Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Loren Pechtel]

You think a graphic artist should be allowed to discriminate based on race but a restaurant shouldn't? What's the difference? A chef could argue that his meals are a form of artistic expression.

The chef creates something they offer to all comers. The graphic artist creates custom work. That's the key difference.

The chef can easily claim that every made to order meal he creates is specific to each individual diner.

Claiming it doesn't make it so.

Healthcare is custom work. You can't go to a hospital and order a generic, off the shelf tumor excision.

But if you go to 10 surgeons to remove that tumor they'll all do pretty much the same thing. No creativity.

Police work is custom. You can't buy an off the shelf, generic police investigation. Police work is tailored to each individual crime, victim, and perpetrator.

Once again, the objective is the perp in jail. While the process might involve some creativity the end result does not.

Photography, tailoring, portrait painting, house renovation, home decorating, bike fitting, catering, audio recording, ophthalmology, hairdressing, manicuring and pedicuring, automobile customization, print services, ghost writing, tutoring, etc...

Even if we stipulate that this only applies to "expressive services", the logical outcome can potentially be a return to a time when "No n***** allowed" signs were commonplace.

Here you have a mixed list. Creative/not creative (making a bespoke garment would be creative, but that isn't most tailoring)/creative/not creative/creative/not creative/not creative/what exactly are you referring to/not creative/generally not creative/not creative/not creative/might be creative/not creative/creative/not creative in an important way/

Disagree--"No Niggers Allowed" existed only because of the social pressures--allowing them would be bad for business and so everyone went along until the government forced matters. However, the sorts of endeavors where creativity matters have a large number of practitioners who work generally in private. A few who discriminate will not be a problem. Discrimination only becomes an important matter when it's perpetrated on a large scale--and these days all the large scale discrimination is anti-white and generally anti-Asian.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the law can compel a bigot to create content contrary to their bigoted and ignorant opinions,

That bigot isn't being compelled to do anything. She doesn't have a constitutional right to be a wedding website designer. She can find a new line of work.

And what if the shoe is on the other foot. Should she be compelled to design a website for the wedding of the grand dragon of the KKK?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Two sides of the same coin. If she can be compelled to create a gay website she can be compelled to create a hate website.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.....

Disagree--in this case the creative work was already done in creating the template, filling in the blanks is probably not creative and thus I think they can be compelled.

Normally, though, the templates are just a starting point and there's a lot more done than just filling in the blanks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not really. It does cut both ways. 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.

You're straying into non-creative things here. Engraving words is not creative. I wouldn't even say the swastika is--in both cases it's client-supplied materials being added to a standard product.

 

[Toni]

You think a graphic artist should be allowed to discriminate based on race but a restaurant shouldn't? What's the difference? A chef could argue that his meals are a form of artistic expression.

The chef creates something they offer to all comers. The graphic artist creates custom work. That's the key difference.

The chef can easily claim that every made to order meal he creates is specific to each individual diner.

Claiming it doesn't make it so.

Healthcare is custom work. You can't go to a hospital and order a generic, off the shelf tumor excision.

But if you go to 10 surgeons to remove that tumor they'll all do pretty much the same thing. No creativity.

Police work is custom. You can't buy an off the shelf, generic police investigation. Police work is tailored to each individual crime, victim, and perpetrator.

Once again, the objective is the perp in jail. While the process might involve some creativity the end result does not.

Photography, tailoring, portrait painting, house renovation, home decorating, bike fitting, catering, audio recording, ophthalmology, hairdressing, manicuring and pedicuring, automobile customization, print services, ghost writing, tutoring, etc...

Even if we stipulate that this only applies to "expressive services", the logical outcome can potentially be a return to a time when "No n***** allowed" signs were commonplace.

Here you have a mixed list. Creative/not creative (making a bespoke garment would be creative, but that isn't most tailoring)/creative/not creative/creative/not creative/not creative/what exactly are you referring to/not creative/generally not creative/not creative/not creative/might be creative/not creative/creative/not creative in an important way/

Disagree--"No Niggers Allowed" existed only because of the social pressures--allowing them would be bad for business and so everyone went along until the government forced matters. However, the sorts of endeavors where creativity matters have a large number of practitioners who work generally in private. A few who discriminate will not be a problem. Discrimination only becomes an important matter when it's perpetrated on a large scale--and these days all the large scale discrimination is anti-white and generally anti-Asian.

