Is it socially conservative to think that slavery (i.e. forcing others to work for you without their consent) is bad?
This is not a thoughtful argument. Everyone agrees that if you own a business, you can’t deny service to a person based on their race, whether you “consent” or not.
Well, your premise is wrong.
It has been assumed in this case, and easily so, that the website designer refused service to clients because they were gay.
While actually, she refused service to a client, to make websites, creative designs, etc. that reflected values (which aligned with those who are gay) that didn't align with her religion.
So this ruling is not saying you can refuse service to someone who is gay. That is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. What this ruling is saying is that you make refuse a creative service (non-creative services are not included in this case) to anyone who requests something that goes against your personal ideals.
It's very simple really, its gotten twisted because the couple that requested (or supposedly requested) was gay themselves. This case would be the same if it was a straight couple requesting a design for a gay wedding, no matter how unlikely.
It would also be the same if someone approached this designer and asked them to make a website for a brothel. It goes against their religious values, which is protected under the first amendment, and they do not need to engage in such business. It also is a private business which gives them the right as well.
So really, the ruling is not against gay people, but gay things. If that makes sense
Looks to me like she has had success and won championships at all levels, from high school to professional, over the course of a decade. I don't like some of the things she says and does either but I can definitely separate her personality from her performances.
Just curious, which of the following is her "one-hit?"
2011 Footlocker National Champion 2015 NCAA Cross Country Champion 2015 NCAA Outdoor 10000 Champion 2016 NCAA Indoor 3000 Champion 2016 NCAA Indoor 5000 Champion 2020 Olympic Trials Runner-up (in first career marathon) 2020 London Marathon 6th place 2021 Olympic Marathon Bronze Medalist 2021 New York City Marathon 4th place (fastest time ever by an American at NYC)
Only two women have won Footlocker and made an Olympic team: Molly Seidel won Footlocker in 2011 and made the '21 Olympic team Cathy Schiro won Footlocker in 1984 and made the '88 and '92 Olympic teams
Only five women have won Footlocker and won an NCAA title: Molly Seidel (2011) - 4 NCAA titles (2015 Cross Country, 2015 Outdoor 10000, 2016 Indoor 3000, 2016 Indoor 5000) Weini Kelati (2015) - 2 NCAA titles (2019 Cross Country, 2019 Outdoor 10000) Jordan Hasay (2005 & 2008) - 2 NCAA titles (2011 Indoor mile, 2011 Indoor 3000) Melody Fairchild (1989 & 1990) - 1 NCAA title (1996 Indoor 3000) Ceci Hopp (1980) - 1 NCAA title (1982 Outdoor 3000)
wow, is that her full best cv?
so not even a one hit wonder - no major international victories at all.
Nobody will come out and say it on insta or in Runner's World or even reddit/advancedrunning, but at least LRC will here.
I think Molly is a great runner but she needs to check her privilege too. Even as someone who agrees with her stance on the issue of LGBTQ and the ruling.
It has been assumed in this case, and easily so, that the website designer refused service to clients because they were gay.
While actually, she refused service to a client, to make websites, creative designs, etc. that reflected values (which aligned with those who are gay) that didn't align with her religion.
So this ruling is not saying you can refuse service to someone who is gay. That is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. What this ruling is saying is that you make refuse a creative service (non-creative services are not included in this case) to anyone who requests something that goes against your personal ideals.
It's very simple really, its gotten twisted because the couple that requested (or supposedly requested) was gay themselves. This case would be the same if it was a straight couple requesting a design for a gay wedding, no matter how unlikely.
It would also be the same if someone approached this designer and asked them to make a website for a brothel. It goes against their religious values, which is protected under the first amendment, and they do not need to engage in such business. It also is a private business which gives them the right as well.
So really, the ruling is not against gay people, but gay things. If that makes sense
This whole situation was created by the "web designer" and the group she was working with to try to get the law overturned as a political move. But as it turned out Rosa Parks was put on buses to create a situation to get a law overturned.
