SCOTUS gay rights case

[Toni]

I agree but I’m also wondering why I can be firced to create something that I find repugnant or co treat to my deeply held religious or political beliefs? Or that violates my aesthetic sense?

For the most part I agree with what you're saying, but

But I should not be forced to create a cake in flavors I don’t like to use ( say, licorice cakes or root beer frosting) or that espouse ideas I find distasteful ir immoral. I should not be required to write on a cake the words Fuck Ted Cruz or Johnny is a Big Fat Sissy or Next Time Traitors Burn The Place Down!

But I disagree on the last part. Writing on a cake is not a creative thing, I don't believe you should be allowed to censor what someone wants written on a cake.

I could and should be required to write Congratulations Chuck and Jake if I would write Congratulations Christine and Jake.

And note that this is directly contradictory to your other requirement.

There are limits to what one can or should be able to ask someone to create for them.

The key word is create. Not sell. Create.


After all, we do not require novelists to write books for any and all types of person or an artist to paint any type of painting.

Exactly--which is my point about things that require creativity.

Photographers and bakers and other creators are just that: creators. Not merchants.

But note that not everything they do requires creativity even though they are creative professions. I believe the protection should be strong but only when they are actually engaged in creativity.

It does require creativity and skill to write on a cake and to do it well.

I DO think that no one should be able to compel you to write any words you find offensive or repugnant. That said if one is willing to write Happy Anniversary Fred and Wilma then they should also be willing to write Happy Anniversary Fred and Barney. If one wishes to avoid being placed in such a situation, one can limit one's writing on such cakes to Happy Anniversary.

This is self-contradictory. You claim nobody should be able to compel you to write words that you find offensive or repugnant, and then you immediately follow up with a situation where you do wish to compel somebody.

I wasn’t clear. I think that one must be consistent: if one is willing to wish a happy anniversary to a couple BY NAME then you cannot discriminate because you disagree with the pairing of those particular names

I think the way around that is to not include the names. And not to supply gendered cake toppers.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That said, it would be illegal, in any state, to put up a sign saying "No Christians need apply", or "This water fountain is for Buddhists only", which would be a better analogy for what this business owner wants to be allowed to do. She is suing for the right to discriminate against gays as a whole class, not for the right to refuse to include any specific message or image.

So she is saying my free speech is infringed upon and I am harmed if I have to do business with gays. Is that it?

I should add that if a gay person came into her business and asked for some standard stuff, hetero and all, she would be glad to do business? Correct?

Sure sounds like racism/bigotry parading as free speech.

 

[Politesse]

So she is saying my free speech is infringed upon and I am harmed if I have to do business with gays. Is that it?

That's about the sum of it. She was making a further religious freedom claim as well, it just isn't being heard by the Court this session.

I should add that if a gay person came into her business and asked for some standard stuff, hetero and all, she would be glad to do business? Correct?

Not correct. She wants to add a proviso to her website barring service to LGBTQ persons.

Sure sounds like racism/bigotry parading as free speech.

A lot of people feel vocalizations of racism or bigotry should be considered protected free speech, possibly even a majority of Americans to some degree or another. The question is where to draw the line.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So she is saying my free speech is infringed upon and I am harmed if I have to do business with gays. Is that it?

That's about the sum of it. She was making a further religious freedom claim as well, it just isn't being heard by the Court this session.

I should add that if a gay person came into her business and asked for some standard stuff, hetero and all, she would be glad to do business? Correct?

Not correct. She wants to add a proviso to her website barring service to LGBTQ persons.

Sure sounds like racism/bigotry parading as free speech.

A lot of people feel vocalizations of racism or bigotry should be considered protected free speech, possibly even a majority of Americans to some degree or another. The question is where to draw the line.

She's acting quite juvenile. Sounds like Karen.

 

[Derec]

So she is saying my free speech is infringed upon and I am harmed if I have to do business with gays. Is that it?
I should add that if a gay person came into her business and asked for some standard stuff, hetero and all, she would be glad to do business? Correct?
Sure sounds like racism/bigotry parading as free speech.

