Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[CosmicJellyfish]

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),

The above flowery words are all empty rhetoric if you support legalized discrimination. And if you support this SCOTUS ruling, you support legalized discrimination.

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,

This is going to continue to be a red herring no matter how many times you repeat it.

We have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression.
We do not have a constitutionally protected right to have any job.
We do not have a constitutionally protected right to live consequence free.

Anti-discrimination laws do not stop bigots from holding bigoted views, and they do not prevent bigots from expressing those views. They merely require that people who have jobs that require interface with the public have to treat minorities the same way they treat everyone else.

By supporting this ruling, you are basically saying that in your view, a bigot's NON-EXISTENT, IMAGINED "rights" to have any job and never face consequences should trump my ACTUAL right to be treated the same as everyone else.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

my ACTUAL right to be treated the same as everyone else.

Oops, I no longer have that right. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Toni]

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),

The above flowery words are all empty rhetoric if you support legalized discrimination. And if you support this SCOTUS ruling, you support legalized discrimination.

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,

This is going to continue to be a red herring no matter how many times you repeat it.

We have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression.
We do not have a constitutionally protected right to have any job.
We do not have a constitutionally protected right to live consequence free.

Anti-discrimination laws do not stop bigots from holding bigoted views, and they do not prevent bigots from expressing those views. They merely require that people who have jobs that require interface with the public have to treat minorities the same way they treat everyone else.

By supporting this ruling, you are basically saying that in your view, a bigot's NON-EXISTENT, IMAGINED "rights" to have any job and never face consequences should trump my ACTUAL right to be treated the same as everyone else.

A bigot has as much a right to free speech as a Saint.

If we do not ALL have freedom of speech, then none of us do.

What consequences are you imagining that should be meted out to a jewelry maker who refuses to write Tim and Ted for ever inside a pair of wedding bands?

Like you, I believe in consequences for actions —or inactions, sometimes.

If you know—not just a rumor but actually know as fact that a business unfairly discriminated against someone, then boycott it! Spread the word! Oppose their applications for certification or licensure or that building permit.

You talk all the time about ‘protected groups’. I had never before considered wete not rightly protected. But as I read every one of your posts about how ‘protected groups’ could not be turned away while assuring me that Nazis and Proud Boys and KKK could be—

That is what will mean the end of protected groups. The apparent double standard that the law seems to imply: You can refuse to write words celebrating Nazi Heritage month but not gay marriage — as if there were no gay Nazis but I digress. What you are really saying is that it is OK to suppress the rights of dine people, those whose politics do not align with yours but not OK to suppress the the rights of those you agree with.

What this USSC decision seems to say to me is that the right of free speech cannot be dependent on whose speech we’re talking about.

I have every right in the world to stand in the middle of the street and scream out every single racist epithet and homophobic slur I wish to. The Constitution guarantees my right to do so. It also guarantees your right to stand 2 feet away and scream right back at me what a hateful ugly bigot I am.

If I can do this in the middle of the street, then surely I cannot be compelled to create or express support of something I despise or believe is morally wrong. Nor can you.


Either we all have freedom of expression or none of us do. If my freedom of expression can be impinged then do can yours.

 

[Copernicus]

I have every right in the world to stand in the middle of the street and scream out every single racist epithet and homophobic slur I wish to. The Constitution guarantees my right to do so. It also guarantees your right to stand 2 feet away and scream right back at me what a hateful ugly bigot I am.

Do you favor allowing businesses harass minority customers with racial epithets when they enter their premises? After all, that is just exercising free speech. There are lots of creative ways one can think of to promote and enforce segregation, and they were pretty much all used during the Jim Crow era. It looks like what we have with this decision is the beginning of the Harlan Crow era.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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),

The above flowery words are all empty rhetoric if you support legalized discrimination. And if you support this SCOTUS ruling, you support legalized discrimination.

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,

This is going to continue to be a red herring no matter how many times you repeat it.

We have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression.
We do not have a constitutionally protected right to have any job.
We do not have a constitutionally protected right to live consequence free.

Anti-discrimination laws do not stop bigots from holding bigoted views, and they do not prevent bigots from expressing those views. They merely require that people who have jobs that require interface with the public have to treat minorities the same way they treat everyone else.

By supporting this ruling, you are basically saying that in your view, a bigot's NON-EXISTENT, IMAGINED "rights" to have any job and never face consequences should trump my ACTUAL right to be treated the same as everyone else.

