The U.S. Supreme Court has given businesses the right to refuse service to customers based on the owner's religious beliefs. If you plan to exercise that right, let me help you publicize it.
I am not coercing anyone. I'm simply calling on discriminatory businesses/orgs to publicly celebrate their legal discrimination. I think you are the one who does not understand. I think my solution is excellent is very consistent with spirit of Justice Gorsuch's ruling. Curious why you disagree.
This has nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling. Christian schools have had the legal right to seek alignment between its mission and its families as long as they have existed.
You also seem to be misunderstanding the Supreme Court case. The grounds on which 303 Creative was able to refuse service was the freedom of speech clause in the first amendment, not the anti-establishment clause. So, by this ruling, if a restaurant says they will refuse service to Muslims or homosexuals on the grounds of the religious beliefs of their owners, both of these policies are still illegal. They just can’t be coerced into making speech that they disagree with. In fact, 303 Creative specifically said they welcome business from gay customers-- just not the creation of a wedding website where they would have to produce speech that violates their values. Just like a Muslim website designer could reject a job in which the client was asking for blasphemy against Allah. Or a gay designer could reject a job where it’s requested to produce a site that he considers homophobic.
Scott, you'll agree that I am currently forced to pay my hard-earned tax money to customers of Lakeland Christian School, right? Where I finance "content" I find contrary to my beliefs. You'll acknowledge that fact, right. Does this ruling protect me from that legally?
Sure, your tax dollars go to LCS, and you don’t like what they do. But a good portion of lots of people’s tax dollars go to causes or institutions they don’t like. If your objection is to the constitutionality of religious schools receiving voucher funds, that was mainly decided in 1971 in Mueller v. Allen.
I’m talking about the religious belief content creation standard the SCOTUS just created. And as you know there is no precedent any court is bound to respect, as SCOTUS has proven. It would be interesting to explore. Education is content. The court is too corrupt to acknowledge it, but they just opened up vouchers to a new area of feeders challenge. I could see a frisky federal judge striking down Floridas voucher program under this new precedent. Then it’s back to the SCOTUS
I think I see what you’re saying, but I also think there’s a pretty big difference between saying that you are free to produce your own speech in alignment with your beliefs and saying that all speech that results from your tax dollars must affirm your beliefs.
That’s not an accurate description of the courts decision. All goods and services must be sold to any member of the public. EXCEPT narrowly defined artistic work. For instance: nobody can force you to go into an NRA convention or a conservative church and work with them if you were offering your services as a writer. If you’re selling furniture it’s a different matter.
It's possible I'm overinterpreting the ruling, Al, although this is pretty broad: "she will not produce content that 'contradicts biblical truth' regardless of who orders it". (By the way "content" isn't her word, it's Gorsuch's) -- This Supreme Court and Florida's courts and legislature have proven quite adept at using "narrow" rulings to justify broad attacks on individual rights. See abortion, medical care, etc. Also, this is not the only legal discrimination decision out there. But I think you, like, Scott completely miss the point of my post.
I think "libs" have long made a mistake born of a lack of confidence or belief in their communities. I think they've relied too much on the courts to do moral and civic work. By simply inviting businesses that plan to discriminate legally to announce that fact and celebrate it, I'm providing a free service to them. As I am for non-discriminatory businesses. My prediction (and I could be wrong, we'll see) is that no business will want to announce and celebrate publicly through me that they are not open for business to people who "contradicts biblical truth" as they understand it. I find an effective, non-coercive, moral/not legal approach. I actually have confidence in my community.
Also, are you suggesting that my employer can't fire me if I refuse to work with the NRA as a client or prospective client based on my religious beliefs? My job is literally to provide writing services for the prospective clients my employer pursues. Do you think that's what the ruling says?
If anything, you might infer from my writing, if you really read it, that I more or less agree with it. I don't think that's right. I don't think I do; but I'm absolutely embracing its logic in this civic response to it.
