Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Emily Lake]

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

Nah, you're missing a fundamental point here. You're focused solely on discrimination against gay people - and I share your dislike of such discrimination. What you're missing is the discrimination on the basis of belief that you are actively supporting in your approach.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Actually... yes, I do support the right of an employee of a business to shout epithets and obscenities at customers. I'm pretty confident that if it's a sole employee of a large company, they won't be employed for very long. And if it's a commonplace thing for all employees of that company, they won't be a company very long. But at the end of the day, businesses are not required to protect the feelings of their customers.

It's bad business, but I don't think it should be illegal. There's a lot of stuff that I dislike and disapprove of, and very very few of them are things I think should be illegal. That's the entire fucking point of being a classic liberal.

For your consideration...
Dick's Last Resort
The Weiner's Circle
Karen's Diner

 

[Emily Lake]

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

This, exactly.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I, like Toni, am drawing the line at the point where you cross from prohibiting discrimination to compelling speech, and thereby compelling the perception of belief.

Look, let's talk about how belief plays into this. I'm going to make the potentially naïve assumption that everyone in this thread actually understands the importance of freedom of religion and belief as protected by the first amendment of the US. I'm going to assume that even if someone practices a faith that you (and I) think is utter bollocks, we agree that they should have the right to their own beliefs.

Now then. Let's talk about a website designer who does custom work, who is approached to design a website for a muslim customer who is celebrating his daughter's first hijab. The designer is an atheist, who truly and deeply believes that it is morally wrong for women to be forced to wear hijab and to be treated as subordinate to men for their entire lives. The designer truly believes that this is an abhorrent practice.

Do you take the position that the atheist designer, who opposes misogynistic religious practices on principle, should be forced by law to design the requested website?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I don't think YOU have opened the link you keep providing. Honestly, you really don't seem to understand the context in place. at all.

A protected group, protected class (US), or prohibited ground (Canada) is a category by which people qualified for special protection by a law, policy, or similar authority. In Canada and the United States, the term is frequently used in connection with employees and employment and housing.

It's not a carte blanche protection against anybody discriminating in any possible situation ever. It's a fairly limited and explicit set of situations where discrimination is prohibited.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools and public accommodations, and employment discrimination. It is predominantly focused around race, but also encompasses religion, nation of origin, and sex. Almost all of the anti-discrimination laws in the US are specific to voting, education, public accommodations, and employment. And even then, some exceptions apply - for instance, a strip club that features naked women cannot be forced to hire a male stripper under the guise of it being sex discrimination, because sex is a pertinent and relevant aspect of the business itself.

 

[laughing dog]

I do not consider commerce as free speech. So if you advertise web design, your designs are commerce not speech. In my view, it is not an abridgement of free speech to force by law that you cannot refuse to make something for a particular customer if you make it for others.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

One thing that others haven't harped on, but you ought to think about, is that freedoms can conflict with each other. Freedom of expression is not an absolute right, nor is any other freedom. But you seem to be elevating free speech above the right of a protected group to enjoy the same services and freedoms that other citizens do. Businesses are required to provide services to everyone equally, because they operate in the public commons and enjoy the protections and benefits that everyone funds through their taxes. So, being in the business to design wedding sites compels the provider to offer that service to everyone equally. If they discriminate against some group that is legally entitled to get married, then they infringe on the entitled freedom of some to purchase their design. So, if their speech is compelled under your interpretation, then their obligation as a business conflicts with their right of free speech. It is the role of government to resolve such disputes. The problem here is that the Supreme Court has used the 1st amendment to trump a 14th amendment right, which empowers government to enforce antidiscrimination laws. However, the 14th amendment, should prevail, since it was ratified well after the first. It carves out an exception to the First Amendment. Freedom of speech should not be allowed to cancel the freedoms granted people by the 14th. At least, that is the way I think it ought to work. The Supreme Courts seems to have the de facto power to interpret the Constitution any way they see fit. That effectively gives them the legislative and executive power to decree changes to our laws, even though they do not hold elective office.

No all businesses are considered to be public accommodations.

