Posted on 12/13/2022 2:00:12 PM PST by Eleutheria5
OK. You charge the regular amount, but you still donate it to the family research council. What you do with the money after they’ve paid you is your business.
How about forcing a ‘woke’ web company to make a pro Trump website? I’m sure they would refuse & should someone sue over it? No. You don’t even have to bring in religion to know that this is just lawfare & nothing more. The intent is to destroy Christians. Freedom of association used to be a thing. It still should be.
It has nothing to do with "religious" scruples.
It has everything to do with the freedom to tell people you do not want to work for them for any or even no reason.
A friend of mine does cakes. She turned down doing a cake for a baby beauty pageant. She is as far from a religious person as you could possibly get but she believes that dolling up kids as sex toys is wrong and she will not be a part of it.
Since she did not give a reason for declining she is probably not going to get sued but if she did she would stand firmly on her right not to take that commission.
And I would support her because the right to say "No" is a fundamental freedom if not THE fundamental freedom.
No one has a right to your labor.
Not even if they offer money.
Nailed it !! It seems that it is no longer about being ‘in the closet’ or not. It is not even about quietly condoning their deviations. Now we must visibly support and openly declare our approval.
Bull-shiite ... it is past time that these phags realize that they are pushing a huge boulder up a steep hill and soon they will wish for the protection of ‘the closet’.
For the love of mike stop promoting prostitution.
Once you have said you values are for sale at a high enough price YOU ARE A WHORE.
They’ll sue over that.
It’s actually quite a good question considering the point of contention.
The law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. ACB’s question demonstrates that the real discrimination happening here is not based on sexual orientation, but based on the message that people want to promote on their website. By showing that the web designer would discriminate about all different kinds of messages they disagree with, it makes it hard to argue that their stance is just some “backdoor” method of discriminating based on sexual orientation.
The point is that the homo’s will realize where their money is going, and decide to leave you alone.
What libs seem to want is “Rights for me but not for thee”
For donating to the Family Research Council?
defeatist
By charging double. The argument will be that charging them double is treating them differently on the basis of their sex (or gender identity), and therefore discrimination.
See post 21.
Marriage should be left for the states or the people to decide. The Federal government has no authority.
The point is that the message is offensive to her faith, not the people. The same would result of a natural couple told the web designer to promote the same offensive ideas. This isn’t a case about discrimination against people, it’s about the right think and speak as you choose.
If a baker / florist / whatever donates their profits to FRC, they won’t care.
They will have won, because they the baker to violate his or her principles and bake the cake. They have crushed the resistance.
The Supreme Court can’t hear this case because it has at least one member who can’t even define what a woman is (Ketanji Brown Jackson).
C’mon that’s Mitch McConnell and Matt Damon
Exactly. I watch nearly all his videos. Did I sound like him with the compelled speech quote? Maybe I should have attributed it to him.
“ACB’s question demonstrates that the real discrimination happening here is not based on sexual orientation, but based on the message that people want to promote on their website.”
The question goes right to the heart of the matter, which is freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It destroys the notion that the issue is about discrimination against gays. In fact the whole case falls apart once the argument shifts away from discrimination against a gay couple.
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.