Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Jimmy Higgins]

Do you think a racist graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites should be allowed to refuse to work with interracial couples?

Yes. Absolutely.

Another question might be, "Why would an interracial couple demand a wedding website by a racist? What possible reasons are there for wanting a website by that particular designer?"

I'm curious, where in the advertisements for said website designers indicates their political positions on mixed race, religious, or gay marriages?

You seem quite happy to blame victims of discrimination for seeking out discrimination. Thanks to SCOTUS, even those egregious attention whore gays will be joined by other gay couples who were just trying to a service for a wedding. Hopefully there will be signs on the door or a notable disclaimer on the website indicating that "No gays" instead of the doors just being slammed in their face.

Actually, no doors were slammed in anyone's face.

But they will. This ruling ensures it. And its open-endedness will help chip some more stone away.

I don't think that Tom is blaming the victims of discrimination. I think that Tom is expressing the sentiments often shared by oppressed peoples (not saying Tom is oppressed) to avoid confrontation and use someone who is supportive of whatever it is you wish to commission.

You mean that TomC is judging people for doing this, but doesn't have a damn clue about it. It is a theme of TomC's to negatively judge people he doesn't know.

Black people often consulted the Green Book when traveling for exactly this reason. It is despicable that they needed to do so.

Is this supposed to be comforting that gays can do this now too?

In fact, in a lot of places people will choose a designer or a vendor or say, a wedding planner who has already demonstrated that they do an especially good job with the type of work the client wishes to have. Most Jewish couples (or Muslim couples) will choose someone who has helped with the same sort of event, with their traditions and done so well. There is a lot of self selection going on when people look for photographers, wedding planners, caterers, jewelry designers, etc. Most creators do have lanes, or areas of their expertise. Some are more willing and able to step outside those boundaries more than others.

And now, they have to. The number of choices available to gay couples has been decreased (Constitutionally approved). Gay couples will have fewer options (possibly very limited to no options). Sure, big city gays will be fine, but rural gays... well, that is God's country now. Honestly, I can't see how gays have a fundamental right to marriage, but not marriage services? #butwhataboutthehomophobes?!

 

[Toni]

Do you think a racist graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites should be allowed to refuse to work with interracial couples?

Yes. Absolutely.

Another question might be, "Why would an interracial couple demand a wedding website by a racist? What possible reasons are there for wanting a website by that particular designer?"

I'm curious, where in the advertisements for said website designers indicates their political positions on mixed race, religious, or gay marriages?

You seem quite happy to blame victims of discrimination for seeking out discrimination. Thanks to SCOTUS, even those egregious attention whore gays will be joined by other gay couples who were just trying to a service for a wedding. Hopefully there will be signs on the door or a notable disclaimer on the website indicating that "No gays" instead of the doors just being slammed in their face.

Actually, no doors were slammed in anyone's face.

But they will. This ruling ensures it. And its open-endedness will help chip some more stone away.

I don't think that Tom is blaming the victims of discrimination. I think that Tom is expressing the sentiments often shared by oppressed peoples (not saying Tom is oppressed) to avoid confrontation and use someone who is supportive of whatever it is you wish to commission.

You mean that TomC is judging people for doing this, but doesn't have a damn clue about it. It is a theme of TomC's to negatively judge people he doesn't know.

Black people often consulted the Green Book when traveling for exactly this reason. It is despicable that they needed to do so.

Is this supposed to be comforting that gays can do this now too?

In fact, in a lot of places people will choose a designer or a vendor or say, a wedding planner who has already demonstrated that they do an especially good job with the type of work the client wishes to have. Most Jewish couples (or Muslim couples) will choose someone who has helped with the same sort of event, with their traditions and done so well. There is a lot of self selection going on when people look for photographers, wedding planners, caterers, jewelry designers, etc. Most creators do have lanes, or areas of their expertise. Some are more willing and able to step outside those boundaries more than others.

And now, they have to. The number of choices available to gay couples has been decreased (Constitutionally approved). Gay couples will have fewer options (possibly very limited to no options). Sure, big city gays will be fine, but rural gays... well, that is God's country now. Honestly, I can't see how gays have a fundamental right to marriage, but not marriage services? #butwhataboutthehomophobes?!

Do you think a web designer should be compelled by law to create a website that is dedicated to anti-gay propaganda?

