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.
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’.
Like the independent baker, this person should have editorial control over her creative services. As you point out, few would question her not taking on the KKK as a client because their message doesn’t fit her own values and beliefs. She’s not denying service to a person but avoiding compelled speech and building her brand. It’s a fine line. She, like the CO baker, take the commercial business risk that the marketplace will support them. At some point you need to determine if what you do is commercial or artistic. If she had a business with turnkey or off-the-shelf wedding sites there’s not much creativity there. There has to be room for artisans and creatives to express their beliefs while still earning a living. Not everyone and everything has to be hammered into a soulless woke factory enterprise. That’s not American.
I don’t know the fine details of the case but I am (naively?) hopeful this SCOTUS can strike a balance between public accommodation and first amendment freedoms.
Damn straight !!
-fJRoberts-
Correct.
If she were refusing service simply because someone is gay, that might be an issue - but that’s what is happening here. They are specifically trying to require her to use their talents and her time to promote something she disagrees with. If they wanted her to make a website about a different subject but then she found out they were gay and refused to make it that is another legal matter entirely. The press and Left of course lie and claim the case is about “refusing to serve gays.”