A bigot has as much a right to free speech as a Saint.

If we do not ALL have freedom of speech, then none of us do.

Do you think people cease to exist outside of the workplace? Anti-discrimination laws DO NOT PROHIBIT FREE SPEECH.

Anti-discrimination laws have been in place since the '60s. If anti-discrimination laws prohibit free speech like you keep wrongly insisting they do, then how have so many people been getting away with expressing bigoted views over the last 80 years?

Anti-discrimination laws do not prohibit free speech. They merely require that places of business and government agencies treat minorities the same way they treat everyone else. Or they pay a fine. That's it. Bigots can still be bigots in every other setting.

What consequences are you imagining that should be meted out to a jewelry maker who refuses to write Tim and Ted for ever inside a pair of wedding bands?

Like you, I believe in consequences for actions —or inactions, sometimes.

If you know—not just a rumor but actually know as fact that a business unfairly discriminated against someone, then boycott it! Spread the word! Oppose their applications for certification or licensure or that building permit.

Boycotts often don't work. Do you think boycotts would have gotten rid of this?:

Boycotts help raise awareness, but ultimately it is passage of civil rights legislation that actually works.

You talk all the time about ‘protected groups’. I had never before considered wete not rightly protected. But as I read every one of your posts about how ‘protected groups’ could not be turned away while assuring me that Nazis and Proud Boys and KKK could be—

That is what will mean the end of protected groups. The apparent double standard that the law seems to imply:

No, it's not a double standard because a gay person is born gay and cannot stop being gay and isn't hurting anyone by being gay. A Nazi, on the other hand, isn't born a Nazi and can easily stop being a Nazi, and Nazism isn't intrinsic to their existence.

You can refuse to write words celebrating Nazi Heritage month but not gay marriage — as if there were no gay Nazis but I digress. What you are really saying is that it is OK to suppress the rights of dine people, those whose politics do not align with yours but not OK to suppress the the rights of those you agree with.

Nonsense. I am defending equal protection under the law that has been the standard for protected classes in since the 1960s.

What this USSC decision seems to say to me is that the right of free speech cannot be dependent on whose speech we’re talking about.

I have every right in the world to stand in the middle of the street and scream out every single racist epithet and homophobic slur I wish to. The Constitution guarantees my right to do so. It also guarantees your right to stand 2 feet away and scream right back at me what a hateful ugly bigot I am.

Nope, there are laws against disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct. Would you like to do away with those too?

If I can do this in the middle of the street, then surely I cannot be compelled to create or express support of something I despise or believe is morally wrong. Nor can you.


Either we all have freedom of expression or none of us do. If my freedom of expression can be impinged then do can yours.

Anti-discrimination laws DO NOT PROHIBIT FREE SPEECH. No one is at work 24/7/365.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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,

A wedding is a wedding. Creating a wedding website for a straight couple is no more compelled speech in favor of that marriage as it is for a gay couple.

 

[Toni]

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,

A wedding is a wedding. Creating a wedding website for a straight couple is no more compelled speech in favor of that marriage as it is for a gay couple.

Ok, suppose you are asked to create a wedding website for a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl?

A wedding is a wedding, right?

 

[Toni]

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),

The above flowery words are all empty rhetoric if you support legalized discrimination. And if you support this SCOTUS ruling, you support legalized discrimination.

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,

This is going to continue to be a red herring no matter how many times you repeat it.

We have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression.
We do not have a constitutionally protected right to have any job.
We do not have a constitutionally protected right to live consequence free.

Anti-discrimination laws do not stop bigots from holding bigoted views, and they do not prevent bigots from expressing those views. They merely require that people who have jobs that require interface with the public have to treat minorities the same way they treat everyone else.

By supporting this ruling, you are basically saying that in your view, a bigot's NON-EXISTENT, IMAGINED "rights" to have any job and never face consequences should trump my ACTUAL right to be treated the same as everyone else.

A bigot has as much a right to free speech as a Saint.

If we do not ALL have freedom of speech, then none of us do.

Do you think people cease to exist outside of the workplace? Anti-discrimination laws DO NOT PROHIBIT FREE SPEECH.

Anti-discrimination laws have been in place since the '60s. If anti-discrimination laws prohibit free speech like you keep wrongly insisting they do, then how have so many people been getting away with expressing bigoted views over the last 80 years?

Anti-discrimination laws do not prohibit free speech. They merely require that places of business and government agencies treat minorities the same way they treat everyone else. Or they pay a fine. That's it. Bigots can still be bigots in every other setting.

