The LGBTQ/Pride Debate Take 2

[alfa]

Cat is a species not a gender. These ppl need help.

The fact that the people who usually defend this nonsense are quiet means it's too ridiculous even for them to take seriously

[gastly369]

https://streamable.com/e20rv4

Bodow!

[maj. tom]

The Greensboro Four had purchased toothpaste and other products from a desegregated counter at the store with no problems, but were then refused service at the store's lunch counter when they each asked for a cup of coffee and a donut with cream on the side. According to a witness, a white waitress told the boys "We don't serve Negroes here."

[ruffneck_12]

False equivalency.


Reiterating, nobody made a thread for the gheys until they started pushing more and more into popular media.

We were slowly becoming tolerant of the LGB's , then the blue haired TQ+'s came on the scene....

[maj. tom]

Justice Gorsuch is definitely right on the technical details of the law. The web designer in the case, Lorie Smith, has stipulated that she’ll make a website for anyone, queers included. What she won’t do, though, is make a website celebrating a gay wedding, because she thinks those weddings are “false.”

So, technically, she’s not discriminating against gay people, see? And then the case starts to look different, because Colorado, whose anti-discrimination law protects LGBTQ people, would be forcing her to say things she doesn’t believe. This ends up being a free speech case, and the web designer wins.

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, completely refuses this framing. The designer is “a business open to the public seek[ing] to deny gay and lesbian customers the full and equal enjoyment of its services.”

In Justice Sotomayor’s words, quoting an earlier case, 303 Creative “cannot define their service as ‘opposite-sex wedding [websites]’ any more than a hotel can recast its services as ‘whites-only lodgings.’”

Moreover, Justice Sotomayor continued, Smith isn’t just saying she personally won’t type the words for a website. She’s saying that her for-profit company, 303 Creative, wants to publicly advertise their services to everyone, but then withhold them categorically from all gay customers.

There were many other ways that Smith could have accommodated her religious beliefs, writes Justice Sotomayor. “The company could, for example, offer only wedding websites with biblical quotations describing marriage as between one man and one woman… [it] could also refuse to include the words “Love is Love” if it would not provide those words to any customer. All the company has to do is offer its services without regard to customers’ protected characteristics.”

But of course, that’s not really what this case is about.

Can you hang a sign on your door saying “No Blacks Allowed” or “No Jews Allowed”? No—even if you really don’t like Blacks or Jews, and even if you have a religious reason for doing so. Likewise here.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-courts-incoherent-decision-on-anti-lgbtq-discrimination

[adnj]

Justice Gorsuch is definitely right on the technical details of the law. The web designer in the case, Lorie Smith, has stipulated that she’ll make a website for anyone, queers included. What she won’t do, though, is make a website celebrating a gay wedding, because she thinks those weddings are “false.”

So, technically, she’s not discriminating against gay people, see? And then the case starts to look different, because Colorado, whose anti-discrimination law protects LGBTQ people, would be forcing her to say things she doesn’t believe. This ends up being a free speech case, and the web designer wins.

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, completely refuses this framing. The designer is “a business open to the public seek[ing] to deny gay and lesbian customers the full and equal enjoyment of its services.”

In Justice Sotomayor’s words, quoting an earlier case, 303 Creative “cannot define their service as ‘opposite-sex wedding [websites]’ any more than a hotel can recast its services as ‘whites-only lodgings.’”

Moreover, Justice Sotomayor continued, Smith isn’t just saying she personally won’t type the words for a website. She’s saying that her for-profit company, 303 Creative, wants to publicly advertise their services to everyone, but then withhold them categorically from all gay customers.

There were many other ways that Smith could have accommodated her religious beliefs, writes Justice Sotomayor. “The company could, for example, offer only wedding websites with biblical quotations describing marriage as between one man and one woman… [it] could also refuse to include the words “Love is Love” if it would not provide those words to any customer. All the company has to do is offer its services without regard to customers’ protected characteristics.”

But of course, that’s not really what this case is about.

Can you hang a sign on your door saying “No Blacks Allowed” or “No Jews Allowed”? No—even if you really don’t like Blacks or Jews, and even if you have a religious reason for doing so. Likewise here.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-courts-incoherent-decision-on-anti-lgbtq-discrimination

This decision is essentially similar to the wedding cake bakery in Colorado that refused to service a gay couple for nearly identical reasons, so no surprise here. What was interesting was that a document that was used to establish relevance appears to be a fake.

The Supreme Court just allowed businesses to refuse to serve LGBTQ+ customers. A detail used to justify the case may be fake.

