Matt Davies for July 02, 2023

The SCROTUS reserves the right not to learn from history…like, say, the French Revolution.

What next mixed couples?

The new must have, a SCOTUS judge in your pocket.

This is disingenuous. No one should be forced to create content or promote a cause they disagree with, and that’s all the Supreme Court was saying.

At least they were honest enough to refer to those bringing cases as “customers”…

Stack the court!

Tell again how letting political parties’* lifetime appointments of SCOTUS members assure fair, equitable, unbiased decisions.

* that only represents a fraction of the public

And again this is not what the SCOTUS decision was about. So the lies continue from the left.

I agree with the simple decision, if not with the individual Justices’ personal reasons for voting the way they did.

If it had gone the other way and (presumably) applied to all businesses, then a business made up only of people who support Biden could be required to create an anti-Biden web site. Or more likely in the minds of some of the Justices, the company behind “Truth Social” could be forced to host a web site that promotes universal health care (not “insurance”), a right to abortion, etc.

You nailed it, Mr. Davies!

That is not what it said, but progressives never read the ruling and make up their own narrative.

remember yall, POA comments means it was Pulled out of A$$ seem to get more and more of those.

But then again, if you want to fly us to an all expenses paid vacation, in your private jet, we just might reconsider it.

Going to get really interesting with people who consider what they do artistic expression. As a an auto mechanic, I consider what I do a work of art. I shouldn’t be forced to employ my skills to serve same sex couples. That goes for gourmet cooks, architects, tattoo artists, photographers, and I could go on and on.

That’s exactly what they ruled. This is a right-wing mess.

If indeed this case was brought up by the wedding designer not having an actual client but merely posing a “what happens if…?” question then is it not at best merely a civil court matter? Does SCOTUS have jurisdiction over a civil matter? “Inquiring minds want to know” and all that since a moderately thorough bit of searching yielded no very clear answer – and I am not an appellate court judge (even 1 appointed with barely a few days worth of actual trial experience and named Aileen)

While being sympathetic to the LGBTQ community, I really would like to know why the plaintiffs didn’t simply choose another website designer for their wedding. Why force someone who doesn’t believe in your lifestyle to be pleasingly creative for you? Even if they were forced to do so, what would the ultimate online product look like? Nothing pleasant, I would think.

Now it’s time for the MARKET to work it’s magic. How many businesses will survive having that sign in their window?

The right to an abortion is supported by 61% of Americans;

The court’s block on Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan goes against the views of 62%;

The decision to tear down affirmative action flies in the face of 63% of Americans who want the practice to continue;

Seventy-one percent think same-sex marriages should be recognized by law and entitled to the same rights as traditional marriages.

Well, this now means any business can place a sign “No christians allowed” and “No trump supporters allowed”. I’m hoping some do that.

That isn’t what the ruling said, you cannot force someone to act against their religious beliefs. To do so is discriminatory.

and the right to remove settle law without notice

Sorry, my free speech rights would be violated if I was forced to make a website for a christian marriage ceremony. Let them eat cake, if the bakery accepts christian themed requests. How does that sound?

Bring back Dilbert.

If people want to be LGBTQ, that’s their right. Stop pushing it on the ones who don’t.