SCOTUS *FINALLY* rules 6-3 that Queers Cannot Force Businesses to Make Shit for Them
(archive.is)
LET'S GOOoOoooo!!!
Comments (113)
sorted by:
On the last day of pride month no less. *Chef's kiss.
Did you really mean "the satanic pride month"?
priDE MONth
All in the same family...
I think it goes without saying around here.
And they ruined pride month last year by killing Roe!!
MSM silence....
So the Baker gets to recoup their legal fees, lost income and reputation?
Not a baker, this was a website/graphic designer.
Although this ruling can be applied to all artists and creators of all trades.
The baker shall now be able to win against any challenge against him.
Same because if the SC ruled for them it means businesses can’t be forced to do something they don’t want.
I think the baker has won every case so far
oh yeah! We love that place! Haven't been in a while though. You reminded me we should go again!
How's the last day of "Pride" month going for you, faggots?
Not so proud anymore, they're crying their eyelashes off.
I don't know what that is, and I'll blame it on the a-a-a-alcohol, but since "glute" is in there, I'm guessing that would be in the butt, Bob.
Kek
Now I'm proud.
This and other recent win rullings, are we seeing the start of the clean up?
I want to believe.
This was essentially already done as soon as the court had such a huge conservative majority. It's really the crown jewel of Trump's first administration
Obviously having Biden in office has been terrible, but the supreme court is able to keep his administration at least somewhat at bay.
Yh we have won a decent amount lately, especially in June for some reason.
Roe Vs Wade was a win last June and now we've had this and the smackdown of AA this month.
Weird. Its like Q team have saved all the conservative Ws that make the libs meltdown to drop in their holy month of Pride haha.
Back in the day, businesses used to post a sign stating, " We have the right to refuse service to anyone." Hopefully this ruling helps get us back to that.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Here's the thing. As a business owner, you don't HAVE to discriminate. But you shouldn't be forced to work for anyone.
I had a part-time gig as a wedding photographer decades ago, back when the dinosaurs walked around with celluloid film and handheld light meters, and ISO 400 was considered so fast that my college used to say "you could get a good photo of a negro in a coal pile at midnight"(shows what generation he was, lol).
I shot Jewish weddings, Christian weddings, atheist weddings, catholic weddings, mormon weddings, bride is 9 months pregnant weddings, etc. Gay weddings weren't a thing then, but we would have shot those too.
Why? Not because we were about being inclusive.
Because we liked profit. Money and a good attitude makes you be included.
But there we weddings we didn't shoot. People that wanted a style we didn't do. People who wanted nude weddings. People who seemed a little too 'weird' and out there to the point we worried about safety.
And ultimately, we didn't do business of you were an asshole.
Should we have bene forced to help those clients? No.
What about that 16yo marrying that 45yo guy because mom signed the court documents? Should we be forced to photograph them?
Too much slippery slope. Let business help who they will help.
If you're gay, I honestly have no problem doing business with you.
If you want me to create gay themed things for you, I won't.
It's pretty simple, really.
TIL!
Finally.....no person or business should be forced to do shit for anyone they disagree with. And the worse part is these fags purposely went to these businesses just to start trouble, sue them and put them out of business.
Exactly this. There are plenty of gay owned businesses, and they have their own directory. I would not go into a kosher deli and order a ham and cheese on rye. It's the same damn thing.
It's pretty simple: nobody is entitled to your labor. That's it. That's the only statement necessary to resolve this entire thing.
"I'm really sorry, but we cannot accomodate your requirements, they are outside of our business practices."
"Oh, no problem, thanks for your time, I'll try to find someone who will."
How difficult is that if you are not deliberately trying to violate another person's religious beliefs by forcing them under threat of legal action you faggot pieces of shit?
Plenty of fag bakeries owned by other faggots you can hire to bake your AIDs cake.
My Twitter account was banned for speaking out against the Alphabet Cult about 8 months ago so today I went and submitted an appeal. I had already been denied once a few months ago so today I included the SCOTUS judgement and accused Twitter of stifling my First Amendment Rights. Well in less than 2 hours after submitting my account was reinstated. I'm back to spread MAGA cheer for all to hear! :)
Responding to another comment that I accidentally scrolled passed:
I’ve had food related businesses for years. Never once has a customer proclaimed their religion upon entering …
Nor did we ever ask someone’s religious preference when entering.
We make food… if you like it, enjoy. If you don’t, then I’m sure there are places you will.
