'How Can You Disagree With That?': Amy Coney Barrett Presses Lawyer In Same-Sex Wedding Site Case
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 12. 2022
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett questions Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson during oral arguments for 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis Oral Argument.
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
My biggest question is why did it even come to this? Why would you want to give somebody your business that doesn't support what you were doing?
Forced approval of the Sodomites.
They were a targeted like the bakery. It’s all a ploy to reshape the country as we know it. These ppl should be ashamed of themselves and god willing, they are judged correctly for their actions.
Because it's a power trip. They get sadistic satisfaction out of forcing you to violate your own beliefs.
@@DaveElectric absofinglultly correct.
I guarantee they'd NEVER do this to a Muslim business. NEVER. Look at the World Cup in Qatar. They whined a little and realized they were not getting their way and shut their faces as soon as they figured out that the West is NOT like America, It was beautiful seeing the bullies shut down.
Crushes the hypocrites - love her
Hypocrites? The entire GOP is loaded with them.
You just hate gay people
@@jwbjpb1338 So there’s no hypocrites in the Democrat party lol you libtards are all hypocrites
@@Worthfishing ah, name calling. I’ll now just ignore you.
Same Sex marriage is Coming to and End or Fire 🔥 and Brimstone are setting for them if the Don’t REPENT AND RETURN TO God’s LOVE NOT AN ABOMINATION love of satan.
Justice Barrett allowing the Constitution to stand and propaganda to fall. Thank you, ma'am!
Now they’ll be rolling back the entire 1964 Civil Rights Act and reintroducing Jim Crow laws thanks to this ruling.
I have to say it. Amy Comey Barrett is the best jurist I have ever heard. She has a phenomenal legal mind. Just phenomenal. She would make a terrific first Chief Justice.
There is a clip of Steven crowder visiting an Islamic bakery. He requested a gay wedding cake. And you can guess what happened.
Why aren't these lawyers going after these bakeries also ? They have already pit the Colorado guy out of business from so many lawsuits.
Because they aren’t Christians that’s the only reason.
because the war is against Christianity, the primary religion that teaches the strength of family values. this is about destroying America from within.
Cuz Islam good, Western Culture bad
Because they are cowards.
actually the colorado guy has gotten rich off of go fundme type websites and rightly so.. and lawsuits..
he stood up to the monsters.. he deserves everything good they get.. they did nothing wrong..
but the threats and the destruction of his familys business is unforgivable
Damn, boxed him into a corner nicely! 😀
Amusing to listen to him squirm as he realizes there's no way to answer her question without destroying his argument.
@RayDT: That’s what you think was going on? Your IQ is lower than I thought.
No there was, he just didn’t want to be opened up to being anti-lgbtq. He could have said, yes the newspaper can’t refuse service based on sexual orientation. But then his clients would probably get very upset with him.
@@dustindrabek1400 : What the hell are you talking about? First, he is representing the state of Colorado. Second, he’s arguing in support of LGBTQ. You really shouldn’t comment any further because your stupidity and ignorance is showing badly.
He wasn’t boxed in. The hypothetical she used was so absurd he couldn’t process it thoroughly enough to legitimately respond to it, at least without coming off as condescending and smug while doing so. First of all, no sane heterosexual couple would ever demand to be categorized in a public forum like newspaper, online announcement etc as a homosexual couple hence why this ridiculous scenario of her’s has never happened. It would be tantamount to the parents of a sick 5 year old child demanding that their child be treated regularly by the veterinarian of their family pet while refusing the services of pediatricians and doctors trained to treat humans young and old. Her hypothetical scenario is that ridiculous. 🤦🏾♂️
Wow! She is good. The attorney did not want to answer her questions.
An Incredible Judge!
It wasn't that he didn't want to answer, but was trying to respond to her unrealistic hypothetical about posting wedding announcements that just proved how clueless and detached she is from reality. The first reason it's invalid is It assumes that the demographic against which the plaintiff wants to discriminate is just as petty, and judgmental as she is.
@@jhandle4196 sounded like a pretty reasonable hypothetical to me. Crazy how everyone sees things differently.
@@jhandle4196 sounds like you're the one clueless and detached from reality.
No you don't get to force someone to express your ideology if they don't want to. No one gives a damn who you are. Your ideology is the only thing relevant here and your Freedom of Speech guarantees this.
You angry? Go find another web designer like the business who provided details for competitors.
See the only reason this comes to your supreme court would be because people who are vindictive authoritarians like you would would discriminate against those who don't share your ideology and force them to express your propaganda.
@@jhandle4196 the comment you gave to me is not a valid comment. It doesn’t say anything but insults. I just doesn’t work with me.
If you go into a restaurant, order a item from the menu but insist a ingredient must be changed, they have every right to refuse.
Haha. I’ve worked at a few schools and a problem little kids always seem to have is “they don’t want to play with me, make them” and I would always kindly explain to them “there are a lot of friends on the playground. Why would you want to play with the one kid who doesn’t want to play with you?”
Playboys ... 🙄
It's about forcing others to bend to one's viewpoint. It is setting up a conflict between freedom of religious practice, as dictated by belief, and the right to remain silent. Or the right to not be compelled to speak. If I am asked to speak in a manner that conflicts with my religious holdings, and I choose not to, I cannot be compelled to speak in a manner that will conflict with my beliefs. I have the right to sit on my hands and refuse to act in a manner that will get me sent to my perception of hell. Whether the opposed shares my beliefs or not.
