Current Events > SCOTUS rules in favor xtian businesses refusing work

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


In a real court, this would have been thrown out. Our courts are illegitimate. That's how this happens. They pick and choose cases that will arrive at the results they want, regardless of the facts of the case.

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 if that business is the only one in the region that provides the service the customer is looking for?

What if said business said "We don't serve Black people"?

I wasn't aware having to lie about a client to get a case was common sense.

Blue_Inigo posted...

Whose clown alt is this

No alt. What now?

jasten posted...

No alt. What now?

Post your bigoted views on your main

Solar_Crimson posted...

What if that business is the only one in the region that provides the service the customer is looking for?

What if said business said "We don't serve Black people"?

No one should be forced into a contract or doing business. If someone decided they didnt want to serve me, for any reason, they have the right to.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Uh huh.

Blue_Inigo posted...

Post your bigoted views on your main

This is my only account. And being free market isnt being bigoted. Time to face reality.

remember in 2016 when we discussed how important the supreme court was

and some people acted like it was no big deal

yea this is the shit we where talking about the slow erosion of rights

Blue_Inigo posted...

Whose clown alt is this

Another chud ignore it

https://twitter.com/edwardludvigsen/status/1674413627175235584

jasten posted...

No one should be forced into a contract or doing business. If someone decided they didnt want to serve me, for any reason, they have the right to.

And there's a reason we had laws that said that you could not refuse business on the basis of ones race, sex, etc.

jasten posted...

No one should be forced into a contract or doing business. If someone decided they didnt want to serve me, for any reason, they have the right to.

What a dumb fucking post. lol

Solar_Crimson posted...

And there's a reason we had laws that said that you could not refuse business on the basis of ones race, sex, etc.

And those laws are wrong. Do we support freedom or forced contracts under government threat?

PenultmateGohan posted...

Imagine paying attention to this boring crap

congrats on living a good life with few obstacles

AceMos posted...

https://twitter.com/edwardludvigsen/status/1674413627175235584

Both the business and the client being fake would be hysterical.

Still wouldn't reverse the decision because they want the ability to discriminate against their outgroups.

@jasten are you aware that with out those laws minorities could end up dieing in some cases

pauIie posted...

congrats on living a good life with few obstacles

This is just their troll shtick, they've done this exact same thing in other topics, (the SCOTUS affirmative action topic for one). They're not meant to be taken seriously.

This means though blue states are now allowed to go after the bible.

AceMos posted...

@jasten are you aware that with out those laws minorities could end up dieing in some cases

Talk about going to the extremes to try and feel superior.

block this troll and move on

fuck scotus

I hope the people who push for a "free market" where people can be denied everything, find it very difficult to get their basic needs taken care of. Since this is the world they want.

jasten posted...

Talk about going to the extremes to try and feel superior.

No, she's right. You literally said that businesses and people should be able to refuse services to anyone for any reason. What if life-saving service was refused to someone on the basis of their race?

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.

They shouldn't be entitled to seevices paid for by taxpayers they discriminate against then.

Public roads and sidewalks, fire department, police, etc

Solar_Crimson posted...

No, she's right. You literally said that businesses and people should be able to refuse services to anyone for any reason. What if life-saving service was refused to someone on the basis of their race?

dont even need to go that far grocery stores could refuse to sell ppl food

Solar_Crimson posted...

No, she's right. You literally said that businesses and people should be able to refuse services to anyone for any reason. What if life-saving service was refused to someone on the basis of their race?

Well that's just corrected by people doing their own research and boycotting those places until a competitor comes along in the marketplace of ideas!

What do you mean there is only 1 grocery store in town and the next one is 2 hours away and you don't know if they too will discriminate? Well... have you tried bootstraps?

Tmaster148 posted...

I hope the people who push for a "free market" where people can be denied everything, find it very difficult to get their basic needs taken care of. Since this is the world they want.

"Any business can deny to serve anybody for any reason, so they are perfectly fine for denying to help a gay person."
*Business tells a customer to mask up or leave*
"Nooooo! Why am I being discriminated against?!"

Heineken14 posted...

Well... have you tried bootstraps?

Amazon Fresh don't give a fuck.

Solar_Crimson posted...

No, she's right. You literally said that businesses and people should be able to refuse services to anyone for any reason. What if life-saving service was refused to someone on the basis of their race?

Most life saving services are either fully or greatly funded by public money. And are we really acting like 90% of businesses would suddenly refuse service to minorities? Most businesses simply dont care who or what you are.

Solar_Crimson posted...

No, she's right. You literally said that businesses and people should be able to refuse services to anyone for any reason. What if life-saving service was refused to someone on the basis of their race?

I dont know why jasten is so concerned about what happens in America since he doesnt live there and has no connection to it.

jasten posted...

Most life saving services are either fully or greatly funded by public money. And are we really acting like 90% of businesses would suddenly refuse service to minorities? Most businesses simply dont care who or what you are.

Reminder that this guy had a reputation on 261 for damage controlling the confederacy

TonyKojima posted...

This means though blue states are now allowed to go after the bible.

It means you can go against anyone for anything now.

TonyKojima posted...

This means though blue states are now allowed to go after the bible.

That's not a good thing either. This isn't some "tit for tat" that's going to end up being citizens attacking each other instead of the institutions now allowing for this discrimination. A business that "goes after the bible" isn't going to make the right see the error of their ways. It's gonna validate their victim complex and lead to codifying their religion into law at the federal level even more.

ArtiRock posted...

It means you can go against anyone for anything now.

And its time liberals play the same game.

ZMythos posted...

That's not a good thing either. This isn't some "tit for tat" that's going to end up being citizens attacking each other instead of the institutions now allowing for this discrimination. A business that "goes after the bible" isn't going to make the right see the error of their ways. It's gonna validate their victim complex and lead to codifying their religion into law at the federal level even more.

Ahhh I see so your suggestion is to lay down and take it because the other side will "do it more".

TonyKojima posted...

Ahhh I see so your suggestion is to lay down and take it because the other side will "do it more".

Where the fuck did I say that? Stop putting words in my mouth.

ZMythos posted...

Where the fuck did I say that? Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then clarify.

TonyKojima posted...

Then clarify.

Clarify what? I already explained why your proposal is bad.

TonyKojima posted...

And its time liberals play the same game.

Based

God we are fucked

AceMos posted...

@jasten are you aware that with out those laws minorities could end up dieing in some cases

You're just gonna give him a chubby thinking about that.

It's not like this SCOTUS will allow people to turn Christians away. Muslims, Jews, anybody else can be, but the second somebody uses their ruling to turn it back it'll get struck down. Even this case where they say you can use your religion to turn away a gay person, if you claim your religion allows you to turn away straight people they'll flip harder than a game winning Magic Cylinder.

I'm starting to think this jasten is pooh from 261 on an alt. Him or savoots

jasten posted...

And are we really acting like 90% of businesses would suddenly refuse service to minorities

We conducted a decades long natural experiment on this question.

Intro2Logic posted...

We conducted a decades long natural experiment on this question.

We also know how the first part of that "people aren't allowed to deny life saving services" went for Jewish people.

jasten posted...

Most life saving services are either fully or greatly funded by public money. And are we really acting like 90% of businesses would suddenly refuse service to minorities? Most businesses simply dont care who or what you are.

That certainly wasn't the case in the 60s and 70s.. it changed largely *due* to government laws. (or "forced contracts" as you say).

Also -
jasten posted...

This is my only account. And being free market isnt being bigoted. Time to face reality.

Arguing for the free market is often done BY bigots with intentional handwaving of consequences. Time to face reality.

Additional details that are very important:

*Decision (I don't agree with) appears to be based on the argument that creative services encompass free speech and thus first amendment, so "I won't sell a loaf of bread" isn't the same.

Gorsuch wrote that the First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. He said Colorado sought to deny that promise.

All manner of speech from pictures, films, paintings, drawings, and engravings, to oral utterance and the printed word qualify for the First Amendments protections; no less can hold true when it comes to speech like Ms. Smiths conveyed over the Internet, Gorsuch said.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/supreme-court-303-creative-
lgbtq-rights-colorado/index.html

*This *doesn't* establish what falls UNDER free speech for a business, so a tailor or hairdresser might be able to argue the creativity in their service allows them to refuse service to a LBQT customer

*As others have pointed out, it also seems to imply a person professing their religion condemns a specific race would be allowed to refuse a creative service... or even refuse another religion?

Start denying services to right wing xtians, its now legal apparently and our side gains nothing by not doing it.

The sad thing about this is, religious minorities are celebrating this, however, it wouldn't be long before their rights as minorities are trampled on and they're asking the LGBTQs to march with them and support them.