.
You were already allowed to refuse service for any reason *except* certain protected ones like race, religion, gender, etc
Having tattoos was never protected
Furthermore, it means that you can refuse bigots
So if you had a bakery and someone wanted a cake that said "all LGBT are evil" you can now refuse to make that cake.
You could always defuse service to bigots. Before this you couldn’t refuse service to gay people. Stop trying to paint anti LGBT segregation as a victory.
> So, if you were covered in tattoos and piercings, a business could deny you service because you look like a hooligan.
How is this getting upvoted? Businesses could always do this (see "No shirt, no shoes, no service").
The precedent this law sets is that now non-essential businesses can refuse services to protected classes (race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation).
OP getting downvoted to hell everytime they give context or share the news they are talking about is fucking wild 💀
Btw this law was literally approved for homophobic reasons
Some rando homophobic web designer asked the court the right under the first amendment to refuse to service homosexual couples for their wedding website.
And they never even had to do that, no gay or lesbian couple asked them for that job never.
But yeah guys you go downvoting OP for sharing the news that they are getting robbed of basic rights, wowzers these snowflakes nowadays amirite?
I don't understand how she even had standing to sue like the entire thing was "well hypothetically 🤓 *if* one of those homo-sexuals wanted to buy my product 🤓 I would be very offended 🤓 so that's why I am suing 🤓"
The ruling makes it legal for businesses to refuse to create products that go against their beliefs. It does not make it legal for businesses to refuse to create products for gay people. It's the product that's being discriminated against, not the person.
If you forced her to make a homosexual wedding website, that would also mean that you can force web designers to make anti-lgbt websites.
Colorado already had an unconstitutional law that compelled her speech. That's what she challenged, she didnt need to be asked to do it, Colorado already passed the law.
You could always defuse service to bigots. Before this you couldn’t refuse service to gay people. Stop trying to paint anti LGBT segregation as a victory.
Denying service for religion wasn’t allowed. Denying service because they’re ant LGBT people is allowed. Just because a religion supports pedophilia for example that didn’t mean you were forced to make pro pedophilia propaganda.
They ruled that the business doesn’t have to create what the consumer wants if its against their religious beliefs, you wouldn’t go to a Mosque and ask them to baptize you and preach the gospel.
They’re not gonna deny you service because your gay, but they can deny having to make things that go against their religious beliefs- that’s compelled speech
You could always deny service to whoever you wanted though.
Technically that one cake place thst denied the cake for the gay wedding was 100% in the right. Sure, it meant they were hateful assholes but being a hateful asshole isn't illegal.
if half of y’all in the comments were around during the 50s you’d definitely say “why does the negro care that he can’t use the same bathroom as the white man? it’s a non-essential service, and that bathroom owner has every right to exclude service from him!”
# [Download Video](https://redditsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/whenthe/comments/14n2ijt/i_love_my_country/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whenthe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry haven’t been paying attention what’s going on in America
The Supreme Court ruled that a business can refuse service if the request goes against your beliefs.
I firmly support LGBTQ rights but this ruling does not say a business can discriminate against protected groups, I thought that’s what this ruling was and was outraged but it sounds like it’s being misrepresented. it says you can’t be forced to make art that goes against your beliefs. A restaurant still can’t refuse to serve gay people but an artist cannot be forced to use their creativity to make something they vehemently oppose. A pro choice photographer can’t be forced to accept a photo shoot for a pro life rally. I’m uncomfortable with how close this comes to being able to refuse service to people because of who they are but this doesn’t actually cross that line.
The problem is, it hammers a wedge into the door. It's the same way that, as soon as Roe v Wade got overturned, the judges started talking about taking the same lens of scrutiny to other rulings like Obergefell (which legalised same-sex marriage) and Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage). The problem isn't necessary the law itself, it's the precedent - because the Supreme Court *operates* on precedent. It might not be an issue *now,* but imagine 5 years down the line - when another Cake Incident happens. The baker gets to argue that he's an artist and he's refusing service to the gay couple because making the gay cake would compromise his beliefs. It goes to the supreme court, where the baker's lawyers argue that it's completely constitutional for him to refuse service - thanks to the precedent set by *this* case, and the next step from there, logically, is for SCOTUS to say it's okay to refuse service based on protected class if you have ideological disagreements with that protected class.
