Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[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.

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.

Keyword: "create".

What you were describing sounded a lot more like pasting customer content into the blanks. I do not consider that creative. It becomes creative when you need to do something beyond just fill in the blanks (and I think in most cases it will require more.)

 

[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

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.

People can have any job they qualify to have. Being a bigot does not mean you cannot be a web designer. It does not mean that you have to take on any client who requests your services. Independent contractors take or turn down work for many many reasons. Only a stupid one would say that they did not want to work with a person they disliked the person. Or because of their race, religion, sexual preferences, gender identity, etc.

Discriminating against someone on the basis of their race, religion, etc. can net you a fine in some places. It can certainly get you a lot of bad publicity and can cost you clients and customers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Cultural.

The thing is black immigrants have a very different socioeconomic profile than black non-immigrants. That says it's far more the person than their skin.

The real issue is poverty. Poverty can only be cured with education, not with money--and you have a big horse-to-water problem with this. I believe the eternal blaming of discrimination is actually counterproductive as it gives people an easy excuse.

 

[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?

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.

Protected class cuts both ways. Black is protected, thus so is white.

 

[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.

Protected class cuts both ways. Black is protected, thus so is white.

Yes, white is protected too. The KKK? Not so much.

 

[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.

Keyword: "create".

What you were describing sounded a lot more like pasting customer content into the blanks. I do not consider that creative. It becomes creative when you need to do something beyond just fill in the blanks (and I think in most cases it will require more.)

It doesn’t matter what you, personally consider to be creative. Pasting a clients text into a template is an act of speech, for both the client and the web designer. The web designer cannot be forced to express sentiments that they find repugnant.

Newspapers, television stations, all sorts of media accept advertisements. They set standards for what type of content they will allow to be published in their newspaper. Newspapers accept letters to the editor from the community at large but they are not required to print any of them and will not print those that fail to meet their standards ( or if they don’t have space).

Suppose a (black) political candidate was running for an office as a member of the Revolutionary Black Panther Party. Media would not be required to accept their ads because the Revolutionary Black panther Party is considered a hate group.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If someone hates the idea of marriage between a black person and a white person, they can get a job as an auto mechanic.

And what happens when an interracial couple brings their car to be fixed?

And don't assume it's always one-way. She's the one that's faced criticism for marrying outside her race. Other than from KKK types I never have.

If someone hates cars, they can get a job as a wedding website designer.

What happens when the classic car couple comes in?

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.

These are fundamental parts of the job, they certainly should not get such jobs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Keyword: "create".

What you were describing sounded a lot more like pasting customer content into the blanks. I do not consider that creative. It becomes creative when you need to do something beyond just fill in the blanks (and I think in most cases it will require more.)

It doesn’t matter what you, personally consider to be creative. Pasting a clients text into a template is an act of speech, for both the client and the web designer. The web designer cannot be forced to express sentiments that they find repugnant.

I define creative as if you give the same task to several skilled practitioners of the field you'll get substantially different results.

Newspapers, television stations, all sorts of media accept advertisements. They set standards for what type of content they will allow to be published in their newspaper. Newspapers accept letters to the editor from the community at large but they are not required to print any of them and will not print those that fail to meet their standards ( or if they don’t have space).

Suppose a (black) political candidate was running for an office as a member of the Revolutionary Black Panther Party. Media would not be required to accept their ads because the Revolutionary Black panther Party is considered a hate group.

They're never expected to print all the letters they receive anyway, this is a non-issue.

 

[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.

People can have any job they qualify to have.

No one has a constitutional right to have any job they want, nor do they have a constitutional right to have any job for which they qualify.

Being a bigot does not mean you cannot be a web designer.

No, but you should probably avoid doing weddings. Well, that was true before this SCOTUS ruling, anyway.

It does not mean that you have to take on any client who requests your services.

Of course not, but the reason you refuse service matters.

Independent contractors take or turn down work for many many reasons. Only a stupid one would say that they did not want to work with a person they disliked the person. Or because of their race, religion, sexual preferences, gender identity, etc.

Discriminating against someone on the basis of their race, religion, etc. can net you a fine in some places. It can certainly get you a lot of bad publicity and can cost you clients and customers.

Discriminatory practices can result in fines and/or lawsuits, but thanks to this SCOTUS ruling, these protections are no longer in place when the services being provided are "expressive"

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Keyword: "create".

What you were describing sounded a lot more like pasting customer content into the blanks. I do not consider that creative. It becomes creative when you need to do something beyond just fill in the blanks (and I think in most cases it will require more.)

It doesn’t matter what you, personally consider to be creative. Pasting a clients text into a template is an act of speech, for both the client and the web designer. The web designer cannot be forced to express sentiments that they find repugnant.