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

Being in a protected class does not give someone the right to demand that someone else create content specifically for them.

No, but prior to this, protected classes were protected from discrimination. With this ruling, they are no longer protected where "expressive original design" is concerned.

Really, you think that gay couples all over the country were patronizing homophobic wedding website creators and forcing them to create websites for them? I don’t think so.

How do you know that? It could be that the homophobes just went ahead and begrudgingly did the work knowing that the alternative was to pay fines.

I mean, what do you think happened when the civil rights laws of the '60s were passed? Black people were allowed patronize stores run by racists, and the racists had to either serve them, pay fines, or change career. And over time, everyone got used to it, the zeitgeist changed, America got less racist over time.

This ruling is going to undo that to some extent.

You think that gay people, black people, women, everybody who is for some reason part of the group of protected classes did not face discrimination-/dangerous discrimination that is carried out with impunity every single day before this decision was handed down?

Not even close.

Of course they do, but it was obviously far worse before the Civil Rights Era.

Do I agree with this decision? I do agree that no one can force someone to create something especially for them.

Once, again, there is always the option to find a new line of work. How many times will I have to repeat this?

I believe that under the United States Constitution, everyone has the right to free speech, even hateful speech, within a few limitations ( yelling fire in a crowded theater).

Once again, you are confusing two separate issues. Yes, we all have the right to be bigots and we all have the right to express hateful speech, but we do not have the right to have any kind of job we want.

As I stated earlier, I am absolutely appalled that any court, much less the USSC agreed to hear a case that was built on a lie and deliberate deception.

I also believe that racism is wrong, homophobia is wrong, antisemitism is wrong, all bigotry and hatred directed at anyone because of any inborn characteristic or religious affiliation is wrong. Such sentiments, especially expressed in any way that causes harm to other people is despicable and disgusting.

And yet you support the legalization of certain kinds of discrimination.

I don’t believe that that the law should protect such hate mongers and bigots from the consequences of their actions.
But I also believe that all of us have the constitutionally protected freedom of speech, with some limitations.

Once again, free speech =/= the freedom to have any job one wants.

 

[TomC]

You seem quite happy to blame victims of discrimination for seeking out discrimination.

I'm happy to blame trouble makers for the problems they cause. I don't care how high they rank on the PC protected person list. Scardina wasn't a victim of discrimination, she sought out a target for a lawsuit.

I'm curious, where in the advertisements for said website designers indicates their political positions on mixed race, religious, or gay marriages?

Hopefully there will be signs on the door or a notable disclaimer on the website indicating that "No gays" instead

Honestly, in many circumstances, I'd rather have that than the gameable laws we have now.

Used to be that signs on the door indicating irrational discrimination was good for business. But this isn't 1963 anymore. If a restaurant didn't want black trade, I'd rather they were up front about it so I could avoid them as well.

And obviously, the problem of gay couples wanting wedding website development by homophobic websters is so non-existent that this court case is built upon a non-existent gay couple. Like Toni, I wonder how this case got a ruling without anyone checking out the guy whose contact information was included. And aren't there any consequences for lying to the court?


Here's the thing.
I see irrational discrimination as a problem, but not a big one, in modern U.S. society. A much bigger problem is the "culture of victimhood and entitlement". I see that as more rampant and debilitating than irrational discrimination. 50 years ago, discrimination was the bigger problem. Today, not so much.
Tom

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

They are still as entitled to free speech, no matter how repellant you are I may find their speech.

The 1st amendment does not give the bigot a right to run a wedding website business. It guarantees her right to freedom of expression. She is free to express her hatred of gays irrespective of whether she has a wedding website business.

The first amendment guarantees that she can create whatever type of website she chooses ( subject to some laws regarding public safety).

Creating a website is one thing. Running a business that provides a service to the public is another thing entirely. No one is arguing that she can't create a hate website.

It does not mandate that she not be a bigot

No one is saying that it does. "not being a bigot" and "discriminating against gays" are two different things.

any more that it compels someone who has a printing business to print materials that promote bigotry just because a customer demands it.

Once again, "bigot" is not a protected class. No one is arguing that someone should be compelled to print bigoted material.

If she is compelled to create a website for a gay couple, then why isn't she likewise compelled to create a website for a Nazi wedding?