What consequences are you imagining that should be meted out to a jewelry maker who refuses to write Tim and Ted for ever inside a pair of wedding bands?

Like you, I believe in consequences for actions —or inactions, sometimes.

If you know—not just a rumor but actually know as fact that a business unfairly discriminated against someone, then boycott it! Spread the word! Oppose their applications for certification or licensure or that building permit.

Boycotts often don't work. Do you think boycotts would have gotten rid of this?:

Boycotts help raise awareness, but ultimately it is passage of civil rights legislation that actually works.

You talk all the time about ‘protected groups’. I had never before considered wete not rightly protected. But as I read every one of your posts about how ‘protected groups’ could not be turned away while assuring me that Nazis and Proud Boys and KKK could be—

That is what will mean the end of protected groups. The apparent double standard that the law seems to imply:

No, it's not a double standard because a gay person is born gay and cannot stop being gay and isn't hurting anyone by being gay. A Nazi, on the other hand, isn't born a Nazi and can easily stop being a Nazi, and Nazism isn't intrinsic to their existence.

You can refuse to write words celebrating Nazi Heritage month but not gay marriage — as if there were no gay Nazis but I digress. What you are really saying is that it is OK to suppress the rights of dine people, those whose politics do not align with yours but not OK to suppress the the rights of those you agree with.

Nonsense. I am defending equal protection under the law that has been the standard for protected classes in since the 1960s.

What this USSC decision seems to say to me is that the right of free speech cannot be dependent on whose speech we’re talking about.

I have every right in the world to stand in the middle of the street and scream out every single racist epithet and homophobic slur I wish to. The Constitution guarantees my right to do so. It also guarantees your right to stand 2 feet away and scream right back at me what a hateful ugly bigot I am.

Nope, there are laws against disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct. Would you like to do away with those too?

If I can do this in the middle of the street, then surely I cannot be compelled to create or express support of something I despise or believe is morally wrong. Nor can you.


Either we all have freedom of expression or none of us do. If my freedom of expression can be impinged then do can yours.

Anti-discrimination laws DO NOT PROHIBIT FREE SPEECH. No one is at work 24/7/365.

Boycotts do work. Oh, you mean immediately? Laws don’t work like that either or else there would be no crimes or traffic violations. Boycotts can sometimes cause enough pressure on a business to cause them to change without any other action needed. I’ve actually seen the mere threat/ promise to share the bad behavior ( failure to honor promise) of a business cause the business to honor its promise.

Disorderly conduct is a community standard issue. In my state, as long as I wasn’t shouting at someone repeatedly in an attempt to intimidate them, or including words to incite violence, and assuming I’m not drunk, or impeding traffic, I would not be legally disturbing the peace. If I am on my front porch, then I’m not impeding traffic. Would someone likely call the police to do a welfare check? Probably.

You are correct: anti-discrimination laws do not prohibit free speech. They also do not compel speech.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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,

A wedding is a wedding. Creating a wedding website for a straight couple is no more compelled speech in favor of that marriage as it is for a gay couple.

Ok, suppose you are asked to create a wedding website for a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl?

A wedding is a wedding, right?

Did you seriously just use a child bride marriage? I expect that type of argument from a few others, not from you.

Do I literally need to spell out every word that should be taken as understood?

A wedding between two consenting adults is a wedding between two consenting adults. Creating a wedding website for a straight consenting adult couple is no more compelled speech in support of the marriage than it is for a gay consenting adult couple.

 

[Toni]

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,

A wedding is a wedding. Creating a wedding website for a straight couple is no more compelled speech in favor of that marriage as it is for a gay couple.

Ok, suppose you are asked to create a wedding website for a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl?

A wedding is a wedding, right?

Did you seriously just use a child bride marriage? I expect that type of argument from a few others, not from you.

Do I literally need to spell out every word that should be taken as understood?

A wedding between two consenting adults is a wedding between two consenting adults. Creating a wedding website for a straight consenting adult couple is no more compelled speech in support of the marriage than it is for a gay consenting adult couple.

Yes because I know you would find that every bit as repugnant and horrifying as I do.

Do you not realize that I fully support the right of two consenting adults to marry? That I find anti-gay policies, laws and behavior to be disgusting? Of course I do! There’s a whole list of businesses I won’t frequent because of their anti-gay or otherwise discriminatory policies. I am appalled that they are still in business much less nationally franchised. I am appalled that there are religious exemptions that allow businesses to refuse to have birth control covered in their health insurance. And the list goes on.

