SCOTUS LGBTQ JUDGMENT

[squeezer]

Does that mean they can't have someone else build them a website? Lots of businesses can refuse services for various reasons. Some places have a no shirt no shoes policy. Aren't they discriminating? Some places like upscale clubs or restaurants you can't wear jeans or have to wear a tie. You can also be fired for your political beliefs or comments you make that aren't illegal Some people can also get fired for moral reasons or have morality clauses at their workplace. This is no different. While I don't agree with it, the lady believes being gay is a sin and goes against her beliefs and doesn't want to do business with them

Some places have a no shirt no shoes policy- anyone of any color or gay person can get a pair of shoes and a shirt. I once was denied service on a patio because I had on a sleevless tank top. I went back to my car and threw on a t-shirt and was served, no biggie...

Some places like upscale clubs or restaurants you can't wear jeans or have to wear a tie- anyone of any color or gay person can buy a tie and wear polyester, cotton, wool, linen etc....

You can also be fired for your political beliefs or comments you make that aren't illegal yes, of course, if you violate your companies code of ethics but this is not the government or a court forcing your company to do so. Do you not believe a company has the right to dictate policy for it's employees?


While I don't agree with it, the lady believes being gay is a sin and goes against her beliefs and doesn't want to do business with them-okay, so what happens when the next looney business owner decides I won't serve the black person because my God or Jesus is white therefore they I cannot serve a person of color?


In your world view should the KKK or White Supremist have a right to free speech and say whatever they feel? I ask because obviously you believe religious nutbags should be able to do so, correct?

 

[Darts]

I've seen signs that said "no baggy pants" and "no gang colours".

 

[Gooseifur]

No shirt, no shoes, no blacks? All the same? Perfectly acceptable? Or not?

You tell me. Do you find it acceptable that people are refused service because of their attire or lack there of?

 

[mandrill]

Does that mean they can't have someone else build them a website? Lots of businesses can refuse services for various reasons. Some places have a no shirt no shoes policy. Aren't they discriminating? Some places like upscale clubs or restaurants you can't wear jeans or have to wear a tie. You can also be fired for your political beliefs or comments you make that aren't illegal Some people can also get fired for moral reasons or have morality clauses at their workplace. This is no different. While I don't agree with it, the lady believes being gay is a sin and goes against her beliefs and doesn't want to do business with them

You don't see a difference between a general rule that you have to wear a tie in a certain restaurant and a rule that a business doesn't serve gays?

The first is aimed indiscriminately at everyone to maintain the "tone and class" of the establishment.

The second targets a minority.

How about a "We hate Blacks and won't sell them food in our supermarket"? Or "This condo doesn't allow Asians to live here"?

Do those target certain specified minorities?..... Am I helping you with this post?...

 

[Gooseifur]

Some places have a no shirt no shoes policy- anyone of any color or gay person can get a pair of shoes and a shirt. I once was denied service on a patio because I had on a sleevless tank top. I went back to my car and threw on a t-shirt and was served, no biggie...

Some places like upscale clubs or restaurants you can't wear jeans or have to wear a tie- anyone of any color or gay person can buy a tie and wear polyester, cotton, wool, linen etc....

You can also be fired for your political beliefs or comments you make that aren't illegal yes, of course, if you violate your companies code of ethics but this is not the government or a court forcing your company to do so. Do you not believe a company has the right to dictate policy for it's employees?


While I don't agree with it, the lady believes being gay is a sin and goes against her beliefs and doesn't want to do business with them-okay, so what happens when the next looney business owner decides I won't serve the black person because my God or Jesus is white therefore they I cannot serve a person of color?


In your world view should the KKK or White Supremist have a right to free speech and say whatever they feel? I ask because obviously you believe religious nutbags should be able to do so, correct?

Except being black or any other colour is not viewed as a sin by any religion. That's the difference. Being gay is viewed as a sin in most religions. Any person has any right to say whatever they want unless it's against the law but they have to deal with the repercussions of society. So you think a company has a right to dictate it's ethics to it's employees but an individual doesn't have the right to refuse service to someone who they view as going against their moral beliefs or God's?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

No shirt, no shoes, no blacks? All the same? Perfectly acceptable? Or not?

Do you think businesses should be allowed to refuse service to Trump supporters??

 

[Gooseifur]

You don't see a difference between a general rule that you have to wear a tie in a certain restaurant and a rule that a business doesn't serve gays?

The first is aimed indiscriminately at everyone to maintain the "tone and class" of the establishment.

The second targets a minority.

How about a "We hate Blacks and won't sell them food in our supermarket"? Or "This condo doesn't allow Asians to live here"?

Do those target certain specified minorities?..... Am I helping you with this post?...

