Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Copernicus]

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.

I never said she wasn't concerned, but I don't think that she or you realize how freedom of speech has been weaponized to circumvent antidiscrimination laws in an unprecedented fashion. It could have far-reaching consequences, if carried to extremes, and we have already seen how these new rulings can be carried to extremes in the US. Doctors have already been muzzled by state legislatures when it comes to counseling on reproduction rights, but this ruling is more insidious in that people can and will interpret their newly expanded right to harass protected classes in all sorts of venues that go beyond website design. It is a very broad ruling. Theoretically, doctors and nurses that oppose abortion even in states where abortion rights are protected could see this ruling as empowering them to withhold information that they object to personally. Even if that doesn't happen, culture warriors on the right are empowered to start chipping away at more 14th amendment protections.

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.

Ad hominem attacks of this sort don't really help to get your point across.

 

[Toni]

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?

I’m used to being considered radical. I don’t think I am. I’m pretty ordinary.

You are correct that the USSC has potentially altered things dramatically—if it stands. I don’t think it will. I think Colorado will bring forth a challenge that could cause the Court to vacate its decision since this was, as it turns out, a hypothetical case.

Looking further down the road, in light of the overturning of affirmative action with respect to school admissions ( and otherwise in some states), I foresee the end of protected classes of people. In a more ideal world, there would be no need to protect certain groups which are often subjected to discrimination based on inborn characteristics ( or religion or marital status or parental status, all of which involve choice, as opposed to race) and people could just have what the constitution promises: Freedom of speech.

The sticky issue is when society has progressed to the point where we can morally dispense with protected classes because people are no longer being discriminated against.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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.

"My approach" has nothing to do with belief.

"My approach" is nothing more than an endorsement of the anti-discrimination model THAT WE HAVE HAD SINCE THE 1960s.

Anti-discrimination laws have nothing to do with belief.

They merely require that in places of business, black people be treated like white people.


Can you and Toni stop and think and try to understand that you two are the ones defending a radical change to anti-discrimination law and that I have only been defending what was already there before this ruling? This is literally insane.

I swear to god, I have never had this much trouble communicating with anyone in my life. This is what happens when people refuse to do the homework and read a few wikipedia entries.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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

This, exactly.

No one is compelled to be a wedding website designer therefore no one is compelled to do certain speech.

 

[Toni]

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

I don’t think you are understanding my position, nor, I suspect, Emily’s.

My position is that the First Amendment protections are more important than protecting only certain groups from discrimination. Abridgment of free speech harms everyone .

 

[Toni]

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.

"My approach" has nothing to do with belief.

"My approach" is nothing more than an endorsement of the anti-discrimination model THAT WE HAVE HAD SINCE THE 1960s.

Anti-discrimination laws have nothing to do with belief.

They merely require that in places of business, black people be treated like white people.


Can you and Toni stop and think and try to understand that you two are the ones defending a radical change to anti-discrimination law and that I have only been defending what was already there before this ruling? This is literally insane.

I swear to god, I have never had this much trouble communicating with anyone in my life. This is what happens when people refuse to do the homework and read a few wikipedia entries.

You are communicating just fine. Perhaps you are accustomed to people either agreeing with you or pretending they do or simply ignoring you if you throw enough words at them.

I don’t particularly care. I don’t find your arguments very convincing.

 

[laughing dog]

This is literally insane.

Get used to it under this SCOTUS - precedent and reason do not stand a chance against ideologues.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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.

There is no slave labor in this country outside of prisons. No one can be compelled to be a wedding website designer. No speech is being compelled. No beliefs are being compelled.

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?

If someone doesn't normally make hijabs, anti-discrimination laws do not require them to make hijabs for anyone.

Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to repeat this?

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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

In order for this to happen, Congress would have to collectly go insane in exactly the same way at the same time. I don't think it is wise to design our civil rights laws around fantastical hypotheticals that have 1 in trillion chance of coming to pass.

 

[Toni]

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.

There is no slave labor in this country outside of prisons. No one can be compelled to be a wedding website designer. No speech is being compelled. No beliefs are being compelled.

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?

If someone doesn't normally make hijabs, anti-discrimination laws do not require them to make hijabs for anyone.

Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to repeat this?