No one has argued that anyone should be compelled to create a website for a Nazi wedding. No one is born Nazi, and Nazis aren't a protected class, and no aspect of this case had anything to do with anyone being compelled to make wedding sites for Nazis.

A lot depends on what is provided in the service. Does she merely provide a generic template she designed for couples planning their wedding? If so, then the template must be offered to any paying customer. Does she offer to create actual content for couples? Groom will take Bride to be his lawful wedded wife according to the laws and covenants set forth by the Holy Bible and the State of Missouri? If she does, then she has a right to decline to create a website promoting the marriage of a gay couple or a mixed race couple or an atheist couple however disgusting and horrible and bigoted that is.

Yes, she does now that SCOTUS has legalized discrimination.

If a furniture maker makes custom pieces of furniture and has say, a table, for sale in his shop, he must sell it to any buyer who meets the terms of purchase. However, he can decline to MAKE a table for any specific customer he chooses to, for whatever reason he wishes.

Yes, thanks to this SCOTUS ruling.

If a person wishes to commission a table in a style that the furniture maker does not work in, or in a wood species the table maker doesn't use or isn't available, or at a price point or in a time frame the furniture maker cannot or is unwilling to meet, then the table maker isn't compelled to create the table for the person.

This was never in question.

If someone paints portraits of persons, they may decline to paint the portrait of anyone they choose, for whatever reason.

Yes, thanks to this SCOTUS ruling.

If a person paints landscapes, and offers them for sale to the public, then the person must sell to whoever wishes to buy a particular painting. They are NOT compelled to create a custom painting (or a generic one) specifically for someone.

one cannot compel a chef to serve vegan meals or pork

That is not what this case was about. This fight is not over whether a chef can be compelled to serve vegan or pork—it is about whether a business is allowed to discriminate against gay people. No one is arguing that you should have a right to be served vegan or pork. The issue is whether someone who serves vegan, or pork, or bread, or whatever, should be allowed to discriminate against gay people (with other protected classes up next, probably, to test this whether the court will apply this precedent to the other classes).

It's the same principle.

No, these are not the same. The SCOTUS ruling is about whether someone should be allowed to discriminate against gay people (and by extension other protected classes). You're talking about whether someone should be compelled to create certain products. This case had nothing to do with whether someone should have a constitutional right to be served pork or vegan food. There is no constitutional right to be served vegan food or pork, and no one is fighting for such a right.

Someone cannot be compelled to create any content. Full stop. Their reasons to refuse to create specific content are irrelevant.

The case wasn't about compelling people to create any content. It was about whether people who create content are allowed to refuse to service to protected classes. The court's ruling has legalized discrimination in cases of "expressive, original design".

It IS the same principle!

No it isn't. You're confusing two different ideas.
On the one hand, the idea that you introduced into this discussion, is whether a chef should be required to serve vegan food. This idea has nothing to do with this case, and no one thinks anyone should have a constitutional right to be served vegan food.
What this case was about is the idea that a chef should be required to serve vegan food (or whatever kind of food she cooks) to gay people.
And of course, although this case was specifically about gay people, it could have broader implications regarding other protected classes.

The (fake) case WAS about whether anyone can be compelled to create anything that violates their principles and beliefs!

No, it was about whether people who have JOBS DEALING WITH THE PUBLIC are allowed to discriminate against certain kinds of people. This case had nothing to do with forcing people not to be bigots or forcing people not have repugnant views or forcing people not say hateful things. These are ideas that you introduced into the discussion.

Once again, free speech =/= the right to have any job.

Similarly, a web designer could not be forced to help an anti-gay person or group create a website dedicating cater to anti-gay sentiments.

Of course not. That has nothing to do anything.

Or do you think they should be so compelled? Because you cannot have it both ways.

You CAN have it both ways. That is the whole point of protected classes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In fact, in a lot of places people will choose a designer or a vendor or say, a wedding planner who has already demonstrated that they do an especially good job with the type of work the client wishes to have. Most Jewish couples (or Muslim couples) will choose someone who has helped with the same sort of event, with their traditions and done so well. There is a lot of self selection going on when people look for photographers, wedding planners, caterers, jewelry designers, etc. Most creators do have lanes, or areas of their expertise. Some are more willing and able to step outside those boundaries more than others.

