The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn’t want to make wedding websites for gay couples

At this point I don't even have to make new arguments. Just recycle the ones that were ignored previously.

 

Being gay has nothing to do with free speech.

Being gay is not a "believe".

 

I'm arguing how it's not a "about creative expression." And you are unable to deny that it is something creative.

The same bakery lost a case where somebody just wanted a pink cake.
And they refused on the grounds that it was a transgender was going to use the color as a gender reveal thing. But in the end, it was just a pink cake being pink nothing more and they simply refused a LGBTQ+ customer for being LGBTQ+.

 

If you are not going to address my comments why are you reply/quoting me?

 

This post makes no logical sense whatsoever, just like the one you made before it.

 

That is because homosexuality has nothing to do with that movie idea of yours or even free speech. It makes no sense. Your comparison originated from 1950's when homosexuality was on par of pedo's and so criminal.

 

You made a claim that the cake was "creative" and so free speech.
I argued that it aint creative one bit.
So far you're just replying again and again, without explaining how the bakery is being creative.

Obviously you have zero intent to back up that claim of yours.
And by repeating it is creative, doesn't make it creative.


If you glance their menu, you can see you can ask for a carrot flavored cake, chocolate fudge frosting, and a coconut Pecan filling. Wooptido. Any cake shop can do that. And the CUSTOMER needs to pick it. It's not as if they think this is the best options considering everything in some kinds of creative process.


Anybody can understand this has nothing to do with creativity.
Hence you do not even attempt to defend it, and reply with whatever.

 

LOL-- You lead off with criticizing news sites, for not being "objective," and then the first supposed fact you list, is false. The plaintiff has not designed wedding websites-- she is only considering, branching into including weddings or, as the AP, in your snip says, she "wants" to design wedding websites. But no gay couple has ever come to her, asking for her to design their wedding site. This means, that she has suffered no damages. Legally, that means that she should have no standing to bring her case. That is not how the law works, that you cannot try cases, over hypotheticals. Hence, this case is only one more, blatant sign, of our current SCOTUS majority's contempt for our legal system's rules, and disdain for anything limiting their ascribed power, to remake our nation's laws, according to their liking.

 

I'm not sure why you're confused. I wasn't talking about homosexuality. I was talking about forcing a religious person into making a custom product that goes against their religious beliefs... which is what this thread is about. You're the one strangely invoking homosexuality when Muslims/Allah are mentioned. It's probably best to keep those thoughts private.

 

You can say over and over that you are not talking about homosexuality and this thread is about something else, for all I care.
But the title in the OP still got the words "gay couples" in it. So it's obvious you lost the argument and you're just talking nonsense.

YOU brought it up. And it makes no sense. All I see with that idea, is that YOU made a connection between pedophiles and homosexuality. And that's a 1950's approach when sodomy was a crime in the US. It's weird that YOU brought it up out of nowhere. YOU make it seem you got spoon fed this ultra conservatives Christian nonsense, which fits your agenda like a glove as a whole.

 

IDK about the business aspects but apparently there was a ruse of some sort going on. I read that the media contacted the man who she claimed had inquired about her doing one for his gay wedding and the man she named isn't gay, has been married to a woman forever, and said he never called her.

 

I'm going to give you a lot of leeway here because I feel like being generous. I'll assume you're just HIGHLY confused. The rules of this forum are that you must use the title of the article as the title of your thread. AP made a "mistake" in their title... again being generous towards AP.

The case in front of the Supreme Court was about a Christian woman who wanted to expand her custom web design business into the wedding market. However, the state told her if she makes wedding websites she has to make websites for gay weddings as well. She does not want to make websites for gay weddings, despite generally being willing to make websites for gay couples. But, specifically she is unwilling to make any website that goes against her religious faith. She isn't refusing to do business with a gay person, she's refusing to make custom websites that she feels goes against her religion.

The Supreme Court supported her claim because free speech includes compelled speech protections. The government telling you what you must say is a violation of your free speech.

A hypothetical example (a technique used in law all the time) is someone going to a Muslim movie producer and asking for a movie calling Allah/Mohammed a pedophile. If you forced this web designer to spend her time making a custom work product for a gay wedding that goes against her religious views, the state would also have to force the Muslim producer to spend his time making the requested movie.

The hypothetical was provided to show that someone who likely believes this woman should be required to make a website for a gay wedding would likely not agree with forcing a Muslim to make a movie attacking their God. But, the court can't differentiate the speech. Speech, even if it is mean and unpopular, is protected the same. That's the whole point of freedom of speech in the 1st Amendment.

 

She had standing regardless. All she had to prove was that there was a "credible threat" that the state would seek to compell her speech. Even the 10th Circuit that ruled against her agreed on this reasoning validating her standing. That was the legal basis for standing. The state "threatened" her which allowed the lawsuit to proceed.

 

I didn't say anything about standing. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else.

 

OK you seem to think the bakery cases (obviously you've moved on from the website designer case) was about bigoted bakers refusing to sell cakes to gays. Since there is nothing creative about a cake. Is that your argument?

 

Yes. And also to the point, this decision deals with custom creative work, not off the shelf products or normal services of the vendor.

 

It is not for government to determine what is creative and what is not. So all custom work is considered creativity. You can't have it both ways.

 

Democrats claim Trump was a dictator. Yet who are the ones who say bake my cake or else, make my website or else, or force you to call people by pronouns that aren’t true? Democrats are the true dictators in this country

 

Correction, another victory for freedom

 

You're deliberately are avoiding to mention that this evolves around if Christians are allowed to discriminate against a perfectly normal minority (homosexuals) in the US. And I add that a handful of handpicked extremely corrupted and devoted Christians voted "yup". Devoted Christians put there not by chance, but specifically because they are devoted Christians for the sake to have a Christian sharia doctrine around.

The Chief of it all, was raised on a Catholic boarding school. Thomas initially ones wanted to be a priest. Alito is also Catholic. Gorsuch is a protestant, but is raising his kids to be catholic. Kavanaugh also catholic, and is even a lector in a church on a regular basis.

With this example you are again equating homosexuality with pedophilia. It reminds me the late 1950's when homosexuality was illegal in the US, upheld by the supreme court for over a century.

And while pedophilia is illegal, homosexuality is just not. Massive difference.

Somehow you fail to understand this, and so it really really looks like you got spoon fed this backward 1950's doctrine about homosexuals and can't get it go.

 

Incorrect. Business can't choose their customers as far as the people go. IOW, if, to stay with the case, a same sex couple wanted to get a website designed to sell plain solid color scented candles they make, the web designer couldn't refuse them on the basis of them being a same sex couple. The decision allows business owners to accept or refuse based on content only.

 

Serve at a wedding? Yes. However, if you are creating something that you already create that does not have specific content that you object to, then you can't refuse to sell it to them, regardless of what they intend to use it for. This ruling does not cover general selling. Only content creation.

 

Was Masterpiece Bakery the one that was willing to sell a generic wedding cake for the couple to detail, but not do the detailing themselves? I know one of the bakeries that had been sued, that was the case.

 

You are again avoiding your point of explaining how that business is "creative", when it's obviously totally not creative. They also do pictures on cakes... but it's a picture YOU took, and they just print it out with an edible ink machine that's hardly more expensive than an actual printer.

 

It[s custom work to get a pizza delivered. Creativity is zero.... absolute zero.