Current Events > SCOTUS rules in favor xtian businesses refusing work

(+) Yeah! (+)

The case at hand also has... Some curiosities
https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1674411839604633600

Intro2Logic posted...

The case at hand also has... Some curiosities
https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1674411839604633600

So are they insinuating that this was all fabricated for the purpose of limiting LGBTQ rights?

TonyKojima posted...

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

But then bad people will just keep doing the bad things they've been doing and will continue to do regardless.

GATTJT posted...

But then bad people will just keep doing the bad things they've been doing and will continue to do regardless.

They HATE when we use their rules against them. Honestly they should face the same discrimination they wanna invite on everyone else. They fucked around and now they are gonna find out.

So I wonder if like, the cake person would've HAD to sell them a plain cake, because that's food and you can't deny selling it. But you also can't be made to do any creative work.

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 can to some extent.

Unlike the student loan decision, this one is actually horrible and a blatant case of judicial overreach and overturning prior (recent!) decisions entirely.

Now if dem businesses refused service to republicans they would strike that down so fast

jasten posted...

Private businesses should have the right to refuse business to whomever they please.

Wrong. Objectively, indisputably, demonstrably wrong.

Kami_no_Kami posted...

Wouldnt it be xian?

you'd think so but it's not

Lamesy posted...

So I wonder if like, the cake person would've HAD to sell them a plain cake, because that's food and you can't deny selling it. But you also can't be made to do any creative work.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what the case is about.

You have to sell generic items for sale to everyone. The ruling is that you don't have to create custom items for others.

TheOtherMike posted...

Wrong. Objectively, indisputably, demonstrably wrong.

Not only that, it literally means that you can decide to not serve people you don't like.

Ill try to read the opinion later.

PenultmateGohan posted...

Imagine paying attention to this boring crap

It's certainly more important than a sub carrying half a dozen rich people.

jasten posted...

Private businesses should have the right to refuse business to whomever they please.

So if someone put up a "Whites Only" sign in their business because they claim it's against their religion you'd be fine with it?

emblem-man posted...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what the case is about.

You have to sell generic items for sale to everyone. The ruling is that you don't have to create custom items for others.

Yes - from my post #100

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?

Ruvan22 posted...

Yes - from my post #100

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?

Yeah. Due to the fact that we're in 2023 and truly do have a large supply of choices when it comes to hiring people for custom things, part of me hopes this doesn't actually truly impact much people.
I also have no issue with people letting it known (in terms of business reviews, etc) that "xyz business does not do business with these minority groups, use their services as you will..."

Filthy goppers and dirty cultists offend my deeply held beliefs on the basis of fuckgoppersandcultistsology. Can I refuse to service them?

Pretty soon the hag from Kentucky will be hired again to refuse same sex marriage licenses.

emblem-man posted...

Yeah. Due to the fact that we're in 2023 and truly do have a large supply of choices when it comes to hiring people for custom things, part of me hopes this doesn't actually truly impact much people.
I also have no issue with people letting it known (in terms of business reviews, etc) that "xyz business does not do business with these minority groups, use their services as you will..."

*The increase in choices is definitely good but I've driven through lots of smaller towns with say just one bakery. People will say "Oh the minority group can just order online" but that's A) adding a cost (shipping) and B) feels awkward with some things you'd want to see in person like wedding cakes
*This ruling also appears to say you can refuse creative services based on religion? If your religion places a large emphasis on other religions being "evil" you could say you don't want to support their adherents.
*Lastly, if a cosmetic surgeon sells their services with an element of their own artistry, would they be able to refuse service?

Ruvan22 posted...

or even refuse another religion?

Outright stated.

Consider what a contrary approach would mean. Under
Colorados logic, the government may compel anyone who
speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on
that same topicno matter the underlying messageif the topic somehow implicates a customers statutorily protected trait. 6 F. 4th, at 1198 (Tymkovich, C. J., dissenting).
Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government
to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others
whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty. The government could require an
unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zi-
onist message, or an atheist muralist to accept a commis-
sion celebrating Evangelical zeal, so long as they would
make films or murals for other members of the public with
different messages. Id., at 1199. Equally, the government
could force a male website designer married to another man
to design websites for an organization that advocates
against same-sex marriage.

Though this only applies to the creative part though. Like the actual speech has to be what the person finds objectionable and not the client. You could, for instance, decide that you'll only create statues of men. However you couldn't decide to only sell statues to men.

uwnim posted...

Outright stated.

Though this only applies to the creative part though. Like the actual speech has to be what the person finds objectionable and not the client. You could, for instance, decide that you'll only create statues of men. However you couldn't decide to only sell statues to men.

Thanks for the details - so yes, an architect could refuse to design a Jewish temple for a client citing religious Christian beliefs of being Judaism being a false religion.

I suppose this changes the cosmetic surgeon situation a bit.. they could refuse to provide a nose job to a gay client that disclosed it was for their upcoming wedding but not one who just disclosed being gay

SuperShake666 posted...

So if someone put up a "Whites Only" sign in their business because they claim it's against their religion you'd be fine with it?

These people will always without question say "yes" to those scenarios, just like they say "yes" when asked if it was wrong to forgive the PPP loans or that it's wrong for rich people to continually get tax breaks when questioned over the student loan forgiveness. They KNOW they can say "yes" to these hypotheticals because they KNOW they will never actually exist so it gives them cover for their shitty views of things that ACTUALLY exist.