The Supreme Court ruled that a wedding website owner in Colorado has the right to refuse service to LGBTQ couples.
But the alleged request that the case was centered on appears to be made up.
The New Republic spoke to the "gay" man in the case, who says he's straight and married with children.

https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme ... aim-2023-6

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court

It is unclear exactly when—or if—the inquiry from “Stewart” was examined and verified in the course of this legal battle. (His phone number was, after all, right there.) In a motion filed by the defense on October 19, 2016, arguing that the case should be dismissed, they state that Smith has received no actual inquiries for services and therefore has suffered no injury. The following month, in its response, ADF did not mention the September 2016 “Stewart” inquiry to refute the defense’s claims. Rather, ADF merely stated that it was not necessary for Smith to have received an inquiry in order to challenge the law over her feared consequences of denying services to a same-sex couple.

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/ ... reme-court

[The_Honourable]

Congratulations to the web designer

[Chimera]

I agree you should be able to refuse your services to people.....but only if you can refuse for any reason you want. Skin colour. Religion. Hairstyle. Gender.

[adnj]

I agree you should be able to refuse your services to people.....but only if you can refuse for any reason you want. Skin colour. Religion. Hairstyle. Gender.

These same questions were addressed five years ago. And, also in Colorado.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)

The freedoms asserted here are both the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise of protected speech. This is an instructive example, however, of the proposition that the application of constitutional freedoms in new contexts can deepen our understanding of their meaning.

One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker’s refusal to provide service. If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage—for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning—that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all. In defining whether a baker’s creation can be protected, these details might make a difference.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... on-3910082

[paid_influencer]

https://streamable.com/e20rv4

Bodow!

Now this is beautiful. These two courageous men standing up in public to face all the jeers and ridicule from friends and family -- all to be true to themselves and to be true to persons like themselves. They doings what 99% of people (including plenty of the yang yang yang posters here) will never have the balls to do. It easy to be an online SJW but them is the real life SJWs.

[paid_influencer]

I agree you should be able to refuse your services to people.....but only if you can refuse for any reason you want. Skin colour. Religion. Hairstyle. Gender.

you know I agree with this, to the extent of not compelling persons to say or express something against their beliefs. I, as an influencer, shouldn't have to make a campaign attacking say interracial couples just because somebody waves some money in my face. Freedom of speech really is about protecting unpopular speech.

Non-expressive works (eg selling ice cream or donuts or medicines) is not an issue tho. Nobody forcing you to "accept" anybody just to sell them an ice cream or let them cross the graduation stage or prescribe them some drugs. Do your job. God is love. Love all serve all

[maj. tom]

How did a hypothetical made-up case ever reach the Supreme Court though? The plaintiff was lying about everything, nobody ever asked her to make a web design for any gay people. The gay people in question don't exist.

[Rovin]

https://streamable.com/e20rv4

Bodow!

[alfa]

I agree you should be able to refuse your services to people.....but only if you can refuse for any reason you want. Skin colour. Religion. Hairstyle. Gender.

you know I agree with this, to the extent of not compelling persons to say or express something against their beliefs. I, as an influencer, shouldn't have to make a campaign attacking say interracial couples just because somebody waves some money in my face. Freedom of speech really is about protecting unpopular speech.

Non-expressive works (eg selling ice cream or donuts or medicines) is not an issue tho. Nobody forcing you to "accept" anybody just to sell them an ice cream or let them cross the graduation stage or prescribe them some drugs. Do your job. God is love. Love all serve all

I can agree with you here if you're saying what I think you're saying. No one should refuse selling a loaf of bread to someone on the grounds of them being black, Jewish or an alphabeter (I don't know what noun is used to refer to the collective spectrum of the group) because it doesn't compromise personal belief. Therefore equating this web designer story to denying service based on race is a false equivalence. After all there's always a shortage of lethal injection drugs in the US because pharma companies refuse to sell based on their personal beliefs. Would that be considered on the same level as refusing to sell a black guy a coke? Baking a cake is fine but if they wanted a topper with two grooms shaking each other's schlongs that could be an issue based on personal belief. Hell most places wouldn't even accomodate normal couples ( I refuse to use the term cis) for something similar. For my wedding the videographer had a list of things in the contract they do not film including 'winning', apparently it was a Christian company, is that discrimination? Back in school days I recall the yearbook would encourage businesses to place ads but they they made it clear they're not advertising bars. Is the same as saying no Jews allowed? Preposterous. Could I request a gospel singer with a beautiful voice to sing a lil qaseeda in an ASJA event and then cry discrimination if they said they they don't promote other religions?
People need to realize that other people exist besides them with different moral and personal beliefs and need to accept that rights work both ways

[adnj]

I agree you should be able to refuse your services to people.....but only if you can refuse for any reason you want. Skin colour. Religion. Hairstyle. Gender.

you know I agree with this, to the extent of not compelling persons to say or express something against their beliefs. I, as an influencer, shouldn't have to make a campaign attacking say interracial couples just because somebody waves some money in my face. Freedom of speech really is about protecting unpopular speech.

