Supreme Court ruling says designer does not have to design a wedding dress for gay couples

[TheButcher]

Another great decision by the SCOTUS.

It is not about gay rights to me, it is about the freedom of an individual to decide if they want to work for a customer or not.

"The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn't want to make wedding websites for gay couples"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-cour ... 46544.html

I'l give an example here, since day one I have said no gambling, prescription drugs, escort site promotion here. The number of times I have been told I have to allow it since this is a public forum, to which I have replied no I do not because it is a private site. The number of gambling advertisers I have turned down here would have made me real rich had I taken their money but I will not touch that.

[Emil]

Nothing wrong if you want to turn down business it is your choice.

[viking]

Trump made sure with his nominees that the Court moved to the right, so you like the rulings coming out of the Court say thank you Donald J. Trump.

[workman]

The right decision after all these years

[jag]

Every one has the right to work with who they want if gay people support gay bakeries it will be a win win. I know my gay friends might not be happy with this decision but look to support gay bakeries. But honestly if you are a baker or cake maker what does it matter if you put to figures of men or women on top of a cake, you did your art made your money the couple getting married got their cake.

[greatpornlinks]

Nothing wrong if you want to turn down business it is your choice.

Absolutely true words

[tacnet]

I agree with everything you guys are saying. God knows Im fed up with all this wokism BUT (and there is always a but) where do you draw the line ?

For example, could I now open a "Whites Only" cake shop ? Or how about putting up a "No Gays Allowed" sign outside my tattoo parlour ? Or an art gallery that refuses muslims ?? These are all creative industries (as in this case) and according to this ruling I should be able to refuse whoever I like. You can see my point

People should be allowed to refuse business regardless (as in this case and in Butchers example about gambling) but once you give people the legal right to discriminate based on sexuality, skin colour, religeous beliefs or even gender then people can (and will) take it to the extreme

Its a VERY delicate line and I dont profess to know what the right answer is

[pussyhunter]

I agree with everything you guys are saying. God knows Im fed up with all this wokism BUT (and there is always a but) where do you draw the line ?

For example, could I now open a "Whites Only" cake shop ? Or how about putting up a "No Gays Allowed" sign outside my tattoo parlour ? Or an art gallery that refuses muslims ?? These are all creative industries (as in this case) and according to this ruling I should be able to refuse whoever I like. You can see my point

People should be allowed to refuse business regardless (as in this case and in Butchers example about gambling) but once you give people the legal right to discriminate based on sexuality, skin colour, religeous beliefs or even gender then people can (and will) take it to the extreme

Its a VERY delicate line and I dont profess to know what the right answer is

All good poinmts but it's not a sign on the bakery saying no gays, he just does not want to do the work.

[3ric]

Stop telling people what to do, this is a good win for freedom.

[tacnet]

As I understand it (and I could be wrong) but I believe that this was a hypothetical case designed to test the law

There wasn't actually a wedding dress designer who brought this case to the courts. (They would have to be a very rich wedding dress designer to afford to take this all the way to the supreme court)

[Garry2000]

Just said this in another thread,people have had it with this woke bull crap and are finally speaking up.