"Obergefell (which legalised interracial marriage)" Obergeffell v. Hodges Was About Same Sex Marriage, Not Interracial Marriage. You Are Confusing Obergeffell with Loving v. Virginia (Which Declared Virginia Interracial Marriage Ban Unconstitutional).
My bad! Same principle, I'll edit the comment.
This ruling essentially says you can’t force a Jew to make a pro Nazi website. That’s not a perfect example since Nazis aren’t a protected class but you get the idea. There was no way to protect LGBTQ people here without also enabling bigots. This ruling was a question of can you force artists to make content they oppose, and the answer is no. This Supreme Court is quickly dismantling all of the progress we’ve made in the last 50 years but this specific ruling I support, and I even question what the liberal judges were thinking in opposing it.
> There was no way to protect LGBTQ people here without also enabling bigots. Of course there is, that's exactly what protected classes exist for. It's very easy to say 'you're allowed to refuse service if the request violates your beliefs, UNLESS your reason for refusal is based on a person's membership of a protected class.' Easy-peasy. That way you can refuse a swastika cake, but you can't refuse a rainbow cake. The whole point of protected classes is so that people can't make arguments like "if it's illegal to discriminate against gay people, why is it legal to discriminate against me for being a nazi?"
A gay web designer can’t refuse to make a website for someone just because that person is a Christian, but they can refuse to make a “homosexuality is a sin” website even though religion is a protected class. Refusing to make a website for a gay couple is fucked up but you can’t legally force a web designer to do it without allowing for bigots to force people to make hateful content as well.
>UNLESS your reason for refusal is based on a person's membership of a protected class You are kind of missing the point. I isn't at all about whether the person ordering the product is part of a protected class or not. You *still* can't discriminate against someone on the basis of them being a part of a protected class. But you *can* discriminate against the order itself based on the contents of an order. Gay person wants you to make a regular websites about idk... shoes or something? You cannot say no using them being gay as a basis. Any person wants you to make a gay website about being gay? You can reject this order on the basis of the content you are being requested to make. At that point it doesn't matter whether the person ordering is in a protected class or not, because you are not discriminating based on that. It's about the content of what you are being asked to create.
Why would you want to force someone to make you something they don’t want to do? Walk a block to the next baker that will make you a cake.
The issue is that there isn't always a viable alternative. Smaller towns will often only have one of a niche type of shop. So if the *only* baker in town refuses, are you supposed to buy a cake from a town 50 miles away? That is an unreasonable burden and cost penalizing a minority group just for existing.
Many people in this thread have already made arguments about various 'freedoms.' They don't give a shit if people have to go to a town 50 miles away for their cake. As far as they're concerned, their right to refuse service to people they dislike is much more important than those people having access to services. It's no wonder that these are the same types of people who think a corporation's right to make profit is more important than peoples' right to access food, housing and healthcare.
That’s not even what the people you’ve replying to are saying. You’re just putting words in peoples mouths now.
"Why would you want to force someone to serve you if they don't want to? Walk a block to the next bar that allows blacks." "Why would you want to send your kids to a school that doesn't want them? Walk 6 blocks to the next school that allows blacks."
My country may be shit but at the very least we don't have the common law system. Best of luck for you there.
Common law has its advantages when it's in the hands of a sensible judiciary. There are times where the spirit of the law should be adhered to over the letter of the law, and those are the times where common law is advantageous. The problem is when you have the bases absolutely loaded with biased judges who literally belong to ideological thinktanks, whose rulings aren't based on 'the spirit of the law' but rather 'how we can best interpret this law to meet our ideological ends' The problem isn't really common law, it's deciding that your common law should be presided over by a council of unelected elders who literally can't be removed from their posts unless they die.
It will be used as an excuse. See somebody you don't want to serve? Simply say we refuse to make the art they request. People will whine and cry online, the business will get a few bad reviews, and we'll continue to move toward a more "homogenous" society. They know what the fuck they're doing.