Non-expressive works (eg selling ice cream or donuts or medicines) is not an issue tho. Nobody forcing you to "accept" anybody just to sell them an ice cream or let them cross the graduation stage or prescribe them some drugs. Do your job. God is love. Love all serve all

I can agree with you here if you're saying what I think you're saying. No one should refuse selling a loaf of bread to someone on the grounds of them being black, Jewish or an alphabeter (I don't know what noun is used to refer to the collective spectrum of the group) because it doesn't compromise personal belief. Therefore equating this web designer story to denying service based on race is a false equivalence. After all there's always a shortage of lethal injection drugs in the US because pharma companies refuse to sell based on their personal beliefs. Would that be considered on the same level as refusing to sell a black guy a coke? Baking a cake is fine but if they wanted a topper with two grooms shaking each other's schlongs that could be an issue based on personal belief. Hell most places wouldn't even accomodate normal couples ( I refuse to use the term cis) for something similar. For my wedding the videographer had a list of things in the contract they do not film including 'winning', apparently it was a Christian company, is that discrimination? Back in school days I recall the yearbook would encourage businesses to place ads but they they made it clear they're not advertising bars. Is the same as saying no Jews allowed? Preposterous. Could I request a gospel singer with a beautiful voice to sing a lil qaseeda in an ASJA event and then cry discrimination if they said they they don't promote other religions?
People need to realize that other people exist besides them with different moral and personal beliefs and need to accept that rights work both ways

The decision focuses on two aspects of US Constitution First Amendment protections: freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. So long as your personal beliefs align with an established religion, you have protections.

The parallel between this case and the lunch counter photo that you do not understand is the established religious practice of near 100% racial segregation that persisted well past the US Civil Rights era. That established the religious protections for segregation in the United States. As the religious denominations modified their position on segregation, so too did the religious protections change. Civil protections in the US will also change at pace with the qualifying conditions that grant those protections.

In this case, the statements or expressions required of the artist are protected by the First Amendment. In the absence of that expression, protections no longer apply.

You don't have to say anything that you don't believe in, but if you live in the US, and you want your religious protections to remain static, sign up as many LGBTQ hating friends that you can find and keep your church going for as long as it takes.

[redmanjp]

good. now they should rule against NYC's pronoun law.

[bluefete]

https://streamable.com/e20rv4

Bodow!

Clearly this was not in T&T. Ravi showing true colours (no pun). Money talks!

[bluefete]

Leave the Children alone!



https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=271497265490698

[Chimera]

If ppl allowed to refuse service to the gay/trans community because they don't like what they stand for.... people should in the same breath be allowed to discriminate for anything and everything.

Refuse to sell to blacks, Indians, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, differently abled,up everything for personal choice.

Have a rasta African fella jump out himself this morning in a local chat where he hating on the gays, how dem going to hell, he hate dem kinda ppl, he guh refuse a gay doctor who come to treat him etc.....

He need to jump back a 50 years and ask his grand parents how they were treated as Africans. Discriminated against simply because people could. No real reason. Just human nature.


Honestly all you people who have a problem the the lgbq community are very disgusting. Especially those who claim to be religious.

If your God was real he wouldn't want you to discriminate against another human.

[bluefete]

If ppl allowed to refuse service to the gay/trans community because they don't like what they stand for.... people should in the same breath be allowed to discriminate for anything and everything.

Refuse to sell to blacks, Indians, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, differently abled,up everything for personal choice.

Have a rasta African fella jump out himself this morning in a local chat where he hating on the gays, how dem going to hell, he hate dem kinda ppl, he guh refuse a gay doctor who come to treat him etc.....

He need to jump back a 50 years and ask his grand parents how they were treated as Africans. Discriminated against simply because people could. No real reason. Just human nature.


Honestly all you people who have a problem the the lgbq community are very disgusting. Especially those who claim to be religious.