That does not change that freedom of speech includes speech that is repugnant. It does not make it ok to compel someone to express sentiments that they find repugnant.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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,

A wedding is a wedding. Creating a wedding website for a straight couple is no more compelled speech in favor of that marriage as it is for a gay couple.

Ok, suppose you are asked to create a wedding website for a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl?

A wedding is a wedding, right?

Did you seriously just use a child bride marriage? I expect that type of argument from a few others, not from you.

Do I literally need to spell out every word that should be taken as understood?

A wedding between two consenting adults is a wedding between two consenting adults. Creating a wedding website for a straight consenting adult couple is no more compelled speech in support of the marriage than it is for a gay consenting adult couple.

Yes because I know you would find that every bit as repugnant and horrifying as I do.

Do you not realize that I fully support the right of two consenting adults to marry? That I find anti-gay policies, laws and behavior to be disgusting? Of course I do! There’s a whole list of businesses I won’t frequent because of their anti-gay or otherwise discriminatory policies. I am appalled that they are still in business much less nationally franchised. I am appalled that there are religious exemptions that allow businesses to refuse to have birth control covered in their health insurance. And the list goes on.

That does not change that freedom of speech includes speech that is repugnant. It does not make it ok to compel someone to express sentiments that they find repugnant.

1) Your example was illegal.
2) Your argument justifies withholding services for mixed race or inter-denominational weddings or even atheist weddings.

At some point, the opinion of the seller isn't relevant or their "speech" isn't "expression" at all. Where are you drawing the line? Because based on principles, you are suggesting 1910s worldview.

 

[Toni]

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,

A wedding is a wedding. Creating a wedding website for a straight couple is no more compelled speech in favor of that marriage as it is for a gay couple.

Ok, suppose you are asked to create a wedding website for a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl?

A wedding is a wedding, right?

Did you seriously just use a child bride marriage? I expect that type of argument from a few others, not from you.

Do I literally need to spell out every word that should be taken as understood?

A wedding between two consenting adults is a wedding between two consenting adults. Creating a wedding website for a straight consenting adult couple is no more compelled speech in support of the marriage than it is for a gay consenting adult couple.

Yes because I know you would find that every bit as repugnant and horrifying as I do.

Do you not realize that I fully support the right of two consenting adults to marry? That I find anti-gay policies, laws and behavior to be disgusting? Of course I do! There’s a whole list of businesses I won’t frequent because of their anti-gay or otherwise discriminatory policies. I am appalled that they are still in business much less nationally franchised. I am appalled that there are religious exemptions that allow businesses to refuse to have birth control covered in their health insurance. And the list goes on.

That does not change that freedom of speech includes speech that is repugnant. It does not make it ok to compel someone to express sentiments that they find repugnant.

1) Your example was illegal.
2) Your argument justifies withholding services for mixed race or inter-denominational weddings or even atheist weddings.

At some point, the opinion of the seller isn't relevant or their "speech" isn't "expression" at all. Where are you drawing the line? Because based on principles, you are suggesting 1910s worldview.

No, my example is illegal in some states. Sadly, horribly, not in all states. I chose that example precisely because it is legal in some states.

I don’t know how much you know about creating a personal wedding website, but a good deal of time, effort and some talent are necessary.

I 100% think that if you offer something already created for sale, you cannot refuse to sell it to any customer, regardless of whether or not you approve of them or how they plan to use the product.

But no one is required by law to create content or to express sentiments or ideas they do not wish to create or express. No matter how repugnant their reasons for refusal.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, my example is illegal in some states. Sadly, horribly, not in all states. I chose that example precisely because it is legal in some states.

What state is a 12 yr old marrying a 40 yr old legal?

I don’t know how much you know about creating a personal wedding website, but a good deal of time, effort and some talent are necessary.

I 100% think that if you offer something already created for sale, you cannot refuse to sell it to any customer, regardless of whether or not you approve of them or how they plan to use the product.

But no one is required by law to create content or to express sentiments or ideas they do not wish to create or express. No matter how repugnant their reasons for refusal.

So inter-racial marriages, maybe even blacks marrying. Why should racist white web developers be compelled to create a wedding website for black couples?