@@jasonkloos1498 yeah like them reversing RvW after nearly 40 years of an established law of the land.; that's forcing their belief system their viewpoint on the general populace which has been rejected by way of one example (and there are many other examples) by very conservative Kansas that they maintain abortion rights by a 60 over 40 percent margin.
When people largely accepted gay marriage, it seems like the groups funding this activism, who are into much worse stuff, had to move the goal posts to promote constant drama and to try to force people to accept that reality isn't real. Whatever someone imagines themselves to be magically becomes the truth, and if you don't agree you'll be punished.
@@2758758 I'm pro-choice but it makes me laugh when Democrats had chance after chance to codify some form of RvW and never did because they could use it as a gun to point at women's heads to threaten women to vote for Democrats. No matter what, they'll NEVER codify RvW because if they did, they wouldn't have it as a tool to extort the women's vote. But eventually, most states will preserve some right to choose via ballot initiatives.
According to Mr. Lawyer:
*Compelling Christians to promote gay marriage* = Yes, that should be legal
*Compelling pro-LGBT groups to promote straight marriage* = "a hard hypothetical", "wouldn't apply", "not how it normally goes"
🤢
Wtf that makes no sense. Pro-lgbt groups support both same sex and opposite sex marriages. It’s the religious nuts who despite homosexual marriage and relationships
Quit trying to playing the persecution card. You are not being persecuted for your beliefs. You are prosecuting others and do not get to play that card when you are the one who’s doing the persecution. Calm down. Stop projecting. The discrimination and hatred rising from religious nuts learns lgbt is the real persecution. Not religious nuts
@@randomuser9868 i can go in a store and the person can reject me service. At any moment they can tell me to get off their property. They can kick everyone out and close the store for good, if that's what they want. Same goes for a website
No, it's not. God's laws are honored over man's
The lawyer is trying real hard not to get cornered. He's failing, but trying.
He keeps trying to harp on it being a weird hypothetical. The whole case is based on a hypothetical. The plaintiff doesn’t even have a product or service to sell. That’s a big fail for the lawyer. There are plenty of ways to argue against her point and he’s taking up air time just to squirm
Yes, rather than just point out the "weirdness" of the hypothetical, how about the difference between a gay pride organization being a non profit established for a particular purpose and a private company established for the purpose of profit.
The apples to apples is whether a gay website creator would be compelled by public accommodation law to produce heterosexual wedding pages if she or he produced them for gay couples. I think the law would apply in both cases.
Now, if the websites were being produced by a non profit with the mission to promote the heterosexual lifestyle choice, then I would say the public accommodation would not apply.
YEAH I GIVE HIS IGNUTT BUTT AN A+ FOR HIS EFFORT
@@MarcillaSmith From what I've read of Supreme Court arguments lately is that there are many lawyers that can't think on their feet or don't have the proper experience to be the one making arguments.
I bet he looks like a Pretzel after his (or however he identifies) attempt to Warp Logic-- That's the problem with most of these woke arguments--- They fall flat on their butt when it boomerangs on them.
That judge is simply brilliant. She just opened the gate to countersue the people attacking religious freedom
She simply speaks the truth. Pilate asked "what is truth?". Truth got crucifide and still does.
What gets attacked are those who want the religious freedom to discriminate.
@@darylburnet8328 People who say 'What is truth?' ask it not expecting you to be ready with a clear cut answer. I hope someone tries that on me someday. "Truth is the aspect or quality of agreeing with objective external reality. Objective external reality is that which continues to exist independent of whether or not anyone believes in it."
@@darylburnet8328But what happened after😂
@@chrisc6857 can you give that to me, in a more presentable form? because i gotta say it seems like there's some fat to trim.
Any "compelled" speech should be unconstitutional, period. If I make generic signs, then anyone that wishes a generic sign, I should honor their purchase. If they want a a sing that says, "I hate you Robert.", Well, they can go somewhere else and buy the sign from Bill. Same with any other service. If it is prepackaged then you have to sell it, if it is on the menu then you must sell it. If you come in wanting something special that I don't agree with...find another vendor.
Yes, it's really that simple, but leave it to lawyers who will accept a client that has an agenda and you get the courts packed with legal insanity.
I actually agree with you, but the fact SCOTUS is hearing this leads to all the other comments, etc. Mine included
I agree. Privately owned businesses that don't operate using government money should legally be able to turn away any potential customer for any reason or none at all.
That's one of the freedoms given under the constitution. Doesn't matter what my opinion is as I have the option of doing business elsewhere. Doesn't matter if anyone finds it discriminatory. The only relevant opinion is that of the business owner. That being said, generally word gets around and the business could fail if enough people take their business elsewhere.
Then as a vendor you should be able to advertise that you do not serve gay people with a big sign in your window "heterosexual only" so heterosexuals who disagree with your stance can not support your business and go to another vendor.
I know. It's such a simple answer, yet it has to go through all this huge line of questioning. Anyone with basic education can tell you 'why' it's wrong.
There are many people that deliberately try to engage a business or service for hire that they know will turn them down. Then they sue for discrimination. Good on this business for not giving in to them.
No one engaged with this business. They didn't turn anyone down. It's based on a hypothetical. What a bizarre comment.
@@thomaswildepiano1024she's not speaking about this hypothetical. Duh! She is talking about the actual case of the website that turn down making a pride website because they were Christians I did not want to support that as due to their freedom of religion
@@thomaswildepiano1024and you're full of b******* anyway because they sued the Colorado Baker more than five times trying to bankrupt him they clearly are. Tell me you're part of this Skittle Squad without try me you're part of the skittle Squad😂😂😂😂
Would you do that? If not, why do you assume that many others would? Especially people who just want to get married without extra outside drama.