It's still excluding people for a reason. What if a homeless person wants to get something to eat at one of these places but doesn't have a shirt or shoes? Should they be denied service? This is different because it involves religion. Should an individual have to put aside their beliefs in order to do business with someone they think is committing a sin in the eyes of God? As far as I know being black or any other colour is not a sin in any religion. It's not the same thing. There are a lot of people who create websites, I'm assuming some of them are probably gay. I don't see the big deal in them going to another creator to do the job. I'm not religious and when I had my business I did business with anyone. I didn't care. I can't pretend to know what in a religious persons mind and how they think but that's not for me to judge

 

[mandrill]

It's still excluding people for a reason. What if a homeless person wants to get something to eat at one of these places but doesn't have a shirt or shoes? Should they be denied service? This is different because it involves religion. Should an individual have to put aside their beliefs in order to do business with someone they think is committing a sin in the eyes of God? As far as I know being black or any other colour is not a sin in any religion. It's not the same thing. There are a lot of people who create websites, I'm assuming some of them are probably gay. I don't see the big deal in them going to another creator to do the job. I'm not religious and when I had my business I did business with anyone. I didn't care. I can't pretend to know what in a religious persons mind and how they think but that's not for me to judge

You still completely miss the point.

The whole point is that the exclusion is based on characteristic of the person targeted which bears no logical connection to the service performed. You can refuse to allow a Republican into a Democrat political association and that's logically based. But you can't have a rule that doesn't let an Asian person join because that has no logical connection and is simply bias.

The whole issue that's being decided is whether a discriminator can base the discrimination on a belief system that is biased, but based on religious grounds. So you can't discriminate against gays because you're a bigot; but you can if you belong to a Christian sect which is bigoted and which hates gays. It's not logical. You have to ask "Why do some Christian sects hate gays and others accept them?" and "Should beliefs be protected on religious grounds if they are discriminatory or should there be core, bedrock rules that apply to Christians and non Christians alike?"

How about a lady who hates South Asians because she turned up a tarot card which she interprets as saying that South Asians are evil?..... Is that religion?..... I'm pretty sure that Amy Barret will tiptoe into the ladies' room at the court house and daintily throw up in disgust at pagan practices such as that. How about a religious group composed of Black Americans who say their religion mandates that they keep white people as slaves?

 

[Gooseifur]

You still completely miss the point.

The whole point is that the exclusion is based on characteristic of the person targeted which bears no logical connection to the service performed. You can refuse to allow a Republican into a Democrat political association and that's logically based. But you can't have a rule that doesn't let an Asian person join because that has no logical connection and is simply bias.

The whole issue that's being decided is whether a discriminator can base the discrimination on a belief system that is biased, but based on religious grounds. So you can't discriminate against gays because you're a bigot; but you can if you belong to a Christian sect which is bigoted and which hates gays. It's not logical. You have to ask "Why do some Christian sects hate gays and others accept them?" and "Should beliefs be protected on religious grounds if they are discriminatory or should there be core, bedrock rules that apply to Christians and non Christians alike?"

How about a lady who hates South Asians because she turned up a tarot card which she interprets as saying that South Asians are evil?..... Is that religion?..... I'm pretty sure that Amy Barret will tiptoe into the ladies' room at the court house and daintily throw up in disgust at pagan practices such as that. How about a religious group composed of Black Americans who say their religion mandates that they keep white people as slaves?

You're missing the point. Your making stuff up because none of those examples you mentioned exist. However being gay is a sin in most religions. You can say its bigoted but in their eyes its not because God said so through the writings of his disciples. I myself don't believe this but who are we to tell other what to believe based on thousands of years of history. In the U.S the rights of religion are very sacred. Some sects accept gays others don't. They consider it a sin against God. That's powerful to God fearing people. You also only mention Christians. You do know many religions view being gay as a sin. In the Muslim culture some believe it is punishable by death.

You didn't answer my question. Should a homeless person be refused service at an establishment that has a "rule" no shirt no shoes, no service if said homeless person doesn't have a shirt or a pair of shoes?

 

[Valcazar]

Grutter v Bollinger (2003) and Regents of University of California v Bakke (1978). I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure what role the term "directly" plays in you post, but to a layman the SFFA rulings clearly overturn (as someone unlearned on the law defines the term) previous ones.

That's my point, though.
Roberts doesn't say he is overturning them.
I have no idea in that book whether the person is only including things where the SC explicitly says it overturns a previous ruling or whether cases like this where the dissent or even a concurrence says something has been effectively overturned despite the wording of the decision counts. Or if none of the justices mention it, but the laypeople notice that that's the impression it gives, is that included in his list?

This is why I was expressing questions about the idea that these stats are actually capturing what's going on and research like that can show that SCOTUS is doing this less than before.

 

[Darts]

Similar to the wedding cake case.
US Supreme Court backs Colorado baker's gay wedding cake snub - BBC News

 

[mandrill]

You're missing the point. Your making stuff up because none of those examples you mentioned exist. However being gay is a sin in most religions. You can say its bigoted but in their eyes its not because God said so through the writings of his disciples. I myself don't believe this but who are we to tell other what to believe based on thousands of years of history. In the U.S the rights of religion are very sacred. Some sects accept gays others don't. They consider it a sin against God. That's powerful to God fearing people. You also only mention Christians. You do know many religions view being gay as a sin. In the Muslim culture some believe it is punishable by death.

