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

[faysalaaa 5,336]

22 hours ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

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.

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...

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.

I dont think secularism is anti religion, but I feel like France goes beyond the basics of secularism. I am very Secular, but I am against Frances version of it. They are way too concerned about religion and always attempting to create laws against it, and banning any symbols of religion.

I support peoples freedom to draw Muhammad, and I think its good France fought it, so im not your typical Muslim getting offended by anti Muslim fake news.

I hope you did not get offended if you are from France, im just debating the idea of what secularism is as its an interesting topic for me to debate and learn from.

[faysalaaa 5,336]

18 hours ago, Future Lovers said:

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. 

Just to clarify, I dont know the details of this situation..

I agree their intentions are not good, and they are anti gay, but I dont care about their intentions aslong as my rights are not taken.

Abortion is a grey area thats not part of the American constitution, so they can play with that. And people who voted in Roe vs Wade made a horrible job as they based it on weak grounds. But not serving Americans based on their sexuality will never be allowed because its clearly unconstitutional, its not a grey spot.

[Guillaume Hamon 6,992]

11 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

dont think secularism is anti religion, but I feel like France goes beyond the basics of secularism. I am very Secular, but I am against Frances version of it. They are way too concerned about religion and always attempting to create laws against it, and banning any symbols of religion.

Often these laws they keep doing are for people who kinda don't wanna join the society with stuffs like doing their kid's full education but only by telling them about religion for example. France will ask them to really be citizens and share basics with every other citizen while they can ofc read as much as they want about religions.

Now I wouldn't say they ban any religious signs since you can wear them all in the streets, in any public administration like courts, police station, post offices etc as long as you're not working there... Same at your job if it's in the private sector with your boss not asking for a certain clothing to all employees which lead to the vast majority of the private sector workers having no limitations with it. Basically the only limitations are if you represent the state or if you're a minor.

[Guillaume Hamon 6,992]

12 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

I support peoples freedom to draw Muhammad, and I think its good France fought it, so im not your typical Muslim getting offended by anti Muslim fake news.

I hope you did not get offended if you are from France, im just debating the idea of what secularism is as its an interesting topic for me to debate and learn from.

No I wasn't.

[faysalaaa 5,336]

10 minutes ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

Often these laws they keep doing are for people who kinda don't wanna join the society with stuffs like doing their kid's full education but only by telling them about religion for example. France will ask them to really be citizens and share basics with every other citizen while they can ofc read as much as they want about religions.

Now I wouldn't say they ban any religious signs since you can wear them all in the streets, in any public administration like courts, police station, post offices etc as long as you're not working there... Same at your job if it's in the private sector with your boss not asking for a certain clothing to all employees which lead to the vast majority of the private sector workers having no limitations with it. Basically the only limitations are if you represent the state or if you're a minor.

It took me a while as a Muslim Arab to accept Secularism, so the France version of secularism is too much for me. Tunisia has the same exact kind of secularism of France, and I see them having weird laws too. I guess I just prefer the American way, even if its more chaotic lol

[Controversiaga 16,108]

On 6/30/2023 at 2:43 PM, CyanLights said:

This is going to be very difficult for many rural/conservative areas 

I just realized though- for a web designer, you could find someone online! They don’t necessarily have to live in the same area as you 

[holy scheisse 22,935]

Laws focused on protecting “religious freedom” are more accurately described as laws that protect “my delusions” 

[Chromatislaps 34,854]

why would I not be surprised if the next thing would be them ruling in favor of this: