This guy and the Hill lean a little right for me yet he does have a point.

the next time this thumper swine will be in the news is when her kid comes out...

... or her husband.

No freedom, just mindless assent to authority.  The progressive dream. 

Are you a pro-abortion expert dedicated to expanding access to abortion?  Well, if a pro-life group wants you as your lawyer, you have no choice but to put your skills to work for them.  If that's a problem, stop being  a lawyer.  A Jewish marketing expert? If the Nazis want you to work, you have no choice but to use your genius to promote Nazism. 

If you read his article he was actually about choice and live and let live.

was actually about choice and live and let live.

What an Orwellian way to describe what he wrote.  

The same logic applies to my examples as well.  No person has the right to deny Nazis, or racists or groups that advocate for child sex like NAMBLA any service they ask, in the name of "choice and live and let live". 

What are you even talking about.

He basically said if somethings offends you so much, don't do it.

He basically said if somethings offends you so much, don't do it.

Exactly.  A progressive shouldn't be a lawyer unless they are willing to work to overturn gay marriage or oppose abortion laws. No one should go into advertising unless they are willing to promote  Nazis.    No one should go into P.R, or writing, unless they want to promote adults' right to have sex with kids.  Individuality and thinking for yourself has no place in the workforce.    Anyone who works in a field that involves taking work from others should not do it unless they are willing to promote  those whose  views they vehemently oppose.  

I don't know where you get this idea that 'progressive people' are against selling a product or selling a certain service.

Way off base on that one. I could go tit for tat and call all conservative people regressive and totalitarian. Yet I won't.

If you agree with the author fine. Want to find a place to bash on progressive people, go somewhere else.

where you get this idea that 'progressive people' are against selling a product or selling a certain service.

we don't (thanks to Court decisions like 303) make progressive people work for causes they oppose. I'm fine with that. You are not.  But of course, my point applies to everyone, not just progressives.  You, and the author,  seem to think no one should go into a client facing field unless they are willing to work to promote things they find abhorrent like Nazism. I think forcing people to work to promote Nazism is abhorrent. That's where I differ from you and the author.

I believe taking a job doesn't require you to give up all your rights or individuality.  You do. 

Bullshit. You throw out strawman arguments and act like they are truth and then act like you know exactly what I think.

All he said is if you knew the job entailed serving legal customers that you find objectionable, maybe find another job.

You are inventing and adding things that were never implied.

You throw out strawman arguments and act like they are truth and then act like you know exactly what I think.

I'm pointing out the implications of this guy's argument that you claim to endorse.  Do you not understand his argument? 

is if you knew the job entailed serving legal customers that you find objectionable, maybe find another job.

Exactly, and I'm applying that logic across the board.  No one should take any  job in any field where it's possible they'll be asked to do any work they find objectionable.  No has the right  to deny their talents to perform any task, no matter how objectionable or abhorrent they may find it. 

You can partially see it then take it to an extreme.

Sorry but to me designing a website is not some particular talent. I did it for years for a car dealership.

Not one person is forced to perform against their will. You are acting like just because there are discrimination laws it is somehow an assault on freedoms which is hardly the case.

rry but to me designing a website is not some particular talent. I did it for years for a car dealership.

So  you would have no problem designing a  website  to spread slurs about how horrible   jews are for a Nazi client. I would have a problem with that.

Not one person is forced to perform against their will. 

You want them to be. I don't. 

Where do I want people to perform against their will?

Once again, people cannot see the difference with offering a service to only certain people and forcing someone to design something totally unrelated...

Where do I want people to perform against their will?

You think web designers should either work for Nazis against their will  or completely leave the field of web design no matter the consequences.   

Way to not understand basic things that have been explained to you over and over.

t understand basic things that have been explained to you over and over.

Yes, you believe web designers have no right to refuse to work for Nazis.   I do.  

If all you are going to do is accuse me of shit this is over.

oing to do is accuse me of shit this is over.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I've pointed out your position and that apparently  makes you mad.  If it's not, you could always articulate some rational explanation why some people have the right to refuse to work but others don't, but you don't seem able to do that.   So it seems you just lash out when the implications of your argument are explained to you. 

Nope, you do not understand my position at all and are making up your own scenarios.

So once again this is over.

Liberals believe they have the right to pick and choose who’s rights are worth protecting. 

“Liberals believe they have the right to pick and choose who’s rights are worth protecting.”

Oh my.