I disagree with pretty much every word written here.

Business owners preferred the ability to deny blacks the right to shop in their businesses because they were racists. They elected people to impose Jim Crow laws abc were unhappy when those laws were overturned. You may remember ( reading about—you’re too young to actually remember) news stories of blacks demonstrating or rioting. What is less codified into history books is the violence white people committed against blacks. White people were not lynched or murdered and their children were not killed in a church fire nor spat upon fir daring to go to school.

The fact that white people are no longer always in charge of everything is not the same thing as being discriminated against. I understand that some white people, especially white males, struggle with the concept. When you lose the presumption of always coming in first, it can be a blow to the ego. But cheer up: white men have not been demoted. It’s just that darker skinned folks and women are being raised to the same level.

 

[Toni]

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.....

Disagree--in this case the creative work was already done in creating the template, filling in the blanks is probably not creative and thus I think they can be compelled.

Normally, though, the templates are just a starting point and there's a lot more done than just filling in the blanks.

The template probably has been created. But the creator is not compelled to fill in the template with words or images that they find offensive. If they sell the template, they must sell to everybody. If they use a template to create individual content specific to the customer, that’s part of their creative product abc they cannot be forced to create words or images that they find offensive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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 there's a good reason for it: Domain knowledge.

Someone who has done a lot of Jewish weddings knows more about what a Jewish couple will expect and thus will produce a better result for the same skill and effort.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

A few who discriminate will not be a problem.

That's easy to say if you're a member of the dominant social group.

Discrimination only becomes an important matter when it's perpetrated on a large scale--and these days all the large scale discrimination is anti-white and generally anti-Asian.

This is delusional. I don't even know how to respond to a statement that is so untethered from reality.

Why do you think black people have so much less wealth than white people? Do you think they're just innately lazier and dumber?

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

If the law can compel a bigot to create content contrary to their bigoted and ignorant opinions,

That bigot isn't being compelled to do anything. She doesn't have a constitutional right to be a wedding website designer. She can find a new line of work.

And what if the shoe is on the other foot. Should she be compelled to design a website for the wedding of the grand dragon of the KKK?

Klansman isn't a protected class.

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Klansmen aren't protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Anti-discrimination law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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.

Two sides of the same coin. If she can be compelled to create a gay website she can be compelled to create a hate website.

Nope. Not going to happen. The only way this can happen is if supermajorities in both Houses collectively go insane in the same way at the same time and decide to make Klansman a protected class.

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anti-discrimination law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Toni]

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.

Two sides of the same coin. If she can be compelled to create a gay website she can be compelled to create a hate website.

Nope. Not going to happen. The only way this can happen is if supermajorities in both Houses collectively go insane in the same way at the same time and decide to make Klansman a protected class.

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anti-discrimination law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is a huge difference between saying that you can't eat in my diner which is open to the public and I am not going to design a custom website for you that celebrates something I find abhorrent.

Again: Suppose a web designer designs websites for various organizations and is approached by someone who wishes to make a website dedicated to anti-Asian and anti-Jewish rhetoric, which the designer fines abhorrent: Can the website designer decline if the person requesting the service is black? Is Muslim? Is disabled? Is gay? What if the person requesting the service is a disabled black Muslim gay woman?

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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.

Two sides of the same coin. If she can be compelled to create a gay website she can be compelled to create a hate website.

Nope. Not going to happen. The only way this can happen is if supermajorities in both Houses collectively go insane in the same way at the same time and decide to make Klansman a protected class.

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anti-discrimination law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is a huge difference between saying that you can't eat in my diner which is open to the public and I am not going to design a custom website for you that celebrates something I find abhorrent.

Someone who finds interracial marriages abhorrent ought not be in the business of making custom wedding websites.

Right to freedom of expression gives me a right to hold racist views and express racist ideas, but not a right to have any job I want. Having the right to express my views does not also give me the right to no consequences.

Again: Suppose a web designer designs websites for various organizations and is approached by someone who wishes to make a website dedicated to anti-Asian and anti-Jewish rhetoric, which the designer fines abhorrent: Can the website designer decline if the person requesting the service is black? Is Muslim? Is disabled? Is gay? What if the person requesting the service is a disabled black Muslim gay woman?

