771
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
771 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32311 readers
491 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I am getting tired of being surprised that out of 77 comments not one mentions that the SCOTUS did NOT allow "Christian business owners to refuse same-sex couples." This was and is against the law. SCOTUS said they don't have to create pro-same-sex materials. It should be a straightforward and obvious conclusion that only went to SCOTUS because of the current anti-religious sentiment.
Would a liberal sign maker be required to create pro-life materials? Of course not. Should a conservative sign maker be required to make pro-choice materials? Of course not.
The law cannot force you to make materials or statements that you do not agree with.
This.
I hope this is a joke.
Being pro-life isn't a protected class. Sex is a protected class. Your example doesn't work