Forgetting that today’s right wing believes they are doing their god’s bidding in rolling back or flat out denying previously granted rights. 

my god has different ideas about dealing with thumpers that don't bend a knee to the US Constitution.

Explains why you are confused, what rights have been taken away? Please be specific? 

The QUESTION you are asking is not about choice (of client/client base) and certainly not about a PROTECTED CLASS. Where in the lexicon of this discussion is the merest mention of "any" (all) services being offered to similarly positioned groups like Nazis and NAMBLA?

The point in this article is to ensure all groups have a right to freedom of speech; that freedom does not extend to acceptance of any position or stance held by Nazis or NAMBLA.

And yes, I do not understand Nazis or NAMBLA, I do not value either groups positions, but I wholeheartedly agree they should have their day in court and going farther a qualified lawyer should bring their views (for consideration and judgement) before the people. That said, it is highly probable that Hitler's Nazi era nor NAMBLA will prevail against the laws of this country for a variety of reasons.

You are ignoring the obvious FACT: This is a protected class: Homosexuals and homosexual marriage (AKA: Same-sex marriage).  Nazism is racist speech and acted out is against the law. Of course, homosexual marriage is a bit less "protected" after this court decision.

You have made a 'fatal' mistake in your analyses of this: No one is REQUIRED to make a website for hate speech. You are confusing such speech for a protected class: homosexual marriage. Question: Is Nazism/nazis a protected class?

There is no such thing as hate speech, that is a made up construct by thin skinned bitches. There is only speech.

I am not going to waste time on. . . whatever you thin that is signifying. Let us move on. . . . Question: Is Nazism/nazis a protected class?

This is a long read, but sometimes it can't be helped to get a point across:

The Story of the Jewish Lawyer Who Defended the Free Speech Rights of Nazis

It was a call he didn't expect, let alone want, back on April 27, 1977. At the time, David Goldberger was a lawyer for the Illinois chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and was developing broad expertise in the rights of people to engage in protests on public property and in public spaces.

He had helped the Communist Party fight McCarthy-era statutes to get on the ballot in Illinois and anti-Vietnam-War activists to fight the never-ending legal roadblocks the city of Chicago deployed to stop protesters from assembling in the city's public spaces. In short, he was a rising First Amendment star and defender.

"The ACLU represented both sides and not the sides we preferred," Goldberger told Newsweek . "That's the best way to educate the public about the importance of fairness, equality and neutral principles of law."

The call that would forever change Goldberger's life, put his belief in free speech to the test and lead to a historic First Amendment ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court came from Frank Collin, the leader of the Chicago-based National Socialist Party of America (NSPA). "He wanted me to represent him because he'd just been sued by the village of Skokie seeking an injunction to prevent him from holding an assembly in the village the following Saturday," Goldberger said. "It was Tuesday evening, and the hearing was the next morning."

What Goldberger next told Collin was important as what he didn't. "I regarded it as just another case," Goldberger said, explaining why he agreed to represent the neo-Nazi leader. "It's what we do. We believe in the principles of the First Amendment. End of discussion."

What he didn't tell Collin was more remarkable. Goldberger, it turned out, was Jewish. And he soon found himself protecting the right of 25 to 50 NSPA members to appear in Nazi uniforms with swastika armbands, Nazi banners and signs. To make matters worse, the village the Nazis chose for their rally was calculated—and cruel. "I learned at the hearing the next morning that Skokie, at the time, was 40 percent Jewish, and there was a significant percentage that were Holocaust survivors," Goldberger said.

Blocking the neo-Nazi demonstration was not the initial reaction of city officials. "They thought the best thing to do was ignore them, let the demonstration go and forget about it," Goldberger said. "But Holocaust survivors, and a very significant percentage of the Jewish people living in Skokie, said, 'No, that's what we did in Germany, we're not going to do it here. We've got to oppose it and do everything we can to prevent it from happening.'"

Goldberger sympathized with Skokie's residents. "They didn't really care about the legal distinctions between what was going on in Germany and in Skokie," he said. "It was a distinction without a distinction."

Skokie wanted what's known in the law as a prior restraint. "While any effort to censor by punishing a speaker after the fact is likely to violate the First Amendment, preventing the speech ahead of time is even more likely to violate the Constitution, even where the anticipated speech is profoundly offensive and hateful," Goldberger explained. Ironically, he added, Skokie's legal maneuvering resembled the efforts of Southern segregationists to stop civil rights marches during the 1960s .