@@andriaolopwi6871 What pride website are you referring to? The actual case is a hypothetical of whether a web developer can refuse their wedding website services to a gay couple. No request or refusal has actually taken place.
Sexual orientation is not “who we are” our identity is not determined by who we sleep with. That is so dehumanizing.
Sexual orientation is a clear part of who we are. It's not dehumanizing to recognize that fact and you should sit down and shut up before you embarrass yourself
@@keithziegler8881 but it’s not our identity. We’re not sexuality’s with a person, we are persons with a sexuality. To suggest otherwise, which is what most ppl do when it comes to LGBT+ is dehumanizing.
Sexual orientation IS part of your identity. It quite literally is part of who you are. All medical and scientific communities agree that sexual orientation is part of someone's identity. It's not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. A person is not defined SOLELY based on sexual orientation, their sexual orientation is 100% part of who they are.
You said it yourself "we are a person with a sexuality", exactly, sexuality is part of your identity. It is one of the characteristics that describes a person.
@@connor7048 It is a characteristic of animals, too but this doesn’t make them “persons.” ppl like you want us to believe that our identity as persons is the same as an attribute/characteristic of our nature. We can say that sexuality is a part of the NATURE of man but it's not our actual identity. I find it very interesting that no one talks like this about heterosexuals. I’ve only ever heard this conversation apply to the LGBTQ+ community, which again is dehumanizing.
Nailed it.
It was an incredibly clever argument, because it guarantees that outcomes of both sides benefit equally regardless of the outcome of the decision. Either everyone is free to endorse or not endorse whatever they want, or everyone is compelled to endorse everything.
Sums it up nicely.
In business people are already compelled under threat to put 'pronouns' in their bios, or pretend that identifying as something magically makes that come true. There's no scientific evidence for this being anything other than a kink, like dressing in leather or as a furry. The left wants everyone to be compelled to comply with unscientific nonsense as long as it's the woke cult shoving it down our throats.
I was going to comment something like this, but you put it together much better than I would have. Compelled speech is compelled speech regardless of its motives or reasons. It is a can of worms that allows for many unintended consequences.
If it's a public accommodation, the latter should be true if giving access is deemed "endorsement."
@@Kunsoo1024 If it's a "public accommodation" that's only because congress made a law that says so. The first amendment says "congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech". So a law that abridges freedom of speech for "public accommodations" as defined by law clearly violates the first amendment.
You can't force people to do what their beliefs don't allow them to do without violation of their rights. You can agree to disagree and move on
Or you can be forced to by the government if the Supreme Court rules that way since the other parties' rights might be violated by the denial.
But your beliefs violate that other persons rights. The forcing portion only comes after you’ve already violated someone else’s .
If I hit someone, I’ve violated someone’s rights so I’m going to jail. I can say forcing me to go to jail for it is against my rights, but it’s a consequence of violating someone else’s.
If someone racially discriminates against me, they have violated my rights. They may say it’s their beliefs, but your beliefs don’t allow you to violate someone else’s protected rights. They will now be forced to conform or pay a fine for violating someone’s rights. This is America, EVERYONE has rights.
@@CarneyFelonLawyer In 2018 and 2022 probably more years than that courts have ruled bakers don't have to make wedding cakes for homosexuals. The supreme court isn't going to say ALL these judges are wrong. Never gonna happen!! Live with it!
@Yiddish Mafia So FORCING a Jewish baker to bake a cake and to decorate it honoring 'Herr Adolph's' birthday, complete with swastikas and derogatory references to Jews would be OK with you? 🤔
So I can refuse service to black people?
Here in Tampa, there is a small news paper called The Sentinel. It is black owned and focused. It promotes the black community, black business, black arts, black politics, black schools and black announcements. They do marriage announcement for black weddings. They don't promote white weddings. There is a Latino newspaper as well that does the same thing. Neither newspaper is compelled to make each other's announcements.
Spending on the outcome of this they may be.
Put it this way, no white person has challenged the black publication/group saying "I want you to publish my wedding announcement" and taken them to court because of it... Why? Because we all know the crap storm the media would make of it, the plaintiff would be destroyed publicly as "racist". It would be opening a can of worms that isn't anywhere near as vitriolic in this case... Unless we make it so.
Check out BET or Latino channels? What would happen if there was a WET channel? All hell at best breaking loose. Too ironic for this 67 year old.
Barrett set a trap so wide that there can never be an agreed answer.
Justice Barrett is wicked smart.
and she ain't got a penis..
…And she has several children. There may be hope 🤷♀️
I know. Who appointment her?
@@Johnny-lj8zb Trump appointed her
@@Johnny-lj8zb The Federalist Society appointed her
This dude got OBLITERATED by justice Barrett.
JUSTICE ACB is a living Saint.
“The exact same website” if it’s the exact same, have your friends make it again and pay them. It’s not the exact same, it’s tailored to your lifestyle, and they are refusing to promote that lifestyle
Where is "The Right to Refuse Service⁉️"
It’s presumed-you better have a good reason.
The 'Right to Refuse Service' need to be made crystal clear in this new reset.
@@nirmarjk8387why?
Ah of course, you must want the right to refuse gays black people anyone who isn't a white persons like Jim crow
Based off what pretense where was this outrage when businesses refused service if you wouldn't wear a mask or distance?