Again, how is this different from a woke restaurant owner cancelling a reservation for a Christian group?
Restaurant cancels Christian group event

Rules should apply equally to everyone, no matter how "woke" a particular form of discrimination deems itself to be.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It appears the proper course of action is for a person to serve everyone but not be forced to "violate" their religious freedom in so doing. That's not terribly difficult to understand or implement. So in this case there really isn't a problem.

The problem is when these two come into conflict.

 

[bilby]

Again, how is this different from a woke restaurant owner cancelling a reservation for a Christian group?

Again, Christianity is chosen and optional. Nobody is born Christian (or a Nazi, for that matter).

Discrimination against inherent characteristics - race, ancestry, sexuality, gender, etc., is not acceptable, because it isn't something the victim has any ability to alleviate. If I throw you out of my business for being homosexual, or black, or a woman, there's nothing you can do to change that, other than pursue legal action to compel me to serve you.

Discrimination against chosen characteristics - Religious affiliation, political affiliation, clothing style, disruptive behaviour, etc., is acceptable, because if I throw you out of my business for not wearing a tie, you can go put a tie on and come back. If I throw you out for being a Nazi, or a Christian, you can go away, take a good long look at yourself, wise up, and come back.

This has been explained several times. Why are you still struggling to grasp this important difference?

 

[Metaphor]

Again, how is this different from a woke restaurant owner cancelling a reservation for a Christian group?

Again, Christianity is chosen and optional. Nobody is born Christian (or a Nazi, for that matter).

Discrimination against inherent characteristics - race, ancestry, sexuality, gender, etc., is not acceptable, because it isn't something the victim has any ability to alleviate. If I throw you out of my business for being homosexual, or black, or a woman, there's nothing you can do to change that, other than pursue legal action to compel me to serve you.

Discrimination against chosen characteristics - Religious affiliation, political affiliation, clothing style, disruptive behaviour, etc., is acceptable, because if I throw you out of my business for not wearing a tie, you can go put a tie on and come back. If I throw you out for being a Nazi, or a Christian, you can go away, take a good long look at yourself, wise up, and come back.

This has been explained several times. Why are you still struggling to grasp this important difference?

Gender expression is chosen. Do you agree a business can enforce dress codes by sex?

 

[bilby]

It appears the proper course of action is for a person to serve everyone but not be forced to "violate" their religious freedom in so doing. That's not terribly difficult to understand or implement. So in this case there really isn't a problem.

The problem is when these two come into conflict.

It's not really a problem though. When moral behaviour conflicts with beliefs, the beliefs should yield.

If you're a devout Christian and believe that the Bible instructs that thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, your religious belief is superseded by the moral imperative that you shouldn't go around killing people just because they're witches, or you suspect them of being witches.

There's a reason why 'witch-hunt' has become an idiom meaning "unreasonable persecution".

 

[ZiprHead]

This whole case is bull... A religious organization sought out a plaintiff. The plaintiff itself has never had a web design business. ...

It's called a "test case". These are a well-established component of our adversarial legal system -- they allow important legal questions to be answered without having to put anyone at risk who didn't volunteer. The Scopes Monkey Trial was a test case. "The trial was deliberately staged in order to attract publicity to the small town of Dayton, Tennessee, where it was held. Scopes was unsure whether he had ever actually taught evolution, but he incriminated himself deliberately so the case could have a defendant."

I notice you deliberately didn't quote this part.

There've been no lower court cases on this to create a dispute. It is extremely unusual for a court to choose such a case from amongst the hundreds of others they could have chosen. I think it's a foregone conclusion the Opus Dei members of court will side with the plaintiff.

It is extremely unusual for the Supreme Court to operate in this manner.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This whole case is bull... A religious organization sought out a plaintiff. The plaintiff itself has never had a web design business. ...

It's called a "test case". These are a well-established component of our adversarial legal system -- they allow important legal questions to be answered without having to put anyone at risk who didn't volunteer. The Scopes Monkey Trial was a test case. "The trial was deliberately staged in order to attract publicity to the small town of Dayton, Tennessee, where it was held. Scopes was unsure whether he had ever actually taught evolution, but he incriminated himself deliberately so the case could have a defendant."

I notice you deliberately didn't quote this part.

There've been no lower court cases on this to create a dispute. It is extremely unusual for a court to choose such a case from amongst the hundreds of others they could have chosen. I think it's a foregone conclusion the Opus Dei members of court will side with the plaintiff.

