https://www.reuters.com/legal/...e-stance-2023-06-30/

Here is the case:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/D...0pdf%20Goldstein.pdf

This is a travesty. The only thing keeping African Americans from being served or an interracial couples is Fed Law.

This case puts all those cases in jeopardy.

How does the Court draw the line to determine when it is speech.

This makes Bluefish position on Compelled Speech much stronger. The Majority case hinges on Compelled Affirmation against discrimination.

Today, the Supreme Court has made gay people second class citizens on par with separate but equal with service providers having the right to exclude.

This case will fall before most of us die.

Based on S. Ct. standing principles did not even have standing as she had not been asked to design a pro gay website or been sanctioned by the Colorado Law.

I am sure the Faction will love this return to the Stone Ages.

I remind you all Justice Thomas said Marriage Equality is on the menu.

To Justice Gorsuch, our gay and trans citizens are not to be tolerated. He focuses on tolerance through debate winning out. These citizens are to enjoy every privilege the white, straight, and conservatives do.simple to tolerate is to treat them as second class. Of course, the faction here does all the time.

If humans best morality would always win out, we would need no laws.

Ah, those Christian beliefs. Hypocritical shits.

Actually, it should be illegal for any licensed company to refuse to serve anyone.

Regardless of absolute anything!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Actually, it should be illegal for any licensed company to refuse to serve anyone.

Regardless of absolute anything!

Is it still ok to refuse a personal service gig because you just don't like the customer?

Yes. I would say that. However, to discriminate based on sex/gender is different from race how?

The majority cannot get around that one.

The logical conclusion of this case is a person based on Free Speech Compelled Affirmation does not have to serve a bi-racial couple.

This is a return to separate but equal.

Of course, the far right had always wanted that.

Likewise, this decision means bluefish is most likely correct on the pronoun issue.

It was the correct decision.
You should read the entire opinion and the dissent.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...2pdf/21-476_c185.pdf


“As surely as Ms. Smith seeks to engage in protected First Amendment speech, Colorado seeks to compel speech Ms. Smith does not wish to provide. As the Tenth Circuit ob- served, if Ms. Smith offers wedding websites celebrating marriages she endorses, the State intends to “forc[e her] to create custom websites” celebrating other marriages she does not. 6 F. 4th, at 1178. Colorado seeks to compel this speech in order to “excis[e] certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 633, 642 (1994). Indeed, the Tenth Circuit recognized that the coercive “[e]liminati[on]” of dissenting “ideas” about marriage constitutes Colorado’s “very pur- pose” in seeking to apply its law to Ms. Smith. 6 F. 4th, at 1178.
We part ways with the Tenth Circuit only when it comes to the legal conclusions that follow. While that court thought Colorado could compel speech from Ms. Smith con- sistent with the Constitution, our First Amendment prece- dents laid out above teach otherwise. In Hurley, the Court found that Massachusetts impermissibly compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment when it sought to force parade organizers to accept participants who would “affec[t] the[ir] message.” 515 U. S., at 572. In Dale, the Court held that New Jersey intruded on the Boy Scouts’ First Amend- ment rights when it tried to require the group to “propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs” by directing its mem- bership choices. 530 U. S., at 654. And in Barnette, this Court found impermissible coercion when West Virginia re- quired schoolchildren to recite a pledge that contravened their convictions on threat of punishment or expulsion. 319 U. S., at 626–629. Here, Colorado seeks to put Ms. Smith to a similar choice: If she wishes to speak, she must either speak as the State demands or face sanctions for expressing her own beliefs, sanctions that may include compulsory par- ticipation in “remedial . . . training,” filing periodic compli- ance reports as officials deem necessary, and paying mone- tary fines. App. 120; supra, at 3. Under our precedents, that “is enough,” more than enough, to represent an imper- missible abridgment of the First Amendment’s right to speak freely. Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574.
Consider what a contrary approach would mean. Under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic—no matter the underlying message—if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait. 6 F. 4th, at 1198 (Tymkovich, C. J., dissenting). Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not be- lieve on pain of penalty. The government could require “an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zi- onist message,” or “an atheist muralist to accept a commis- sion celebrating Evangelical zeal,” so long as they would make films or murals for other members of the public with different messages.

