Designer who won't make same-sex wedding websites loses case

Jonathan

Well-Known Member
A U.S. appeals court has ruled against a web designer who didn’t want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples and sued to challenge Colorado’s anti-discrimination law

Read article:
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/designer-make-sex-wedding-websites-loses-case-79095244
All of these situations, just like the lawsuit filed against the Christian baker who wouldn't make a gay weeding cake, all come down to one thing, that is being deliberately ignored by judges, the media, and politicians.

It's the constitutionally derived right known as "The Freedom of Association."

Not only does this right acknowledge the right of people to assemble together for any reason that doesn't involve criminal activity (holding meeting with your friends in order to plan a terrorist attack, for example), it ALSO, by definition assumes the right of people to NOT associate with whom they don't want to.

Or to put it another way, people assembling to talk/protest/discuss/whatever with a group of like-minded individuals is protected by the freedom of association. The exclusion of people who do not share their views on whatever topic is at stake is also part and parcel of the freedom of association. Association is an active move. "We choose to associate with YOU but not HIM." is perfectly reasonable. If I choose to associate with NO ONE, then that is my right also.

Or, finally, in my best attempt to be redundant, It is also our right to associate with only those who we desire to associate with.

If me and Billy are at the playground, and Miff McAdams, the school buddy comes by and wants to hang with us, we are perfectly in our rights to walk away and associate ONLY with ourselves and not the bully. Association is meaningless if it isn't selective. If you throw a dinner party, you aren't obligated to invite everyone on the block who is interested, but rather, you have the right to associate the specific people you want to have dinner with and exclude anyone else.

To force someone, against their will, to make a gay wedding cake is forcing them to associate against their will, and therefore denies their real right to associate, which includes the option of NOT associating with someone.

And have no illusions. Just about every interaction you have is, even if for only a short time, an association. In that sense, there is no difference between choosing not to attend a gay parade as there is in choosing not to bake a gay wedding cake The fact that one is a community event and another is a business is absolutely irrelevant.
 

Jonathan

Well-Known Member
Oh, not another one. A modernized form of slavery. Do what you're told or face punishment.
Actually, while obviously not exactly the same, the word "slavery" is something I often think about when reading about these events.

Imagine life a few years down the road (assuming we are still here). Does it seem preposterous to believe that a gynecologist who won't perform an abortion because of religious beliefs ends up being sued and losing his medical license? For me, it doesn't seem preposterous. It seems inevitable.
 

PortWen

Well-Known Member
Does it seem preposterous to believe that a gynecologist who won't perform an abortion because of religious beliefs ends up being sued and losing his medical license? For me, it doesn't seem preposterous. It seems inevitable.
Not preposterous at all…already teachers are losing their jobs for refusing to encourage children to explore their gender identity, or for informing parents of graphic sexual books in the school library etc. It’s horrific how rapidly it’s taking hold. Depravity is gathering speed. Anyone who tries to stand against it will suffer.
 

TheRedeemed

Well-Known Member
This is pertinent to my work.

Many years ago I was offered a very good deal to work on a web based application for a large distribution company and I could have earned £40,000 on it.

When I found out as the matters progressed that the company distributed pornography and other 'adult' products I expressed my concern and dislike for the subject material and pulled out.

There was another 2 guys who would've worked alongside me on the project and without me the other two guys couldn't deliver what was required, so they lost out too.

I don't regret it, I would rather eat crumbs than do something my heart and the Lord says not to do.

They probably did find someone else to do it, £40K is a great deal and most folks would only think of the money.

No one ever said anything or forced the issue on me after I walked away, unlike the OP here.

I still wouldn't have done it even if told by authorities that I had to, would just have closed my business and come back the next week under a new name.
 

daygo

Well-Known Member
This is pertinent to my work.

Many years ago I was offered a very good deal to work on a web based application for a large distribution company and I could have earned £40,000 on it.

When I found out as the matters progressed that the company distributed pornography and other 'adult' products I expressed my concern and dislike for the subject material and pulled out.

There was another 2 guys who would've worked alongside me on the project and without me the other two guys couldn't deliver what was required, so they lost out too.

I don't regret it, I would rather eat crumbs than do something my heart and the Lord says not to do.

They probably did find someone else to do it, £40K is a great deal and most folks would only think of the money.

No one ever said anything or forced the issue on me after I walked away, unlike the OP here.