 

[Gospel]

Ah, we find ourselves once again delving into the enduring controversy surrounding the supposed freedom to discriminate. This premise may have held water had it not been repeatedly and consistently undermined by prejudiced individuals obstructing the progress of minority groups. Let's consider the example of the thriving Black Wall Street. It flourished and cultivated its own network of associations, unobtrusively coexisting in a society that largely wanted to discriminate against it. However, its prosperity was abruptly extinguished when intolerant individuals infiltrated this harmony. Ironically, these perpetrators, who fiercely advocate for discrimination under the guise of 'minding their own business,' persistently fail to extend the same courtesy to others. Their intrusive behavior starkly contradicts the very principle they claim to uphold, effectively negating any potential validity to their argument.

 

[Gospel]

Next thing they'd want is the government to regain its authority to discriminate.

 

[scombrid]

Eight pages on the particulars of freedom of expression as a content creator and where do we draw lines for personal freedom and discrimination. But the issue being such a burden for website developers that one had to fake a conflict to get it before the court. It's a great discussion on balancing personal freedom and service discrimination in the modern economy. But it should be academic at this point and not something that went to court. I really feel like we should be discussion more the motivations of the people that took this to court than arguing on the merits of the hypothetical case. There is a serious ethical issue here and likely some really shitty pro-discrimination motivation. I write this from a state where "freedom" equals our legislature and governor prohibiting universities from spending money on DEI along with a lot of other bans such as prohibiting local governments from regulating fertilizer application, interfering with Key West's autonomy in regulating its own port. Their "freedom" is usually anything but if you aren't part of their in-group.

I have plenty of opinion on balancing discrimination and freedom with respect to public accommodations and creative arts. I don't feel like this case is a place to discuss them because the well is poisoned from the outset with how this case came to be.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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,

A wedding is a wedding. Creating a wedding website for a straight couple is no more compelled speech in favor of that marriage as it is for a gay couple.

Ok, suppose you are asked to create a wedding website for a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl?

A wedding is a wedding, right?

Pedophiles aren't a protected class.

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Seriously, have you even bothered to open this link or the other ones I've provided?

All these scary hypotheticals about having to work for Nazis and pedophiles are pointless. You still don't understand how any of this works.

 

[Toni]

No, my example is illegal in some states. Sadly, horribly, not in all states. I chose that example precisely because it is legal in some states.

What state is a 12 yr old marrying a 40 yr old legal?

I don’t know how much you know about creating a personal wedding website, but a good deal of time, effort and some talent are necessary.

I 100% think that if you offer something already created for sale, you cannot refuse to sell it to any customer, regardless of whether or not you approve of them or how they plan to use the product.

But no one is required by law to create content or to express sentiments or ideas they do not wish to create or express. No matter how repugnant their reasons for refusal.

So inter-racial marriages, maybe even blacks marrying. Why should racist white web developers be compelled to create a wedding website for black couples?

There are 20 states that do not have a minimum age fir marriage with parental or judicial consent. Yeah, I’m pretty horrified too.

Do I think a racist web designer should legally be required to create any content for a black person? No. Do I think that it is morally outrageous and repugnant that they refuse to do so refuse? Yes. Absolutely.

I will say that I see it ( very very very ) slightly different ONLY because gay marriage has only been legalized since 2004 and it takes time for widespread acceptance of societal changes. In a generation, I doubt that this will be even a tiny issue. Gay rights have progressed much more rapidly than equal rights for black people. Or women. And in case there is any doubt: I’m all for equal rights for all, an end to bigotry everywhere and universal health care, expansive voter rights ( but not until 18) and pretty much every other lefty cause in the US.

 

[Toni]

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,

A wedding is a wedding. Creating a wedding website for a straight couple is no more compelled speech in favor of that marriage as it is for a gay couple.

Ok, suppose you are asked to create a wedding website for a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl?

A wedding is a wedding, right?

Pedophiles aren't a protected class.

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Seriously, have you even bothered to open this link or the other ones I've provided?

All these scary hypotheticals about having to work for Nazis and pedophiles are pointless. You still don't understand how any of this works.

As disgusting as it is, child marriage is legal in most states, with parental or judicial approval. I am as horrified as you are.

In fact, sometimes the rape of a child and the resulting pregnancy are ‘covered up’ or ‘made right’ by marrying the child to their rapist. I find those sentences to be some of the most horrifying sentences that can be written.

Here’s the Wiki page. Warning: it’s not for the faint of heart:

Child marriage in the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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),

The above flowery words are all empty rhetoric if you support legalized discrimination. And if you support this SCOTUS ruling, you support legalized discrimination.