This seems similar to the idea of parents forcing you to be friends with someone -- that's not how friendship works, and it's not how business works either.
Friendship is personal...Business is serving community and making money as well. If individual business chooses who they want to serve...possibly America has learned nothing from segregation time.
This isn't a matter of parents telling someone they had to be friends with their kids. This is about a business that refuses to comply with the law and provide the same service to one person that they provide for another person, simply because they don't agree with that person's orientation.
It's no different than providing a service for a White person, but refusing to do the same service for a Black person.
Think harder if you think its a similar idea. No one forces anyone to open a business. If you are a public business, you serve the public. If your "beliefs" require you to discriminate, you shouldnt be running a business.
Right, now let's ban the black and Jews from our restaurants, gyms, and stores and we'll REALLY MAGA.
@@9876karthiNope, it's capitalism and religious freedom. They can go elsewhere. It's not discrimination because they can receive service so long as it doesn't violate the business owner's religious beliefs. Open and shut case!
This is why she taught law
This case has me wondering what isn't a public accommodation. Am I a public accommodation?
You are now.
The plaintiff wants to force everyone to accept the gay/trans lifestyle as normal. If they can't force you to think that way, they want to force you to act that way which in many ways is more powerful.
These people could have picked anyone to do the service they wanted. They chose to go after this company to force them to comply with their way of thinking.
that lawyer is seriously squirming trying to have his cake and eat it too and Barrett isn't having any of it.
Was it a lesbian wedding cake?
You could almost hear the sweats of that lawyer hitting the table--can't you?
No, he was just trying to not laugh at her ridiculous hypotheticals.
@@sirpibble a compelled lesbian wedding cake
She made a brilliant argument which blew his argument to pieces. This is the first time I heard her and I am extremely impressed by her brilliance.
You go Amy Coney. Amazing judge.
Yeah, great hypothetical that completely ignores reality and the lawyer still answered easily. 🙄
"If a straight couple wants to put a wedding announcement in a gay wedding focused website, could the website say no?"
"If the straight couple really wanted to, the website couldn't say no just because they're straight."
@@glenhaase6817no he didn't answer the question. Go back and listen. He realized he didn't have an argument and just quit. This is typical when someone attempts to argue from a false premise.
@@moralityIsHard The problem is that this case shouldn't be a hypothetical, that goes against the grain for the SCOTUS.
Do attorneys have the RIGHT to represent the customers they want? Or should the govt force attorneys to represent other customers too?
She is saying to him in lawyer language, "If the situation were reversed..." and I'm all for it. He's trying to twist the argument about the person rather than the ideas and speech which started all this.
Didn't think my comment would have as much replies as it does. I'm happy most of the comments are personal thoughts towards the issue rather than insults to another person. 👍
What if the wedding website company refused to do work for Black couples, could you then argue that a Black community newspaper announcing only Black weddings is the equivalent?
Yes and no.
I think the distribution he did a terrible job of distinguishing is this: if I'm solely promoting speech (ie wedding announcements) than I'm not denying a paid service. However, if you denied someone a sandwich at a subway based on orientation, I think we'd all agree that's wrong.
The distinction is hard to do legally, but defining art from standard templates. A standard website template should be free to anyone to purchase, theoretically, but they couldn't make the site work on that template for them. At least, seems it should be that simple. Maybe I'm just a simp 🤣
Her Hypothetical about the Times is a poorly chosen one because the web designer is not equivalent to the Times in too many ways to make it logical. Each time this issue comes up, people seem to confuse the issue of the rule of (in this case Christian concept of) God with the civil contract being called marriage. We forget that this whole issue erupted when a few mean-spirited people denied their gay children's or sibling's lifelong partners the chance to care for them or be with them when they were sick or dying. Had people shown a little Christian kindness twenty or thirty years ago, we might never have got here.
@@GizmoMaltese yes - both involved implementing means towards mutually exclusive ends. Which ends they are implemented towards should be the say of the prior user.
@OsamaBinLadensSecondGirlfriend "𝑵𝒐𝒑𝒆. 𝑻𝒉𝒂𝒕'𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒍𝒂𝒘 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒆 𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆."
He said if the situation was reversed meaning if the "law" applies to one group then it should apply to all.
There is a restaurant in Richmond, VA called Metzger Bar and Butchery. Four days ago the gay serving staff working there refused to service a party for a Christian organization. The restaurant canceled an hour and a half before the reservation time leaving the organization to scramble for reservation somewhere else. Now the gay staff purposefully refused service to the group based on the fact THEY WERE CHRISTIANS! So, can we say for the gay servers ….is it discriminating to thy, someone else, but not for me? What constitutional reason did the servers use to backup their discriminatory action? None. They simply had their employer come up with the lame excuse about safety to justify it. Strange, I never heard of gay people being attacked by Christians at a restaurant for simply serving food.🤔🇺🇸
The gay staff member should be sued for public, religious discrimination. That gay staff member should be fired from the spot.
Whatever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" ?
Bussiness haven’t had the right to refuse service to many minorities since 1964
@@kriminkillr21 I think if someone wanted to make a cake that said "glad your abortion went well", a cake maker could refuse service. That is an immoral action, in many people's view. And I very much doubt that the customer is going to take that to court. Well, this isn't "just solely based on who someone is", its based on what they're doing. They are getting a same-sex marriage. There are people and churches who view that action as immoral.
