Supreme Court and LGBTQ Rights

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bluesuede
  • Start date Start date
I grew up in DC. Attended the university that was heavily featured in The Exorcist. Speaking in quasi-code because there’s a certain fuckhead here who lies relentlessly about attending Harvard.
Gong! another gold moment you jealous swine.

You educated? Absolutely not..............anyone who has actually been properly educated would have a moral compass........and you certainly don't.
Yes,.................I'm serious.

You're morally bereft and you have the demeanor of a hardened criminal.
 
Nope. Not an attorney. I did do a lot of pro-boning for your mom, though.
Yeah, I was gonna come over so we could jam, but..

QCaCwiw.jpg
 
I grew up in DC. Attended the university that was heavily featured in The Exorcist. Speaking in quasi-code because there’s a certain fuckhead here who lies relentlessly about attending Harvard.
Going to visit the Exorcist stairs was a rite of passage back then. For those of us in Prince George's, we would also visit the site of the "real" Exorcist house in Mount Rainier on Bunker Hill Rd.
 
My favorite scenario is finding a devout Islamic violinist and hiring them to perform at a gay wedding. According to the left they should be forced to do it. ?

ما شاء الله

الله أكبر
 
That’s a tough one. The first I’ve heard of this is from this thread, so I’m strictly going by the info in the OP.
The American Dream is that you can come here and make a living basically doing whatever the fuck you can do to make money…. Within reason of course.

I think an important distinction here, is did the web designer not do the design because the customers were gay? Or because it was about gay weddings?

I think a private business has the right to not do a design for something they find inappropriate. In this case I think it’s unfortunate people still feel that way about gay weddings, but that’s just me and we can’t regulate that.

However I do not think a business should deny service to a gay couple strictly for being gay. If a gay couple came in and wanted a design for their ice cream store and someone denied them strictly for being gay, it begins crossing the line. Unless the ice cream store was called something like “2 Girls 1 Cup” or “Scissor Scoops” or something like that
Basically, it is a 1st amendment free speech/freedom of religion case. The plaintiff stipulated that denying service to based on sexual orientation (or any of the other classifications in the Colorado statute) was not allowed and wasn't asking for the right to do that. Essentially it was about the freedom to refuse content creation that conflicts with her religious beliefs. I have only read the introduction to the majority opinion so far though.
 
Read a bit more into it. Seems the chick's story is blowing up quite a bit.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-web-designer-case-gay-marriage-b2367474.html
The more I'm reading into this the more I'm thinking just another bible zealot.
From reading the opinion, the 10th circuit that ultimately ruled against her ruled that she did have standing to sue for the injunctive relief she was seeking due to there being a threat to her rights. There was no need to for anyone to be seeking her services. She was not appealing against punitive actions that were taken against her but was asking for an injunction preventing punitive action against her.
 
Back
Top