I have to bare some of the blame for all of this. First, it is a segment of my profession that has brought us here. Second, I voted for President Trump and Sen. McConnell every time.

I did not believe the Left of Mr who warmed the Faction had control of the party. The exact goal being to relitigate the New Deal and Civil Rights Movement.

I wash my hands of the GOP.

So your feelings over my right to practice my religious beliefs? That is the travesty here?

Your religious beliefs have nothing to do w serving people.

Believe what you want and serve folks. The two are not mutually intwined regardless of this case.

Just like your religious beliefs should not allow you to treat citizens differently in the public space.

What about serving Muslims, Jews, Interracial Couples? This decision is a disgrace.

I want to use more harsh language. I will refrain.

Yes, this decision allows you to be a hypocritc homophonic human being in the public sphere.

I must say, reading some of the opinions of this court, they are more varied (as to where the Justices side) than I expected. This one being an exception


In the opinion, the CADA is cited:
The people of Colorado have adopted the Colorado Anti- Discrimination Act (CADA), which provides:
“It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disabil- ity, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or ac- commodations of a place of public accommodation.”

It will be interesting to see if the “ancestry” part trips up the whole reparations movement here in Colorado.

I will be writing my maximum part campaign contribution to the KY Democratic Party.

Maybe, hopefully, more importantly I am going to call a close gay friend. I will apologize to her, and tell her I love her.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Your religious beliefs have nothing to do w serving people.

Believe what you want and serve folks. The two are not mutually intwined regardless of this case.

Just like your religious beliefs should not allow you to treat citizens differently in the public space.

What about serving Muslims, Jews, Interracial Couples? This decision is a disgrace.

I want to use more harsh language. I will refrain.

Yes, this decision allows you to be a hypocritc homophonic human being in the public sphere.

Have your opinion but the Court sees it differently. Thank God.

Many businesses routinely refuse service. Lawyers and doctors top that list. No one makes a big deal out of it when they do it.

Frankly, I would rather not be served by someone who doesn’t want to.

Do you think you will get what you are paying for when you do that?

Sure at some level it’s workable. Buying gas from a guy who hates white folks, the gas will still run my car… but if I saw a guy to make me a suit, and he hated hunters and knew I was one, and tells me he would rather not make me one, do you think it’s going to be as well made and fit as well as a guy who wants my business given that they both are qualified?

At some level, yes, we do have to deal with all comers. I should not refuse to treat someone who shows up in an emergency regardless of my likes/dislikes; but how often is it really a matter of necessity, versus trying to make some kind of point?

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Your religious beliefs have nothing to do w serving people.

Believe what you want and serve folks. The two are not mutually intwined regardless of this case.

Just like your religious beliefs should not allow you to treat citizens differently in the public space.

What about serving Muslims, Jews, Interracial Couples? This decision is a disgrace.

I want to use more harsh language. I will refrain.

Yes, this decision allows you to be a hypocritc homophonic human being in the public sphere.

Have your opinion but the Court sees it differently. Thank God.

For now, and it dies not change what you are.

You and I do not worship the same God.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Many businesses routinely refuse service. Lawyers and doctors top that list. No one makes a big deal out of it when they do it.[/QUOTE

It is the why you refuse business that maters.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I will be writing my maximum part campaign contribution to the KY Democratic Party.

Maybe, hopefully, more importantly I am going to call a close gay friend. I will apologize to her, and tell her I love her.

Drama Queen.

If my daughter or the other kids under my roof grow up to be gay or something else I'll certainly advise them to not think of themselves as a victim for a moment in any circumstance.

