Current Events > SCOTUS rules in favor xtian businesses refusing work

(+) Yeah! (+)

So, now SCOTUS has just ruled to allow for relgious exemptions from having to do work for clientele you have religious objections about.

It is a perfectly acceptable shortening of christian.

Is this the website one that the request for a gay marriage website literally didn't even exist?

Christian. The letter X used to be shorthand for Christ.

"The Supreme Court Friday ruled for a Christian web designer in Colorado who refuses to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings out of religious objections."

Looks that way.

mustachedmystic posted...

Christian. The letter X used to be shorthand for Christ.

My favorite rapper. DMChristian.

There's no source, and there's not seven other threads about it. Something doesn't seem right here.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-decisions-06-30-23/index.html

Really?

ejolson posted...

"The Supreme Court Friday ruled for a Christian web designer in Colorado who refuses to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings out of religious objections."

Looks that way.

Which is pure lunacy, because it looks like the case doesn't even fucking exist. They just made it up.

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

Heineken14 posted...

Is this the website one that the request for a gay marriage website literally didn't even exist?

Yeah. No one even asked her to make a website either. Funny thing though they opened the door for discrimination against them too. This can go both ways

Heineken14 posted...

Is this the website one that the request for a gay marriage website literally didn't even exist?

Yep. It shouldve been thrown out the moment that was revealed because no injury was incurred and the plaintiff arrested for perjury.

Wouldnt it be xian?

Wasn't this already decided when that baker refused to make the "Gay Wedding Cake" like 10 years ago?

rip discrimination protections.

and rip the last vestige of american court legitimacy. she has zero. fucking. standing. this should have been tossed on those grounds in the first 5 minutes.

ejolson posted...

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-decisions-06-30-23/index.html

Really?

Why did you wait ten posts to include it?

Imagine paying attention to this boring crap

Block_that_Kick posted...

Yep. It shouldve been thrown out the moment that was revealed because no injury was incurred and the plaintiff arrested for perjury.

Yes, it should have been because there was literally no standing due to no injury.

This will blow up in their face when some Muslim-owned company starts refusing service to Christians.

Medussa posted...

rip discrimination protections.

and rip the last vestige of american court legitimacy. she has zero. fucking. standing. this should have been tossed on those grounds in the first 5 minutes.

Should've been tossed when they realized the request never actually happened. But the conservative 6 don't really care.

This ruling imo has grounds to be ignored since they literally ruled on something that didn't happen. I know it won't be ignored but there's validity in ignoring the case in this situation.

PenultmateGohan posted...

Imagine paying attention to this boring crap

This isn't crap this is pretty damn important. But I doubt you'd understand unless you were lgbt. This doesn't just stop with us. It'll spread and get worse

Heineken14 posted...

Which is pure lunacy, because it looks like the case doesn't even fucking exist. They just made it up.

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

Yeah, came in to post this. The case doesn't even exist. Shows you just how illegitimate this court is.
https://twitter.com/AngryBlackLady/status/1674411961935863815

PenultmateGohan posted...

Imagine paying attention to this boring crap

Cool story, broseph.

PenultmateGohan posted...

Imagine paying attention to this boring crap

This wont personally affect me so no one should care about it.

Is it optimistic to think this can be countered with boycotting that business?

Actually if said business is essential in an isolated area, then this can be devastating. It's an annoying backwards ruling either way. Bigots are becoming a protected class.

Bullshit standing means the entire judiciary failed at every step along the way.

PenultmateGohan posted...

Imagine paying attention to this boring crap

Imagine going through life and completely lacking empathy for any situation that doesn't personally impact you at the moment.

Private businesses should have the right to refuse business to whomever they please. And people have the right to boycott said businesses for whatever reason.

Thats how a free market is supposed to work.

PenultmateGohan posted...

Imagine paying attention to this boring crap

Why is this unimportant, in your opinion?

jasten posted...

Private businesses should have the right to refuse business to whomever they please. And people have the right to boycott said businesses for whatever reason.

Thats how a free market is supposed to work.

i hope no one ever sells you food again. imagine being this fucking callous.

jasten posted...

Private businesses should have the right to refuse business to whomever they please. And people have the right to boycott said businesses for whatever reason.