I’m not going to cater to or change /alter my integrity to make a dollar
... And if you lived in a heavily Muslim-populated area, offering a halal menu might make good business sense.
But you shouldn't be forced to create one.
That's fair.
And there are plenty of delicious vegetarian dishes halal, or even egg and dairy based. Same for kosher.
We could start a fusion restaurant called "Aloha Snackbar". Our tagline can be "blasphemy never tasted so good" or "serving good food in an evil world"
We'll feature haram and non-kosher dishes, pork, shellfish, etc. Convent since dishes from Eritrea into fish-based meals. Make Utah jello as alcohol shooters. Vedic/Indian dishes with extra spices. Basically, we'll poke fun at every religious and cultural food prohibition we can think of. What could go wrong? Lol
We'll probably need to build it in Texas, because anywhere else we'll get run out of town. :)
You spelled cock-sucking faggots wrong.
I just wish Christians didn't own EVERY wedding business in America so that these poor oppressed queer folks had the option to work with someone that accepts their lifestyle.
No, they intentionally do this to harass, cancel, sue and put good folks out of business. It's nasty and spiteful conduct. Fuck those commies that engage in that behavior.
I was making a facetious comment. Ridiculous that they'll go out of their way to find a Christian company, then claim they're victims once they can't force the Christian to work for them.
I was being facetious but maybe that didn't come across. Obviously Christians don't own them all. Just pointing out how ridiculous it is that gays cross state lines and sometimes the country to try forcing a Christian to work for them. You'd think there were no other options.
It's called free-association.
Damn it where can they get that anus shaped fudge cake now? Kek
Go find some leftist woman or a sicko to do your bidding you FREAKS
Dumbass Sonia with her dissent
Wise latina lol
I wonder if we will ever get "gay marriage" repealed
i hope so. we gave them an inch and they took a mile.
The ones I've met, they prefer more than an inch!
Badum-tss
Divorce lawyers would fight it tooth and nail. They don't discriminate.
I don't care if gays want to get married. What I don't like is the government giving tax benefits to gay couples and allowing moral degenerates to adopt kids.
LOL op..! Tell us how you really feel 🤣
"Protected Class."
No student loan wipeout, affirmative action got kneecapped, and one less pitchfork for the LGBTQ road map of hurt feelings.
It's getting better every day
*Can’t force them to make shit uniquely for them.
Or anybody. You can’t force people to make things a certain way.
That's because queers make plenty of their own shit.
The only reason is that this could be turned against jews, muslims, ect
In all honesty, who cares? If someone wants to discriminate against anyone for any reason, who cares? Find someone else to do business with. If someone doesn't like me for any reason, the last thing I want is for them to spend any time around me performing any kind of service or provide any kind of product. I damn sure won't eat any food prepared by someone that hates me. I actually prefer to know if they don't like me and don't want me as a customer.
And it might. In which case, boycott time.
It's Christians all the time
IMHO, this is a bad decision. Businesses CAN'T discriminate. There's a REASON for that. Should a Jewish deli discriminate against Christians? Should a Christian business discriminate against a Jewish customer? This decision opens that door. Once you decide to open a business you can't discriminate. When you are working out of your own house, then you CAN discriminate, but once you become a legal business, you can't discriminate. This is a dangerous decision IMHO.
It's not about discrimination, it's about art.
Same decision as the baker. If the designer had templates he sold, he could not discriminate.
However, everything this designer did was creative art/custom. You cannot be forced to make custom art.
Then the customer will tell everyone that you have done poor work, and that they have proof of that, impacting your business negatively. It might be considered a form of fraud that hurts the consumer.
Sure, it is an half-truth that obscure what is really going on, but who ever corrects that, especially the MSM.
The ideal is that the artist will be truthful up front and will not accept work that he knows he can't fulfill adequately.
“ Should a Jewish deli discriminate against Christians?”
Sure, if they want to. Why the hell would you want to patronize a business that doesn’t want or like you anyway?
“ Should a Christian business discriminate against a Jewish customer?”
Sure. See answer above.
Unless your business is receiving public funds a business should be able open or restrict who they do business with. That’s the liberty part of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
Exactly, 💯 with you.
Omg. This. I'm so glad someone gets it.
With all respect, who? This is getting very confusing.
Who? He's on first, mate! 👍😂
What?
He's on second.