If a business or church, a club or government, an employer or sports league doesn't care for their gender, sexual preference, religion, marital status, offspring, skin color, hair style, apparel, nail colors and whatever, they should move along with their chin up, shoulders square.

I have a couple small business, (mostly not profitable, ) and as for me, I'm happy to do business with and serve most anyone. I'd be pleased to serve a tranny or gay person, skin color, size and weight wouldn't influence my decision for even a moment.

But you know, I wouldn't want the Pakistani wearing a, " MTGA, Make Taliban Great Again!" T-shirt in my boat nor would I want the head priestess for the church of Satan in my bnb. That is discrimination based on religion and I think it's correct. I shouldn't be punished for excluding them. I certainly ain't gonna apologize ant tell my Pakistani friend I love them either for that belief.

Free speech is about protecting some idiot's right to say what they want and not having the ability to make them say anything you "know" to be true.

I wonder if the replies would be so emotional if the "consumer" had wanted the business to created a white power website. Creating a website is speech and you cannot force people to speak or adopt your speech. How the hell did I turn out to be a 60's hippy supporting hateful speech under the first amendment?

Creating a white power website is free speech. Those folks are permitted to spew their ideology. I doubt this Court would have mandated the web creator had to so engage.

However, being a white Suprematist is not protected under the law. Discrimination based on sex, gender, race, and religion is.

White hate groups are permitted to spew their ideology; even have rallies.

By being open to serve gay and biracial couples no one is making you say a confounded thing.

A new bar/cafe opened in the next town over. A neighbor had been a few times. One evening he went in and ordered. The owner came and told him he had to leave. Another couple complained his shirt had nazi signs. It was a ZZ top Tshirt, the Z's were squiggly like SS.
It saved me money, I'll never go in a place that is so touchy. Make any rule you want, dont serve anyone you dont feel like. Dont expect my money in your hands. Easy as that.
By heyms view, a drunk gay couple should be served at a bar, so they dont get their feelings hurt and sue. Never mind they are driving on the highway afterwards.
Emperor heym must have his period 365 days a year the way he goes off on things.

Being racists is not a class protected. A gay or straight person Being a drunk is sufficient to exclude.

Being gay should not. It is according to this decision.

Great use of sexual stereotypes/ sexism 40. Keep it up. Just do not be upset when people call you a sexist. However, you will be.

IANAL.

But if being drunk for a non-professional is a matter of judgement, and being a protected class is a strict interpretation standard, you are setting folks up for 40’s statement.

They claimed we were drunk, but actually they are homophobes… would pit a subjective judgement vs a strict legal standard if the protected class individuals wanted to push it in a suit… and then they would only have to convince a majority of jurors that their view was more likely than not.

It’s a slippery slope.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Being racists is not a class protected. A gay or straight person Being a drunk is sufficient to exclude.

Being gay should not. It is according to this decision.

Great use of sexual stereotypes/ sexism 40. Keep it up. Just do not be upset when people call you a sexist. However, you will be.

Call me anything you like whine-ass. Unlike you, I dont care about names.
Doc, you got my point exactly, the little boy doesnt.

Maybe someday the little boy will grow up.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Call me anything you like whine-ass. Unlike you, I dont care about names.
Doc, you got my point exactly, the little boy doesnt.

Apparently, you do since you double down.


As for you and Bluefish; enjoy your win. History will treat this as Plessy v. Ferguson. The immediate result will be more Dems elected.

For someone who does not care you sure cuss a lot about it.


Good thing about these threads we see what side people are on.

I am glad O am old enough and educated enough not to me on your side.

Your point Dora’s not hold up. Bring a racist is not protected class. Any person can be excluded for being drunk. Now, the service provider can refuse service based on Freedom of Speech to gay people.

What is the distinction between an interracial couple? Answe that if you want to argue like an adult.

The Court allows you to answer non-discriminatory purposes I’m service. I did not serve that man because he was black. I served him because he was drunk. The case law them shots the burden to the person to prove this is a false pretense.