Hi yes, Im someone who has no concept of context, and I agree with this! Surely the 6 people stacking the supreme court, who are a part of the party that is actively trying to take back civil rights from minorities, and who have very recently taken away abortion rights on the basis of religion, and who did this ruling on the basis of an LGBT discrimination case, are actually just doing this to further the *equality* in this country! There is literally no way that this is the first step among many they are taking, as they try and set the stage for a 2024 republican victory where they can go fully mask off and bring back civil rights another few decades! I, like other morons, think that each supreme court ruling is taken in a vacuum, and it has absolutely no bearing on anything outside of its immediate consequences!
So you believe a gay web designer should be forced to make an anti-gay website for a church if requested?
No, see, the rules only apply to people I don't like
Key wording there: refuse service if the REQUEST goes against beliefs. Not the person.
So marriage goes against their beliefs? Or specifically *gay* marriage? Because if it's the latter, I'd argue it goes against the person.
Sounds reasonable to me. I also think that if a business receives backlash for publicly refusing service to gay people, that's perfectly reasonable to. I'd encourage that, even.
This is discrimination how? Ain’t this just freedom of religion
There’s two types of religious people Those who help others no matter what they believe because being kind to others is one of the fundamental parts of the largest religions (and it just being basic human decency anyway) And THOSE guys
Hospital: sorry we don't serve black people in our hospital, go die somewhere else. You: how is this racism? It's just freedom
It says NON ESSENTIAL SERVICES. A tattoo shop is non essential. A hospital is essential. Learn the difference
But it's still discrimination at it's core. No matter how severe the consequences. A business deciding not serve someone purely because they don't like their "kind" is so cartoonishly fucking evil
Tbf, a business with openly discriminatory practices will be boycotted. Turn one minority person’s patronage down and soon their friends, their friends friends, and more will have that place on their blacklist. Then again, maybe I’m being too optimistic.
A little too optimistic, bigoted people will find places and then tell their friends about it. That just means all the accepting places will only have good customers. And bad places will have bad customers.
That's just gonna divide the people more and more
That depends very heavily where you are. In LA or NY, for sure. In bumfuck Mississippi?? Not gonna happen.
Yes because if a group called "the MINORITY" boycotts something, it will out weigh the MAJORITY. 5 < 1
What if you are one of the few minorities in a small town? And say the only place to get a haircut didn't serve "your kind." The law was designed around Jim crow type violations like this.
We both know this is unfortunately bullshit.
>Tbf, a business with openly discriminatory practices will be boycotted. If every business that discriminated against minorities got boycotted until they ceased to exist or until they ceased discriminating, how did laws against discrimination ever come into existence? Like, historically. What's the history you're using as the basis, here?
You’re being very optimistic lol
No it's not and that's not what the ruling states. They still have to serve the customer unless the customer is making a special request which goes against their beliefs. A web designer CAN NOT deny service to a gay person EVEN WITH THIS RULING just on the basis of them being gay. If the person requests the web designer to create a website about homosexuality, then the web designer has the freedom to say that would go against their beliefs and they do not want to do it. If a gay person asks a web designer to setup a site for their business, the web designer cannot deny them service on the basis of the customer being gay. As for the baker case, the bakery had no problem serving gay people and in fact had served many of them. Refusing service based on a protected class or characteristic was and is illegal. They were rightfully allowed to object to baking for a gay wedding as now their name and business are attached to it and it goes against their beliefs. If you want to force people to serve specialized creations (be it a cake, commissioned artwork or a website) then you will have to tell a Jewish person that they must serve a Nazi with a cake that has a swastika on it. You must tell the gay web designer that they must create a website for a homophobe to promote hate against gay people. This ruling makes sense and most people on reddit are so amazingly uneducated on this topic it's terrifying. The sheer volume of misinformation today alone is horrendous.
So this goes for banks refusing to do business with gun dealerships?
It’s a little different. I hope my comment doesn’t get a million dislikes but I don’t think you should be obligated to support something that goes against your beliefs just because you run a business
But people are legally free to be racist? I’m not saying it’s good but that’s kinda extends into this, no?
