You either don't understand how to make an analogy or you don't understand the issues here. My guess is that it's both on top of the fact that you're a supremely stupid wannabe troll.
First of all, far right-wing, conservative groups are not a protected class. From a federal standpoint, neither are LGBTQ people. In Colorado, however, where the case originated, LGBTQ people are a class protected from discrimination. So you're already wrong.
If you weren't so fucking myopic and obtuse, it might have occured to you that THE PRINCIPLE IS THE SAME.
The queer Nazi Mafia wants to force their pathetic mental sickness on the rest of society and force artists and other creators of similar content, to produce pro-lesbo/faggot/gender confused bullshit against their own beliefs.
Why? Because they're trying to exert power and dominance over those who aren't part of their group of perverts.
This whole "protected class" status for alphabet queers was well meaning but misguided overreach from the beginning. I can understand how certain groups should fall under that umbrella because of the ethnic and genetic characteristics they were born with. But allowing people to be considered protected just because they prefer to lick and suck on the genitalia of other members of their own gender, or use each other's rectums as surrogate vaginas, is stretching it.
No pun intended.
DieselDyke said:
Second of all, the website designer was never harmed. She never provided services to a gay couple. No gay couple ever asked her for services. She never denied services to a gay couple. She never had any interaction with the state except to sue it because she wanted to preemptively secure her "right" to shit on LGBTQ people because she's a bigot and a wicked false xtian.
Totally irrelevant. If it hadn't been her, it would've been someone else.
Like maybe the Colorado wedding cake designer who in 2018, some members of the gay Nazis tried to impose their abhorrent lifestyle on to the exclusion of his own moral and religious beliefs, and who won a narrow victory in the state's courts on the single issue.
But having been asked for service by a queer couple is not a prerequisite for legal standing.
I understand why you're shitting in your jumbo panties over it though, because you were soooo looking forward to beating some straight white bitches, who your envy of drives your insane hatred towards, with your fat, ugly ape lesbo privilege.
Ha ha!!!! Tough shit 4-U!!!!
DieselDyke said:
I haven't read the entire ruling yet, but I also haven't heard any media coverage about standing. I'm sure the web designer somehow achieved standing, but that in and of itself is mind blowing when we consider that the Supreme Court of the United States decided to rule on a hypothetical case that never actually happened just to inject itself into the country's culture wars.
Well, since you obviously have no fucking idea what you're flapping your big, fat lips about re: the subject of legal standing, I'll educate you on the topic....
In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:
• The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
• The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law. This is known as the "chilling effects" doctrine.
• The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows the plaintiff to receive attorney's fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.
In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless they can demonstrate that they are or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality.
It's obvious, (to us humans anyway, probably not your kind), that being involved in the kind of business she was engaged in, or planning to begin, that she was at imminent risk of suffering harm from the gay Nazi Mafia, who go around looking for people to force to promote queerness against their will, all in pursuit of a larger, power agenda.
DieselDyke said:
This is a YOLO court on a kamikaze mission to end equal protections and civil rights for every non-white, non-male, non-Christian, non-straight individual in the US. The white bitch on the Court did as she was told to do and voted with the white men, but the far right agenda that has stolen our highest court is for the exclusive benefit of dying men like you with nothing to lose and all the time in the world to bitch.
Boo fucking hoo. Bitchy queers and big, fat lesbo apes can't force themselves on the rest of us anymore.
Awesome!!!
Just tell all your queer/dyke friends that there are plenty of gay-queer-lesbo website/wedding/bakers/etc, etc, etc out there they can take their queer business to and those who don't believe in your sick, pervert message and lifestyle, cannot be forced to condone it anymore than your fellow queer Nazis can be forced to promote Christianity or any other PROTECTED belief.
DieselDyke said:
Next, homosexuality is not a "lifestyle". For fuck sake, how old are you? Yachting is a lifestyle. Golf club culture is a lifestyle. Being Black, gay, short, or female is not a "lifestyle". So I sure as shit can refuse to make a swastika cake for your next KKK potluck. But you know what's even better? I don't sell my goods and services on the public market. I'm smart enough to realize that regressive, racist, homophobic pieces of shit are not worth doing business with. So, rather than be the bitchy little snowflakes you people are, and demand to be exempted from the laws that apply to every other inhabitant of Colorado, I choose to make my living where the law and my sensibilities intersect.
Yachting is an ACTIVITY.
Golfing is a SPORT and/or ACTIVITY.
Being black, short and female are GENETIC CHARACTERISTICS.
You fucking idiot.
Being queer is a STATE OF MIND that was brought about by external factors during a person's formative years.
