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

Before, oh, the last five minutes in the grand sweep of human history, no major society, anywhere, at any time, acknowledged that two people of the same sex could constitute a marriage. Was everyone who lived before these last five minutes also "hateful, bigoted... mfkers?"

I’m sure my PoV is narrative shattering for those that enjoy railing against me as a simple of their hatred toward the hard-core blue-haired liberal etc.

But giving the government control over how people deal privately is a recipe for exploitation down the line. To use a tired trope, it allows stuff like a social credit score or political blacklists to be used to force private business to deny service to “undesirables” in the future.

To me keeping the power of the government fenced in is worth the immediate cost on creating a fair society but it 100% makes us all much more responsible for calling out and acting intentionally against discrimination in our daily lives.

hmmmmmmmmm, you seem to be expressing quite a lot of hate.

Lastly this case is hilarious since it is entirely contrived and she was never in the position to be forced to make a website or whatever. No one ever made her do anything! Just political posturing but hey… makes for good LRC debate.

And yet it is the Democrat Party that has never, ever ceased to pit people against each other and to discriminate on the basis of race. Never.

The line is..any private business should retain the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason unless the business is the only one reasonably available or critical to health. Any governing policy otherwise borders on communism.

Like vax passports being used like Jew stars to exclude people?

Regimes (Nazi Germany, Leninist and Stalinist Soviet Union, Communist China) and entities (Planned Parenthood) that have opposed traditional religions and their beliefs have, by very, very, very far, been the biggest killers of innocent human beings. By very, very, very, far.

That said, I’m fairly confident that this scotus, notwithstanding its conservative majority, will end up ruling that making a website is not “compelled speech” if it’s a commodified service being sold as a “public accommodation”, so it’s not substantively different from baking a cake in that the only basis to refuse service can not be membership in a protected class.

If religion isn't special, do you want to get rid of laws against religious discrimination, too?

The founders believed the right to practice your religion was important because they didn't want the continent to be a hellhole of religious wars like in Europe. That doesn't mean unreasonable accomodations to laws are required, like child sacrifices. But religious accomodation laws do prevent the government from using "neutral" laws to punish certain religions (intentionally or unintentionally), like bans on headscarves or kosher pratices or jewelry in schools or ordering slaughters of pigs. Religious accomodations have minimal impact on the law while protecting a right that is important to people.

Christians have not been under any biblical compulsion to avoid shellfish. As for lending at interest, usury (lending at an extortionate rate, for one example) is forbidden in many Christian communities, and Catholic books on moral theology go on for pages about subtle distinctions in what else might constitute usury.

Weak argument, with respect to harm.

I could claim that the hosts of the view have caused me harm by saying how bad white people are and comparing us to cockroaches or POC groups on college campuses banning white people from sitting in certain Library spaces.

and you might cleverly retort, “oh, you’re just a baby. Get over it. Who cares if you’re feelings are hurt”

you see, in that scenario, the only “harm” done is emotional. If there’s no harm done when white students are banned from certain spaces on campuses, then there is no harm done to a gay couple whose feelings were hurt.

that’s the only “harm” that was done.

I wonder what percentage of people who cite leviticus to justify their views on gay marriage strictly adhere to all the other laws in that book.

Please don't say the J-word and get C-man involved.

Did someone say Jew?

*kanye has entered the chat*

You really are a myopic ignorant fool. Same sex marriage were recognized in ancient greece, rome, & china to name a few. And certainly history exists outside what is written down.

Off the top of my head with respect to Greece, you are wrong. From the linked article:

It is ironic that the proponents of homosexuality so often point to ancient Greece as their paradigm because of its high state of culture and its partial acceptance of homosexuality or, more accurately, pederasty. Though some ancient Greeks did write paeans to homosexual love, it did not occur to any of them to propose homosexual relationships as the basis for marriage in their societies. The only homosexual relationship that was accepted was between an adult male and a male adolescent. This relationship was to be temporary, as the youth was expected to get married and start a family as soon as he reached maturity.

catholicexchange.com

What Would the Greeks Have Thought of Gay Marriage?

Robert R. Reilly

It is ironic that the proponents of homosexuality so often point to ancient Greece as their paradigm because of its high state of culture and its partial acceptance of homosexuality or, more accurately, pederasty. Though some...

Open link

You're confusing what you wish was true and reality.

The odd thing about the case is that the designer was never asked to design such a website. She sued colorado about the law preemptively, over something that never happened. No gay person wants her services.