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,

This is going to continue to be a red herring no matter how many times you repeat it.

We have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression.
We do not have a constitutionally protected right to have any job.
We do not have a constitutionally protected right to live consequence free.

Anti-discrimination laws do not stop bigots from holding bigoted views, and they do not prevent bigots from expressing those views. They merely require that people who have jobs that require interface with the public have to treat minorities the same way they treat everyone else.

By supporting this ruling, you are basically saying that in your view, a bigot's NON-EXISTENT, IMAGINED "rights" to have any job and never face consequences should trump my ACTUAL right to be treated the same as everyone else.

A bigot has as much a right to free speech as a Saint.

If we do not ALL have freedom of speech, then none of us do.

Do you think people cease to exist outside of the workplace? Anti-discrimination laws DO NOT PROHIBIT FREE SPEECH.

Anti-discrimination laws have been in place since the '60s. If anti-discrimination laws prohibit free speech like you keep wrongly insisting they do, then how have so many people been getting away with expressing bigoted views over the last 80 years?

Anti-discrimination laws do not prohibit free speech. They merely require that places of business and government agencies treat minorities the same way they treat everyone else. Or they pay a fine. That's it. Bigots can still be bigots in every other setting.

What consequences are you imagining that should be meted out to a jewelry maker who refuses to write Tim and Ted for ever inside a pair of wedding bands?

Like you, I believe in consequences for actions —or inactions, sometimes.

If you know—not just a rumor but actually know as fact that a business unfairly discriminated against someone, then boycott it! Spread the word! Oppose their applications for certification or licensure or that building permit.

Boycotts often don't work. Do you think boycotts would have gotten rid of this?:

Boycotts help raise awareness, but ultimately it is passage of civil rights legislation that actually works.

You talk all the time about ‘protected groups’. I had never before considered wete not rightly protected. But as I read every one of your posts about how ‘protected groups’ could not be turned away while assuring me that Nazis and Proud Boys and KKK could be—

That is what will mean the end of protected groups. The apparent double standard that the law seems to imply:

No, it's not a double standard because a gay person is born gay and cannot stop being gay and isn't hurting anyone by being gay. A Nazi, on the other hand, isn't born a Nazi and can easily stop being a Nazi, and Nazism isn't intrinsic to their existence.

You can refuse to write words celebrating Nazi Heritage month but not gay marriage — as if there were no gay Nazis but I digress. What you are really saying is that it is OK to suppress the rights of dine people, those whose politics do not align with yours but not OK to suppress the the rights of those you agree with.

Nonsense. I am defending equal protection under the law that has been the standard for protected classes in since the 1960s.

What this USSC decision seems to say to me is that the right of free speech cannot be dependent on whose speech we’re talking about.

I have every right in the world to stand in the middle of the street and scream out every single racist epithet and homophobic slur I wish to. The Constitution guarantees my right to do so. It also guarantees your right to stand 2 feet away and scream right back at me what a hateful ugly bigot I am.

Nope, there are laws against disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct. Would you like to do away with those too?

If I can do this in the middle of the street, then surely I cannot be compelled to create or express support of something I despise or believe is morally wrong. Nor can you.


Either we all have freedom of expression or none of us do. If my freedom of expression can be impinged then do can yours.

Anti-discrimination laws DO NOT PROHIBIT FREE SPEECH. No one is at work 24/7/365.

Boycotts do work. Oh, you mean immediately? Laws don’t work like that either or else there would be no crimes or traffic violations. Boycotts can sometimes cause enough pressure on a business to cause them to change without any other action needed. I’ve actually seen the mere threat/ promise to share the bad behavior ( failure to honor promise) of a business cause the business to honor its promise.

I didn't say never work. I said they often don't.

Boycotts didn't make these go away, the civil rights laws that you support rolling back did.

Disorderly conduct is a community standard issue. In my state, as long as I wasn’t shouting at someone repeatedly in an attempt to intimidate them, or including words to incite violence, and assuming I’m not drunk, or impeding traffic, I would not be legally disturbing the peace. If I am on my front porch, then I’m not impeding traffic. Would someone likely call the police to do a welfare check? Probably.

You are correct: anti-discrimination laws do not prohibit free speech. They also do not compel speech.

Two questions:
1) do you think that I support radical, draconian laws that would destroy free speech in America?
2) do you like the way our free speech laws worked before this SCOTUS ruling?