Yes, the website designer can decline if the person requesting the service black, Muslim, disabled, or gay, or all of the above because being protected by the Equal Protection Clause does not mean you can order people to do whatever you want them to do; it only means they are required to treat you the way they treat everyone else. So if a website designer doesn't make hate websites for white people, they don't have to make hate websites for black people. But if they make, say, cooking websites for white people, they do have to make cooking websites for black people. Except not anymore, because of this SCOTUS ruling.

 

[ZiprHead]

If the law can compel a bigot to create content contrary to their bigoted and ignorant opinions,

That bigot isn't being compelled to do anything. She doesn't have a constitutional right to be a wedding website designer. She can find a new line of work.

And what if the shoe is on the other foot. Should she be compelled to design a website for the wedding of the grand dragon of the KKK?

Is the grand dragon of the KKK in a protected class? No. So no, the designer doesn't have to create a website for such a person.

 

[Toni]

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.

Two sides of the same coin. If she can be compelled to create a gay website she can be compelled to create a hate website.

Nope. Not going to happen. The only way this can happen is if supermajorities in both Houses collectively go insane in the same way at the same time and decide to make Klansman a protected class.

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anti-discrimination law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is a huge difference between saying that you can't eat in my diner which is open to the public and I am not going to design a custom website for you that celebrates something I find abhorrent.

Someone who finds interracial marriages abhorrent ought not be in the business of making custom wedding websites.

Right to freedom of expression gives me a right to hold racist views and express racist ideas, but not a right to have any job I want. Having the right to express my views does not also give me the right to no consequences.

Again: Suppose a web designer designs websites for various organizations and is approached by someone who wishes to make a website dedicated to anti-Asian and anti-Jewish rhetoric, which the designer fines abhorrent: Can the website designer decline if the person requesting the service is black? Is Muslim? Is disabled? Is gay? What if the person requesting the service is a disabled black Muslim gay woman?

Yes, the website designer can decline if the person requesting the service black, Muslim, disabled, or gay, or all of the above because being protected by the Equal Protection Clause does not mean you can order people to do whatever you want them to do; it only means they are required to treat you the way they treat everyone else. So if a website designer doesn't make hate websites for white people, they don't have to make hate websites for black people. But if they make, say, cooking websites for white people, they do have to make cooking websites for black people. Except not anymore, because of this SCOTUS ruling.

And if the web designer does not design gay wedding websites for straight couples, then the wedding web designer does not have to design gay wedding websites for gay couples.

This fictional web designer did not design websites for gay weddings.

 

[Toni]

If the law can compel a bigot to create content contrary to their bigoted and ignorant opinions,

That bigot isn't being compelled to do anything. She doesn't have a constitutional right to be a wedding website designer. She can find a new line of work.

And what if the shoe is on the other foot. Should she be compelled to design a website for the wedding of the grand dragon of the KKK?

Is the grand dragon of the KKK in a protected class? No. So no, the designer doesn't have to create a website for such a person.

Just because someone is in a protected class, it does not mean that the web designer must design the website that client wants if it lays outside of their area of expertise or if the content desired violates their principles or religious convictions.

No one is compelled to create something that violates their principles, values or religious beliefs. Because everyone has freedom of speech, equally.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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.

Two sides of the same coin. If she can be compelled to create a gay website she can be compelled to create a hate website.

Nope. Not going to happen. The only way this can happen is if supermajorities in both Houses collectively go insane in the same way at the same time and decide to make Klansman a protected class.

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anti-discrimination law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is a huge difference between saying that you can't eat in my diner which is open to the public and I am not going to design a custom website for you that celebrates something I find abhorrent.

Someone who finds interracial marriages abhorrent ought not be in the business of making custom wedding websites.

Right to freedom of expression gives me a right to hold racist views and express racist ideas, but not a right to have any job I want. Having the right to express my views does not also give me the right to no consequences.

Again: Suppose a web designer designs websites for various organizations and is approached by someone who wishes to make a website dedicated to anti-Asian and anti-Jewish rhetoric, which the designer fines abhorrent: Can the website designer decline if the person requesting the service is black? Is Muslim? Is disabled? Is gay? What if the person requesting the service is a disabled black Muslim gay woman?