Unfortunately you are incorrect about slave labor in the US. It’s not legal but it certainly exists.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

I know it's neither here nor there... But don't you find a bit of irony in the fact that it's two women and a gay man - all elements of those "protected classes" arguing that people should not be compelled to express views that are in opposition to their beliefs... while all of us are being told what we ought to believe by a group that is almost exclusively heterosexual white men?

 

[Emily Lake]

No one is compelled to be a wedding website designer therefore no one is compelled to do certain speech.

Seriously, this is logically equivalent to "only those who engage in a certain kind of speech are allowed to be wedding website designers"

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

If someone doesn't normally make hijabs, anti-discrimination laws do not require them to make hijabs for anyone.

Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to repeat this?

You obviously didn't bother to read what I wrote, so your repetition is meaningless and irrelevant.

 

[Rhea]

I 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.

The difference that I argue here is that the web site designer has no problem designing a wedding website. They have no problems saying “Loving wedding,” or “Happy union of two hearts” or “Nuptials” or “Love!” Or the words “bride” or ‘groom”.

Just not for gays.


So the argument that “free speech” is being violated because they are “compelled“ to offer the product that they advertise they offer, is bullshit because they are perfectly happy to do it, just not for Black people. Oh, sorry, Muslims. Wait, it’s veterans they won’t do it for. Or….

The problem is, they will serve lunch at their counter, just not to Black people. Wait.

They’ll rent rooms, just not to Catholics or the disabled.


Keep this in your view - they are not being compelled to do ANYTHING, except serve gay people equally.

They are not being compelled to write something that they don’t normally write.

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

Yes, and the basis of this was that the children were forced to be there by laws that require schooling. You’ll notice the law did not cover the boy scouts, or the town halls. So this is exactly analogous to Cosmic’s point, “If you don’t want to say the pledge, don’t join the boy scouts.”

No one is compelled to be a wedding website designer therefore no one is compelled to do certain speech.

And no one is arguing that the web designer was asked to write anything special or different. Just serve their regular product - to anyone, equally.

 

[Toni]

I 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.

The difference that I argue here is that the web site designer has no problem designing a wedding website. They have no problems saying “Loving wedding,” or “Happy union of two hearts” or “Nuptials” or “Love!” Or the words “bride” or ‘groom”.

Just not for gays.


So the argument that “free speech” is being violated because they are “compelled“ to offer the product that they advertise they offer, is bullshit because they are perfectly happy to do it, just not for Black people. Oh, sorry, Muslims. Wait, it’s veterans they won’t do it for. Or….

The problem is, they will serve lunch at their counter, just not to Black people. Wait.

They’ll rent rooms, just not to Catholics or the disabled.


Keep this in your view - they are not being compelled to do ANYTHING, except serve gay people equally.

They are not being compelled to write something that they don’t normally write.

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

Yes, and the basis of this was that the children were forced to be there by laws that require schooling. You’ll notice the law did not cover the boy scouts, or the town halls. So this is exactly analogous to Cosmic’s point, “If you don’t want to say the pledge, don’t join the boy scouts.”

No one is compelled to be a wedding website designer therefore no one is compelled to do certain speech.

And no one is arguing that the web designer was asked to write anything special or different. Just serve their regular product - to anyone, equally.

But they ( fictitiously) were being asked to create something different. They were being asked to make a wedding website for two people in a same sex marriage. Which they ( fictitiously) objected to doing.

I would vehemently disagree with their refusal to create a website for a gay couple but I would just as vehemently defend their right to do so. I would defend the right of anyone to accept or refuse any commission from any client. Even if their reason was despicable.

 

[Rhea]

They were being (fictitiously) asked to make a website for two humans to marry legally. Which is a product they offer.

 

[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.

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.

The states all have their own protections. This SCOTUS ruling negates those protections when "expressive content" is involved.

 

[bilby]

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

Nah, nobody's required to believe anything in order to have a job.

They might be required to pretend to believe; But that's par for the course in any job. I'm required to pretend to care about customers problems, and to pretend to always be happy to see them.

I'm allowed to believe that they're idiots, and to hope they bugger off sooner rather than later, but I'm not allowed to express that belief anywhere where they might hear it.

Being nice to assholes is a fundamental requirement for a vast range of careers.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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.

Anti-discrimination laws have got zilch to do with beliefs. Beliefs have nothing to do with any of this.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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

Do you think this SCOTUS case has anything whatsoever to do with affirmative action?