And now, they have to. The number of choices available to gay couples has been decreased (Constitutionally approved). Gay couples will have fewer options (possibly very limited to no options). Sure, big city gays will be fine, but rural gays... well, that is God's country now. Honestly, I can't see how gays have a fundamental right to marriage, but not marriage services? #butwhataboutthehomophobes?!

Do you think a web designer should be compelled by law to create a website that is dedicated to anti-gay propaganda?

If they create anti-gay propaganda websites for one group of people, they need to make it for other groups of people as well. If a web designer makes websites for weddings, they should be compelled to do so for all weddings, presuming they have templates and designs for such weddings (ie Xian, Jewish, Muslim, etc..). This whole, we as a species are incapable of telling profanity or bigotry from common state fare is willfully ignorant.

Also, you have yet to address how this "Principles" issue doesn't apply to race, religion, etc...

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

They are still as entitled to free speech, no matter how repellant you are I may find their speech.

The 1st amendment does not give the bigot a right to run a wedding website business. It guarantees her right to freedom of expression. She is free to express her hatred of gays irrespective of whether she has a wedding website business.

The first amendment guarantees that she can create whatever type of website she chooses ( subject to some laws regarding public safety).

Creating a website is one thing. Running a business that provides a service to the public is another thing entirely. No one is arguing that she can't create a hate website.

It does not mandate that she not be a bigot

No one is saying that it does. "not being a bigot" and "discriminating against gays" are two different things.

any more that it compels someone who has a printing business to print materials that promote bigotry just because a customer demands it.

Once again, "bigot" is not a protected class. No one is arguing that someone should be compelled to print bigoted material.

The question is: can she be compelled to create a hate website because a customer demands it? This decision says no, she would not.

No, this case had nothing to do with that. If you think that had the ruling gone the other way, people would be forced to create hate websites, you are confused. This case was about whether bigots have the right to discriminate against gay people. Nothing about this case would have forced people to create hate websites, or cook vegan food, or anything of that nature.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

I want to preface this post by saying, unequivocally, that I think that the whole fake customer, fake request was/is/will always be utterly and completely reprehensible and I find it flabbergasting that the falsehood behind this was not revealed initially and that the Supreme Court ever heard the case. Hopefully you all realize that I am also completely supportive of gay marriage. Also I have not read the decision myself.

Please consider a different scenario:

Suppose I'm a web designer who despises the whole stupid white nationalism and nazi thing. Suppose someone contacts me and asks me to design a website for their organization. Suppose that organization is actually white nationalism/Nazi or adjacent. Am I legally or morally required to create the website that they wish me to create?

Suppose I am also baker who specializes in special occasion cakes, with words as part of the decoration. Am I required to provide a cake for the above organization if it insists I write words in support of white nationalism or Nazis?

I see both scenarios as legally equivalent.

I contend that I am not required to create any content that I find repugnant or morally offensive or wrong. I believe that I would be required to sell a cake to the cretins asking for one but I am NOT required to write offensive (to me) content on that cake. I contend that I am NOT required to create a website that includes or supports any organization or includes content I find repugnant.

They are not equivalent, as Nazis aren't born Nazis. Gays, blacks, whites are dealt their hands at birth. Allowing the prohibition of sales can create islands of no service to groups of people that are considered legally deprivable of their rights.

This has nothing to do with Nazis and their repugnant existance. This has to do with human beings trying to enjoy the rights and privileges that are promised to them in the Constitution of the United States.

But there is no right or privilege that allows anyone to compel another person to create content that they find repugnant or that violates their principles, religious or not.

Yes there is, there has been a great deal of Constitutional Law suggesting as such. I mean just because it isn't hip anymore to say that the Bible forbids mixing of the races, this was quite the religious justification for segregation and preventing blacks, Jews, *insert whomever else* from establishments (or quaint things like schools). Those objections were based on "principles" just as much as people who want to say making a website for a gay marriage is based on "principles".

Generic cake or website template that is already created? They must sell to anyone whether or not they like them. Specifically being required to CREATE content for someone who wishes them to create something in violation of their principles? No.

I don't see how this argument doesn't apply to a mixed racial couple, a mixed religious couple, or other classes that are currently (who knows for how long) protected. Why should a person be compelled to bake a cake for a wedding between an upstanding white woman and a mongrel nigger? Their children will be an abomination to the Christian faith! And I don't ask that in any sort of hypothetical, but as in this was an issue in Loving v Virginia (well, not the web site side of it, but whether it was Constitutional to charge a mixed race couple with a crime for getting married).