The hearing in Illinois lasted an entire day, with Skokie presenting its case first. "One of its star witnesses was Holocaust survivor and community leader Sol Goldstein, who testified that while a violent reaction against the Nazis was not planned, he was not sure he or other onlookers could restrain themselves from violence if the Nazis came to Skokie," Goldberger said.

"Later in the hearing, Nazi leader Frank Collin responded with testimony that his organization was planning a peaceful assembly, that his followers would be in uniform, and that they would carry signs and banners. There were to be no speeches and no weapons," he said.

The hearing ended, and that's when the legal blockade began. "The judge issued a temporary restraining order, and we immediately appealed to the Illinois Court of Appeals, and they sat on it. So we filed another request in the Illinois Supreme Court, and again nothing happened," Goldberger said. "The following Saturday came and went and still no action from the court.

Though it was rare, Goldberger knew a way to get an emergency ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. He argued that the delays by the Illinois courts amounted to a long-term prior restraint against speech. The Supreme Court agreed, taking the case quickly and ordering the Illinois courts to quit stalling.

Goldberg believed the ruling would help drive a greater understanding of First Amendment principles. He also thought the growing backlash would subside. He was wrong on both counts.

The case dragged on for months, as Skokie passed a series of ordinances designed to block the neo-Nazis right to assemble. Attacks against the ACLU grew more vitriolic, with the Chicago office besieged by calls objecting to its efforts. Nationwide, thousands of members resigned. "Still, the Illinois ACLU board responded by voting in support of our continued representation of the Nazis," Goldberger said. "The only dissent came from a longtime board member whose wife was a Holocaust survivor."

After a nearly 18-month court battle, the neo-Nazis won the right to march through Skokie, but the march never took place. After negotiations with the Justice Department, the neo-Nazis' party leadership settled on a demonstration in downtown Chicago.

During the ordeal, Goldberger got requests from synagogues to explain the ACLU's actions. "We knew we had to educate the public about the First Amendment and how it applied to everyone, no matter how much you hate them," he recalled.

. . . .

During the ordeal, Goldberger got requests from synagogues to explain the ACLU's actions. "We knew we had to educate the public about the First Amendment and how it applied to everyone, no matter how much you hate them," he recalled.

He faced a barrage of criticism, much of it from fellow Jews. But it wasn't all anger and bile. "I remember a woman with a thick German accent spoke up in the back of one room in a clear, loud voice. And she said, 'I am a Holocaust survivor, and I believe you are doing the right thing because I want to know who my enemies are. I want to be able to see them. I don't want them driven underground.'"

Goldberger empathized with many of his Jewish critics but was driven to defend the neo-Nazis precisely because of his heritage. "Part of the baseline of my values—that everyone should be treated fairly and equally under the law—can be traced to my own upbringing as a Jew. That Jews have had a hard time through history and have constantly been a target of hatred and abuse, and the only defense against that hatred and abuse are laws that are applied to everybody," Goldberger said. "So I basically stood my ground and made no secret of the fact that I was Jewish."

More at website, link below:

newsweek

meh, when I was in high school, if you really wanted to get laid, you went to the scotchman drive in where all the girls from st. mary's hung out on the weekends...

Good think that's illegal, huh?

... not in a hospital or orphanage with any name that starts with St.

The government cannot be wholly neutral; it must decide whether to protect same-sex marriage. But once it decides, it should not demonize the losing side, which would only increase polarization.

[deleted]

Why do liberals think their money allows them to control others?

Why do you think that has anything to do with a conservative author from a conservative news outlet..

a conservative autho

Right.  A conservative Barbara Boxer and left wing special interest group donor. 

And where did you get this info...

Why do you think that has anything to do with a conservative author from a conservative news outlet..

The messenger doesn't matter. 

The issue is accommodation to purchase a service.  Whoever has the cash to buy the service can demand equal accommodation.  Money allows control over whoever provides the service.  

It's already been established that discrimination is acceptable for a 'free' service.  And discrimination is acceptable in subsidizing a service.  

It's already been established that discrimination is acceptable for a 'free' service.  And discrimination is acceptable in subsidizing a service

Examples?

Examples?

Affirmative action.

Do you honestly think AA was not put in place for a specific reason?

Yes racism was the reason yet not from the people you are thinking.

why do thumpers think they have a voice in government?

So should a store that specializes in LGBTQ apparel be forced to sell Lets Get Biden To Quit or God does not like Gays tee shirts? 

False analogy. One cannot be forced to sell something that is not already in their inventory.

Gay web sites were already in her inventory?  Should an animal lover have to make a web site about hunting if she doesn't want to?