I am not coercing anyone. I'm simply calling on discriminatory businesses/orgs to publicly celebrate their legal discrimination. I think you are the one who does not understand. I think my solution is excellent is very consistent with spirit of Justice Gorsuch's ruling. Curious why you disagree.
This has nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling. Christian schools have had the legal right to seek alignment between its mission and its families as long as they have existed.
You also seem to be misunderstanding the Supreme Court case. The grounds on which 303 Creative was able to refuse service was the freedom of speech clause in the first amendment, not the anti-establishment clause. So, by this ruling, if a restaurant says they will refuse service to Muslims or homosexuals on the grounds of the religious beliefs of their owners, both of these policies are still illegal. They just can’t be coerced into making speech that they disagree with. In fact, 303 Creative specifically said they welcome business from gay customers-- just not the creation of a wedding website where they would have to produce speech that violates their values. Just like a Muslim website designer could reject a job in which the client was asking for blasphemy against Allah. Or a gay designer could reject a job where it’s requested to produce a site that he considers homophobic.
Scott, you'll agree that I am currently forced to pay my hard-earned tax money to customers of Lakeland Christian School, right? Where I finance "content" I find contrary to my beliefs. You'll acknowledge that fact, right. Does this ruling protect me from that legally?
Sure, but there has never been a legal right to object to where your tax money is spent, other than voting for people who would spend it elsewhere.
Sure what?
Sure, your tax dollars go to LCS, and you don’t like what they do. But a good portion of lots of people’s tax dollars go to causes or institutions they don’t like. If your objection is to the constitutionality of religious schools receiving voucher funds, that was mainly decided in 1971 in Mueller v. Allen.
I’m talking about the religious belief content creation standard the SCOTUS just created. And as you know there is no precedent any court is bound to respect, as SCOTUS has proven. It would be interesting to explore. Education is content. The court is too corrupt to acknowledge it, but they just opened up vouchers to a new area of feeders challenge. I could see a frisky federal judge striking down Floridas voucher program under this new precedent. Then it’s back to the SCOTUS
I think I see what you’re saying, but I also think there’s a pretty big difference between saying that you are free to produce your own speech in alignment with your beliefs and saying that all speech that results from your tax dollars must affirm your beliefs.
That’s not an accurate description of the courts decision. All goods and services must be sold to any member of the public. EXCEPT narrowly defined artistic work. For instance: nobody can force you to go into an NRA convention or a conservative church and work with them if you were offering your services as a writer. If you’re selling furniture it’s a different matter.
It's possible I'm overinterpreting the ruling, Al, although this is pretty broad: "she will not produce content that 'contradicts biblical truth' regardless of who orders it". (By the way "content" isn't her word, it's Gorsuch's) -- This Supreme Court and Florida's courts and legislature have proven quite adept at using "narrow" rulings to justify broad attacks on individual rights. See abortion, medical care, etc. Also, this is not the only legal discrimination decision out there. But I think you, like, Scott completely miss the point of my post.
I think "libs" have long made a mistake born of a lack of confidence or belief in their communities. I think they've relied too much on the courts to do moral and civic work. By simply inviting businesses that plan to discriminate legally to announce that fact and celebrate it, I'm providing a free service to them. As I am for non-discriminatory businesses. My prediction (and I could be wrong, we'll see) is that no business will want to announce and celebrate publicly through me that they are not open for business to people who "contradicts biblical truth" as they understand it. I find an effective, non-coercive, moral/not legal approach. I actually have confidence in my community.
Also, are you suggesting that my employer can't fire me if I refuse to work with the NRA as a client or prospective client based on my religious beliefs? My job is literally to provide writing services for the prospective clients my employer pursues. Do you think that's what the ruling says?
If anything, you might infer from my writing, if you really read it, that I more or less agree with it. I don't think that's right. I don't think I do; but I'm absolutely embracing its logic in this civic response to it.