@@kriminkillr21 They're not minorities when it's merely their actions that separate them form others. If it was, the fact that I like to drink Pepsi mixed with chocolate milk would make me a minority.
about the only time, thati can see,, that you cant refuse service,, is if you are the only service around.. lets say youre the only gas station for a 1000 miles or diner.. then it would be hard pressed to refuse service without consequences
@@ICDUMPEPL but milk is ok with Pepsi so what's little chocolate added
I am shocked that Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to be a supreme court judge.
She is very CENTER and rules according to the LAW and not based on political allegiance.
If people want things changed , she expects the senate and congress to change the laws , and she does not expect to legislate from the Bench.
She is one of the good things that came out of the Trump Presidency.
A Supreme Court Judge who will not side with the democrats or republicans , but she will side with the LAW.
The economy, exposure of collusion between big tech and government, and a number of other things also came out of that presidency as well. Also, she is a force of her own and not simply a product of politics.
She overturned a woman’s right to decide if or when they can start at family and treaded over the decisions made to up hold that right which was confirmed by Republican justices Souter, o Connor, Kennedy.
@@ftr841
Oh, that's a lie.
Keep worshiping at the alter of the democratic party and CNN.
She fixed an eff up.
She over ruled a high handed partisan decision which overruled the law and medical literature that was made by a stacked supreme court.
The abortions for birth control shouldn't exceed 3 months. Anything after that should be for medical reasons. That is what the medical literature and science recommends. That is the law in most countries.
Roe Vs Wade is wrong. It allows for killing fully alive, fully formed 9 month old babies up to the day before birth.
The USA has abortion survivors.
Abortion survivors exist because of roe Vs Wade.
Don't get me wrong. Republicans who want to completely ban abortions are just as stupid and crazy as the democrats who want it up to 9 months.
But democrats are biological sciences deniers.
@@ftr841 stating a woman’s right to if or when to decide on starting a family does not start after the baby is in the womb. It starts before conception. In the context of starting a family, that decision is made when the necessary biological needs are met to form that new family member in the womb.
@@ftr841 she helped overturn the federal requirement to allow abortion, gave it back to the states for people in their communities to decide what should be allowed at a more local level. She didn't take away anyone's rights, blame yours, or others' states governors and legislative branch.
Oh, you mean I should consider the other side of the argument, says lawyer. She got him here!
I’m sick and tired of modern society trying to force everyone to worship at the altar of perversity.
I'm hoping christianity dies off too. 🙃
God bless this woman for standing up against hypocrites
I'd prefer a secular court not loaded with right wing religious people.
@@jwbjpb1338 But loading it with left wing secular ideologues would be okay?
@@jwbjpb1338 ...and thank God that's not the case.
@@jwbjpb1338 can one separate their religion with their character?
@@jwbjpb1338 A dogma lives loudly within you.
Ever see a sign in a resturant, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". No one seemed to raise a stink about that...
But they don’t actually have that right on the basis of race, gender or orientation. It doesn’t matter what they post in the window
I'm still surprised there is only one cake baker and one web designer in the entire state of Colorado.
That's not the point of the suit, the point is to enforce compliance. We will bend you to our will.
Logically, any state that has these laws is going to have plenty of gay friendly bakers. I bet they even have a gay baker or two.
There would not have to be "a choice" if the customer doesn't force it. Go find a business that is willing and happy to accommodate you for your "special" event.
So your business turns away people of color?
@Ait387 What religion tells its followers to turn away "people of color" from their businesses?
@@alexialira3839 This doesn’t have anything to do with “people of color,” Einstein.
@shay5839 I never said it did 🤷🏻♀️ @Ait387 brought the color of people's skin and that's who I'm responding to.
Perish the thought then they would be unable to get big brother to come in and coerce you to bend to their demands.
The attorney is squarely out of his league arguing with Amy Coney Barrett.
LOL... I don't think ANYONE is out of their league arguing with her. The problem is, the lawyer is trying to tread lightly on this case because it's obvious that Coney-Barrett is trying to lay a trap for him. Spend enough time in a courtroom and you'll hear lawyers sounding like this ALL THE TIME. Nothing special here. Time to move on.
Trying to tread lightly because he’s on a thin rope made of BS. So he snivels and squirms for a silly argument.
@@CJFitzgeraldAPUS : You are on thin ice because you have no idea what you are talking about.
@Jim: You are out of league commenting on a subject that is way above your IQ.
@@marccovitz5289 And you don't even exist.
If the company doesn’t want to provide a service then find another one. It’s called “choice”. If that doesn’t work, then take the job, make a crappy product to fulfill the obligation so you don’t get sued
It’s a hard hypothetical because he has no defense against it🤣
Coney Barrett is a beast....
Decades more of this please
She's wonderful!
try to force me to do ANYTHING and it will be the last thing you ever do ! test me !
She is dreadful. A piece of Christian fascism is now in place.
Her appointment was only possible by cheating. This is an illegitimate court. 😮
she is the rare occurrence of a bright, logical mind somehow inside a religious nutjob. Margaret Atwood's Lydia Clements would be proud.
When Trump was elected as POTUS
Many famous designers very loudly and publicly announced they would N E V E R design a dress for any reason for Milania Trump. Now imagine that these designers were forced to design a dress for Milania. Because the ONLY reason they did not want to design a dress for the first Lady is because they disagreed with the POTUS's world view.
That is a more direct and real world example
That's a good one
homosexuality is a protected classed, political beliefs are not
Look at how many magazine covers Michelle was on compared to a actual model.