So what is the difference? Why should a cake baker have to sell to a mixed race heterosexual couple or even a mixed Christian breed of heterosexual couple, but not a gay couple?

This whole "compelled speech" argument is bullshit. This is about SCOTUS recognizing the right to discriminate... as long as someone says it has a religious basis, which reads like Plessy v Fergusson, a wink and nod to bigotry.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are very fundamental rights under the US Constitutioin. That's the first amendment. There are limits: You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater; if your religion dictates human sacrifice, you're SOL. And so on.

Freedom of speech and freedom religion =/= the freedom to have any job one wants. Can you please stop and think about this and try to understand that you have been conflating two different ideas?

I understand why people are upset about this ruling. I'm not happy about any of it. But consider:

If a website designer can be compelled to create a website supporting gay marriage, then a website designer can likewise be compelled to create a website supporting homophobia.

No, they can't. This is just something you've been insisting for no reason. Homophobe is not a protected class. Nothing about this case could have forced people to created homophobic content.

Please read about protected classes and the equal protection clause:

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Most artists and designers have a repertoire of the types of work they do. I believe web designers have a set of templates that they use. I think under this ruling, a webdesigner could be compelled to sell the template (assuming they sell the templates to customers) to any customer but cannot be compelled to write Jeff and Ted will celebrate their love in holy matrimony at 6:00 on Friday, October 19.....

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

Being in a protected class does not give someone the right to demand that someone else create content specifically for them.

No, but prior to this, protected classes were protected from discrimination. With this ruling, they are no longer protected where "expressive original design" is concerned.

It seems bigots are now a "protected class". It is a little bit of an over-simplification here, but this opens the door for bigots to push open further.

Not really. It does cut both ways.

No, it does not cut both ways. For the love of god, how can I get through to you that you are wrong about this?

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

One cannot be compelled to create content that one finds hateful, either. No one can be compelled to create an anti-gay marriage website or a website specifically against the marriage of Jeff and Ted. A jewelry designer cannot be compelled to create wedding bands with the swastika embedded in it, a diamond in the center. Or one that is engraved Die Faggots Die, if you want a specific protected class. Or paint a portrait of a white person beating a black person.

None of this is in any way, shape, or form related to this SCOTUS case. Had this case gone the other way, all this would still be true.

 

[Toni]

I want to preface this post by saying, unequivocally, that I think that the whole fake customer, fake request was/is/will always be utterly and completely reprehensible and I find it flabbergasting that the falsehood behind this was not revealed initially and that the Supreme Court ever heard the case. Hopefully you all realize that I am also completely supportive of gay marriage. Also I have not read the decision myself.

Please consider a different scenario:

Suppose I'm a web designer who despises the whole stupid white nationalism and nazi thing. Suppose someone contacts me and asks me to design a website for their organization. Suppose that organization is actually white nationalism/Nazi or adjacent. Am I legally or morally required to create the website that they wish me to create?

Suppose I am also baker who specializes in special occasion cakes, with words as part of the decoration. Am I required to provide a cake for the above organization if it insists I write words in support of white nationalism or Nazis?

I see both scenarios as legally equivalent.

I contend that I am not required to create any content that I find repugnant or morally offensive or wrong. I believe that I would be required to sell a cake to the cretins asking for one but I am NOT required to write offensive (to me) content on that cake. I contend that I am NOT required to create a website that includes or supports any organization or includes content I find repugnant.

They are not equivalent, as Nazis aren't born Nazis. Gays, blacks, whites are dealt their hands at birth. Allowing the prohibition of sales can create islands of no service to groups of people that are considered legally deprivable of their rights.

This has nothing to do with Nazis and their repugnant existance. This has to do with human beings trying to enjoy the rights and privileges that are promised to them in the Constitution of the United States.

But there is no right or privilege that allows anyone to compel another person to create content that they find repugnant or that violates their principles, religious or not.

Yes there is, there has been a great deal of Constitutional Law suggesting as such. I mean just because it isn't hip anymore to say that the Bible forbids mixing of the races, this was quite the religious justification for segregation and preventing blacks, Jews, *insert whomever else* from establishments (or quaint things like schools). Those objections were based on "principles" just as much as people who want to say making a website for a gay marriage is based on "principles".