You didn't answer my question. Should a homeless person be refused service at an establishment that has a "rule" no shirt no shoes, no service if said homeless person doesn't have a shirt or a pair of shoes?

I actually did answer your question. Yes, he should - because it's a general rule that is logically related to the image that the restaurant wants to create and preserve. It's not targeted against a certain portion of the population due to their intrinsic qualities unconnected to any rational policy of the service provider.

Do you think that it's permissible for a Muslim to kill a gay person due to the Muslim persons religious beliefs?

If not, then you agree that religions should be subject to fundamental general rules in the society concerned. If a Muslim cannot kill a gay person in accordance with his religious beliefs, why should he be allowed to refuse to design a website for a gay person?

 

[Darts]

Huge difference between killing someone and not designing a website and/or baking a cake.

 

[Gooseifur]

I actually did answer your question. Yes, he should - because it's a general rule that is logically related to the image that the restaurant wants to create and preserve. It's not targeted against a certain portion of the population due to their intrinsic qualities unconnected to any rational policy of the service provider.

Do you think that it's permissible for a Muslim to kill a gay person due to the Muslim persons religious beliefs?

If not, then you agree that religions should be subject to fundamental general rules in the society concerned. If a Muslim cannot kill a gay person in accordance with his religious beliefs, why should he be allowed to refuse to design a website for a gay person?

Well, isn't it discrimination to refuse service to a homeless person based on attire because of a rule? Why is that acceptable but its not to refuse service to someone who goes against somebody's personal "rules" based on religion? The religious person may feel that their image and soul could be damaged by having to create a website for a gay marriage not to mention they might feel that they have committed a sin by doing this and be punished by God.

This was also about creating a website for gay marriage, Who's to say she wouldn't have created a website for a gay person had it not involved gay marriage?

I don't think its acceptable at all to kill anyone for being gay but in some countries that is the law. Death penalty for being gay.

Map of Jurisdictions that Criminalise LGBT People | Human Dignity Trust

LGBT people are criminalised in 63 jurisdictions worldwide. Find out where with our map.

www.humandignitytrust.org

I live in Florida where there are a lot of religious people of all colours and most view being gay as a sin. I disagree with them. I keep telling them you can't help who you love or are attracted to but they have their beliefs that that hold onto and won't give up. They believe its against God's words

 

[DinkleMouse]

You tell me. Do you find it acceptable that people are refused service because of their attire or lack there of?

Yes. I have no problem with refusing people based on clothing.

Now that I've answered yours, will you answer mine? Is that the same as refusing people based on their race? Do you think that's ok?

 

[DinkleMouse]

I don't think its acceptable at all to kill anyone for being gay but in some countries that is the law. Death penalty for being gay.

What exactly is the point of this part of your post?

 

[DinkleMouse]

That's my point, though.
Roberts doesn't say he is overturning them.
I have no idea in that book whether the person is only including things where the SC explicitly says it overturns a previous ruling or whether cases like this where the dissent or even a concurrence says something has been effectively overturned despite the wording of the decision counts. Or if none of the justices mention it, but the laypeople notice that that's the impression it gives, is that included in his list?

This is why I was expressing questions about the idea that these stats are actually capturing what's going on and research like that can show that SCOTUS is doing this less than before.

I don't think it's reasonable to say a case has to be specifically named in a decision to be considered overturned.

A wedding cake baker was told she couldn't refuse gay couples, but now a web designer has been told she can. Clearly this is a reversal unless you somehow think there's a fundamental difference between wedding cake and wedding website.

Besides, as I had stated, it was merely my opinion and attitude that changed. I don't feel any need to convince you.

 

[DinkleMouse]

You're missing the point. Your making stuff up because none of those examples you mentioned exist.

Neither did the exactly this case was based on though. It was a complete fabrications by the plaintiff.

However being gay is a sin in most religions. You can say its bigoted but in their eyes its not because God said so through the writings of his disciples. I myself don't believe this but who are we to tell other what to believe based on thousands of years of history.

People used the Bible to defend slavery too. And to deny women equal rights. You're saying people shouldn't have supported those civil rights movements because they might have trampled on people's religious beliefs?

 

[Gooseifur]

Yes. I have no problem with refusing people based on clothing.

Now that I've answered yours, will you answer mine? Is that the same as refusing people based on their race? Do you think that's ok?

I don't think either is appropriate? Why would you discriminate based on attire? What about people covered in tattoos or or with piercings in their face?

 

[Gooseifur]

What exactly is the point of this part of your post?

That in some countries the penalty for being gay is the death penalty. He asked me if I thought it was oK. I said it wasn't but some countries and their citizens do