Posted on 07/31/2021 4:47:55 PM PDT by fwdude
DENVER (AP) — A U.S. appeals court has ruled against a web designer who didn’t want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples and sued to challenge Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, another twist in a series of court rulings nationwide about whether businesses denying services to LGBTQ people amounts to bias or freedom of speech.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Yep, that one Gorsuch will never live down.
Hiding from the confrontation is probably the safe thing to do, but make no mistake, we are becoming Jews in 1930s Germany and we will eventually be punished for having the wrong thoughts.
Hiding from the confrontation. “Let this cup pass from me.”
We need to ad to the bill of rights the freedom of association and freedom not to take action. example Government can take no action to compel the associations of people outside the pretext of government it self and under this law corporation are not to be considered people. this way a person with a private business cant be forced to have an association but corporations are not given the same protection other wise you will see social media platforms using this protection to deny free speech. I am sure a real lawyer could word this better.
GO GALT. Leave behind states with these draconian laws that protect perverts and promote their perversion.
They’ll be charged under Civil Rights laws.
Yours is a good solution.
“Why not just do such a crappy job that they won’t want to use it???”
My final article for the newspaper was so badly edited I called and asked them to please remove my name from it*. I can easily imagine that someone with pride in their work would rather not do something than to have a bad job out there with their name on it.
* The black, female recent graduate from college who “knew” what an article in the Homes Section should read like, managed to add a gratuitous swipe at conservatives and two “blacklish” words that don’t exist in the white world. It was the final time I ever attempted to sell an article...this after 57 articles and one prestigious award.
Or. Your website cost 30 trillion dollars payable up front. No refund policy.
I dont consider that hiding.
I consider it taking neccessary steps to allow me to have my constitutional right to free association. The government should be on my side but its failed in this type of case.
Artists can turn down requests from people when they dont want to create what that person wants. I see no difference in a food artists case. If you say no you’re a slave. Customers cannot make creators, slaves.
Then they will still sue you
People sue other people over doing bad jobs
If its a “special day” for them they will certainly get sued
And if you develop a pattern of doing a bad job that only seems to happen to certain types, you will be in very big trouble.
Better to be too busy or not equipped to do it, or not able to for lack of expertise, etc..., or offer that only as a very higly priced commissioned work/piece
No, that’s not the “best way.”
Let your “no” be “no.” No explanation required.
Why do conservatives always feel compelled to explain? That is their weakness.
That’s what I would do.
A form of poisoning the well.
And SCOTUS certainly had their chance when a Christian business refused to be complicit in the creation of a work for the expressed purpose of celebrating something contrary to the law of God as well as the highest law of the state at the time, as it was in the Masterpiece case
The courts do not play that way, for unlike being born again and thus having a orientation toward Godliness, homosexuality is treated as racial or as ethnicity, and thus while they can refuse to be complicit in the creation of a work for the expressed purpose of celebrating something related to Biblical morality, Christians cannot refuse to be complicit in the creation of a work for the expressed purpose of celebrating something contrary to the law of God, even if it is illegal, as was in the Masterpiece case. For the work was related to what the customers were, and thus is treated as if it were a refusal to create a cake for an interracial marriage. That is what happens when Biblical morality is rejected.
However, if the bakery simply refused to make a cake for a heterosexual for the purpose of celebrating sodomy, then it should be treated akin to Facebook refusing to post conservative messages. To force FB to post the latter would mean FR would have to allow liberals to have their say.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Really could not believe he did that. There was nothing of his interpretation in the text or the intent of the law, he just made s**t up.
Disgusting and disappointing.
I don’t know what the scope of his business is but perhaps he doesn’t have to do business with anyone in Colorado.
If the courts were interested in upholding the Constitution, it would be so easy to distinguish between one who does a creative exercise as an employee and one regards their own business as an expression of Christian faith.
On that subject here is the letter I send to about 40 papers and commentators each December.
The Bill of Rights and Gay Marriage
The Bill of Rights Day on December 15 reminds one how far this country has departed from first principles. The 2015 gay marriage ruling completes a rewrite of the First Amendment. It says and used to mean, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….”
We are familiar with the term “speech or expression’, which seems an innocuous expansion. However, “expression” enables a nearly unbounded multi-billion-dollar pornography industry.
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion on gay marriage states, “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to advocate and teach the principles that are so fulfilling and central to their lives and faith”. Such language restricts religious freedom by excluding “free exercise thereof”.
This restriction prohibits exercise of religious beliefs in business and personal lives even though the Constitution makes no distinction between individuals and their organizations, and churches. The interpretation marginalizes tens of millions of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim believers for whom God’s creation of heterosexual marriage means homosexual behaviors separate people from the love relationship God desires with humanity. Any subsequent scriptural reasoning applied must derive from that basic understanding.
Now we have a country where women, citing freedom of expression, can enter the adult film industry, but cannot cite freedom of religious expression to prevent being forced to direct their business creative activities to designing and baking wedding cakes for gay couples.
The Formal End to Judeo-Christian America http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2015/06/30/the-formal-end-to-judeochristian-america-n2018986/page/full
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GAY MARRIAGE http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Wayne Cordeiro https://www.facebook.com/pastorwaynecordeiro/posts/10153325310351210
There used to be a right called “liberty of contract”. The government couldn’t compel someone to contract with another party. The died with the expansion of the Commerce Clause in the early 20th Century, which was used as the basis for the Civil Rights Acts. Liberty of contract is now quite dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.