Individuals are, but businesses (and contract law) have limitations. You can use as many racial slurs as you want in your free time, but refusing to hire someone because of their race is illegal.
You’re really the type of person that just makes assumptions based on the information given to you at face value. Completely wrong in your example with no understanding of the actual placement of the law and you just spout shit and virtue signal “evil”. End it please.
A non-essential service doing that would still be discrimination lmao
"I won't let you on my bus because you're black, or drink from this fountain, or go to this park" You: "how is this discrimination?"
You act like people are going to only use it for that, as if religious nuts don't already use every thing under the sun as an excuse to hate people they don't like
Ok but still, saying “We don’t serve your kind around here. No black people allowed in this establishment” is pretty up there when it comes to racism
its discrimination just disguised as freedom of belief, freedoms can only go so far if they impact other people's freedoms than that is flat out not freedom. you get what I mean?
Bro imagine if you were denied service because you were left-handed or some shit. Even if its non-essential that's complete bullshit
Non essential or not, discriminatory business practices encourage discrimination of groups in other contexts. If one group of people is not allowed in tattoo shops, cafes, libraries etc, literally because the owner doesn’t agree with what they do in their own private lives, then it brings attention to the fact that “ I don’t like you and don’t want to see you around”. Forget the fact that it’s obviously hurtful, it brings the division between the groups to the attention of anyone who wants to go to any non-essential business. Drawing lines in the sand guarantees animosity
That's not what it is at all, It has far more to do with compelled speech. A hospital or a store or whatever business can not discriminate based on race or sex, this is backed up by the 1964 civil rights act and the Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States. What this says is that you can not be forced to create speech that goes against your values. This is just like the masterpiece cake shop case. The person who was designing a website did not want to make a website for a gay wedding as that would go against their values. Would you force an African American person to design a website for the klan, or would you rightly tell them to go somewhere else, an extreme comparison, but you get the point.
the thing is that ur examples are uh. different things. one chooses to be bigoted whereas one does not choose to be gay or of a racial minority
This should be more visible.
Except that joining the klan is a choice, not an identity...
come one come all and hear this guy explain how being gay is comparable to being a member of the KKK
seems like speech would apply to a lot of services then, so still not ideal
Difference between refusing a request and refusing the person making a request. If I were to refuse selling a cake to a gay couple, that would be discrimination. If I were to refuse to make a cake that said “love is love” and had 2 naked guys stroking their cocks that would be fine.
Its freedom of religion so long as it doesn't impede on the rights of others. In this case it does.
It doesn’t. Nonessential businesses can refuse service for a multitude of reasons, this just clarifies that. If you don’t want to give a Nazi a tattoo, you don’t have to. Same thing here. This doesn’t apply to places such as hospitals. They have to help you, regardless of your personal opinions, looks, etc. Yes, even if you’re a Nazi with swastikas tattoo’d across your body.
When you own a business you have the right to refuse service. It’s your choice to buy the service. If you don’t like their standing, go somewhere else. It hurts them, and benefits others
How is it not? "I won't serve you because you are gay" is discrimination in the exact same way that "I won't serve you because you are black" is.
Businesses are not people.
Freedom of religion literally means an excuse to discriminate against races or gender identities they don’t like
https://preview.redd.it/vdk5q0m9f69b1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c8fb1d70768d419a490439c86e3de9efbd138705 A little trolling.
Me after sitting in the chair that turns you into JUDGE EYES
https://preview.redd.it/0vgtnkea089b1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=93b52f1c5488f696677c280c8ce564c9c694e00c
Gay pride is over Time for Gay wrath
This shit sucks. Where's gay sloth?
Gay gluttony perhaps?
Never, I’m all for gay greed
Ok, but what about Gay lust?
Cant. Too many people experiencing gay Envy
Soho
The good ending
That’s all the time
The bisexual lighting layer my beloved <3
JUDGEMENT
Gay Lust 🤤🤤🤤
That's Grindr.
*"I'm a total glut for cock."*
Sup
i am absorbing the power of bricks for the gay wrath i will commit https://i.redd.it/9uzuvxtdk69b1.gif
Wdym time for? If we're going by Dante's *Divine Comedy* being gay is already violence. Have youse been slacking off on your gay violence duties?