Looks to me like she has had success and won championships at all levels, from high school to professional, over the course of a decade. I don't like some of the things she says and does either but I can definitely separate her personality from her performances.
Just curious, which of the following is her "one-hit?"
2011 Footlocker National Champion 2015 NCAA Cross Country Champion 2015 NCAA Outdoor 10000 Champion 2016 NCAA Indoor 3000 Champion 2016 NCAA Indoor 5000 Champion 2020 Olympic Trials Runner-up (in first career marathon) 2020 London Marathon 6th place 2021 Olympic Marathon Bronze Medalist 2021 New York City Marathon 4th place (fastest time ever by an American at NYC)
Only two women have won Footlocker and made an Olympic team: Molly Seidel won Footlocker in 2011 and made the '21 Olympic team Cathy Schiro won Footlocker in 1984 and made the '88 and '92 Olympic teams
Only five women have won Footlocker and won an NCAA title: Molly Seidel (2011) - 4 NCAA titles (2015 Cross Country, 2015 Outdoor 10000, 2016 Indoor 3000, 2016 Indoor 5000) Weini Kelati (2015) - 2 NCAA titles (2019 Cross Country, 2019 Outdoor 10000) Jordan Hasay (2005 & 2008) - 2 NCAA titles (2011 Indoor mile, 2011 Indoor 3000) Melody Fairchild (1989 & 1990) - 1 NCAA title (1996 Indoor 3000) Ceci Hopp (1980) - 1 NCAA title (1982 Outdoor 3000)
This is not a thoughtful argument. Everyone agrees that if you own a business, you can’t deny service to a person based on their race, whether you “consent” or not.
That is not what the ruling is about at all. It doesn't allow business owners to deny service to anyone. It allows business owners to retain their free speech rights and not have to actively communicate a message they disagree with.
Do you think someone who believes in legal abortion should be forced to design a web site for the local pro life group?
Of course. If they don't like it, they can find another job, or leave the country (isn't that what people always say?). Only an idiot would assert that by performing a work assignment, the worker agrees with the substance of the assignment (or, in this case, the message).
What happens when an unpopular opinion is held and the local newpaper refuses to publish it because the newpaper doesn't want to be held to agree with the message? What if all the largest newspapers felt the same way?
That is not what the ruling is about at all. It doesn't allow business owners to deny service to anyone. It allows business owners to retain their free speech rights and not have to actively communicate a message they disagree with.
Do you think someone who believes in legal abortion should be forced to design a web site for the local pro life group?
Of course. If they don't like it, they can find another job, or leave the country (isn't that what people always say?). Only an idiot would assert that by performing a work assignment, the worker agrees with the substance of the assignment (or, in this case, the message).
What happens when an unpopular opinion is held and the local newpaper refuses to publish it because the newpaper doesn't want to be held to agree with the message? What if all the largest newspapers felt the same way?
Intelligence is not your strong suit. Nothing but NOTHING in the 1st Amendment refers to "agreement." The government can't tell you what you can, cannot, or must say. "Agreement" is expressly not included.
Whole case presented to the court was based on fraud, the facts the client, the work, the contract, none of it was real.
You can't bring a fake case in front of the court, that's ridiculous, now the whole ruling is a lie.
Also if you want to calculate what the proper decision would be, take out the LGBT part and imagine it's someone taking a contract but then refusing later after finding out while it's a man and woman it's a "mixed marriage" and claiming "oh that's against my beliefs". That would be horrible and unacceptable.
We don't live in the horrible backwardness of 1750s 1850s or 1950s anymore and we're not going back. Either move forward or stop serving the public.
Check out her IG post where she’s giving the finger. Yet she fails to understand the SCOTUS ruling. Typical of someone like her striving to remain relevant.
If I follow a car repair channel and they start doing cooking or stock market picks I’m going to unsubscribe. If I want politics I’ll follow Chuck Todd.
I know there are a handful of posters here that love to inject politics in to every thread. You are not normal and frankly tiresome.
then unsubscribe. But telling others what they "should" or "should not" say is not appropriate
^ Effectively tells others it is inappropriate to tell others what to say.