The Supreme Court is preparing to strike
down forced speech
The Aspen Beat,
by
Big Bopper
Original Article
Posted By: Big Bopper,
12/7/2022 4:01:08 PM
In a case argued at the Supreme Court this week, a Colorado website designer appealed a decision from lower courts requiring her to create wedding websites for gay couples in violation of her religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Court is likely to reverse the lower court decision, and allow her to decline to create such websites.
The liberal minority on the Court and the liberal media argue that such a decision will lead to a new Jim Crow era where the providers of public accommodation are allowed to refuse services to people on the basis of their sexual preferences or skin color.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
TJ54 12/7/2022 4:06:06 PM (No. 1351421)
Homosexual Roberts will side with the lefties
10 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
sunshinehorses 12/7/2022 4:08:34 PM (No. 1351422)
I just had a discussion with my sales rep at a company I buy heat transfers for t-shirts from. He said political stuff was very hot and I said no way because there are things I refuse to print on a shirt or anything else. I might get in trouble for it, but I can refuse whatever I want. Yeah, I know, some jerk will try to take me to court for it, but why should I be forced to print obscenities, political stuff or anything else I don't like???
36 people like this.
If there's truly a market for wedding websites for gay couples then someone will start a business to meet the demand. Capitalism is a wonderful thing.
33 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Strike3 12/7/2022 4:41:48 PM (No. 1351450)
Anybody with at least five fingers and a set of working eyes can create a website. Perverts can always find somebody else with no morals to "celebrate" their legal sexual shenanigans and access to healthcare.
20 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Enoch Powell 12/7/2022 4:45:45 PM (No. 1351453)
Indeed #1.He has been found with both a dead boy and a live girl.... totally compromised in some way.
9 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
columba 12/7/2022 5:03:07 PM (No. 1351468)
The media coupling of sexual preferences and skin color makes no sense, as sexual preferences skin color are not similar. Skin color is a fact of race; sexual preference is simply activity which is sinful and wrong.
15 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
msjena 12/7/2022 5:06:12 PM (No. 1351474)
#1, why did he vote against gay marriage?
8 people like this.
In my novel, one cannot find either an attorney who would accept the plaintiff as a client nor a judge who would hear the case if anyone tried to sue anyone for not providing a disgusting niche service which is readily available elsewhere and based on the plaintiff’s alleged abominable deviance. But given that much of life is seemingly non-fiction these days, the only way this ever stops is when plaintiffs have to pay (literally and figuratively) for frivolous lawsuits. Whether 5-4 or 6-3, SCOTUS needs to go broad with this to avoid the never-ending trickle of “yeah buts” and “what ifs” ad nauseum from every copycat ambulance chaser who can follow a recipe for court shopping. And may God bless the USA.
9 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
southernboy 12/7/2022 6:02:32 PM (No. 1351504)
What happened to all those signs I used to see that said
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
19 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
DVC 12/7/2022 6:10:06 PM (No. 1351509)
Let's hope so.
4 people like this.
Agree w/ #3 but, we all know that's not what this is about.
5 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Krause 12/7/2022 6:54:08 PM (No. 1351535)
Why would you want to make someone make something for you that adamantly doesn't want to do it. Unless you want to draw attention to your perverted lifestyle.
13 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Geoman 12/7/2022 6:58:17 PM (No. 1351538)
I'm shocked that no one has complained that the author compliments and credits both McConnell and Trump with regard to the judicial appointments on the high court in the same sentence. As much as Mitch is giving all Republicans a bad name, the author is technically correct that it took both of them. Whatever Roberts decides, there is likely a 6-3 or 5-4 decision coming, either of which sets the landscape for the foreseeable future.
2 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
David Key 12/7/2022 7:03:03 PM (No. 1351540)
I personally would have no problem with servicing a gay couple, and I am a conservative Christian. I also have no problem with people refusing to serve some one for whatever reason. To coerce someone to do something against their beliefs and conscience is just plain wrong. The Govt. has every right to insist that anybody who is interacting with it must not engage in prejudice. To insist that I have to use an idiots pronouns, or to service someone I believe is against my beliefs is not what we are about. It's not like in this day and age that anybody out there wanting something can't find somebody to take care of them. This is mostly a slam at the people who are religious and hold that they should not do something because of their beliefs. You want to be gay, or call yourself a man when your a biological woman, that's your business. But when you insist I affirm or approve of you and your life style, that becomes a wholly different matter.
13 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Axeman 12/7/2022 7:04:44 PM (No. 1351542)
Hmmmm, should I be able to force a Muslim to eat a BLT sandwich, or should they be able to force me to not eat one? What is the list of things I can force someone to do against their will?
11 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
3XALADY 12/7/2022 7:21:46 PM (No. 1351548)
So then why are bakers able to be sued if they don't want to bake a cake for the happy gay couple?
2 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
MDConservative 12/7/2022 7:22:20 PM (No. 1351549)
Here's the problem:
When you take out a required state/local business license the application's fine print says something about following the applicable non-discrimination laws. You provide a service for fee to the public. Yours is an established business. One of those protected groups by law are homosexuals, and their marriage is within the law. Let's suppose you design cakes or some other creative artwork as your business. The gay couple comes and asks that you design a cake. (In this case it's a wedding website.) They don't apparently ask for anything vulgar or obscene. You refuse to specially design one on a religious objection, but instead offer them to use one of your standard-design cakes which once involved your artistic creativity.
Yours is a secular business selling cakes. You've got a problem refusing service. But then, we ask for "originalists" on the bench until we need activists. Let's see how SCOTUS dances around this one. Are these public accommodations laws all to be stricken down as they do not include exceptions, such as religious objection? Then what about those olden covenants that banned property sales into perpetuity to certain religious, racial or ethnics? Are they back in force? Perhaps the originators had strong religious convictions...or prejudices.
1 person likes this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
winmag 12/7/2022 7:50:28 PM (No. 1351554)
If the people refusing the service were Muslims there would be no lawsuits.
5 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
stablemoney 12/7/2022 8:40:16 PM (No. 1351573)
The SC has decided to spend this term on wedding cake.
0 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
mifla 12/8/2022 4:35:08 AM (No. 1351675)
The target of these lawsuits are always Christians. Never Jewish or Muslim or any other religion.
3 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
Amoeba 12/8/2022 8:47:29 AM (No. 1351794)
when a couple of obvious muslims who tried to pass themselves off as 'Italians' asked me to consult on a waste treatment system for their aspirations of a slaughter house for their kind of animal meats (halal)), I gave them a price they could not pay and they went away. Good riddance.
1 person likes this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
felixcat 12/8/2022 9:01:44 AM (No. 1351815)
According to news reports I heard on local talk radio, the newest justice who couldn't answer what a woman is made this case all about race...
1 person likes this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
udanja99 12/8/2022 10:08:06 AM (No. 1351872)
Radical homosexual activists seek out businesses or services which they know are owned by devout Christians. They then manufacture a set up which winds up in court as a means of pushing their agendas. This is all planned long before it is executed.
These people should not only lose in court, they should have to pay a heavy price for their fraudulent claims.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Big Bopper"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)