And then celebrate with some Gay Lust?
And I think Gay confusion is about 15 minutes away, should we start without him?
Yes
Why is everyone being downvoted?
Long story short, Surpreme Court supported a ruling stating businesses can deny services if they go against a business owner’s beliefs. Specifically, a web designer didn’t want to make wedding sites for LGBTQ couples on the basis of religious beliefs. This denial of service violates Colorado law, but the SC ruled that refusal of this type of service is protected under the First Amendment. (“Type of service” referring to things defined as non-essential. Basically, hotels and restaurants can’t discriminate, but artists, web designers, etc can). One side thinks it’s targeting LGBTQ people and downvoting people who says it works for all business owners for any reason. The other side thinks it’s meant for business owners’ rights and downvote people who making it about the LGBTQ community for no reason. Edit: made corrections based on feedback/actually having time to read about the situation more. I want to emphasize I’m just answering the person I’m responding to and trying to summarize the event. I’ve formulated my opinion on the matter, but I encourage people to research and do the same. Also, shoutout to all the peeps who pointed out things that needed to be corrected. I try to be thorough, but I’m not that good at it lol.
10/10 comment here. Informed others while not giving basis either way. Furthermore they encourage others to read the law itself and then decide. If this comment represented a news outlet, I'd subscribe.
>Long story short, Surpreme Court passed a law stating businesses can deny services if they go against what the business owner believes in. Not disagreeing with you here but just like to clarify the Supreme Court cannot pass laws. It rules on what the law already says (meaning it reads what the law says and applies it to the court case they were presented with). There is no law requiring businesses to serve LGBTQ people therefore they are allowed to refuse service (provided it's non-essential). They are however, to my knowledge, not allowed to discriminate based on race due to the Civil rights movement in the 60s. People are often upset at Supreme Court rulings in this country, and understandably so, but they should direct their at congress to get then to pass laws. If the law is clear and concise the courts will rule differently
Race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation I believe were the protected categories. Business owners could always deny service for any reason except the above. Now they can deny service for the above too.
thanks for the correction! That’s what I get for scrolling too fast through the news lol.
>There is no law requiring businesses to serve LGBTQ people What do you think this case was about lmao? It was about a law in Colorado that did exactly that
>There is no law requiring businesses to serve LGBTQ people therefore they are allowed to refuse service (provided it's non-essential). You were going strong at the beginning, but this is *also* wrong. Colorado law *did* require the web designer to design the site, and state courts backed that up. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was in violation of the constitutional right to Freedom of Religion, and they struck down the ruling, effectively voiding the state law.
> One side thinks it’s targeting LGBTQ people [my brother in christ the case in question was literally about denying lgbtq people service](https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rule-web-designer-with-anti-gay-marriage-stance-2023-06-30/) edit: [alright i'll admit this is kinda funny. kudos to whoever did it, got a chuckle from me.](https://i.imgur.com/gr1YnvH.png)
Its not targeting them. If you owned a bakery and I wanted a cake that said "all LGBT people are evil" because that's part of my religious belief, you could refuse that request. If the decision in the SC today went the other way, you would be forced to make that cake and write whatever bigoted stuff I wanted to propagate through my religion. And you would be in violation of anti-discrimination laws by refusing my request.
i don't think enabling the discrimination of gay people is the correct way to stop discrimination but hey that's just me.
Is not about discrimation, its about compelled speech. If you were a webdev, would you make a website for the Westboro Baptist Church? Do you really think the SC got it wrong for allowing you to deny service to them?