Newspapers, television stations, all sorts of media accept advertisements. They set standards for what type of content they will allow to be published in their newspaper. Newspapers accept letters to the editor from the community at large but they are not required to print any of them and will not print those that fail to meet their standards ( or if they don’t have space).

Suppose a (black) political candidate was running for an office as a member of the Revolutionary Black Panther Party. Media would not be required to accept their ads because the Revolutionary Black panther Party is considered a hate group.

IMO, this is the right take on the issue. Creativity is a pretextual red herring. This lawsuit was obviously created as a battleground for the culture wars between liberals and conservatives over antidiscrimination laws. Even if the job is just making copies of wedding invitations and distributing them, this law allows the business owner to refuse their services to homosexuals and other groups that antidiscrimination laws are designed to protect. The idea is to deny them access to businesses that the general public is allowed to patronize and thereby convey the message that they do not have the same rights as other citizens.

 

[bilby]

Poverty can only be cured with education, not with money

What?

That's absurd.

It's like saying "House fires can only be cured by building with fireproof materials, not with water".

I mean, if you're addressing the town planning committee, it's got a fair bit of merit as a position; But it doesn't fly at all when your neighbour's home is ablaze, and you are trying to justify not picking up a bucket and running to fetch water.

The long run issues of poverty might well be helped with education; But the acute and immediate problems are ONLY able to be solved by money.

Recognising the systemic long-term causes, doesn't absolve you of your neglect of the immediate and acute needs of those who are suffering.

 

[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?

Cultural.

Ah yes, "black culture". Everyone's favorite "get out of racism free card". Blaming the gap on black culture isn't any less racist than blaming it on black people. To the extent that black culture differs from white culture, it is because of racism. Culture doesn't exist in a vacuum. Culture is shaped by history, and America's history is one of monstrous brutality toward black people (and other groups of course).

The thing is black immigrants have a very different socioeconomic profile than black non-immigrants. That says it's far more the person than their skin.

It says something about how this nation has treated black Americans for four centuries.

The real issue is poverty.

There are multiple issues and they are intertwined an inextricably linked. Racism and discrimination create an impoverished underclass, and the poverty reifies the dominant social group's belief that the underclass is impoverished due to some natural or cultural inferiority.

Poverty can only be cured with education, not with money--and you have a big horse-to-water problem with this. I believe the eternal blaming of discrimination is actually counterproductive as it gives people an easy excuse.

It isn't about blaming. It's about recognizing and acknowledging that people who have been pushed into a hole by this country's racism are going to need this country's help climbing out of that hole.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

If someone hates the idea of marriage between a black person and a white person, they can get a job as an auto mechanic.

And what happens when an interracial couple brings their car to be fixed?

Well then I guess they should get a job working in the back of a warehouse or something.

And don't assume it's always one-way. She's the one that's faced criticism for marrying outside her race. Other than from KKK types I never have.

If someone hates cars, they can get a job as a wedding website designer.

What happens when the classic car couple comes in?

Classic car couple isn't a protected class.

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.

These are fundamental parts of the job, they certainly should not get such jobs.

 

[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.

Keyword: "create".

What you were describing sounded a lot more like pasting customer content into the blanks. I do not consider that creative. It becomes creative when you need to do something beyond just fill in the blanks (and I think in most cases it will require more.)

It doesn’t matter what you, personally consider to be creative. Pasting a clients text into a template is an act of speech, for both the client and the web designer. The web designer cannot be forced to express sentiments that they find repugnant.

Newspapers, television stations, all sorts of media accept advertisements. They set standards for what type of content they will allow to be published in their newspaper. Newspapers accept letters to the editor from the community at large but they are not required to print any of them and will not print those that fail to meet their standards ( or if they don’t have space).

Suppose a (black) political candidate was running for an office as a member of the Revolutionary Black Panther Party. Media would not be required to accept their ads because the Revolutionary Black panther Party is considered a hate group.

IMO, this is the right take on the issue. Creativity is a pretextual red herring. This lawsuit was obviously created as a battleground for the culture wars between liberals and conservatives over antidiscrimination laws. Even if the job is just making copies of wedding invitations and distributing them, this law allows the business owner to refuse their services to homosexuals and other groups that antidiscrimination laws are designed to protect. The idea is to deny them access to businesses that the general public is allowed to patronize and thereby convey the message that they do not have the same rights as other citizens.

I’m not sure certain that this ruling would include making photo copies as ‘creative’ work.

I agree on the intent of the case. However I am reading that the fact that no such web designer existed might pave the way for a challenge to the USSC ruling.

What was cited was this:https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/writ_of_coram_nobis

I’m not any sort of lawyer so I cannot comment except that it beggars believe that the case ever left Colorado without being revealed as a fake.

