Blog : crawl back in the closet

674 posts
6/30/2023 9:28 am

crawl back in the closet

The supreme court ruling today, for the first
time in its history, grants a business open to
the public a constitutional right to refuse to
serve members of the public. The ruling strips
LGBTQ protections and begins the slide backward
into more discrimination.

uncommon1 66M

1472 posts
6/30/2023 9:30 am

Time to crawl back into the closet,
because if a business can refuse
to make you a cake based on your
sexual preference they can refuse
to employ you or sell you a home.

This is how trump celebrates pride
week!!

Wetstickykiss 64M

6/30/2023 10:04 am

Except for one thing... Your righteous indignation is misplaced. Trump is too stupid to do this. This was all on Mitch McConnel, and the Heritage Foundation. Or better yet, blame the 75 million Flying Monkeys who voted for him.

uncommon1 replies on 6/30/2023 10:08 am:
the buck stops in the
white house.

Gowron 69M

3113 posts
6/30/2023 10:06 am

Sometimes I find it a good thing to be getting old.
Not sure I want to live in the kind of world we're being led to.

uncommon1 replies on 6/30/2023 12:59 pm:
The U.S. supreme court
doesn't effect you in
Brazil.

Ds_seek_sub_slav 63M/26F

1880 posts
6/30/2023 3:23 pm

I don't want to sell my house to those fucking butt monkies. Disgusting. My life will be ruined if I do that. I am also not selling my house to a hiab, nig*er, wop, cunt, atheist, libtard, nazi, communist, foreigner, spik, Canadian, etc....

The reason my first wife and I got divorced was because the guys could marry!

BTW, this is called sarcasm as we are about half of the "names" above and my ex hated sex.

I will quote Prof. Farnsworth on Futurama: I don't want to live on this plant anymore. Of course, he had options. We don't. Send all the trumpets to FL, ban everything and become your own Christian Nation. The rest of us will live way better without you!

sjbound4fun 59M/56F

39 posts
7/1/2023 4:00 am

It's interesting how people quickly take a fairly simple, albeit slightly murky, concept and morph it into hate based ideology. There is nothing in this ruling that "strips
LGBTQ protections" or generically grants public businesses the right to refuse service based on orientation (or lifestyle or whatever). But that is the hate-based propaganda being put forth, isn't it? Of course, fueled by a desperate need to be a victim.. of something..

So here's a simpler, non-hate-based take on the somewhat murky issue. Should you, as a public business engaged in the creation of artistically expressive products/services, be able to be forced to produce artistic expressions that violate your beliefs, morals or views? Note that this has nothing to do with whether you serve the public in a general sense but it relates to whether a form of artistic expression can be forced upon the artist. Or to phrase it differently, should you be able to dictate an artist's work regardless of their willingness to produce it? Of course, where things can get murky is when we try to separate artistic expression from the creation of a generic product. In some cases it will be quite clear and in others there might be a lot of room for debate. But neither case is served well by hate-based ideology or victim mentality. Maybe a more overriding question is: Do you really want to force an artist to produce something that they have no passion for or belief in? And if you do then perhaps that says something significant about your true motivations?

And for the "frothing at the mouth", rapid response types here I'll take a moment to point out an inconvenient detail in what I've written.. there is nothing that expresses my views for, against or neutral to LGBTQ issues.. but you're sure to assert one that suits your needs, aren't you?

likeithot19 62M

6112 posts
7/1/2023 5:34 am

In a sense this backs the proprieter with the No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service sign on his door.

uncommon1 replies on 7/1/2023 7:25 am:
Not really . . Like other states, Colorado
prohibits businesses open to the public
from denying people service based on
characteristics such as religion, race
and sexual orientation.

However, under the federal Civil Rights
Act of 1964, discrimination in public
businesses in the United States is prohibited
on the basis of race, color, religion or
national origin – but it does not include
specific sexual orientation or gender identity
protections.

The sign you refer to applies to all customers.
The ruling only applies to certain people, (gay,
trans, same sex) which makes it discriminatory
and violates the fourteenth amendment that
guarantee all Americans protection under the law.


	Become a member to comment on this blog