Still not the same. The person does not offer that specifically. This woman said I want to do business for a service and deny people that have a legal right to said service.

It is actually the same.  Both people do web sites for a living and want to supply a web site service but both don't want to supply a specific type of the service.  You can try to rationalize all you want but obviously Scotus does not agree

I can and will. If she offered hunting websites but only did it for certain people...

You are trying to conflate services rendered to supposed being forced to do other things.

Both people do web sites for a living and want to supply a web site service but both don't want to supply a specific type of the service

I don't know why that's so hard for some to grasp.,

She is offering animal websites but not for people that want an animal hunting web site

I don't know why that's so hard for some to grasp.,

Often times it is because they don't want to try and grasp it.  It is easier to try and rationalize a difference than attempt to see a different point of view

It is easier to try and rationalize a difference than attempt to see a different point of view

Funny because I see several here doing exactly that...

I don't believe that SCOTUS should have heard this case at all. It was a hypothetical case in that she had no business when the case was first filed and later the supposed message she received to create something she disagreed with was denied by the person that supposedly sent it. Colorado did not attempt to force her to do anything against her will.

It is my understanding that federal courts including SCOTUS do not have the jurisdiction to decide hypothetical cases. Texas v US 1998: 

 “a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon ‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’“ So the Court should have told Smith to go away and come back when she had a real dispute with the state of Colorado.

Didn’t the Court of Appeals, previously rule that Smith had standing to sue. They  noted that Colorado had a history of past enforcement “against nearly identical conduct” and that the state decline to promise that it wouldn’t go after Smith if she violated the law.

I also think that Colorado stipulated to the court that would prosecute Smith if she violated their law.

also think that Colorado stipulated to the court that would prosecute Smith if she violated their law.

Yep. It's was a  pre enforcement challenge which are a pretty common means of testing a law before someone is  punished for breaking it   and it has long been recognized as creating standing by the Supreme Court.

Planned Parenthood uses them all time and believe it or not, the people objecting about standing in this case never have an issue with PP doing it. 

Colorado stipulated to the court that would prosecute Smith if she violated their law.

Yes, I'm aware of this part:

Judge Krieger found Smith had standing to sue regardless but ruled against her claims. Smith appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which also found she had standing but rejected her legal challenge.

I didn't find any stimulation by Colorado (there were a number of stimulations) that it would prosecute Smith if she violated the law. Do you have a link?

Funny because I see several here doing exactly that...

Every day all day.

Do not ignore the status of the question: Should she be required to offer a website for hunters/hunting/capturing animals in a protected class?

Ms. Smith applied to the courts for a pre-challenge clause of the law and it was accepted in district court. After which she lost there against CADA. The 10th Appellate Court "studied" her case and ruled she had fulfilled STANDING and RIPENESS (the second based on the first in this case. Ms. Smith lost on appeal. And up to the Supreme Court the case went and it with a conservative majority and they granted her standing and ripeness based on the appeal court decision. . .you know the rest.

Should she be required to offer a website for hunters/hunting/capturing animals in a protected class?

Should she be required to offer a website for hunters/hunting/capturing animals at all?  

Digression. That is what we are up against in these discussions. Just BS.

Agree. Yet you keep shoveling it.

He quipped.

If I want something, I am not going to hire somebody opposed to me to do it.  I don't thing I would get the best product and I would not want to give them my money. 

If your faith makes you discriminate against people, you should be questioning your faith. 

Truth!

Actually, all faiths are discriminating by what they will permit/accept and not permit/accept. The issue I see is this: When people use their faith(s) to come into the marketplace and ask to publicly discriminate (and stigmatize) innocent people, because they don't like what those other people legally do/enjoy.

I hate this browser on this phone.  You get almost completed on a post and it refreshes for no reason whatsoever. 

Actually, all faiths are discriminating by what they will permit/accept and not permit/accept.

The revealed religions, especially the Abrahamic religions, all have their dogma set by historical men who were supposedly divinely inspired.  Christianity claims to follow the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament, yet is replete with the dogma of the time and place of its writing. The same goes for other revealed religions. 

I think that revealed religions are caught in time and that is the reason that they cause so much bitterness in the world. We should not be following some ancient text to define for us right and wrong. We should all know how to act to get along with each other, yet we consistently do not.  