Exactly, can an LGBT tattoo artist refuse to give a Maga tattoo or AntiAbortion tattoo?
Yes, exactly. And Melania can just go anywhere else to get a dress. Her needs will be met. The dress maker has no way out of having their rights violated. Violated directly from the Gov.
I'm gay. But, how many times did Barrett have to explain that? Wow. She's implying they need to be treated at the same standard in her hypothetical.
If i was gay and someone didnt want to make a cake for me or advertise my wedding then i would just take my money elsewhere. If you dont want to work for me, then i dont want you to work for me.
But they have a bigger agenda than just themselves. They want to silence all opposition to homosexuality in society, that’s why they do this.
That would be a reasonable, human response.
I guess "no shirt, no shoes, no service" is out the window.
not to mention "no tickee, no shirtee"
Wrong...then it falls into a "Public Health" issue...and we all know how that has been lately.
@@hotrox2112 10 boosters and 3 masks can take care of that..
the rules apply to all, so no, in that case, it sticks, plus it's a health reason also
@@stanleylizewski616 your behind the times dude...we are up to 26 boosters now.
I can see what this guy looks like in my mind just by hearing his voice.
Omg i was thinking the same thing....
Haha, he sounds like Jordan Peterson to me
Sausage fingers
I'm picturing mitch McConnell
I guarantee he is wearing a dress and horn rimmed glasses and uses She/Shim pronouns.
The business can do WHATEVER THE HELL they want to, PERIOD! Keep the Government IDIOTS out of making business decisions. And tell this attorney to take a long walk on a short pier!
Those were really tough questions. Fair play to the attorney, he did a really good job answering them.
Justice Barrett is a really smart lady. Excellent addition to the Court.
thank one of the finest Presidents of all time. Donald Trump. Vote him in 2024 for more great decisions!
@Russell Phelan The president has the final say on whether or not to select an individual to SCOTUS for their hearing. Though they aren't the ones vetting the prospect as much as the ones who come up with the short list, the president does have an important part in it. You're just trying to discredit Trump because you don't like Trump.
>any conservative president will select conservative judges. Th
I know you didn't say it, but Trump isn't a conservative. Then again any liberal president would choose liberal judge, such as Biden did with KBJ.
She is brilliant.,
She also knows the law and constitution.
@@Forevertrue You mean the one that Trump wants to get rid of?
Perhaps; she's also evil.
@@davidowens5898 evil?? I can’t with you people, enough already
@@blueocean-me1ns nobody but Democrats want to get rid of the constitution didnt see Republicans track down supreme court justices an threatening them illegally protesting in front of there homes doxing them online
Flip the script --- can we FORCE a gay photographer to take pictures at a Catholic Church that will be used promote traditional heterosexual marriages and oppose gay marriages? I would say no.
Private businesses shouldn’t be forced to do anything at all. Period.
It's not about "who they are" it's about the nature of the message. That IS compelled speach.
Now that we have Drag-Queen story hour in public libraries in most of our large towns here in Kansas, and we the people don't want it but can do nothing about it due to the current laws...I am far less receptive than I once was to the idea of tolerance.
You tried it on for size; it does not fit. One size does not fit all.
Agreed. The gay community have done more harm to themselves in the past ten years than any conservative.
I mean, I've read all these comments about how Amy "crushes" it here, but it seems the SG handled the questioning very well. He didn't squirm at all. In fact, if I had to say who got the better of that exchange, sounds to me like the SG did. Quite frankly, as the SG pointed out, Amy's hypothetical didn't apply well here due to public accomodation, and you can hear Amy getting caught flat footed when she realizes how narrow her own hypothetical was. If anything, I think she was the one who squirmed a bit here.
Actually, it was the SG who was caught flat footed, as evidenced by his rambling and lack of cohesion throughout his argument. Whenever someone says, “that is a hard one”, it means it never came into their consideration and they are buying time to wriggle out of it.
Her hypothetical situations are ridiculous.
You can go in a store and the person can reject you service. At any moment they can tell you to get off their property. They can kick everyone out and close the store for good, if that's what they wish. Same goes for a website
Except that isn’t the law. If a grocery store refuses to sell food to gay people or black people, that’s not legal. You can refuse service to individuals, sure, but not entire groups of people
That's not what the law says. Ok its what Christians want it to say.
They are not refusing them because they are gay or black. Their refusing them based on their religious beliefs and are the owner of the company. They have every right to do that.
@@dwsmyyth3480 wrong
@Shallow: Wrong. You may not discriminate based on race, age, gender, religion or SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
Damn this woman is a BOSS. She completely destroyed his argument and made his look foolish hahahahaha.
Lol no. Next time take the earplugs out before you listen.
@@elizabethhenning778so 45 of us so far must have had ear plugs in. You don’t win the argument.
@@cherylfitch3183 We already know 74 million voters have their heads up their rears. What's 45 people on this thread?
It's actually easy to make a liberal look dumb while in that environment because the liberal has no choice but to be honest with a judge and actually answer the questions asked. If it were a normal citizen talking to the liberal, that would be a different story. The liberal would just use a slew of logical fallacies to dance around, manipulate, and dodge the questions. 🤦 You'd never get a straight answer out of them. It takes a courthouse to make liberals be honest and transparent.
@@elizabethhenning778Says the people who think men can get pregnant.
. . . HAVING OPENLY EXPRESSED UNBELIEF , THEY FEEL THAT THEY MUST MAINTAIN THEIR POSITION . --- THUS THEY UNITE WITH THE UNGODLY AND CLOSE TO THEMSELVES THE GATE OF PARADISE . . .