I do know the local subway went 'Halal' prior to covid. They quit having bacon as an option. I don't know of other subways did the same or not, as we haven't been to a subway since. Used to go 2-3 times a month prior to that.
Yikes subway? Find a real sub shop
I like halal food. I like non halal food too. If a restaurant didn't serve me because I'm kufr, that's their loss. I'll spend my dollars elsewhere, or make my own halal food restaurant.
As soon as you refuse service to or piss off one segment of society, someone else will take that market share. Bud Light? Naw, Modello plz.
But have you found another subway that does sell bacon? That’s the point. Take you money elsewhere.
If a business can refuse a customer because of religion, you become a Theocracy. (Ruled by religion) If a business can refuse a customer because of any general characteristic, you have a social MAJOR problem. Should a White owned restaurant be able to refuse to serve Blacks? No. That's why we have anti-discriminatory laws. Look, I have the same feelings as everyone else, but no, a BUSINESS can't discriminate against any generalized group. If you want to discriminate against anyone for any reason, then close the BUSINESS and do your business as a PERSON. Then you're fine to discriminate anything.
A CUSTOMER deciding NOT to BUY from a BUSINESS is a whole different thing. As a CUSTOMER we DO have the right to NOT BUY from any particular BUSINESS for any reason we choose.
It’s a private business! Government has no business telling a private business what they can or can’t do! It’s not a theocracy because the government isn’t adopting one religion or another.
“ Should a White owned restaurant be able to refuse to serve Blacks? No.”
If it’s a privately owned business that accepts no government money then yes! So you’ll have racist assholes that own businesses. That’s the price you pay for Liberty!
“ If you want to discriminate against anyone for any reason, then close the BUSINESS and do your business as a PERSON.”
Most privately owned businesses are owned by a PERSON/sole proprietorship and are not corporations.
“ As a CUSTOMER we DO have the right to NOT BUY from any particular BUSINESS for any reason we choose.”
And as a private business that receives no government assistance, that business has the RIGHT to do business with whomever they want without the government telling them what to do.
If you ever saw the movie 42 about Jackie Robinson, there’s a scene where a bus carrying black baseball players stops by a gas station. The white operator of the gas station was going to sell them the gas but when Jackie Robinson asked to use the bathroom, the white business operator refused and told them they could go around to the back. Robinson told him they were no going to fill up at that station and the white business operator capitulated and allowed them to use the bathroom.
That’s how you change attitudes. Not by having the government force requirements on privately owned businesses.
So a bunch of atheists refusing service to the Muslims will create a theocracy? It doesn't follow...
Now if it's government or publicly funded, that's different.
You can't register your car or get a business license or driver license because you're Muslim? You can't be admitted to university even though your scores are great, because we have enough Asians or whites? Can't run utilities to your house because you're Christian?
That's not okay.
I'm on the fence regarding property.
Oh no! How terrible! The local bakery created a theocracy by deciding to only serve Christians!
…
Guess I’ll just open one that serves everyone, single-handedly save my town from the newly imposed theocracy, and make triple the money he does while I’m at it…
This is the same reasons we shouldn't shoot weddings if they wanted a style we didn't feel comfortable.
No nude weddings, sorry.
You are correct, compelled speech violates the 5th amendment. I understand and agree with that.
Using this example:
The problem is that the "cake with an inscription" was the product. If the customer pays for it, it's the product. If the business accepts the money, then the business is selling the product. If the product was "cake" then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. The problem is that the product was "cake with inscription" (and probably decorations).
I don't like this any more than anyone else. The problem is that BUSINESS can't discriminate. Persons can. I FEEL (that's my opinion) the some people are not making that distinction. That distinction is very important.
As to your second part, can a Christian demand non kosher foods or a pork sandwich be sold to him/her; Well, -IF- the sandwich shop sells "custom" sandwiches, as subway sandwiches does, and that's one of the "options" then the BUSINESS must sell it as you described. BUT -IF- the BUSINESS offers ONLY SPECIFICALLY made sandwiches, OR that's NOT one of the options, then NO.
IF a business offers a product, then they can't discriminate against any general group of "customers." "This is my product ..., I won't sell my product to you because you're ..." is discrimination.
Technicalities sure. Thank you for the logical discussion.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
Refuse to do business with people you don't like
It has nothing to do with your religion, your skin color, or what you do with your genitals.
If your business is worthwhile and you're a good person, you will prosper.
If you're a dick and you hate everyone and you are a asshole to all your customers, they'll vote with their wallets and you won't be in business for long.