Courts do it all the time. Your example for that reason the burden shifting to show a false pretense in discriminating does not carry much water.

Use another sexist stereotype and cuss some more 40.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Maybe someday the little boy will grow up.

he has:
apparently as a well developed Marxist

I double down on, who cares. If someone will not serve you, go somewhere else. Whether it's because of race, church,or your moustache, so what. Move on, I bet someone will take your money.
Heym, you could have acted like an adult. I disagree with MM all the time, but he doesnt ever act like a petulant child. You couldnt stand it, so you say your going to switch to the dems, and give them money. Who gives a shit what you do?
You can sell your house, give them everything and live on the street, it will not harm anyone here but you. That was the little kid, stomping his foot and saying he's taking his marbles and going home. It was not needed in the discussion, other than to show what you are about.
I made my life choices very carefully. When I joined the military, and chose an elite branch, it was to make sure all the people like you were weeded out before lives were on the line. Every bit of training was to see what kind of force, mentally, even more than physically, lies within.
Now I work for myself. Any whiner like you that pulls onto my property gets told to not even shut the motor off.
I love kids, and have infinite patients for them. But not when they act like that after they are grown.

I am old enough to remember when this sign was in EVERY business -- Sears, Kroger's, a bar, a pool hall, a car dealership -- even my dad had this in his office when people wanted an in office consultation

It's literally a 13th amendment freedom -

Jeffeosso, I still dont see a problem with it.
One of my unit members and I were out for a bite. He was rural Luisiana, and great companion anywhere. He wanted to stop at a bar/club, and listen to some jazz. We went in, I was the only white guy in there. It didnt take long to realize I was putting a damper on things. Frankie said we could leave, he thought it would be a little more mixed.
I said no, you stay. I had my own motorcycle, and would see him back on base.
I would have laughed along with any "cracker" jokes they wanted to tell at my expense. But I didnt feel it was fair to the 25-30 folks that were in there to enjoy themselves, if they felt uneasy.
I dont listen to music anyway, and was not feeling put upon by leaving. Why stress about it?

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Actually, it should be illegal for any licensed company to refuse to serve anyone.

Regardless of absolute anything!

Is it still ok to refuse a personal service gig because you just don't like the customer?

Absolutely not.

If the customer is being obnoxious with his behavior, that is different.

But anyone coming in normally should be served.

Here is a perfect example!

They should be given a very hefty fine!

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Call me anything you like whine-ass. Unlike you, I dont care about names.
Doc, you got my point exactly, the little boy doesnt.

Apparently, you do since you double down.


As for you and Bluefish; enjoy your win. History will treat this as Plessy v. Ferguson. The immediate result will be more Dems elected.

For someone who does not care you sure cuss a lot about it.


Good thing about these threads we see what side people are on.

I am glad O am old enough and educated enough not to me on your side.

Your point Dora’s not hold up. Bring a racist is not protected class. Any person can be excluded for being drunk. Now, the service provider can refuse service based on Freedom of Speech to gay people.

What is the distinction between an interracial couple? Answe that if you want to argue like an adult.

The Court allows you to answer non-discriminatory purposes I’m service. I did not serve that man because he was black. I served him because he was drunk. The case law them shots the burden to the person to prove this is a false pretense.

Courts do it all the time. Your example for that reason the burden shifting to show a false pretense in discriminating does not carry much water.

Use another sexist stereotype and cuss some more 40.

I think Heym drinks when he posts sometimes. Or perhaps he's typing whilst riding his zero emisions bike to work. Anyway, he fails to account for the fact that in the 1920s Harvard had a policy against admitting Jews. In the more recent, distant past UNC was not admitting blacks. Affirmative action is a racist policy against whites. Heym apparently supports such policies and, in so doing, becomes the racist. AA policies are not about merit they are about identity politics. If one checks enough of the preferred person category boxes their chances increase greatly of getting into certain schools.