Freedom of speech, expression, and belief are fundamental to all other freedoms. So yes, I do elevate it above the others. Without that primary freedom, all others are at risk. If we cannot speak or print our beliefs, if we are prohibited from expressing our views, then all other rights can be made forfeit simply by silencing any dissenters.

The 14th amendment NEVER carved out an exception to the 1st. At no point did the 14th amendment compel expression, nor has it ever compelled the perception of adherence to a belief. Nothing at all in the 14th can be read to compel expression, nor to infringe upon the right to free expression.

 

[Toni]

obviously don’t agree. I see a vast difference between baking a cake and decorating it ( no words) and being forced to write Nazi Rules! on that cake because a customer wants me to.

Why do you insist on comparing all of the below (VIA protected class) to Nazis?

• Race
• Color
• Religion (Does not include political ideologies like Nazis)
• Sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity)
• National origin
• Age (40 and older)
• Disability
• Genetic information
• Familial status (having children)
• Military status

It's like comparing the sun to a piece of shit on the ground. They're not related & It makes absolutely no sense.

The principal is the same.

I used Nazi because I know that everyone or almost everyone posting here abhors Naziism and would likely be just fine with refusing service to Nazis. The excuse is their ideology is repugnant —and there is no law against it.

But what if the law changed and you could no longer discriminate against Nazis? What if Naziism became a protected class?

I don’t think that will happen—but I thought Roe v Wade was settled law.

I see free speech as a superseding principle. One can neither be forbidden from expression nor compelled to express what you find repugnant.

 

[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.

Actually... yes, I do support the right of an employee of a business to shout epithets and obscenities at customers. I'm pretty confident that if it's a sole employee of a large company, they won't be employed for very long. And if it's a commonplace thing for all employees of that company, they won't be a company very long. But at the end of the day, businesses are not required to protect the feelings of their customers.

No, and the dispute here is not whether that is a bad idea businesswise. However, businesses are (or were, until now) required to treat protected classes of individuals the same as they treat other customers. Shouting epithets is not protected speech in every conceivable situation.

It's bad business, but I don't think it should be illegal. There's a lot of stuff that I dislike and disapprove of, and very very few of them are things I think should be illegal. That's the entire fucking point of being a classic liberal.

For your consideration...
Dick's Last Resort
The Weiner's Circle
Karen's Diner

Forget about liberals and conservatives. That isn't the issue, either. It is the Constitution and the law. That is what the Supreme Court is supposed to judge. Or, at least, it used to be. Right now, we have a rogue Supreme Court that is more interested in pushing its ideology than interpreting the laws according to precedent and common sense.

 

[Emily Lake]

For the umpteenth time, they can do something else for a living. No one is forcing that bigot to make wedding websites, thus no one is forcing her to violate her principles.

The problem here is that you are tacitly advocating for a system that REQUIRES a specific set of beliefs for a person to be ALLOWED to hold a job.

And that, my friend, is an explicit violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[Toni]

In 2

The name 'United States' inherently implies a sense of unity, which is no coincidence. The Constitution, despite its arguably limited inclusivity in the beginning, was designed to unite individuals under one collective identity, rather than to sow division among them. Nowhere within the Preamble, Articles, Amendments, or Confederate Papers is there an implication that members of the in-group—which has been extended to include Black people—are permitted to discriminate amongst themselves. The idea is preposterous.

In 1943, the USSC determined that no one could be compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance.

Of course, many/most states still require the recitation of the pledge, with narrow exceptions.

 

[Emily Lake]

I’m worried about the chipping away of our right to free speech. I saw how easily women’s rights to health care have been eroded, I take nothing for granted any more.

Then you should be concerned that a doctor cannot be compelled to counsel a pregnant woman on all her health care options, including contraception. After all, the doctor might be conscientiously opposed to giving advice that could trigger immoral behavior.

What the fuck makes you think that Toni is NOT concerned about that? I certainly am, and I'm pretty sure that Toni is as well. In fact, I think the women (the few of us there are) on this board are all a lot more concerned about that than you are, in a much more visceral way.