I still wouldn't have done it even if told by authorities that I had to, would just have closed my business and come back the next week under a new name.
Good For you TheRedeemed.
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
A U.S. appeals court has ruled against a web designer who didn’t want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples and sued to challenge Colorado’s anti-discrimination law

Read article:
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/designer-make-sex-wedding-websites-loses-case-79095244
They probably knew they would lose the appeal--it's the 9th District U.S. appeals court (a den of totally messed-up Dem judges). They can appeal their case to the SCOTUS but, if the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, the 9th District ruling will stand. The 9th District is HUGE and needs to be broken up.
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
Govt telling businesses how to "run their business" is ridiculous but so is govt telling citizens that men are women and women are men. Ridiculous.
It's actually worse than that, Western governments are telling people that we have to SAY that trans men are women and trans women are men or we are guilty of "hate speech" and can be sent to jail (as happened with a pastor in Finland recently). Canadian professor Jordan Peterson (University of Toronto) said that he will not be forced to call a biological male "she." It will be interesting to see where it goes.
 

Footsteps

Well-Known Member
All of these situations, just like the lawsuit filed against the Christian baker who wouldn't make a gay weeding cake, all come down to one thing, that is being deliberately ignored by judges, the media, and politicians.

It's the constitutionally derived right known as "The Freedom of Association."

Not only does this right acknowledge the right of people to assemble together for any reason that doesn't involve criminal activity (holding meeting with your friends in order to plan a terrorist attack, for example), it ALSO, by definition assumes the right of people to NOT associate with whom they don't want to.

Or to put it another way, people assembling to talk/protest/discuss/whatever with a group of like-minded individuals is protected by the freedom of association. The exclusion of people who do not share their views on whatever topic is at stake is also part and parcel of the freedom of association. Association is an active move. "We choose to associate with YOU but not HIM." is perfectly reasonable. If I choose to associate with NO ONE, then that is my right also.

Or, finally, in my best attempt to be redundant, It is also our right to associate with only those who we desire to associate with.

If me and Billy are at the playground, and Miff McAdams, the school buddy comes by and wants to hang with us, we are perfectly in our rights to walk away and associate ONLY with ourselves and not the bully. Association is meaningless if it isn't selective. If you throw a dinner party, you aren't obligated to invite everyone on the block who is interested, but rather, you have the right to associate the specific people you want to have dinner with and exclude anyone else.

To force someone, against their will, to make a gay wedding cake is forcing them to associate against their will, and therefore denies their real right to associate, which includes the option of NOT associating with someone.

And have no illusions. Just about every interaction you have is, even if for only a short time, an association. In that sense, there is no difference between choosing not to attend a gay parade as there is in choosing not to bake a gay wedding cake The fact that one is a community event and another is a business is absolutely irrelevant.
Your explanation requires thought and is therefore too challenging for the poorly educated Marxist, most elected officials, and seemingly the entire court system. No matter how high the appeal reaches, the court may refuse to hear the case. When SCOTUS famously said they had no "standing" to hear the election fraud case, they already had decided, IMO, that they were not in favor of the case. Your association/non association principle requires the effort to face an established Constitutional concept, and a court can appear to have engaged in thoughtful jurisprudence by simply "taking a pass" while taking a break.
I have to wonder if our Woke brainwashers have used too much industrial strength bleach which resulted in so many chemical lobotomies that courts have no "standing" because they need help standing up.
 

Cloud Watcher

Well-Known Member
The government should stop creating the designation of "special classes" of people. It should also remove the term "hate" from laws. In contrast, which crimes are considered "love" crimes?
Having discriminating taste used to mean having a preference for things of quality. Now it means hate. The First Amendment was supposed to protect people with different or unpopular opinions from punitive actions by the government. It is now ignored by the same elected officials who took an oath to uphold it, along with the rest of the Constitution. Morality used to be a desired trait. Now it is mocked, called hate, and is a target for lawsuits. Meanwhile, immorality parades itself in the streets and is a "protected class". Things which were known as normal and foundational truths for millenia no longer matter. Mental derangement now takes precedence over truth. Using the "wrong" pronouns now can get a person fired from a job, or forced to face a lawsuit for hate speech, even though no hate was involved, just a preference for foundational truth. The same thing goes with the accusation of racism. Now everything is "racist", even if it isn't. Racism is in the mind of the accuser, the same person who claims he/she is incapable of being such.
If only we could get back to the Golden Rule. If only the government would go back to prosecuting real crimes and criminals (even teflon coated politicians), instead of imaginary (he hurt my feelings) accusations.
.
 

depserv

Well-Known Member
This is yet another manifestation of the liberal cult, a cult of devil worshippers, imposing its dogma on America as a de facto official state religion. There is no other basis for this decision.

I am not confident in the Supreme Court in its current configuration doing its lawful duty in overturning this bad decision, if the case even gets that far. The Court is totally politicized, and has become a tool of the liberal cult.

What if a group of white racists wanted to hire a group of politically correct BLM-loving black people to build a KKK-celebrating racist website for it? Would a court force that on the liberal group? Or how about a dedicated vegan and animal rights activist who owns a food catering service is approached by a group of bikers to do a pig roast for a big beer fest; would that business owner be allowed to refuse the job?

The official state religion has turned God's people into second class citizens. And this is only going to get worse, as the liberal cult completes the building of its machinery of tyranny.
 
Top