There is no "queer gene" despite whatever bullshit to the contrary, you self-pitying crybabies have managed to foist on society.
Let's hope we're seeing the beginnings of a reversal of a lot of the garbage you lowlife pieces of shit have managed to get away with pulling the wool over our eyes about for years.
DieselDyke said:
Next time you think about limping toward me with some weak ass bullshit like that, think twice. On your best day, you're not half as smart as I am on my worst day.
Yeah, sure.
You keep telling yourself that, Shaniqua.
Every time you have to look across the McDonald's counter and ask one of those pretty little "white bitches" as you call them...."Does youz wonts furr eyes wiff dat?", you tell yourself how smart you think you are.
DieselDyke said:
No, it doesn't, you fucking idiot. The law applies to employment practices, housing practices, PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION (I capitalized that one because I'm quite sure you wouldn't understand that this is what we're talking about otherwise), and advertising. It specifically applies to the treatment of individuals within those categories based on their race, color, religion, national origin/ancestry, sex, pregnancy, disability, SEXUAL ORIENTATION INCLUDING TRANSGENDER STATUS (capitalized again for the same reason), age, marital status, and familial status.
You obviously don't understand what PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION even means.
Public accommodations in the United States
In United States law, public accommodations are generally defined as facilities, whether publicly or privately owned, that are used by the public at large. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments, and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centers.
So how does designing a website inside one's home or private office, meet the definition of "PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION"? (I capitalized that one because I'm quite sure you wouldn't understand that this is what we're talking about otherwise),
Gawd, you're one stoopzilla.
DieselDyke said:
The ruling, which is what I believe you were trying to mumble from your toothless mouth when you mentioned "the law", applies to "expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees". That's hardly a more helpful meaning than the nonsense you typed.
THE RULING IS THE LAW NOW, you poor, dumb ape.
That's the way it works here in the real world.
If you are reduced to playing word games and engaging in semantics, you are admitting defeat.
DieselDyke said:
What you lack is even the slightest, most tenuous grasp of civil rights legislation, its causes, and its intentions. There was a time -- no doubt of which you were a part -- when businesses could deny service to people "for any reason". Of course, the reason was usually that a person was Black. The silver-spooned, lily white bigmouths of the world proclaimed that Black people should just shop where they are welcome. But guess what? If you're not welcome at a gas station within 500 miles, then you can't drive your car. If you can't sleep in a motel room within 500 miles, then you have to sleep in that car that you can't drive. If you can't find anyone willing to serve you a sandwich within 500 miles, then you can chew on the upholstery of that bed/car you can't drive and begin to plan for a civil rights revolution.
Totally irrelevant to this decision. As has already been patiently and with understanding of your obvious limitations, genetic and otherwise, this RULING (that make you happy, Shaniqua?) only applies to services that involve the expression of ideas and beliefs.
Your breathless, exaggerating and fear-mongering notwithstanding.
DieselDyke said:
What your uneducated, shortsighted "analysis" fails to comprehend is that when that bitch website designer who never designed nor was ever asked to design a single thing for any gay couple ever (get your messaging straight -- she's the Karen, not me -- all Karens and Kevins are self entitled, whiny, white people, period) she opens the barndoor for the rest of you mentally ill assholes to refuse "expressive designs" to First Communions, interracial relationships, and Bar Mitzvahs.
All of which can and will be worked out in the lower courts.
Meanwhile the gay Nazi Mafia will not be allowed to plow over the rights of people who don't drink their Kool Aid.
I know how miserable that makes you, and honestly, it's part of the appeal to me.
I hope you get ulcers over it.
DieselDyke said:
You're as thrilled about the anti-LGBTQ ruling as you are the anti-affirmative action ruling because you have never been on the receiving end of meaningful discrimination ever in your life. That's your privilege. Your blissful ignorance of what it's like to be a minority. Yet you have the nerve to sit behind your keyboard and tell us that you have some constitutionally guaranteed right to deny our humanity and citizenship.
And neither have you, Shaniqua. You're just another member of the entitled, crybaby victim generation who's never suffered anything worse than not getting a good enough signal on yo' sail foam.
DieselDyke said:
Get fucked, Nomad. You're a loser and not smart at all.
I might just do that.
But it won't be by a big, DUMB, fat, nasty, disgusting, stank-ass ape like u-no-hoo....
Why do LWers so foolishly believe that there is only a finite number of politically conservative people when the truth is that replacements are born every....single....day ? I mean,.....you would think that having bleated out the same nonsense for damn near 60 years only to be continually proven wrong would embarrass the left. BONUS......The farther left the left goes......THE MORE OF US YOU HELP CREATE. 