But then again, none of us are particularly surprised by a man telling us how we ought to feel and what we ought to be worried about. Thus has it ever been.

 

[Emily Lake]

I do not consider commerce as free speech. So if you advertise web design, your designs are commerce not speech. In my view, it is not an abridgement of free speech to force by law that you cannot refuse to make something for a particular customer if you make it for others.

Therefore, if they custom design web pages for good old fashioned WASPs, they should also be forced by law to design websites or Radical Islamic groups.

 

[Emily Lake]

But what if the law changed and you could no longer discriminate against Nazis? What if Naziism became a protected class?

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised. As we become a more secular country, at some point, the meaning of "religion" is going to be challenged. It already has in some ways, by *us*. We, as atheists, have challenged the meaning of atheist, and have advocated that freedom of religion must also include lack of religion. We have used this argument to gain the right to place atheist exhibits alongside other religious exhibits during various holidays - particularly christmas. The extension of religion outside of historical norms has allowed Scientology to gain protected status, as well as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I would not be at all surprised if we see that extension continue, and grow to encompass a more generalized belief. And I actually support that, even though it would mean that naziism would also be considered a system of belief and gain protection.

You can't legislate belief, and I don't think anybody should even try. I think it's a horrible idea to even consider it. In our current hyper-partisan environment, I think it's important that political and personal beliefs have just as much protection as organized traditional religious beliefs.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, and the dispute here is not whether that is a bad idea businesswise. However, businesses are (or were, until now) required to treat protected classes of individuals the same as they treat other customers. Shouting epithets is not protected speech in every conceivable situation.

In what situation is shouting epithets NOT protected as a first amendment right?

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

We have the right to freedom of expression.
We do not have the right to have any job.

Are you even aware of the consequences of your position?

You obviously have no idea what my position is.

My position is that the status quo with respect to our free speech laws and anti-discrimination laws WERE ALREADY FINE before this SCOTUS ruling.

What you and Toni seem unable to grasp is that YOU are the radical ones.

All I have done throughout this entire thread is defend what was already in place before this ruling.

This ruling did not defend the status quo; it RADICALLY ALTERED IT.

The liberal ruling in this case would have kept the status quo in place.

I am not some radical anti-speech authoritarian. Those of you who are defending this change are the radicals.

The notion that my position is radical is ludicrous on its face because ALL I have done is defend the status quo that existed before this ruling.

You're requiring ideological conformity to a particular belief in order for a person to be allowed to have a fucking job.

No I'm not.

The United States' anti-discrimination laws, prior to this ruling, required that black people, Mexicans, and gays be treated like whites and heterosexuals. That's it.

Seriously, you're a pubic hair away from "Only atheist democrats are allowed to have jobs".

Fantastical nonsense.

Democrat is not a protected class. Both religion and no religion are a protected class which means that they are protected by the very anti-discrimination laws THAT I HAVE BEEN DEFENDING THROUGHOUT THIS THREAD.

And, if you haven't yet made that connection - predicating employment on the beliefs of the applicant

Wrong again.

Beliefs are irrelevant.

The equal protection laws that I support and that have been in place since the 1960s only require that in places of business and government agencies, minorities have to be treated like everyone else. Beliefs don't even enter into the equation.

is absolutely a violation of the 1st amendment in the US. The only exception is for employment positions in a literal church. Even companies that are owned by religious people, with religiously inspired business practices can't limit employment to only people that adhere to their religion. Hobby Lobby can't deny employment to a jewish or muslim or atheist on the basis of their religion.

The sheer level of illiberal authoritarian perspective involved in "Only people who believe what I want them to believe are allowed to have jobs that I think they should have" is astonishing.

If you think that my views are "illiberal authoritarian", then you also believe that the past 80 years of free speech and anti-discrimination laws are also illiberal and authoritarian.

Answer me this: if the anti-discrimination laws that have been in place since the 1960s are so oppressive to free speech, then how on earth is it that Americans have been getting away with expressing all manner of bigoted views for the last 80 years?

