Supreme Court: Should a web designer be able refuse to service because their religion disagrees with gay marriage?

I know. That is the problem. I should be able to own a business and sell what I want to who I want.

I understand the current laws. I disagree with them.

This is a really good and enlightening article and serves to gain some perspective of exactly at what is at stake.

I quote one key paragraph from the article:

"303 Creative (the web designer) has plenty of freedom to speak or not speak as it wishes. It need not serve the public and it need not design wedding websites featuring content it would not sell to anyone. But the First Amendment does not give it an exemption from laws requiring equal treatment of customers simply because its service is “expressive.”

It’s a rare day when I agree with 2600 But he hit the mail on the head.

if a business refuses to sell to blacks people for example, it’s up to the community to take their money elsewhere and this business will suffer economically for their choice.

Yes. It’s not a hard concept to wrap your head around. The government should have no say if I hold up a Menards paint sample and let people in based on if they match the sample or not.
does it mean the owner is a scumbag? It could, but that should be their right.

This is how it was with separate but equal, but businesses catering to the majority didn’t suffer because the majority chose intolerance.

It's a bad sign for your argument when deflections and insults are all you have. We're not talking about affirmative action. Try to focus.

"I don't think the government should be in the segregation business" is a nonsensical answer in this context. The question is not whether the government should be in the segregation business, but whether the government should prohibit private actors from engaging in the segregation business.

You want private businesses to be able to discriminate based on skin color. You seem to be averse to saying this bluntly for some reason. Why is that?

So if a bank refuses to lend money to someone who is black other mortgage customers will take their business elsewhere? Do you really think this would happen? And what if the rest of the community is supportive of a businees refusing to serve a particular minority, people of Arab descent, for example?

Your first comment:

"Conservatives are so desperate to go back to the good ol' days when businesses could put up signs that said "WHITES ONLY.""

You suggest all conservatives are racist and then clutch your pearls when you're insulted back.

I don't tell you you're stupid to insult you I tell you you're stupid because it's a fact.

The "conservatives" you're referring to weren't "conservatives" in the modern sense they were dyed in the wool Democrats. Racist to their very core. Just like you.

Affirmative action is racist. You support it. It's not deflection to point out that you proudly support racist policy while you prance around pretending you're not racist.

Why are you happy to cheer for government enforced racism that's mandatory but you pretend to be upset about voluntary racism?

Any non-imbecile understand that compulsory racism is much worse than voluntary racism.

Do I think private citizens should be able to choose who they do business with? Yes.

Do I think private citizens should discriminate based on race? No.

Open up a "whites only" cupcake shop and watch what happens. It will be protested and boycotted until it goes out of business.

Open up a "blacks only" cupcake shop and lily white morons like you will call it "brave and beautiful".

Democrats already mandated that banks lend money based on feelings and skin color rather than credit score. It led to the 2008 financial crisis.

Banks want to make money. They will lend money to anyone they think will pay it back.

If you have 650 credit score the bank isn't refusing you for any reason other than your 650 credit score.

This. People like to debate the Bible when they haven’t even read it.

You do realize this isn’t the 1960s anymore right? That was 20 years ago

F*ck religion. It's a pox on our species, propagated by the indoctrination of children. The sooner we evolve past this childish nonsense the better off we'll be; just mind-boggling this is still a thing in 2022 in a modern technical society.

The ancients were much much much smarter than you.

Most people are morons. Geniuses of the past understood this. The best way to control really stupid people is to convince them that they are being watched at all times and that bad behavior will be punished even if no one sees it.

You "enlightened" morons are tearing down critical social structures without having any idea what their purpose was and while having absolutely no plan to fill the void you're creating.

It is "childish nonsense" to think the world would be better off without religion.

The only thing more dangerous than a stupid atheist narcissist is a clever atheist narcissist. Atheists killed more people in the 20th century alone than all the religions of the world killed in the 20 centuries before it.

Slavery was a common practice in ancient times. The Bible is 100% ok with slavery.

Alan

If the service is offered to the public then it has to be offered to the gays.

It's like if a gas station refusing to sell gasoline to Donald Trump because they dislike Nazis is also not allowed since it's a public service.

How is my first comment an insult? Conservatives disagree with the civil rights act and want to return to the days when businesses could put up signs that say "whites only." That is a fact. That is what you want. That you would personally disagree with a business owner's decision to do so does not change the fact that you want them to have the legal right to discriminate based on skin color. You think Jim Crow is terrible and blame it all on the Democrats (which is absolutely nuts, btw; you really think the politicians who supported Jim Crow in the early 1900s would be the same ones demanding reparations for black people today? LOL), but you don't oppose bringing it back. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

Where is that mandated? Are you suggesting that high credit risk POC caused the financial crisis?

No.. you've been told that by people with a vested interest in making conservatives look bad.

Segregation was a DEMOCRAT policy. What in the blue f*ck does the way DEMOCRATS behaved in the past have to do with conservatives today??

You're trained like a dumb animal to blame "conservatives" for everything bad and give yourself credit for everything good.

It's pathetic.

Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Acts at a higher rate than Democrats did.

And let's not forget Democrat icon Lyndon B. Johnson famously said of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference."

He also said “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for 200 years.”

Democrats were racist in 1900. They were racist in 1964. They are racist today.