Barrett just body slammed that woke attorney!
why do people have to be tolerant to people who aren't tolerant of others...?
Thank God! For a conservative Supreme Court.
The mercy God gives this immoral country
Ugh. The worst thing is a court full of religious people. Should be a secular court.
@@jwbjpb1338 no. A lot of people are religious. Your disdain for religion does not deserve precedent.
It's not supposed to be a conservative or liberal court. Its just a court. People like you are the problem.
Which god? Buddhist? Islam? Just curious which "god" you are thanking.
Back to “you WILL bake the cake”, are we?
Just roll over agree with her. Justice Barretts hypothetical is spot on.
And now you know why they didn’t want her in the court.
If all you care about are Gay issues, then yes. If you care about real issues that effect all of us like consumers rights vs Goliath corporations then fuck you. She is with them not us. Who are you, the one percent. You thought you were an elite, haha the joke is you. I'm glad people are arguing the really important issues or our country might fall apart!
Other than the fact she lied during her hearings when she said roe v Wade was settled law. She literally perjured herself but sure, act like she's a paragon of good
Who, Jackson?
No, people didn't want her on the court because she's a fucking liar. Roe V. wade ring a bell. Hypocrite
@@smtiellgopherIt was settled law. And now a new case was put before the court and based on the merits of that case it was kicked back to the states. You don’t seem to understand how this works.
Look, I don't want nor need the government telling me whom I can an can't turn away as clients. If I want to take on a client, I'll take them on. If I want to pass on their project, I reserve the right to do that as well FOR WHATEVER REASON. I don't owe you a drawing, graphic design project, photo session, or video or anything else unless and until I agree to take your project, and I don't give a flying hoot how unhappy you are that I decide I don't want to take your project on for whatever my reason is. It's my right to choose to pass on your money, and sell my services to somebody else. PERIOD.
this person hasnt even got a business yet so the scenario hasnt turned up yet. They have just brought this case forward because they are a bigot
I am so thankful that Judge Barrett is on the Supreme Court.
Thankful for having religious whackjobs on the court?
They do not take into consideration that possibly agreeing to one customer, may cost them the business with multiple other potential customers. A private business should be able to make their own choices as to the profitability of their business.
The important concept is much deeper than that . Government has no place in telling an individual or a business who they must associate with, who they must do business with, what they have to believe or what behaviors they have to accept.
If the plaintiff wins, freedom of conscience in the US is effectively dead. You will not be allowed to say no to anyone for any reason in your personal or professional life. The Government will decide for you.
Thank you Judge. 😊 public newspapers and servants need to be non political and speak evidence based truth.
@Nirma Rjk THEN they need to be publicly owned.
That’s not what she’s arguing or suggesting at all.
She is saying private owned companies should be able to discriminate if the customer is gay. He is saying no that's illegal. She then uses an example of a nonprofit doing outreach work but prefaces it by claiming its a for profit organization but a for profit outreach that's doing charity work for a group that's discriminated against? That's a stretch.
@@floridaviolets9601 that’s half right? She is saying that discrimination laws cannot legally reach as far to compel speech of private businesses. You really want the government to be able to force people to speak?
*Thank you Justice 😊
Justice Barrett is a blessing to our country. Her calm intellect and reasoning serves everyone and makes this a better society.
I've always thought we'd have a better society if we could just implement the fundamentalist theocracy she advocates. You're her brand of Catholic, right? If not, you're not helping build the better society.
It's simple: you can't discriminate based on protected characteristics, and if you want to say it's based on the message and not the person, literally anyone discriminating can say that. They can say "i won't provide this website to an interracial couple, not because of who they are, but the *message* they're asking me to say." It's a total blank check to discriminate against anyone you want regardless of protected characteristics
The constitution allows that. The government can’t discriminate, but individuals absolutely have that right, especially if what you want me to do violates my rights. You do not have a right to my services, and if I choose not to provide them, that is my right, regardless of your level of agreement.
@@ryankelly9032 Take a look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964. www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/civil-rights-center/statutes/civil-rights-act-of-1964#:~:text=In%201964%2C%20Congress%20passed%20Public,hiring%2C%20promoting%2C%20and%20firing.
That's how we ended up with segregation and what it is in fact illegal to discriminate based solely on protected groups. Discrimination violates peoples first amendment.
@@ryankelly9032 Just because a law allows immoral behavior does not excuse the immoral behavior. But you know what, when the hell have Republicans ever gave a crap about morals when they're not paying lip service to their dumbass religious base? So fine, if that's how it is, I will never do any service for a known reoublican voter because I don't like their messaging. I hope more businesses follow the example this sets, about which you just seem pleased as pie.
People,why force someone to give you service?just spend your money elsewhere. Just entitlement
What Judge Barret was saying is that if you want to open this door; it swings both ways.
Win your case here and pride will have to make accommodations as well.
The lawyer tried to side step.
Side step only works when dancing.
Swings both ways 😆
Actually the lawyer said nobody even a gay pride newspaper or whatever Barret was imagining, can descriminated. He decimated her hypothetical.
And where's my court-appointed choreographer... this require some fancy legal footwork
I'm sure gay pride newspapers wouldn't care if you wanted to pay to put a marriage announcement in their periodical.
@@WildSkyMtn no, he didn't. His whole argument is disingenuous. This case is about compelled speech, not immutable characteristics. She crushed him.