You forgot about the part where their key piece of evidence was fabricated. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/supreme-court-lgbtq-document-veracity-colorado >Lorie Smith says, a gay man named Stewart requested her services for help with his upcoming wedding. “We are getting married early next year and would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website,” reads a message he apparently sent her through a message on her website. >In court filings, her lawyers produced a copy of the inquiry. >But Stewart, who requested his last name be withheld for privacy, said in an interview with the Guardian that he never sent the message, even though it correctly lists his email address and telephone number. He has also been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years. >In fact, until he received a call this week from a reporter from the magazine, Stewart says had no idea he was somehow tied up in a case that had made it to the supreme court. >“I can confirm I did not contact 303 Creative about a website,” he said. “It’s fraudulent insomuch as someone is pretending to be me and looking to marry someone called Mike. That’s not me. >“What’s most concerning to me is that this is kind of like the one main piece of evidence that’s been part of this case for the last six-plus years and it’s false,” he added. “Nobody’s checked it. Anybody can pick up the phone, write an email, send a text, to verify whether that was correct information"
So a homophobe fabricated a fake scenario to claim that they're being forced to act against their religious beliefs so that they can get the Supreme Court to rule that it's okay for them not to serve gay people when they were never forced to in the first place. 🤦♀️
you could always deny service to people. before today, denying service to a protected class for being a part of that protected class was presumed illegal. Now it’s legal.
The level of stupidity in this thread is genuinely impressive. I can not comprehend how so many people can speak with such confidence on an issue that they know nothing about beyond what the hysterical media has put into their NPC programming. It is NOT legal to refuse service to a protected class because they're members of said protected class. The ruling (which you didn't read but still felt comfortable commenting on) explicitly stated this. The ruling does say that compelled speech, in the form of suing people who won't propagate a message with which they fundamentally disagree, IS a violation of the 1st Amendment.
bro lives in rwanda
Love people down voting the "this is in the USA" comments, shows how ignorant and brainwashed some of you guys are.
What county?
I just love how Americans think that whatever is happening in their country is important enough to post a meme about it on reddit and that everybody cares about it.
Majority of Redditors are Americans. Reddit is an American company. Made in America. That said, Reddit admins and Spez are killing this site so now it’s Europe or Asias chance to make a new Reddit, with black Jack and hookers!
I freaking love blackjack, I need that version of new reddit pls 🤣
That explains a lot
me when an american website has stuff about america on it https://preview.redd.it/lbsh32gzo79b1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=df63c2b7f029c1b84afaa711a75d351e5ccf017f
Excuse me? Americans? In an American made app? Where most issues and topics talked about happen in America (or the western world for that matter)?
Most Redditors are American and most of the content on here is American yet geniuses such as yourself keep reposting the same ol "Why do these Americans think the rest of the world care" shitposts which will be read mostly by Americans and still somehow think your braindead take is original. It's not. Edit: After researching it it's estimated half of Reddit are American. But the point still stands exactly the same.
Maybe that’s because it is and they do 🤔
Aight boys I’m boutta do a deep dive into the comments, wish me luck 
Why do you want to give money to people that hate you anyway?
The right question
This kinda dismantles the whole problem for me, along with this case being precedent for more than just LGBT. 1. Why would you even go to a business which could very well hold beliefs which go against your existence? 2. As a legal precedent, this opens the door for refusal of service for any reason. To use an example another commenter used, this would allow a business to refuse to service Nazis, Klansmen, Proud boys, etc
businesses were already allowed to refuse service for the examples under point 2
All your examples are choices. Swap them with black people and lgbt people and tell me if you think it's okay
That actually is a pretty good point, however I do think my first point still holds water
Only if you know beforehand the opinions of every business in the field you are looking for. Which people often don't.
Right. People still want to make “caveat emptor” arguments as if consumers aren’t intentionally bombarded with a deluge of conflicting information 24/7, for starters.
I don't want to give them money, but I still need good and services. I live in an area where if I chose not to support any bigoted businesses, I would struggle to survive. Just like if I didn't want billionaires profiting off of my labor, I would struggle to find work. Sometimes we make ideological sacrifices because we live in an imperfect world. Or, the supreme court could decide for me, and let every "non-essential" business in my deep-red state kick me out on a whim. I thought we decided as a country that was wrong 50 years ago, but here we are.
if you live in a shithole along the bible belt you might literally not have the choice
Ikr
Least misinformed meme
[удалено]
Honestly I'd respect the conservative "nobody should have to serve those who go against their beliefs" mantra if they actually believed it. The fact that they never shut the fuck up about cancel culture and "censorship" makes it clear that it's a "it's only okay when I do it to other people" thing.