It is extremely unusual for the Supreme Court to operate in this manner.

The incident in Virginia where an establishment refused to serve a group based on religious beliefs might just have been committed to find out what SCOTUS is about in the present case.

Christian group denied service at Virginia restaurant over religious views

“Metzger Bar and Butchery has always prided itself on being an inclusive environment for people to dine in,” the post said. “In eight years of service, we have very rarely refused service to anyone who wished to dine with us. Recently we refused service to a group that had booked an event with us after the owners of Metzger found out it was a group of donors to a political organization that seeks to deprive women and LGBTQ+ persons of their basic human rights in Virginia.”

Interesting to say the least.

 

[Bomb#20]

I notice you deliberately didn't quote this part.

I quoted the part that was relevant to the point I wanted to make. There's no limit to the misinformation coming out of the left on topics like this; bandwidth compels me to pick and choose.

There've been no lower court cases on this to create a dispute. It is extremely unusual for a court to choose such a case from amongst the hundreds of others they could have chosen. I think it's a foregone conclusion the Opus Dei members of court will side with the plaintiff.

It is extremely unusual for the Supreme Court to operate in this manner.

You appear to have been misinformed. According to Wikipedia,

"Smith, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, sued Colorado in 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, seeking to block enforcement of the anti-discrimination law. The district court waited for the result of the 2018 Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission which dealt with the same anti-discrimination law. As Masterpiece was ruled on narrow procedural grounds, finding that the Colorado agency that ruled against Phillips were unfairly hostile to his religious beliefs, the district court ruled against Smith in 2019. At that time, Colorado had not investigated Smith and there was no evidence that she had engaged in discrimination[4][5][6]

Smith appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which upheld the district court decision in a 2–1 ruling. In the majority ruling, the Tenth Circuit held the anti-discrimination law satisfied strict scrutiny under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, deepening a circuit split with decisions issued by the Arizona Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[7] "​

Nothing is more usual than for the SCOTUS to take cases where different appellate courts disagreed.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This whole case is bull... A religious organization sought out a plaintiff. The plaintiff itself has never had a web design business. ...

It's called a "test case". These are a well-established component of our adversarial legal system -- they allow important legal questions to be answered without having to put anyone at risk who didn't volunteer. The Scopes Monkey Trial was a test case. "The trial was deliberately staged in order to attract publicity to the small town of Dayton, Tennessee, where it was held. Scopes was unsure whether he had ever actually taught evolution, but he incriminated himself deliberately so the case could have a defendant."

I notice you deliberately didn't quote this part.

There've been no lower court cases on this to create a dispute. It is extremely unusual for a court to choose such a case from amongst the hundreds of others they could have chosen. I think it's a foregone conclusion the Opus Dei members of court will side with the plaintiff.

It is extremely unusual for the Supreme Court to operate in this manner.

The incident in Virginia where an establishment refused to serve a group based on religious beliefs might just have been committed to find out what SCOTUS is about in the present case.

Christian group denied service at Virginia restaurant over religious views

“Metzger Bar and Butchery has always prided itself on being an inclusive environment for people to dine in,” the post said. “In eight years of service, we have very rarely refused service to anyone who wished to dine with us. Recently we refused service to a group that had booked an event with us after the owners of Metzger found out it was a group of donors to a political organization that seeks to deprive women and LGBTQ+ persons of their basic human rights in Virginia.”

Interesting to say the least.

Bomb, Metaphor, what's your take on this incident in Virginia?

 

[Bomb#20]

Bomb, Metaphor, what's your take on this incident in Virginia?

"Lobbyist" isn't one of the characteristics there's a law against discriminating on the basis of.

 

[Metaphor]

Bomb, Metaphor, what's your take on this incident in Virginia?

I hadn't really read up on it until just now, but it's the restaurant's (moral) right to refuse service if they want to, in my opinion. I am not in the mindset of forcing individuals or businesses to sell to people they don't want to sell to. As a consumer as well, I would not want to give my money to somebody who is only selling to me under legal duress.

 

[Bomb#20]

Nobody said which drives which is legally relevant.

You brought the religion in your example.

