later
Did I miss or, or did the article somehow avoid stating Barrett’s actual question?
No need for litigation insurance. Just make sure to offer a poison pill as it were. If you are a baker, you will bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, on the understanding that it will cost double, and all proceeds will be donated to the family research council.
“If you have religious scruples, and you want to go into business involving creativity and weddings, you had better get litigation insurance.”
I don’t care WHAT type of business one has, liability insurance is an absolute must.
This person has the same right to deny service to fags as a black magazine has to deny the KKK running ads.
This isn’t about the gays being mentally ill and sick in the head, it’s about trying to force someone to condone it through their work.
It sounds like compelled speech by force of government. If that’s allowed there really is no free speech. I consider compelled speech more dangerous than censorship since it endorses a point of view. Censorship just silences a point of view.
Or be a Muslim.
Im sure the queers could buy any cake they wanted. They wanted to force the owner to make a specific cake that they don’t have. Might as well ask a plumber to fix your car and then suing them when they refuse. The problem is that the Fag is the current scared victim and have more rights than any other American.
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.
What libs seem to want is “Rights for me but not for thee”
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.
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).
America's enemies approve of this message.
It really should not be tied to religious beliefs. The problem is that homosexuality is abnormal behavior, and the law should not pretend otherwise.
Really bad things happen when governments pretend things to be true that aren't true.