Most religions have no real, concrete mention of same-sex marriage in any of their texts. It's the hateful, bigoted, religious mfkers that try to make an argument out of 2,000 year old text to reinforce their ignorant world views.
This is not a free exercise of religion case. it is a free speech. You have freedom to speak. you also have freedom not to speak. government can not compel you to speak. for example gov can not force you to say pledge of allegiance. her argument is the gov is forcing her to speak by making me make web designs
Where is the line? What if the web designer refused to do a website for an interracial couple because her religion was against it?
The web designer is in the wrong because they did not clearly state who they would, and world not, do work for beforehand. Doing so would likely have cost that "designer" work from people they would do work for but would not hire them for their personal bias. And that explains why the "designer" never mentioned it at all ... loss of potential work.
I expect the RCOTUS (Right-wing or Religious Court of the U.S.) will decide that work "rules" can be created retroactively if a religion is satisfied.
Would you be okay with a web designer being forced to design something for a racist group? Would you be okay with one being forced to design a site that is anti-gay marriage?
Where is the line? What if the web designer refused to do a website for an interracial couple because her religion was against it?
The line is religion. What religion says anything about interracial couples? Race and being gay are two separate things.
Your first line is correct. But not in the way that you think it is.
The whole notion of trying to single out certain beliefs and label them "religious" beliefs and therefore special, and somehow more protected than any other belief is simply crazy.
"I believe that gay marriage is wrong." . . . "Tough sh!t, pal."
"I believe that gay marriage is wrong and this is a 'special' belief. It is a religious belief." . . . "Oh, in that case, I will take your belief very, very seriously and try to mold our society to accommodate your very special beliefs."
Government has no right to tell people how they run their private businesses. The same goes for the cake baker and even Covid lockdowns. Government has no right to step in and be a third party to an A B interaction
I'm certainly on your page, here - freedom to choose what and who you want to put your workhours behind is of utmost importance, in my eyes. But it never ceases to amaze me that still, in 2022, we have grown men and women wanting to refuse service to a couple purely based on the fact that they're in a same-sex relationship.
22
7
2:18 at the casino and about to go back on the grid
Government has no right to tell people how they run their private businesses. The same goes for the cake baker and even Covid lockdowns. Government has no right to step in and be a third party to an A B interaction
That is right McDonalds should be able to not server blacks or gays.
Government has no right to tell people how they run their private businesses. The same goes for the cake baker and even Covid lockdowns. Government has no right to step in and be a third party to an A B interaction
Perhaps.
But this would seem to imply that no regulations of any sort are permissible since all regulations have the government "step in and be a third party to an A B interaction."
Indeed, by your declaration, no law of any kind would be permissible since laws, by their nature, have the government "step in and be a third party to an A B interaction."
So, no regulations concerning minimum wage, workplace safety, auto safety, environmental quality, ... or, for that matter, murder (interaction between A and B).
Most religions have no real, concrete mention of same-sex marriage in any of their texts. It's the hateful, bigoted, religious mfkers that try to make an argument out of 2,000 year old text to reinforce their ignorant world views.
Wrong. Old Testament, Leviticus decries it clearly enough.
I'm certainly on your page, here - freedom to choose what and who you want to put your workhours behind is of utmost importance, in my eyes. But it never ceases to amaze me that still, in 2022, we have grown men and women wanting to refuse service to a couple purely based on the fact that they're in a same-sex relationship.
You have it backwards. What should amaze you is that in 2022, there are people who are trying to force business to provide a service just to prove a point. You don't like them, leave them alone.
Much different. It would be like a customer requesting a taco at a McDonalds that doesn't normally make them and then wanting that store to be foreced to special prepare one for them.
This is not a free exercise of religion case. it is a free speech. You have freedom to speak. you also have freedom not to speak. government can not compel you to speak. for example gov can not force you to say pledge of allegiance. her argument is the gov is forcing her to speak by making me make web designs
There’s legal merit to the argument that making a website is different from making a cake, which is why this case even made it to the scotus.
Much different. It would be like a customer requesting a taco at a McDonalds that doesn't normally make them and then wanting that store to be foreced to special prepare one for them.
Tacos are not on the menu at McDonalds. Madness!
What you children are missing is: the web designer has NO LEGAL CASE. She is demanding an EXCEPTION to a law she agreed to follow when she started her business.
She is free to move to a state without such a law. Nothing is stopping her. Also, she is not paying 1-cent of the legal costs. She is nothing but a tool trying to get anti-gay web design jobs.