Thats how a free market is supposed to work.

What a dumb fucking post.

jasten posted...

Private businesses should have the right to refuse business to whomever they please. And people have the right to boycott said businesses for whatever reason.

Thats how a free market is supposed to work.

Then don't make a public business. You wanna serve specific people? Run your business from your house or something. Don't open a public business. It's not hard. This just opens up discrimination for everyone not just lgbtq+ people.

jasten posted...

Private businesses should have the right to refuse business to whomever they please. And people have the right to boycott said businesses for whatever reason.

Thats how a free market is supposed to work.

Literally no, tho. If you want to pick and choose who you serve, you're allowed to create a membership-based business, like a snooty, exclusive golf club. But if you decide to open a store for business, you aren't allowed (or weren't until this) allowed to pick and choose identitarian reasons to refuse people; even "no shoes, no shirt" signs aren't actually legally enforceable beyond existing decency laws.

If you want to protect yourself from having to do business, your options are: don't start a business because you're clearly not interested in actually doing your job, or just say "no, sorry, we're booked" when you don't want to take a client.

jasten posted...

Private businesses should have the right to refuse business to whomever they please. And people have the right to boycott said businesses for whatever reason.

Thats how a free market is supposed to work.

american law has been established on this subject for decades. you can refuse service as long as it isn't on the basis of race/religion/sexual preference. this ruling technically doesn't violate that but it is shady as fuck this activist court would take a 'case' that isn't even real.

basically the court is saying you can refuse service if the person does something that offends your religious sensibilities. being gay wouldn't qualify under this ruling but something like a gay marriage would be grounds for refusal which is splitting a baby in half in an instance where no one is even claiming the baby but one party.

Heineken14 posted...

What a dumb fucking post.

And one he'll walk back when people use their free market to do something he hates or denies service to someone he supports.

ScazarMeltex posted...

Yeah, came in to post this. The case doesn't even exist. Shows you just how illegitimate this court is.
https://twitter.com/AngryBlackLady/status/1674411961935863815

I don't understand, can SCOTUS decide on cases when both parties or at least their reps aren't present? Why did no one think to reach out to the 2nd party?

bigblu89 posted...

This will blow up in their face when some Muslim-owned company starts refusing service to Christians.

I'm thinking that if this happens, rightwingers will make a stink of it and SCOTUS will decide that it's discrimination.

Medussa posted...

i hope no one ever sells you food again. imagine being this fucking callous.

O no, some nobody on the web called me callous. Help.

Oh, look at that. Christcrackers trying to turn their rules into our laws.

While I completely understand and agree with rules that prevent businesses from discriminating on customers walking through the door, I really truly don't understand how it's supposed to work for creative industries like web design. Like, if this woman really truly does dislike gay people and a gay couple forced her under law to take them on as a client, how exactly does that work? Can they sue her if she half asses it? Does some third party have to arbitrate to determine whether she put in sufficient effort and creativity to have fulfilled the request? Would they even want that person to make a website for them after discovering that she fundamentally disagrees with their relationship?

With the cake shop they at least offered to sell the couple a pre-baked cake that was already available, they just weren't making one from scratch, but a website is a whole different situation.

Edit: of course, the biggest issue is the fact that this shouldn't have gotten this far in the first place since there wasn't a real client.

s0nicfan posted...

Can they sue her if she half asses it?

Were that the case, absolutely every "developer" is fucked.
Slap down some bloated library or page builder, or just do the whole damn thing in Wix, do a few meaningless animations and transitions to impress/distract the client, and call it good. Who the hell cares that it's not sustainable?

The real problem is that there will be people that truly want to discriminate and just cloak themselves in this decision.

Starks posted...

The real problem is that there will be people that truly want to discriminate and just cloak themselves in this decision.

Always has been. The "complainant" being one such person given they had to invent a client to get this ruling.

What a sick, evil person to have made this shit up just to get a court case to discriminate

Fascist SCOTUS man remember these people are supposed to be impartial

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Yeah, the meltdowns on here for common sense rulings is a bit depressing.

Whose clown alt is this

jasten posted...

Yeah, the meltdowns on here for common sense rulings is a bit depressing.

The only meltdowns are from dorks using shitty rulings to troll.