Do you have a nuance disability? I explained the mechanism by which religion was relevant to the case; which drives which wasn't it.

What's legally relevant is the difference between objecting to the customer and objecting to the message.

No, because there are limits to “free speech”

Premise: There are limits.
Conclusion: Whatever laughing dog wishes to be beyond the limits is beyond the limits.

Limits now to be determined by the 6 theocrats on the SCOTUS.

Tragically, yes. But still more trustworthy to determine those limits than the theocrats on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

 

[Toni]

Bomb, Metaphor, what's your take on this incident in Virginia?

I hadn't really read up on it until just now, but it's the restaurant's (moral) right to refuse service if they want to, in my opinion. I am not in the mindset of forcing individuals or businesses to sell to people they don't want to sell to. As a consumer as well, I would not want to give my money to somebody who is only selling to me under legal duress.

So you would support the Jim Crow laws that were in effect in parts of the US prior to the Civil Rights movement? Or, if a more modern day set of Jim Crow laws emerged, allowing restaurants to refuse to serve gay patrons or directing gay patients to only a certain set of hospitals, restricting where on busses and in movie theaters they might be seated, restricting which schools they could attend and which neighborhoods they might live in: those laws would be justifiable to you?

 

[laughing dog]

Nobody said which drives which is legally relevant.

You brought the religion in your example.

Do you have a nuance disability? I explained the mechanism by which religion was relevant to the case; which drives which wasn't it.

Perhaps. Then again, maybe I have a better crapola detector than you.

What's legally relevant is the difference between objecting to the customer and objecting to the message.

No, because there are limits to “free speech”

Premise: There are limits.
Conclusion: Whatever laughing dog wishes to be beyond the limits is beyond the limits.

That straw man makes me wonder if you have a reasoning disability.

Limits now to be determined by the 6 theocrats on the SCOTUS.

Tragically, yes. But still more trustworthy to determine those limits than the theocrats on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Ah, the tribal defense argument.

 

[Metaphor]

So you would support the Jim Crow laws that were in effect in parts of the US prior to the Civil Rights movement?

Jim Crow law, in U.S. history, any of the laws that enforced racial segregation in the South between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the beginning of the civil rights movement in the 1950s.

Where in anything I've ever said would you get the idea that I support the government forcing people to segregate by race?

Or, if a more modern day set of Jim Crow laws emerged, allowing restaurants to refuse to serve gay patrons

That wouldn't be a Jim Crow-like law, though, would it? Allowing a restaurant to choose its patrons is practically the exact opposite of the government forcing you to segregate patrons.[/QUOTE]

or directing gay patients to only a certain set of hospitals,

No, I do not support the government forcing hospitals to not treat gay patients.

restricting where on busses and in movie theaters they might be seated, restricting which schools they could attend and which neighborhoods they might live in: those laws would be justifiable to you?

No, I don't support the government forcing businesses to do any of these things. How on earth could you get that impression?

 

[Toni]

So you would support the Jim Crow laws that were in effect in parts of the US prior to the Civil Rights movement?

Jim Crow law, in U.S. history, any of the laws that enforced racial segregation in the South between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the beginning of the civil rights movement in the 1950s.

Where in anything I've ever said would you get the idea that I support the government forcing people to segregate by race?

Or, if a more modern day set of Jim Crow laws emerged, allowing restaurants to refuse to serve gay patrons

That wouldn't be a Jim Crow-like law, though, would it? Allowing a restaurant to choose its patrons is practically the exact opposite of the government forcing you to segregate patrons.

or directing gay patients to only a certain set of hospitals,

No, I do not support the government forcing hospitals to not treat gay patients.

restricting where on busses and in movie theaters they might be seated, restricting which schools they could attend and which neighborhoods they might live in: those laws would be justifiable to you?

No, I don't support the government forcing businesses to do any of these things. How on earth could you get that impression?he law A
[/QUOTE]

Jim Crow laws ALLOWED businesses to refuse to provide services to black people in addition to establishing segregation of education, etc.

Other laws gave individuals and businesses the right to refuse service, or to sell to black customers, allowed clubs to prohibit black, Jewish, Hispanics, Catholic or Italian members and so on.

Would you be ok with laws allowing such discrimination against gay people?