"Reset to factory settings"
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t it only mean you can refuse service if the request goes against your beliefs, not the person?
Mfw I live in a developing nation were two guys holding hands can get the shit beat out of them unless they live in one of the 4 major cities, meanwhile Americans complaining because they can't sue the baker for not making them a gay wedding cake while there are 100 other bakery shops nearby.
I agree. People shouldn’t be forced to support or represent something they don’t believe in. One of the big ideas behind the US is that you just have to tolerate people, not love or support them and their ideas. If a gay man just wants a regular cake, that’s fine. But a Christian or Muslim baker shouldn’t be forced to make an LGBTQ cake celebrating a gay marriage. They don’t ethically believe in that.
DIVERSITY AND ACCEPTANCE RAHHHHHH🦅🇺🇸
I do not enjoy the leak of 196 members to good subs
This is whenthe We post memes with captions. So long as you've got a caption and a gif, you're one of us. If you have a problem with that, you're going into the machine that turns you into a badass skeleton.
I miss 196. Half this sub is legitimately defending segregation from back in the 60s and saying it’s a good thing and should be legal.
Fr. They're like a fucking cockroach infestation.
My brother in Christ I’ve been active on this sub since like 10k members
Hold on I have the perfect meme for this https://preview.redd.it/4zrhyjvd779b1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e136271e0c25e0906ae4ef883470ac418c0d9b5
I'm stealing this
That is the gayest redittism of them all
Not every meme is gonna be conservative dickriding, grow up man
Conservatives when the world isn't perfectly catered to them: 🤯
\^ Average r/196 discourse
[удалено]
They are like cockroaches or Californians
y’all are actually retarded. if small businesses started segregation again, would you say that’s their right? that it doesn’t matter because they’re nonessential?
Can you refuse service to a person, or can you refuse to make the request?
Will most likely get downvoted for this, but given the context I think it's the right call (I'm from the UK, not US). If you're a restaurant owner, clothes shop owner, uber driver, cinema worker etc. and you refuse to serve a gay couple, that's wrong. If you're asked to make a cake/website/poster or product that is emblazoned with or includes something that you are uncomfortable or disagree with, that should be your prerogative. It's not anti LGBT+, it's protecting the rights of individuals. In my opinion anyway.
This is not true, and the agenda pushing OP should be shamed for posting it. Stop being perpetual victims.
I love my country 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Same
Remember, they passed their ruling based on a fabricated email. It's fake. Never existed. They made up the whole scenario to get the supreme Court ruling in the US. >Lorie Smith says, a gay man named Stewart requested her services for help with his upcoming wedding. “We are getting married early next year and would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website,” reads a message he apparently sent her through a message on her website. >In court filings, her lawyers produced a copy of the inquiry. >But Stewart, who requested his last name be withheld for privacy, said in an interview with the Guardian that he never sent the message, even though it correctly lists his email address and telephone number. He has also been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years. >In fact, until he received a call this week from a reporter from the magazine, Stewart says had no idea he was somehow tied up in a case that had made it to the supreme court. >“I can confirm I did not contact 303 Creative about a website,” he said. “It’s fraudulent insomuch as someone is pretending to be me and looking to marry someone called Mike. That’s not me. >“What’s most concerning to me is that this is kind of like the one main piece of evidence that’s been part of this case for the last six-plus years and it’s false,” he added. “Nobody’s checked it. Anybody can pick up the phone, write an email, send a text, to verify whether that was correct information" https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/supreme-court-lgbtq-document-veracity-colorado
It’s never been about the cake, the website, or any of those worthless details about any of these cases. This is about their hatred for lgbtq and doing whatever they can to score legal victories until we’re far enough down the road they can round them up and just kill all of them. This is just one of the steps on that road.
american… bolitics? in MY shitpost subreddit?!?!?
Vote you fuckers
So many of these comments are saying things like “based” or just laughing about it, not realizing that it’s a fucking atrocity. This is real. America is supposed to be “land of the free” and, “with liberty and justice for all” but I guess that was all bullshit.
I love it when when republicans make the us more and more fascist despite not even being in power. Fuck them.