 

[Copernicus]

I’m not any sort of lawyer so I cannot comment except that it beggars believe that the case ever left Colorado without being revealed as a fake.

The lawyer for the plaintiff is now saying that it didn't matter whether the request for service was real, only that it mattered her client believed it was real. The lawyer also pooh-poohed the idea that they would have deliberately faked the request just to show standing, although the timing of the request after the lawsuit was filed makes that look extremely coincidental. I think that they were being coached that they needed standing for the case to make it to the Supreme Court, and I would not be at all surprised if a justice or two on the Court knew this lawsuit was in the works and very much wanted it to succeed in getting to them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

How? Asking a wedding cake shop to make a wedding cake isn't controversial. Allowing bakers to deny selling the cake is.

 

[TomC]

? Asking a wedding cake shop to make a wedding cake isn't controversial. Allowing bakers to deny selling the cake is.

The problem I have with this is the demand for a particular baker to make the cake. Personally, I wouldn't want a cake made under duress. I'd rather have some lopsided thing baked by someone who loves me and is happy for my nuptials.

It's like the Scardina v Masterpiece Bakery thing. Scardina went looking for a victim and found one. Sorry, that makes her the villain. I don't care that she's trans, she's a scumbag lawyer.

There's another aspect to this that's important. The need for the goods or services. Fancy pastries and wedding websites are about as unnecessary as products get. The other end of that spectrum might be EMTs and such. In between is a huge range of stuff, some more needful than others. Putting wedding websites in the same category as an ambulance to the hospital is ridiculous.
Tom

 

[Toni]

One thing that is way more unnecessary than a fancy cake is bigotry and hate directed towards someone whose life, whose existence you disapprove of.

Keep in mind that I got married at the courthouse and then went to work—I’ve never been someone who dreamed of her big fancy wedding.

I understand your point about just picking someone you think will work well with you—I cannot stress that enough if you have a big project

But I also understand how horrible it must be to be told no because you are ( member of group which faces a lot of discrimination) as well as I can as a straight white woman. It hasn’t happened to me, personally ( aside from the casual playground and classroom misogyny) but I’ve seen it happen to other people and it dramatically changed how I felt what I thought about someone I loved who treated another person in such a despicable manner that it has stayed with me for more than 60 years. Not in the good way.

I understand just wanting what you want and seeing no reason why anyone should deny it to you just because they don’t like something about you. I understand pushing because it unfair and unjust to discriminate against someone because if their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. I’d be pretty furious, too, fir the injustice done to me and to anyone else some bigot decided they could heap at me.

I absolutely completely unequivocally despise the bigotry of someone who would refuse to create a website fir someone because they are gay. Or black, or Jewish or Muslim or are disabled or trans or ( fill in the blank),

But at the same time, the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech. Without that foundational freedom, no one has the ability to advocate for their rights or fir change ti better ensure their rights,

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

? Asking a wedding cake shop to make a wedding cake isn't controversial. Allowing bakers to deny selling the cake is.

The problem I have with this is the demand for a particular baker to make the cake. Personally, I wouldn't want a cake made under duress. I'd rather have some lopsided thing baked by someone who loves me and is happy for my nuptials.

It's like the Scardina v Masterpiece Bakery thing. Scardina went looking for a victim and found one. Sorry, that makes her the villain. I don't care that she's trans, she's a scumbag lawyer.

There's another aspect to this that's important. The need for the goods or services. Fancy pastries and wedding websites are about as unnecessary as products get. The other end of that spectrum might be EMTs and such. In between is a huge range of stuff, some more needful than others. Putting wedding websites in the same category as an ambulance to the hospital is ridiculous.
Tom

Forcing the issue works. Ignoring the problem doesn't work. We've already done the experiment. After the Civil Rights laws of the '60s were passed, bigots were faced with the choice of either serving black people or paying fines. And most of them chose to just serve black people. And it worked. The sky didn't fall, society didn't collapse, the world didn't end. More and more white people gradually realized that there is nothing wrong with black people, and racism decreased over time, and all the "No N**** Allowed" signs are virtually gone now.

History shows that anti-discrimination laws work. Ignoring the problem does not work. Allowing the racism and discrimination to persist and fester leaves you with a society that is divided, angry, volatile, and chaotic.

If you want there to be less bigotry in the world, you have to force the issue and make the bigots feel uncomfortable.

 

[Copernicus]

History shows that anti-discrimination laws work. Ignoring the problem does not work. Allowing the racism and discrimination to persist and fester leaves you with a society that is divided, angry, volatile, and chaotic.

It also shows that racism and discrimination can spread and increase when a minority group or class is marginalized, scapegoated, and demonized. I think that we are seeing it on the increase right now.