Generic cake or website template that is already created? They must sell to anyone whether or not they like them. Specifically being required to CREATE content for someone who wishes them to create something in violation of their principles? No.

I don't see how this argument doesn't apply to a mixed racial couple, a mixed religious couple, or other classes that are currently (who knows for how long) protected. Why should a person be compelled to bake a cake for a wedding between an upstanding white woman and a mongrel nigger? Their children will be an abomination to the Christian faith! And I don't ask that in any sort of hypothetical, but as in this was an issue in Loving v Virginia (well, not the web site side of it, but whether it was Constitutional to charge a mixed race couple with a crime for getting married).

So what is the difference? Why should a cake baker have to sell to a mixed race heterosexual couple or even a mixed Christian breed of heterosexual couple, but not a gay couple?

This whole "compelled speech" argument is bullshit. This is about SCOTUS recognizing the right to discriminate... as long as someone says it has a religious basis, which reads like Plessy v Fergusson, a wink and nod to bigotry.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are very fundamental rights under the US Constitutioin. That's the first amendment. There are limits: You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater; if your religion dictates human sacrifice, you're SOL. And so on.

Freedom of speech and freedom religion =/= the freedom to have any job one wants. Can you please stop and think about this and try to understand that you have been conflating two different ideas?

I understand why people are upset about this ruling. I'm not happy about any of it. But consider:

If a website designer can be compelled to create a website supporting gay marriage, then a website designer can likewise be compelled to create a website supporting homophobia.

No, they can't. This is just something you've been insisting for no reason. Homophobe is not a protected class. Nothing about this case could have forced people to created homophobic content.

Please read about protected classes and the equal protection clause:

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Most artists and designers have a repertoire of the types of work they do. I believe web designers have a set of templates that they use. I think under this ruling, a webdesigner could be compelled to sell the template (assuming they sell the templates to customers) to any customer but cannot be compelled to write Jeff and Ted will celebrate their love in holy matrimony at 6:00 on Friday, October 19.....

You are not understanding what I am writing, whether because you decided i am just WRONG and you must fight me or whether you do not understand what I am writing or you just don’t understand the first amendment, I don’t know and won’t attempt to guess.

Protected class is not a I can make anyone do whatever I want card. Someone can refuse to do business with someone who is a minority—the basis of refusal just cannot be that the person is a minority.

 

[Toni]

Being in a protected class does not give someone the right to demand that someone else create content specifically for them.

No, but prior to this, protected classes were protected from discrimination. With this ruling, they are no longer protected where "expressive original design" is concerned.

It seems bigots are now a "protected class". It is a little bit of an over-simplification here, but this opens the door for bigots to push open further.

Not really. It does cut both ways.

No, it does not cut both ways. For the love of god, how can I get through to you that you are wrong about this?

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

One cannot be compelled to create content that one finds hateful, either. No one can be compelled to create an anti-gay marriage website or a website specifically against the marriage of Jeff and Ted. A jewelry designer cannot be compelled to create wedding bands with the swastika embedded in it, a diamond in the center. Or one that is engraved Die Faggots Die, if you want a specific protected class. Or paint a portrait of a white person beating a black person.

None of this is in any way, shape, or form related to this SCOTUS case. Had this case gone the other way, all this would still be true.

I’m not wrong.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

Do you think a racist graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites should be allowed to refuse to work with interracial couples?

Yes. Absolutely.

Another question might be, "Why would an interracial couple demand a wedding website by a racist? What possible reasons are there for wanting a website by that particular designer?"

I'm curious, where in the advertisements for said website designers indicates their political positions on mixed race, religious, or gay marriages?

You seem quite happy to blame victims of discrimination for seeking out discrimination. Thanks to SCOTUS, even those egregious attention whore gays will be joined by other gay couples who were just trying to a service for a wedding. Hopefully there will be signs on the door or a notable disclaimer on the website indicating that "No gays" instead of the doors just being slammed in their face.

Actually, no doors were slammed in anyone's face.

But they will. This ruling ensures it. And its open-endedness will help chip some more stone away.

I don't think that Tom is blaming the victims of discrimination. I think that Tom is expressing the sentiments often shared by oppressed peoples (not saying Tom is oppressed) to avoid confrontation and use someone who is supportive of whatever it is you wish to commission.

