The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#9,627
#9,627
zeppelin128 said:
Well you are different, Hog. I know you wouldn't say a word if a Christian was denied service because of their faith.
Click to expand...

I probably wouldn't. But what's the rub? Making people do things they don't want to do builds resentment, most of the time the resentment builds against the wrong people. Let individuals (that includes business) make their own decisions and let the consumer make theirs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandman 423
#9,628
#9,628
hog88 said:
I probably wouldn't. But what's the rub? Making people do things they don't want to do builds resentment, most of the time the resentment builds against the wrong people. Let individuals (that includes business) make their own decisions and let the consumer make theirs.
Click to expand...
That's why you are different, Hog.
 
#9,629
#9,629
zeppelin128 said:
She's providing a service to the public though; just because you provide a service to someone doesn't mean you support them. And the colorado.gov is not compelling speech or acceptance. Just equal access for everyone.

I wonder how this case would be viewed if we replace gay marriage with interracial marriage.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s generally good business to mix personal beliefs with day to day business. Likewise I think the community she serves should respond in kind if they disagree. Let them work it out no laws required.

Now if Jeffrey Dahmer walks in my shop door I’d likely forcefully throw his ass out.

There is a relevant distinction in those two cases. In the first no one is hurt and people have differences of opinions and/or beliefs. In the second you have an actual pariah who deserves contempt and condemnation. So give each business owner the freedom to draw their own line and let their customer base figure it out.
 
Last edited:
#9,631
#9,631
I don't know all the history of this one but it seems there's a difference between "serving" and "creating messages for".

Can a director be compelled to take a job directing a movie supporting subjugation of Muslim women? An artist compelled to paint a mural depicting Satanic Temple messages?

So this particular case aside it seems there's a blurry, gray line between the government compelling a business serve customers regardless of (x,y,z) and compelling the expressed speech (via some means of words, pictures, etc.) that promotes messages of customers regardless of (x, y, z).

And I'll add that I don't know that creating websites falls towards the compelled speech part of that blurry, gray line. To the extent she forced the issue I'm not on her side.
 
#9,632
#9,632
A question for Zep - if you work as a political consultant can you refuse to work for an R candidate who supports values you strongly disagree with?
 
#9,634
#9,634
I find this case and cases like it very interesting. I've thought about this for years and could see it coming. I'm not a very religious person but respect religious liberties. There are some that abuse these liberties to the detriment of their cause. I'm not sure if this woman is one of them or not.

I personally don't care what people do on their own time as long as it doesn't directly effect me. But I find government compelling people do things that go against their religious beliefs problematic in many cases.
 
#9,635
#9,635
NorthDallas40 said:
I don’t think it’s generally good business to mix personal beliefs with day to day business. Likewise I think the community she serves should respond in kind if they disagree. Let them work it out no laws required.

Now if Jeffrey Dahmer walks in my shop door I’d likely forcefully throw his ass out.

There is a relevant distinction in those two cases. In the first no one is hurt and people have differences of opinions and/or beliefs. In the second you have an actual pariah who deserves contempt and condemnation. So give each business owner the freedom to draw their own line and let their customer base figure it out.
Click to expand...
Are you comparing gay dudes to Jeffrey Dahmer?
 
#9,638
#9,638
zeppelin128 said:
Are you comparing gay dudes to Jeffrey Dahmer?
Click to expand...
No I’m not. I clearly pointed out the contrast in the example. Nice try at working to force the silly hot take though. Ok it wasn’t even a nice try Zep

“There is a relevant distinction in those two cases. In the first no one is hurt and people have differences of opinions and/or beliefs. In the second you have an actual pariah who deserves contempt and condemnation”

🤷‍♂️
 
#9,639
#9,639
NorthDallas40 said:
No I’m not. I clearly pointed out the contrast in the example. Nice try at working to force the silly hot take though. Ok it wasn’t even a nice try Zep

“There is a relevant distinction in those two cases. In the first no one is hurt and people have differences of opinions and/or beliefs. In the second you have an actual pariah who deserves contempt and condemnation”

🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

JD was gay... Just saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sea Ray
#9,641
#9,641
It's prejudice, and wrong, and fairly uneducated and evil, but I have questions that need to be asked.