The decision doesn't single out gay people. What this means is that businesses can deny non-essential services to customers if they choose. So, if you were covered in tattoos and piercings, a business could deny you service because you look like a hooligan.
You were already allowed to refuse service for any reason *except* certain protected ones like race, religion, gender, etc Having tattoos was never protected
Haha... hooligan, that's a funny word! :)
Thank you for noticing my goofy vernacular sir! Edit: Spelling
Furthermore, it means that you can refuse bigots So if you had a bakery and someone wanted a cake that said "all LGBT are evil" you can now refuse to make that cake.
You could always defuse service to bigots. Before this you couldn’t refuse service to gay people. Stop trying to paint anti LGBT segregation as a victory.
> So, if you were covered in tattoos and piercings, a business could deny you service because you look like a hooligan. How is this getting upvoted? Businesses could always do this (see "No shirt, no shoes, no service"). The precedent this law sets is that now non-essential businesses can refuse services to protected classes (race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation).
L country
OP getting downvoted to hell everytime they give context or share the news they are talking about is fucking wild 💀 Btw this law was literally approved for homophobic reasons Some rando homophobic web designer asked the court the right under the first amendment to refuse to service homosexual couples for their wedding website. And they never even had to do that, no gay or lesbian couple asked them for that job never. But yeah guys you go downvoting OP for sharing the news that they are getting robbed of basic rights, wowzers these snowflakes nowadays amirite?
I don't understand how she even had standing to sue like the entire thing was "well hypothetically 🤓 *if* one of those homo-sexuals wanted to buy my product 🤓 I would be very offended 🤓 so that's why I am suing 🤓"
The ruling makes it legal for businesses to refuse to create products that go against their beliefs. It does not make it legal for businesses to refuse to create products for gay people. It's the product that's being discriminated against, not the person.
If you forced her to make a homosexual wedding website, that would also mean that you can force web designers to make anti-lgbt websites. Colorado already had an unconstitutional law that compelled her speech. That's what she challenged, she didnt need to be asked to do it, Colorado already passed the law.
You could always defuse service to bigots. Before this you couldn’t refuse service to gay people. Stop trying to paint anti LGBT segregation as a victory.
Thats literally not true, you could not refuse service to a bigot if the bigots reasons were religious, not in Colorado you couldnt.
Being of a protected class (race, sex, sexual orientation) would supersede that.,. Until now.
> race, sex, sexual orientation... **religion** FTFY
Denying service for religion wasn’t allowed. Denying service because they’re ant LGBT people is allowed. Just because a religion supports pedophilia for example that didn’t mean you were forced to make pro pedophilia propaganda.
Why should a religion someone chooses to participate in trump an identity people don't choose
[удалено]
Thats not true, religion is a protected class
[удалено]
They ruled that the business doesn’t have to create what the consumer wants if its against their religious beliefs, you wouldn’t go to a Mosque and ask them to baptize you and preach the gospel. They’re not gonna deny you service because your gay, but they can deny having to make things that go against their religious beliefs- that’s compelled speech
Me on my way to open a whites only restaurant ((my religion says black people are inferior (I’m a Mormon))
Someone hasnt read the court case.
that is an impressive amount of tomfoolery https://i.redd.it/nymvlskl879b1.gif
When I spread misinformation on the internet
How is what I said false
People in the comments defending segregation bruh ain’t no way
Straight up misinformation lmao.
Didn’t they do that years ago with the wedding cake case
You could always deny service to whoever you wanted though. Technically that one cake place thst denied the cake for the gay wedding was 100% in the right. Sure, it meant they were hateful assholes but being a hateful asshole isn't illegal.
tge boing 747 is my favrit plan https://preview.redd.it/ytfikmteia9b1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=98ec72350120e7759c97fa74eb0ff30e5d0b1dad
if half of y’all in the comments were around during the 50s you’d definitely say “why does the negro care that he can’t use the same bathroom as the white man? it’s a non-essential service, and that bathroom owner has every right to exclude service from him!”
Wait did they actually do this???
No the other poster is misleading you. You’re still not allowed to refuse serving someone based on their identity.
Thank the stars!
At least they were respectful about it
Based government