Yes, the website designer can decline if the person requesting the service black, Muslim, disabled, or gay, or all of the above because being protected by the Equal Protection Clause does not mean you can order people to do whatever you want them to do; it only means they are required to treat you the way they treat everyone else. So if a website designer doesn't make hate websites for white people, they don't have to make hate websites for black people. But if they make, say, cooking websites for white people, they do have to make cooking websites for black people. Except not anymore, because of this SCOTUS ruling.

And if the web designer does not design gay wedding websites for straight couples, then the wedding web designer does not have to design gay wedding websites for gay couples.

Well, now you're just playing word games.

There's no such thing as a gay wedding website. There are wedding websites, which are websites that provide information about upcoming weddings. Some weddings happen to be between gay people. Some weddings happen to be between people from different ethnic groups. Weddings can feature many different combinations of different kinds of people from different backgrounds. If someone is uncomfortable with this, they should do something else for a living. I mean, if you hate food, don't get a job in a restaurant.

It's one thing to think you're defending free speech, but this just seems like an attempt to defend bigotry through rhetorical sleight of hand.

How about an "aryan race wedding website designer", are you ok with that?

This fictional web designer did not design websites for gay weddings.

The web designer is real, the client was fake. A "gay wedding" is just a wedding.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And I refer to my initial complaint about this. Does this mean they don't even have to sell to Muslim customers? Or just if a Muslim marries a Xian... or do "Principles" only apply when couples have similar genitalia? And we get to the repeated issue with this activist Court's rulings, they suck... they are pretty much opening Pandora;s box... and not providing ANY guidance.

It's not the customer that counts. It's what they are being asked to create that counts.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

If the law can compel a bigot to create content contrary to their bigoted and ignorant opinions,

That bigot isn't being compelled to do anything. She doesn't have a constitutional right to be a wedding website designer. She can find a new line of work.

And what if the shoe is on the other foot. Should she be compelled to design a website for the wedding of the grand dragon of the KKK?

Is the grand dragon of the KKK in a protected class? No. So no, the designer doesn't have to create a website for such a person.

Just because someone is in a protected class, it does not mean that the web designer must design the website that client wants if it lays outside of their area of expertise

That's fine.

or if the content desired violates their principles or religious convictions.

No one is compelled to create something that violates their principles, values or religious beliefs. Because everyone has freedom of speech, equally.

We have the right to freedom of expression.
We do not have the right to have any job.
We do not have the right to never face consequences.

If someone hates the idea of marriage between a black person and a white person, they can get a job as an auto mechanic.
If someone hates cars, they can get a job as a wedding website designer.
If someone hates being around water, they should not get a job at a waterpark, public pool or beach.
If someone hates kids, they should not get a job as a kindergarten teacher.
If someone hates flying, they should not get a job as a pilot or flight attendant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Disagree--"No Niggers Allowed" existed only because of the social pressures--allowing them would be bad for business and so everyone went along until the government forced matters. However, the sorts of endeavors where creativity matters have a large number of practitioners who work generally in private. A few who discriminate will not be a problem. Discrimination only becomes an important matter when it's perpetrated on a large scale--and these days all the large scale discrimination is anti-white and generally anti-Asian.

I disagree with pretty much every word written here.

Business owners preferred the ability to deny blacks the right to shop in their businesses because they were racists. They elected people to impose Jim Crow laws abc were unhappy when those laws were overturned. You may remember ( reading about—you’re too young to actually remember) news stories of blacks demonstrating or rioting. What is less codified into history books is the violence white people committed against blacks. White people were not lynched or murdered and their children were not killed in a church fire nor spat upon fir daring to go to school.

The fact that white people are no longer always in charge of everything is not the same thing as being discriminated against. I understand that some white people, especially white males, struggle with the concept. When you lose the presumption of always coming in first, it can be a blow to the ego. But cheer up: white men have not been demoted. It’s just that darker skinned folks and women are being raised to the same level.

The thing is it doesn't need a majority of people to support the racism for the business to follow the practice.

It comes down to how much business would be lost to bigots if they permit blacks vs how much business the blacks would bring. In the Jim Crow time in most places the former would exceed the latter because they are voting with dollars rather than heads. At this point that is no longer true, a business will not exclude minorities on a simple economic basis. If you permit them to exclude minorities there will be some racist businesses that do but they'll be a small portion of the whole.