 

[Copernicus]

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

One thing that others haven't harped on, but you ought to think about, is that freedoms can conflict with each other. Freedom of expression is not an absolute right, nor is any other freedom. But you seem to be elevating free speech above the right of a protected group to enjoy the same services and freedoms that other citizens do. Businesses are required to provide services to everyone equally, because they operate in the public commons and enjoy the protections and benefits that everyone funds through their taxes. So, being in the business to design wedding sites compels the provider to offer that service to everyone equally. If they discriminate against some group that is legally entitled to get married, then they infringe on the entitled freedom of some to purchase their design. So, if their speech is compelled under your interpretation, then their obligation as a business conflicts with their right of free speech. It is the role of government to resolve such disputes. The problem here is that the Supreme Court has used the 1st amendment to trump a 14th amendment right, which empowers government to enforce antidiscrimination laws. However, the 14th amendment, should prevail, since it was ratified well after the first. It carves out an exception to the First Amendment. Freedom of speech should not be allowed to cancel the freedoms granted people by the 14th. At least, that is the way I think it ought to work. The Supreme Courts seems to have the de facto power to interpret the Constitution any way they see fit. That effectively gives them the legislative and executive power to decree changes to our laws, even though they do not hold elective office.

No all businesses are considered to be public accommodations.

Freedom of speech, expression, and belief are fundamental to all other freedoms. So yes, I do elevate it above the others. Without that primary freedom, all others are at risk. If we cannot speak or print our beliefs, if we are prohibited from expressing our views, then all other rights can be made forfeit simply by silencing any dissenters.

All businesses are required to follow the laws that protect certain groups from discrimination. This point has been made repeatedly in the thread. Freedom of speech and expression are fundamental, but they never have been absolute. I know you can think of examples where that freedom is restricted (e.g. slander and libel), so I won't lecture you on that. In this particular case, the only restriction is on the distribution of goods and services to customers of a business. We are not talking about restricting speech, expression, or belief outside of that context. Antidiscrimination laws go back to the post-Civil War amendments, and they carve out special exceptions to other enumerated rights, including freedom of expression. At least, they used to.

The 14th amendment NEVER carved out an exception to the 1st. At no point did the 14th amendment compel expression, nor has it ever compelled the perception of adherence to a belief. Nothing at all in the 14th can be read to compel expression, nor to infringe upon the right to free expression.

If you are looking for literal words, you won't find them, but the doctrine of  implied powers is well-recognized:

In the United States, implied powers are powers that, although not directly stated in the Constitution, are implied to be available based on previously stated powers.

The fact is that the Constitution has a process of amendment, and anything in the Constitution can be changed by that process. That's why slavery is no longer Constitutionally permitted in the US. The 14th Amendment came after the 1st. It's as simple as that.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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

If you want there to be less bigotry in the world, you should probably not make an effort to be intentionally bigoted against a group of people, and probably shouldn't advocate for other people to engage in bigotry against them too.

That may make sense in the alternate reality you've constructed inside your head, but in the real world, anti-discrimination laws work. The Civil Rights laws of the 1960s have proven that decisively, hence why I typed the part that you conveniently cut out:

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.

 

[laughing dog]

I do not consider commerce as free speech. So if you advertise web design, your designs are commerce not speech. In my view, it is not an abridgement of free speech to force by law that you cannot refuse to make something for a particular customer if you make it for others.

Therefore, if they custom design web pages for good old fashioned WASPs, they should also be forced by law to design websites or Radical Islamic groups.

In my view, yes.

 

[TomC]

My position is that the status quo with respect to our free speech laws and anti-discrimination laws WERE ALREADY FINE before this SCOTUS ruling.

What you and Toni seem unable to grasp is that YOU are the radical ones.

Funny, in a deeply ironic way.

Emily, Toni, and I, among others don't think that what was a good policy in the 60s is necessarily good policy in the 2020's. U.S. society is very different.

You have become the curmudgeonly old conservative, unwilling to change. Demanding that "What was good enough for my grandma is good enough for me!"

"Affirmative Action today!
Affirmative Action tomorrow!
Affirmative Action forevah!"

Tom