The "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a SPECIFIC exception that is SPECIFICALLY outlined in law. It USUALLY requires that the SPECIFIC individual must have had prior contact with the business and that specific person has taken a SPECIFIC action that harms the business in some way. It can NOT be applied to a "general group" of persons. Trespassing an individual is one likely example. It can not be used to prohibit a general group from doing business with the business.
This is NOT intended to be legal advise.
Should it, though?
Great Question...
Well, from reading the energetic responses from many ppl here, they would say yes. The law however, both state and federal, doesn't agree.
An argument "COULD BE" that one gang member should prevent other gang members may be compelling, but the law doesn't have that distinction. Just because, for example, one Asian was rowdy, doesn't permit the barring of all Asians from your restaurant. That discrimination, like it or not, isn't allowed.
I fully understand, appreciate, and probably mostly agree with everyone here. The problem is that BUSINESSES are highly regulated and adherence to discrimination laws are regularly verified.
It isn't about discrimination one bit at all. It is about not forcing people to do things that are against their religious (or other) beliefs.
A business can not refuse to sell their products to someone based on the customer's race or creed.
A customer can not force a business to make a product that goes against the business owner's beliefs.
If I were to talk into a bakery owned by a Jew, should I be able to demand that they make me a cake with a swastika on it and the words "All Jews Must Die"? Is it discrimination against me if the owner refuses?
You summarize well.
"It isn't about discrimination one bit at all. It is about not forcing people to do things that are against their religious (or other) beliefs." That's the heart of the problem.
IMHO, if the product of the BUSINESS is "custom cakes with inscription" then the business opens themselves up to this possibility. The business majority shareholder should be aware of this possibility before they decide to open the business.
In your example, "cake with a swastika..." would touch the "hate speech" laws and could be blown out thereby. Short of that, sadly, yes.
BUT: "goes against the business owner's beliefs." is where most people are getting hung up. INCORPORATED BUSINESSES don't have "owners." They have shareholders. The "owner" is usually considered the person who holds greater than 50 percent of the shares. The majority shareholder CAN direct the BUSINNESS to do something, but the BUSINESS will still be bound by the discrimination laws. The "beliefs" or "preferences" of the majority shareholder stop at the "corporate curtain."
A law is not about Right or Wrong. Laws are created to make lawyers more money and to give more power to the government. The laws used to be about Right and Wrong, but it is not so anymore. It didn't take very long before laws were created for other purposes than to maintain a civil and moral society. The laws about discrimination are Wrong. Every person deserves the right to their own beliefs and their right to choose. The laws to punish people for the exercising of their rights is wrong. If there is no physical altercation, then there should be no government interference. You have been brainwashed into thinking that words and hurt feelings should be criminal or incur legal liability. Refusal to provide your services to anyone for any reason is a right. You own your labor and the products you create, not the government, not society, not anyone but you. Don't get me started on Hate speech. That is another travesty of justice.
My father is a general contractor. He owned his own business and worked in the East Bay area (SF region). He refuses all work for lawyers and real estate agents. Is this discrimination? Yes. It is his Right to refuse a contract with anyone for any reason. A lawyer even tried to sue him for refusing work for him. He asked my dad for a quote. My dad declined to give him one. The lawyer asked why and my dad responded with the simple fact that he doesn't enter into contracts with lawyers. The lawyer tried to convince my dad that he was honest, but my dad said no. A week later he was served with papers to let him know he was getting sued. In court the lawyer asked why he told him about his rule about not working with lawyers, when he could have stated that he was too busy, my dad stated that he doesn't lie and that this particular line of thinking was precisely why he doesn't work for lawyers. This wasn't what the lawyer expected to hear and he got angry because of the laughter in the court. My father went on to say that the laws have been subverted to benefit lawyers and they use it as weapons to get what they want out of normal people. He went on to say that the people making laws (politicians) in the State of California were nearly 75% of the elected officials and that they could hardly be seen as unbiased lawmakers. He also stated that he had been legally cheated out of payment for services rendered in the past and had no legal recourse. He ended up winning and counter sued for legal fees. He won the counter suit. This was nearly 40 years ago. I seriously doubt he would win the same suit today, if he wasn't retired. The laws in California have been egregiously tainted for decades. They have been slanted toward certain groups for profit and to grant advantage to those that have friends in politics. The laws are NOT about Right and Wrong anymore. Thinking that they are is foolish and dangerous.