The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

Yes. Why shouldn't it be? How long do you think that restaurant would stay open? I oppose government forced association as much I oppose government forced segregation.
In 1964 Alabama, Virginia, parts of Boston, etc. it could stay open as long as the owners wanted. In Cour de Alene (sp?) and some other places the same might apply today.
I see your point but I also see the benefit of anti-discrimination laws. My view is that if a member(s) of a minority wants what a business produces in the course of routine operations there should be no legal bar to access or trade. But if said minority wants an endorsement that's against the business owner's genuinely held beliefs then they're on their own.
 
Sounds like they were denied based upon their politics:

Recently we refused service to a group that had booked an event with us after the owners of Metzger found out it was a group of donors to a political organization that seeks to deprive women and LGBTQ+ persons of their basic human rights in Virginia.

Why is it anyone's business who they give money to? I don't want a restaurant knowing what charities I give to

They were probably convicted by being near Christians. Felt uncomfortable
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bassmaster_Vol
Will they cry if they get boycotted and lay off the very staff they are seeking to protect?

Inmates running the asylum.
100% they'll cry. If the place gets shut down because people boycotted or like a business they're going to blame it's because they took a stand for lgbtq+ rights, and their victims when in fact they just threw a fit and refused service. And anybody who refuses service for any reason should be shut down by society not the government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rekinhavoc
Y'all don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Either discrimination in a private business is okay, or it isn't. You don't get to be outraged because a restaurant told a group of Christians to kick rocks when you were just saying a day before that it was okay for a Christian to tell a gay couple to kick rocks and find another website designer. Being fine with a private business refusing to serve gay folks while being pissed a private business refused to serve Christians makes you a hypocrite, plain and simple.
 
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?
I've known several political consultants that worked for both Republicans and Democrats over the years. I don't think political party affiliation should be a "protected class", I guess we can call it, like race, ethnicity, etc.
 
Refusing someone service based on the color of their skin vs denying very specific services to someone based on your religious beliefs is different no?
Segregation was justified by religion during Jim Crow. Still is, by some of the far-right crazies. So no, I don't think the situation is any different.
 
I've known several political consultants that worked for both Republicans and Democrats over the years. I don't think political party affiliation should be a "protected class", I guess we can call it, like race, ethnicity, etc.

just trying to tease out the boundaries of what's okay and what's not okay
 
Y'all don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Either discrimination in a private business is okay, or it isn't. You don't get to be outraged because a restaurant told a group of Christians to kick rocks when you were just saying a day before that it was okay for a Christian to tell a gay couple to kick rocks and find another website designer. Being fine with a private business refusing to serve gay folks while being pissed a private business refused to serve Christians makes you a hypocrite, plain and simple.

I took it as pointing out hypocrisy in the other direction - why can Christians be refused but gay people cannot?

I also think there's a difference between serving and creating messages (which gets closer to compelled speech) but I don't know where the line is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77
Well that’s an unfortunate turn of events for zep’s hot take.
I'm well aware that JD was gay, hence why I asked why even compare gay dudes to Dahmer? I should have elaborated further. The Dahmer comparison, "an actual pariah who deserves contempt and condemnation", is what the far right does to denigrate all LGBTQ+ folks. Not saying that you were doing that, since you didn't know about Dahmer's sexuality, or that you are far-right. Just that it is a trope that gets used by fundamentalist types to other and justify non-equal treatment under law.

Dare I say, I was triggered. lol
doge-meme-triggered.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
just trying to tease out the boundaries of what's okay and what's not okay
I mentioned earlier in thread it is a weird case. I see what several on here are saying about compelled speech. But I also see how this could be open season for any type of discrimination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham
I took it as pointing out hypocrisy in the other direction - why can Christians be refused but gay people cannot?

I also think there's a difference between serving and creating messages (which gets closer to compelled speech) but I don't know where the line is.
I don't personally think Christians should be discriminated against at a restaurant. I was also pointing out the hypocrisy of this discussion on the board. I don't think it is right to be perfectly fine with discrimination based on sexuality but not okay with it based on affiliation with Christianity.
 
You ask me if I was being told that I had to make phallic cakes.... one can KMA. Disgusting
 

VN Store



Back
Top