Does a restaurant have the right to not serve someone because they are black, or asian, or white, or gay?

How about if they are confederate sympathizers?

A private business has certain rights as a private business. On the other hand, we have protections against prejudice in the work place of private businesses in hiring and such.

All these regulations have been, and will continue to be, put upon us because you cannot handle yourselves in a free and open society. You can't have the right to arms, because you lose touch with reality and shoot up random masses of people. We have legislations in a host of areas.. like driving, you name it, what have you, we live in a society of people, and some within that society cannot live with the rest in a "civil" manner. society brakes down. This is really about protecting a civil society for the masses.
 
#9,642
#9,642
IluvdoubleD's said:
It's prejudice, and wrong, and fairly uneducated and evil, but I have questions that need to be asked.

Does a restaurant have the right to not serve someone because they are black, or asian, or white, or gay?

How about if they are confederate sympathizers?

A private business has certain rights as a private business. On the other hand, we have protections against prejudice in the work place of private businesses in hiring and such.

All these regulations have been, and will continue to be, put upon us because you cannot handle yourselves in a free and open society. You can't have the right to arms, because you lose touch with reality and shoot up random masses of people. We have legislations in a host of areas.. like driving, you name it, what have you, we live in a society of people, and some within that society cannot live with the rest in a "civil" manner. society brakes down. This is really about protecting a civil society for the masses.
Click to expand...
No shirt, No shoes, No service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and IluvdoubleD's
#9,646
#9,646
IluvdoubleD's said:
It's prejudice, and wrong, and fairly uneducated and evil, but I have questions that need to be asked.

Does a restaurant have the right to not serve someone because they are black, or asian, or white, or gay?

How about if they are confederate sympathizers?

A private business has certain rights as a private business. On the other hand, we have protections against prejudice in the work place of private businesses in hiring and such.

All these regulations have been, and will continue to be, put upon us because you cannot handle yourselves in a free and open society. You can't have the right to arms, because you lose touch with reality and shoot up random masses of people. We have legislations in a host of areas.. like driving, you name it, what have you, we live in a society of people, and some within that society cannot live with the rest in a "civil" manner. society brakes down. This is really about protecting a civil society for the masses.
Click to expand...

Per current law no they don’t have the right to refuse service due to race, ethnicity or sexual preference. You should get out more, you’d know these things.
 
#9,647
#9,647
IluvdoubleD's said:
let me clarify here. Being gay is not a belief. It's something you ARE, but I'm trying to establish a line of deviation.
Click to expand...


The right does not believe this. They think homosexuality is a choice, ergo they see it as different than discriminating based on race or gender, which are purely genetic.

They ironically do not see certain religions in that same light, i.e. if you are also Christian, like they are, then your right to be Christian is protected, even though it is also a choice. But let's say they are right and homosexuality is a choice -- they would not protect that since that is not what they are. Even race they go along with only begrudgingly, because they have to.

Its all about what they can identify with in their own lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#9,648
#9,648
lawgator1 said:
The right does not believe this. They think homosexuality is a choice, ergo they see it as different than discriminating based on race or gender, which are purely genetic.

They ironically do not see certain religions in that same light, i.e. if you are also Christian, like they are, then your right to be Christian is protected, even though it is also a choice. But let's say they are right and homosexuality is a choice -- they would not protect that since that is not what they are. Even race they go along with only begrudgingly, because they have to.

Its all about what they can identify with in their own lives.
Click to expand...

Is having sex a choice or not?
 
#9,649
#9,649
lawgator1 said:
The right does not believe this. They think homosexuality is a choice, ergo they see it as different than discriminating based on race or gender, which are purely genetic.

They ironically do not see certain religions in that same light, i.e. if you are also Christian, like they are, then your right to be Christian is protected, even though it is also a choice. But let's say they are right and homosexuality is a choice -- they would not protect that since that is not what they are. Even race they go along with only begrudgingly, because they have to.

Its all about what they can identify with in their own lives.
Click to expand...

What a gigantic pile of crap post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top