If your God was real he wouldn't want you to discriminate against another human.

Ent Jesus came and limed with the prostitues of the day?

[The_Honourable]

https://streamable.com/e20rv4

Bodow!

Clearly this was not in T&T. Ravi showing true colours (no pun). Money talks!

While it is cringe to some, myself included, to be fair Ravi B can choose who to do business with. If he wants to sing for same sex couples, he has the freedom to do so.

[paid_influencer]

Leave the Children alone!

https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=271497265490698

these fellas realise the book is on amazon right?

https://www.amazon.com/I-Am-Rainbow-Mar ... 0316167789

lemme poison allyuh fellas mind here. one of the images from the dreaded and feared book that will destroy deshawn mind if he read it

[Les Bain]

Congratulations to the web designer

No different from Emmett Till's accuser, that lying cnt. This is what happens when talented hacks are desperate for a win.

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/ ... reme-court

[Les Bain]

If ppl allowed to refuse service to the gay/trans community because they don't like what they stand for.... people should in the same breath be allowed to discriminate for anything and everything.

Refuse to sell to blacks, Indians, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, differently abled,up everything for personal choice.

Have a rasta African fella jump out himself this morning in a local chat where he hating on the gays, how dem going to hell, he hate dem kinda ppl, he guh refuse a gay doctor who come to treat him etc.....

He need to jump back a 50 years and ask his grand parents how they were treated as Africans. Discriminated against simply because people could. No real reason. Just human nature.


Honestly all you people who have a problem the the lgbq community are very disgusting. Especially those who claim to be religious.

If your God was real he wouldn't want you to discriminate against another human.

Ent Jesus came and limed with the prostitues of the day?

Jesus is a fictional character.

[adnj]

If ppl allowed to refuse service to the gay/trans community because they don't like what they stand for.... people should in the same breath be allowed to discriminate for anything and everything.

Refuse to sell to blacks, Indians, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, differently abled,up everything for personal choice.

Have a rasta African fella jump out himself this morning in a local chat where he hating on the gays, how dem going to hell, he hate dem kinda ppl, he guh refuse a gay doctor who come to treat him etc.....

He need to jump back a 50 years and ask his grand parents how they were treated as Africans. Discriminated against simply because people could. No real reason. Just human nature.


Honestly all you people who have a problem the the lgbq community are very disgusting. Especially those who claim to be religious.

If your God was real he wouldn't want you to discriminate against another human.

Ent Jesus came and limed with the prostitues of the day?

Jesus is a fictional character.

Some of the same people that believe that Jesus was the son of God, that Mohammed was the messenger of God, or that there is karma and reincarnation; refuse to believe that a person can have their own feelings about their own gender and sexuality.

[adnj]

good. now they should rule against NYC's pronoun law.

And hopefully reverse almost all of the laws on race, religion, national origin, and immigration status. The wrong "people" are being allowed to stay. That's why you have problems in NYC. It's high time that they cleaned it up. LOCK THEM OUT!

[Chimera]

The good Ole massa days.
U know long time u never use to hear about this lgbq thing. Dem white people wudda beat it out of u and you were too busy picking cotton or cutting cane anyway.

Bring back the old time days fully and done.

[bluefete]

The good Ole massa days.
U know long time u never use to hear about this lgbq thing. Dem white people wudda beat it out of u and you were too busy picking cotton or cutting cane anyway.

Bring back the old time days fully and done.

They were always part of the landscape and co-existed rather peacefully with (almost) everyone.

But when they started demanding dis and demanding dat then things took a turn.

[bluefete]

I don't think people would have had a problem with it except for the underlying agenda. Satan was an angel of light.

Leave the Children alone!

https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=271497265490698

these fellas realise the book is on amazon right?

https://www.amazon.com/I-Am-Rainbow-Mar ... 0316167789

lemme poison allyuh fellas mind here. one of the images from the dreaded and feared book that will destroy deshawn mind if he read it

[adnj]

The good Ole massa days.
U know long time u never use to hear about this lgbq thing. Dem white people wudda beat it out of u and you were too busy picking cotton or cutting cane anyway.

Bring back the old time days fully and done.

They were always part of the landscape and co-existed rather peacefully with (almost) everyone.

But when they started demanding dis and demanding dat then things took a turn.

What demands are being made? What are LGBTQ groups taking from you?

I have seen you raise this point repeatedly. Frankly, it simply sounds like your personal rationalization for demanding that other people behave in a way that allows you to minimize your own discomfort with the way that others choose to live.