In the song " The Weapon: Part II of Fear" the lyricist Neil Peart writes:

"Like a steely blade in a silken sheath we don't see what they're made of. They shout about love, but when push comes to shove they look for things they're afraid of. And the knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

Putting this together, I find that revealed religion, for all the good that it may do for some, is overall a thing of the past because it does not evolve with learning and understanding, and is the product of antiquated thought.

That pales besides my original "inspired " comment, but it gets the point across, kinda 

I think that revealed religions are caught in time and that is the reason that they cause so much bitterness in the world. 

Exactly, there is no bitterness or violence associated with Hinduism or Buddhism. 

The saddest of experiences in human nature is religion/s being- like everything else in life I, we, can think of- on a SPECTRUM.

On the 'near end' we have the glory of religious thought/attitudes/behaviors and on the 'far side the horror and atrocious depths religious thought/attitudes/behaviors can sink.

I have recently taken a deep-dive into the INVERTED WORLD of a variety of atheistic thought-writers of old and those writers have conjured up a 'great' mix of emotions and TRUTHS about world religions (with me).

This "opening" to go seek out what others say about religion in the 'depths' of their passion within me has been generated (caused) by watching the world Church (singular) going through the same trials, tribulations, and ritualistic hatred (in triples) as might have been the case at the Church's inception when it stupidly and catholically waged inquisitions, witch trials, aligning itself with wars. . . world wars, the taking of foreign lands belonging to other peoples, and finally its 'anointing' of slavery in the deep-Southern states (through passages on Ham).

And now, at long last, the Church is at it again.

The books of the Bible are very old. Oddly enough, I am amazed by how such very old books about heterosexuality life of the ancients transcends in its ability to attract/speak to/hold for generations heterosexuals of today! Such a set of books even can draw those of us (homosexuals) on the periphery to wish, sometimes with desperation to be a part of its subjects.

Frankly, now the Church-at-Large is letting a lot of us, it's 'body of Christ,' down. As we watch 'leadership' under the control and sway of corrupting men and women on one end of its spectrum and a lack of superior leadership from the minds of abiding in the truth churches on its other end.

We should all know how to act to get along with each other, yet we consistently do not.  

One of the most SHOCKING revelations for me in regards to the history of this nation was when I "finally" read rather on the surface or hidden deep inside the texts of books that Whites being the majority in this country NEVER meant that all Whites were EVER approving of and participants in slavery - in this country. This was not emphasized in school history classes "back in the day." And maybe, just maybe, today's kids get a better/clearer/crystal clear explaining of this point 'now.' As it turns out there have always been Whites who STOOD shoulder to shoulder with minorities seeking our good/betterment. That's deep!

A second SHOCKING revelation for me is despite all the once pervasive oppression of homosexual children and adults of old (see footage and news account and archival reports) and today's noise (loudest voices in the country) surrounding homosexuality (seeking to return to its past station and 'grandeur') that this nation's undoubtedly heterosexual majority was not then and is not now unified in a push to becoming "All and All" through keeping sexual minorities suppressed.

Among 99.99 of every set of majorities in this nation there have ALWAYS been voices and hands speaking up and fighting to protect and sustain "the least of these."

This brings me to the atheists (non-religious among us); with everything they have apart from an abiding and continuous faith, one would surely think they would be the ravenous, judgemental, 'body' of foes seeking after systems that trample on the "least of these" for their own gain, opportunity, and even pleasures. . . .

Yet, it is the religious "Select" that win out in the hate, judgemental, ravenous 'wolves,' categories of holding a grudge and uniting to believe it is their destinies to own the hearts and minds of other peoples-yes, especially of minorities.

We should all know how to get along with each other; yet the Church consistently does not!

(I had to carry this thought process through once started.)

Exactly, there is no bitterness or violence associated with Hinduism or Buddhism

Well, bully on them. If you have a point, please make it directly,  not obliquely and facetiously. 

I’m sorry that my sarcasm wasn’t self evident.

This site specifies sarcasm with a tag: 1. Sarcasm.   2. /s

In my opinion, it is no mistake on the part of conservatives and some conservatives as the case may be that same-sex (homosexual) marriage is segregated, inspected, and in the end separated by this conservative majority court. Justice Thomas, pretty much called for this "vendetta" which never set right with him when he announced that cases of liberties ruled in by prior "supremes" should be brought for destruction before (his) the court for a new decision process. (And taken down, apparently.)

First, undermine and establish that discrimination against a protected class is possible. Second, remove the protected status from the class. Finally, rule same-sex marriages are unconstitutional based on no congressional action resulting in a law.

(Congress won't do shit about it as it is currently seated.)