This guy just had no idea of how intelligent this judge is!!👍
You mean our Lady of Notre Dame de Indiana who does not know all 5 tenets of the First Amendment by heart???? LOL
Her example was laughable at best. She sounded ignorant.
More to the point he apparently does not know the fallacious nature of his case
@@iwshamrock4908 WTF does that mean learn English
@@floridaviolets9601 she sits in the Supreme Court while you sit in your parent’s couch with no job using a phone they paid for. Interesting.
Private companies ought to be able to do what they want.
How does she Stay so calm
Because she’s an absolutely brilliant professional 🤌🏼💋
Oh jehovah please act on this
He will in time
These bakeries are willing to sell their wares to the alphabet people but not participate in their events. There is a huge difference between serving someone a pre-maid nondescript good and participation in an event.
Except that they're not willing to do even that because they see it as participating in the event.
@@SuperPuzzler That is false. Masterpiece Cakeshop would sell any pre-made good to the two gay guys but was not willing to make a cake specifically for them.
@@thatswhattheyis Would they be willing to make a cake specifically for a straight couple?
@@SuperPuzzler You mean normal people? Yes.
It doesn’t matter what they are willing to do. In a true free market, they can CHOOSE who to serve just as those being served can choose who to patronize. We have changed from a love it or leave it to a force it to fit your mold even though no one had better even try to touch your stunning and brave outlook. Long and short, no one can legislate someone’s mind and if their goal is acceptance, just like the overweight or trans crowd complaining about people’s dating preferences, we are dealing with bullies.
So if I dont want to date an alcoholic woman, according to this lawyer, it should be illegal LOL
The Bible forbids same-sex relations.
It’s actually none of the business of any court to say that a business must do anything they don’t want to. The owner of the business is the only person who has a right to say yea or nay.
Yep, especially a privately held business. If I have to get slapped in the face with pride flags year round, no matter what business I visit, then why not the same for them.
The sheer refusal to answer a question
How was the interview for the job passed?
The crux of the problem is that we shouldn't even be questioning whether this is discrimination. The constitution was never meant to limit the ability of people (or their businesses) to discriminate. The constitution was created to limit government ONLY, not people. Colorado's law is what should be considered discrimination.
A public newspaper and a website creator for private occasions are not the same thing or even the same category. I think ACB is getting the hypotheticals mixed up. You can play with hypotheticals until the sun sets, that’s why no one likes hypotheticals.
Wow... it takes him a loong time to answer that question.
Brilliant!!! 🔥🔥👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Amy C. Barrett is going to be a force to be reckoned with. She is very smart and completely different than any other judge ever.
Any judge that thinks morality is derived from a God who decided decided that the best way for him to be able to forgive man, for being evil & immoral by breaking rules that god knew in advance that they would break when he made those rules and created evil. Was to send a version of himself down to earth then sacrifice himself to himself. Thus preventing his need to punish his creations for something their ancestors did before they knew the difference between right and wrong, has no place on the bench
☝️☝️ I mean just actually think about that for a minute 🤔🤔🤔
Is there anywhere that one can see videos of Supreme Court hearings or is there only audio as a rule?
Nothing gets by her!! Love this woman!
You'll get yer Gilead yet!
Religious Zealot that she is, who cannot read the 1st Amendment, tenet ONE......freedom of religion. Done.
You know she does not even know all 5 tenets of the 1st Amendment, right?? And, I surmise it is because she gets hung up very badly on the very first tenet. Do you know the first one, or all 5????? Freedom of Religion is numero UNO. The right to peacefully assemble she did not know. Now, it is not the 3rd Amendment, or the 19th or the 28th, but the FIRST. And thus your comment rings hollow.
Boom! She’s amazing!
Next time a city of the company sets a policy, just think it through and see how this policy can apply to all.
I love her, she's smarter than they realize, or wont admit to it.
Amy coney is a dolt
She’s a slave to her husband
So not sure why she was able to be appointed two weeks before Trump left office but Obama couldn't appoint somebody two years before he left office? Republican hypocrisy at its finest
And she subscribes to the “fuck your rights” ideology.
… Smart enough to lie in her confirmation hearing. (Roe v Wade)
Well, at least we have one smart justice. Think there are 4 more.
The lawyer says the websites provide "the same exact speech" for straight and gay weddings. That's false, which is why the creator doesn't want to say something different than what she's said previously. I don't see how forcing her to create something that goes against her religious convictions isn't considered compelled speech.
How is that false? Would two sites, one announcing the marriage of "Bill and Martha", the other one for "John and Elizabeth" be fundamentally different? Then why would one for "Bill and John" be different?
It's just creating a site to announce a wedding. She's not being being asked to attend or endorse the wedding. The fact that one couple is straight but another is gay is irrelevant. Suppose she was approached by a couple wanting a wedding announcement site, and that she is familiar with the man in question and is aware that he has a history of abuse and infidelity, both of which are generally frowned upon. Can she refuse to create a site for that couple just because she thinks its a mistake for the woman? What if she's approached by a jewish or muslim couple? Their religions are also against her beliefs, so can she turn them away?
Why would you want to hire a business that doesn't agree with your lifestyle and you clearly know that? Wouldn't you want to give your business to someone that promotes or agrees with your lifestyle? This is nothing but bullying.
People fighting for the right to discriminate. Really disgusting.
Would you want to make a website for scientologists or the Westboro Baptist Church?
Damn, shes a boss. She took him to the pavement.