You mean that TomC is judging people for doing this, but doesn't have a damn clue about it. It is a theme of TomC's to negatively judge people he doesn't know.

Black people often consulted the Green Book when traveling for exactly this reason. It is despicable that they needed to do so.

Is this supposed to be comforting that gays can do this now too?

In fact, in a lot of places people will choose a designer or a vendor or say, a wedding planner who has already demonstrated that they do an especially good job with the type of work the client wishes to have. Most Jewish couples (or Muslim couples) will choose someone who has helped with the same sort of event, with their traditions and done so well. There is a lot of self selection going on when people look for photographers, wedding planners, caterers, jewelry designers, etc. Most creators do have lanes, or areas of their expertise. Some are more willing and able to step outside those boundaries more than others.

And now, they have to. The number of choices available to gay couples has been decreased (Constitutionally approved). Gay couples will have fewer options (possibly very limited to no options). Sure, big city gays will be fine, but rural gays... well, that is God's country now. Honestly, I can't see how gays have a fundamental right to marriage, but not marriage services? #butwhataboutthehomophobes?!

Do you think a web designer should be compelled by law to create a website that is dedicated to anti-gay propaganda?

Do you think that if this case had gone the other way, web designers would have been compelled by law to create anti-gay websites? If you think that, you don't understand the case. Homophobe is not a protected class. Homophobic views are protected by the constitution, but that is a separate issue as to whether someone is allowed to discriminate at their job.

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

Protected class is not a I can make anyone do whatever I want card.

Of course it isn't, and I have never said otherwise.

 

[BH]

I don't understand why any religious Jew or practicing Christian would get upset about a wedding cake for a gay wedding. The Bible itself set a precedent for something like this long ago. There was a Syrian general named Namaan who was healed of leprosy by Elijah the prophet. After he was healed Namaan realized his god was false and the Jews was true. But he was worried. Part of his job as a general in the Syrian army was to go with the king and bow down with him when the king went to worship the said false god. Elijah basically says don't worry about it, God know you don't mean anything by it.

I am Muslim and have made a career for myself in retail. Other than a short stint teaching school that's all I have done. I have sold plenty of dress pumps to transgender people, sold plenty of shoes to Christians going to get married for the second , third, and fourth time and I know the Jesus said you could not divorce unless your spouse cheated on you.

If I was ever asked my opinions on these issues I would honestly and respectfully give them but if you started saying you could or could not sell this to someone for some moral or ethical you are going to create a big problem legally speaking than you think you are. What if you are Church of Christ and the town bigwig Pentecostal preacher comes in and wants your nicest suite to preach in and speak in tongues? In CoC eyes a pentecostal preacher is a mega false teacher. Can he refuse to sell him the suite lest he be thought aiding and abetting a false teacher? And vice versa a church of Christ is anathema to most evangelicals because they teach your are saved at baptism and not the moment you have trusting faith. It goes on and on and on.

The religious folks need to listen to what Elijah told Namaan.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Protected class is not a I can make anyone do whatever I want card. Someone can refuse to do business with someone who is a minority—the basis of refusal just cannot be that the person is a minority.

But that statement isn't true now. The alt-right is just hacking the philosophy behind being allowed to refuse service to gays. We are being told it is okay only because it is during one of the most important moments of a couple's existence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't understand why any religious Jew or practicing Christian would get upset about a wedding cake for a gay wedding. The Bible itself set a precedent for something like this long ago. There was a Syrian general named Namaan who was healed of leprosy by Elijah the prophet. After he was healed Namaan realized his god was false and the Jews was true. But he was worried. Part of his job as a general in the Syrian army was to go with the king and bow down with him when the king went to worship the said false god. Elijah basically says don't worry about it, God know you don't mean anything by it.

I am Muslim and have made a career for myself in retail. Other than a short stint teaching school that's all I have done. I have sold plenty of dress pumps to transgender people, sold plenty of shoes to Christians going to get married for the second , third, and fourth time and I know the Jesus said you could not divorce unless your spouse cheated on you.

If I was ever asked my opinions on these issues I would honestly and respectfully give them but if you started saying you could or could not sell this to somewhere you are going to create a big problem legally speaking. What if you are Church of Christ and a bigwig Pentecostal preacher comes in and wants your nicest suite to preach in and speak in tongues? In CoC eyes a pentecostal preacher is a mega false teacher. Can he refuse to sell him the suite lest he be thought aiding and abetting a false teacher?

