SCOTUS rules in favor of business who refuses service to same-sex couples

[CyanLights 15,576]

7 minutes ago, Controversiaga said:

Ugh. I just don’t understand the non separation of church and state . What is wrong w the world

You’re preaching to the non-religious choir, I’ve been saying this for years. When a republican’s entire basis for anything is based in religion (seen a lot with LGBT and abortion rights), there’s an issue that is being ignored. Nothing based in fact or law. 

[Controversiaga 16,102]

59 minutes ago, CyanLights said:

You’re preaching to the non-religious choir, I’ve been saying this for years. When a republican’s entire basis for anything is based in religion (seen a lot with LGBT and abortion rights), there’s an issue that is being ignored. Nothing based in fact or law. 

Exactly.  These ppl are delusional anyways for believing in these mythologies 

[Reginald 13,841]

2 hours ago, Mister G said:

That trash bandit filed the lawsuit using an imaginary same-sex couple that doesn’t even exist and screams of falsified evidence. She only did this on the off chance they would ask her and SCOTUS continues to demonstrate their corruption and illegitimacy. I hope people remember this and channel their anger into voting out legislators that are signing off on appointing these a**holes. 

The fact that a disingenuous, speculative case can be brought before the highest court and radically change discrimination laws for the entire country sets such a dangerous precedent. What's stopping any religious zealot from filing another one? ex: "My Christian beliefs prohibit me from serving unmarried pregnant women?"

This court's conservative majority has no integrity, or respect for legal precedent. 

[CyanLights 15,576]

12 minutes ago, Controversiaga said:

Exactly.  These ppl are delusional anyways for believing in these mythologies 

Tbh I have no problem with people believing in what they want, whatever makes them comfortable is what it is as long as it’s not discriminatory in nature. However my problem is when you try and use your “faith” and make everyone else live by your beliefs. It’s horrible and so contradictory. 

[Chromatica Island 8,517]

Conservatism is a disease

[Mister G 10,512]

23 minutes ago, Reginald said:

The fact that a disingenuous, speculative case can be brought before the highest court and radically change discrimination laws for the entire country sets such a dangerous precedent. What's stopping any religious zealot from filing another one? ex: "My Christian beliefs prohibit me from serving unmarried pregnant women?"

This court's conservative majority has no integrity, or respect for legal precedent. 

Not one f***ing bit because the orange got 1/3 of them appointed and they’ve proven they’re just agents for hire. 

[r4therupbeat 1,587]

conservatives are begging for a civil war

[skaxboy 6,926]

Has anyone seen her work? I mean anyone can find a good designer but I feel she is just doing it to gain some sort of following for the ignorant conservatives. It could totally be a grifting scheme and it has sadly made it to the Supreme Court. 
 

 

[ALGAYDO 35,134]

What can we do to shut her business down? She deserves to suffer some sort of consequence 

[Guillaume Hamon 6,992]

3 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

In France, Muslim mothers are not allowed to attend their children's schools, go to beaches, or work for the government.

No you can absolutely attend your kid school, go on the beach or be a state worker. The thing with working for government is for every person displaying religious or political symbols cause you're told you represent the state therefore should not incarnate one religion/ political party/ philosophy etc...

3 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

While you might not be religious, we have to apply our standards on everyone.

It's the case since it's everybody having to applied the same rule about neutrality for state representatives. We can like or dislike the rule but if folks think it's only applied to Muslim women they heard fake news.

[27monster27 15,868]

Don't forget to use Tax Form 13909 in the upcoming election season! 

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf

[4th Time Around 5,059]

Shameful behavior, this country has gone to hell.

[faysalaaa 5,336]

3 hours ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

No you can absolutely attend your kid school, go on the beach or be a state worker. The thing with working for government is for every person displaying religious or political symbols cause you're told you represent the state therefore should not incarnate one religion/ political party/ philosophy etc...

It's the case since it's everybody having to applied the same rule about neutrality for state representatives. We can like or dislike the rule but if folks think it's only applied to Muslim women they heard fake news.

There was a time where religious cloths were banned in public beaches, and im sure mothers cant attend school trips with a Hijab. And no its obviously not against Muslim women, its against all religions, I was just giving an example of how France leans more anti religion, not secular.

I dont like the idea of banning anything religious, but I do support banning religious ruling.

[Guillaume Hamon 6,992]

4 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

There was a time where religious cloths were banned in public beaches

It was only in like 20 communities out of the 20 000 making France and it happened due to a legal vacuum that these 20 right-wing mayors enjoyed. They did so briefly since the french Constitutional Council judged these bans unconstitutional nearly right after application.

4 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

and im sure mothers cant attend school trips with a Hijab.

They can, it's just some politicians who said that if teachers can't wear religious clothing the same should apply to accompanying parents but it was never in the law.

Often these one-day polemics get a completely distorted sum up abroad and many folks either believe these few politicians views are in the law or when it's really in the law they think it's only about religious people or worst only for Muslims...

4 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

And no its obviously not against Muslim women, its against all religions, I was just giving an example of how France leans more anti religion, not secular.

I dont like the idea of banning anything religious, but I do support banning religious ruling.

I would agree it's anti-religion if these laws were only about religions but since it's about way more things than it I do see it as neutrality.

[Future Lovers 7,613]

17 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

Did they rule that businesses are allowed to deny service to Gay people? or did they rule that businesses have the right to artistic choices and can deny art that involves Gay themes?
 

The former disguised as the latter. 

This is what they do. They write their opinions in such a way that from the outside it sounds like they're responding to a very specific and narrow scope of an issue, but between the lines leave the door open for that specific issue to be used as a precedent for something much bigger. 

They even explicitly stated in the majority opinion that they're aware this is going to set a precedent beyond the wedding industry and lead to lawsuits happening in many areas of commerce. 

The fact of the matter is, this specific case that has to do with artistic choices has no laid a precedent for any business to deny service to LGBTQ+ people on the basis of not agreeing with their lifestyle. There's a reason they chose to hear this case despite it being falsified and it's precisely because they could hide their true intention behind it, just like they did with the overturning of Roe vs. Wade.