US supreme court strikes blow against LGBTQ+ rights with Colorado ruling

[mailmandan]

AOC Says Conservative Supreme Court Justices Need a "Check on Their Power" Or Else We Will Start Seeing a "Dangerous Authoritarian Expansion of Power" (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila | 42

Democrat Rep.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

AOC said the conservative Supreme Court Justices need a “check on their power” or we will start seeing a “dangerous authoritarian expansion of power.” We are already seeing a dangerous authoritarian expansion of power from the left!

 

[Rockerduck]

Well, Jesus will be here soon. His word is true, and judgement comes quickly.

 

[mailmandan]

Well, Jesus will be here soon. His word is true, and judgement comes quickly.

Normal is not coming back but Jesus is.

 

[Rockerduck]

Normal is not coming back but Jesus is.

Amen

 

[TinMan]

​

These abominations are NOT MY BROTHERS NOR SISTERS IN THE LORD.​

​

 I hate no one​

 

[TinMan]

You know that's not what I meant, say if a Buddhist customer wanted a Christian website designer to make a website for a Buddhist temple, the Christian has every right to refuse to do so and it's not discrimination, just like we shouldn't expect a Muslim or a Buddhist to design a website for a Church or a Christian organisation.

If a Buddhist wants a Christian website designer to design a website for a restaurant then that is a completely different scenario.

I don't believe that the Muslim or Buddhist designers would discriminate.

 

[TinMan]

The TinMan is searching to find a heart, and the Kingdom of OZ is fresh out

You say I don't have a heart, but you are the one celebrating discrimination

 

[TinMan]

The 14th amendment has no protection for any person "regarding their sexual choice", heterosexual or homosexual

Romer v Evans 1996. The court rules that LGBT individuals are indeed protected by the 14th amendment.

"Animus against a class of persons, in the court’s view, was not a legitimate government goal: if the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.”

There isn't protection in The Privileges Clause or Due Process Clause that protects citizens regarding their choice in sexuality as you suggest​

The privilege clause was instituted in 1866 after slavery ended, and it was to protect freed slaves in their right to property ownership, etc (Privilege)

Privilege Clause: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

The due process is to protect citizens from being deprived of life, liberty, property, as defined below, and against unequal protection of the law, such as inability to afford an attorney, that is why public defenders are appointed to the poor and destitute to satisfy the equal protection clause

Unequal protection - Like granting business owners the special right to ignore discrimination laws

 

[Truth7t7]

Have a heart then, for the ones lost in their sins.

Don't endorse, fight against the truth of the word of God and those that hold to and uphold it.

I've never seen someone so gung ho for these sins as this poster......hmmm makes me question a lot of things about "the tree in the forest" !

Matthew 7:16-20KJV
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

[lforrest]

Romer v Evans 1996. The court rules that LGBT individuals are indeed protected by the 14th amendment.

"Animus against a class of persons, in the court’s view, was not a legitimate government goal: if the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.”

Unequal protection - Like granting business owners the special right to ignore discrimination laws

When it comes to commissions for creative works this becomes an issue of compelled speech. The civil rights act does not trump the bill of rights.

If you have trouble relating it would be like demanding you to post something on the sin of homosexuality, even if that is contrary to your beliefs.

If a store or a restaurant refueses to serve patrons of a protected class that is descrimination, as they are merely required to provide the same service that is provided for everyone else.

 

[Rockerduck]

Oh the short time we have in this life.

Job 14:2 - We blossom like a flower and then wither. Like a passing shadow, we quickly disappear.

Psalm 37:20 - But the wicked will die. The Lord’s enemies are like flowers in a field— they will disappear like smoke.

But in this life we can have a happy ending

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Like Jesus told Nicodemus, you must be born again of the Spirit of God, to avoid perishing .

 

[TinMan]

When it comes to commissions for creative works this becomes an issue of compelled speech. The civil rights act does not trump the bill of rights.

And expecting racist business owners to threat everyone with the same courtesy and respect violates their right of freedom of association. The civil rights of black people does not trump the bill of rights.

If you have trouble relating it would be like demanding you to post something on the sin of homosexuality, even if that is contrary to your beliefs.

If a store or a restaurant refueses to serve patrons of a protected class that is descrimination, as they are merely required to provide the same service that is provided for everyone else.

and what is it when a web designer refuses to provide the same service to one class of people that she happily provided for everyone else?

 

[Augustin56]

Rights belong to all Americans, not just "protected groups." The Marxists on the left are just using all this as another tool to create victim groups and divide our country in order to destroy it. Even the most casual of truly educated people can see this, clear as day.

 

[L.A.M.B.]

Rights belong to all Americans, not just "protected groups." The Marxists on the left are just using all this as another tool to create victim groups and divide our country in order to destroy it. Even the most casual of truly educated people can see this, clear as day.

That would be me
Even a non governmental minded person as myself get the drift " DIVIDE AND CONQUER!

 

[lforrest]

And expecting racist business owners to threat everyone with the same courtesy and respect violates their right of freedom of association. The civil rights of black people does not trump the bill of rights.

and what is it when a web designer refuses to provide the same service to one class of people that she happily provided for everyone else?

Good point about freedom of association, however it is not explicitly stated in the bill of rights but inferred as part of the first amendment. For other countries it is explicitly stated as a right, so laws against descrimination could conceivably be against their founding documents.

A web designer's work is expressive in nature, so it would be compelled speech. The key here is that service is not denied because it is requested by a protected class, but because the work isn't something they want to make.

 

[TinMan]

Good point about freedom of association, however it is not explicitly stated in the bill of rights but inferred as part of the first amendment.

Teh courts have consistently ruled that the right to assemble is the right to associate

For other countries it is explicitly stated as a right, so laws against descrimination could conceivably be against their founding documents.

A web designer's work is expressive in nature, so it would be compelled speech. The key here is that service is not denied because it is requested by a protected class, but because the work isn't something they want to make.

the web designer makes web pages for weddings. EXCEPT for on class of people.



Is it discrimination when a web designer who makes wedding websites, refuses to provide the same service to a black couple citing deeply held religious conviction?

 

[lforrest]

Teh courts have consistently ruled that the right to assemble is the right to associate


the web designer makes web pages for weddings. EXCEPT for on class of people.



Is it discrimination when a web designer who makes wedding websites, refuses to provide the same service to a black couple citing deeply held religious conviction?

Legal precedent (should) take a back seat to written laws. Association for the purposes of speech is inclusionary. While descrimination excludes, and would not be as clearly implied by the first amendment.

I'm not sure what sort of argument could be made for freedom of dissociation, but between our ineffectual borders and bowing to the globalists, Our politicians are not wise enough to make the argument.

Let's say for instance there were a mixed racial couple and the web designer's firmly held religious belief was that it is improper. Then they should be permitted to refuse to make the website on that basis as well. However that wouldn't apply if they have no such demonstrable religious belief to stand upon.

 

[TinMan]

Let's say for instance there were a mixed racial couple and the web designer's firmly held religious belief was that it is improper. Then they should be permitted to refuse to make the website on that basis as well. However that wouldn't apply if they have no such demonstrable religious belief to stand upon.

and you have just brought back segregation.

 

[lforrest]

and you have just brought back segregation.

Segregation requires two or more different services based on class. This would not be segregation because providing the service at all would be proof that it isn't a firmly held religious belief.

 

[RLT63]

and you have just brought back segregation.

The colleges have already brought it back with their safe spaces and BIPOC only areas