The religious folks need to listen to what Elijah told Namaan.

Telling a religious conservative to understand their Bible better is a quit fruitless endeavor. These people were protesting and trying to prohibit rock music and dancing over their "principles".

 

[Toni]

In fact, in a lot of places people will choose a designer or a vendor or say, a wedding planner who has already demonstrated that they do an especially good job with the type of work the client wishes to have. Most Jewish couples (or Muslim couples) will choose someone who has helped with the same sort of event, with their traditions and done so well. There is a lot of self selection going on when people look for photographers, wedding planners, caterers, jewelry designers, etc. Most creators do have lanes, or areas of their expertise. Some are more willing and able to step outside those boundaries more than others.

And now, they have to. The number of choices available to gay couples has been decreased (Constitutionally approved). Gay couples will have fewer options (possibly very limited to no options). Sure, big city gays will be fine, but rural gays... well, that is God's country now. Honestly, I can't see how gays have a fundamental right to marriage, but not marriage services? #butwhataboutthehomophobes?!

Do you think a web designer should be compelled by law to create a website that is dedicated to anti-gay propaganda?

If they create anti-gay propaganda websites for one group of people, they need to make it for other groups of people as well. If a web designer makes websites for weddings, they should be compelled to do so for all weddings, presuming they have templates and designs for such weddings (ie Xian, Jewish, Muslim, etc..). This whole, we as a species are incapable of telling profanity or bigotry from common state fare is willfully ignorant.

Also, you have yet to address how this "Principles" issue doesn't apply to race, religion, etc...

That’s a big presumption there: provided they have the appropriate templates.

No one *must* sell their services or products to anyone else. The reason of refusal just cannot be minority status.

No one is compelled to adapt their services or products to meet the needs or wants of prospective clients. Is it wise to have as broad and deep a portfolio of skills and requisite equipment and expertise? Of course it is! But I cannot compel the painter who painted my neighbor’s ranch style home to paint my 3 story Victorian house, even if I am a black, Jewish lesbian.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

But I cannot compel the painter who painted my neighbor’s ranch style home to paint my 3 story Victorian house, even if I am a black, Jewish lesbian.

That's not how protected classes work. Typically, if someone is found in court to have engaged in discriminatory practices, they would have to pay fines or maybe pay out damages to the plaintiff. This recent ruling blows up that paradigm. Now, bigots who create "expressive content" can discriminate against minorities they don't like.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

Being in a protected class does not give someone the right to demand that someone else create content specifically for them.

No, but prior to this, protected classes were protected from discrimination. With this ruling, they are no longer protected where "expressive original design" is concerned.

It seems bigots are now a "protected class". It is a little bit of an over-simplification here, but this opens the door for bigots to push open further.

Not really. It does cut both ways.

No, it does not cut both ways. For the love of god, how can I get through to you that you are wrong about this?

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

One cannot be compelled to create content that one finds hateful, either. No one can be compelled to create an anti-gay marriage website or a website specifically against the marriage of Jeff and Ted. A jewelry designer cannot be compelled to create wedding bands with the swastika embedded in it, a diamond in the center. Or one that is engraved Die Faggots Die, if you want a specific protected class. Or paint a portrait of a white person beating a black person.

None of this is in any way, shape, or form related to this SCOTUS case. Had this case gone the other way, all this would still be true.

I’m not wrong.

You really are. There is no cutting both ways, because bigot is not a protected class. There is no potential outcome of this case that would have ended up with people being compelled to create hateful content for bigots.

 

[Emily Lake]

What if the next creator is also a bigot? And the next one. And the next one. And the next one after that.

And what if not? What do you think is more likely? Do you think there are hordes of website developers and cake decorators out there that are rabidly anti-gay?

There needs to be some reasonable balance between individual rights.

The claim of bigotry can (and has) been abused. Anybody remember Yaniv suing several muslim aestheticians because they refused to handle and wax his balls? Yaniv claimed it was bigotry against him being transgender, but he was trying to force these immigrant women to violate fundamental elements of their religion - thus violating their religious freedoms.

Using the legal system to coerce acceptance of a belief is not something I support. Barring discrimination for access to non-custom generic services is something altogether different from forcing people to take custom action in support of a belief.