Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[ZiprHead]

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.

Sorry, no. They can be against gay marriage in their private lives while creating gay marriage web sites during work time.

 

[laughing dog]

I have to agree that beliefs of the vendor have nothing to do with commercial activity.

Frankly, it is not the business of the vendor to approve or disapprove of the legal use of their product. by anyone.

 

[Toni]

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

Which would, fictitiously include the names of two individuals of the same sex.

I find the idea that someone would be so bigoted to be abhorrent. I think that not everybody realizes how much work goes into creating such a website. It's not just plug in names into blank spaces. To make a good quality product requires a lot of time, effort and some talent.

 

[Toni]

I have to agree that beliefs of the vendor have nothing to do with commercial activity.

Frankly, it is not the business of the vendor to approve or disapprove of the legal use of their product. by anyone.

But it's not merely the use of their product. It's the use of their creative efforts to create a product especially for the couple.

If they are merely selling templates for the couple to make their own wedding website, then yep, they must accommodate all customers, providing the customers can pay and will fit into the time frame required.

Creating something custom and working with the couple to select photos, to create a narrative, to include all pertinent information is quite different.

 

[laughing dog]

I have to agree that beliefs of the vendor have nothing to do with commercial activity.

Frankly, it is not the business of the vendor to approve or disapprove of the legal use of their product. by anyone.

But it's not merely the use of their product. It's the use of their creative efforts to create a product especially for the couple.

So? It is commerce. Trades people of all types use their creative efforts to create a product or solution especially for a customer. Should they be permitted by law to say "Sorry, I won't use my creativity to solve your problem because you (or what you stand for) violates my beliefs"? I don't think a just civil society should legally permit that.

In my view, SCOTUS erred, but that is that for now.

 

[Toni]

I have to agree that beliefs of the vendor have nothing to do with commercial activity.

Frankly, it is not the business of the vendor to approve or disapprove of the legal use of their product. by anyone.

But it's not merely the use of their product. It's the use of their creative efforts to create a product especially for the couple.

So? It is commerce. Trades people of all types use their creative efforts to create a product or solution especially for a customer. Should they be permitted by law to say "Sorry, I won't use my creativity to solve your problem because you (or what you stand for) violates my beliefs"? I don't think a just civil society should legally permit that.

In my view, SCOTUS erred, but that is that for now.

The reality is that creators do select which clients they accept for all sorts of reasons---whether the scope of work falls within their expertise or time frame, if the client is pleasant to work with or a pain in the ass, if the client pays on time or is offering a premium or if the client has someone else who is doing part of the project and you don't like working with that other person or DO like working with that other person. Lots of reasons. People who do creative work tend to be picky about which clients and which commissions they agree to take on.

 

[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?

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

Supporting a significant rollback of equal rights laws that have been in place since the 1960s is fairly radical I would say.

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.

Not going to happen, because protected classes central to how US jurisprudence handles equal rights. Tossing out protected classes would be a return to pre-Civil Rights conditions and it is absolutely unthinkable. Unlike the overturn of Rowe, Republicans haven't been trying to throw out protected classes for the last five decades. Protected classes aren't going anywhere.

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Keyword: "create".

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

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

"Act of speech" != "creative".

^c^v is not being creative. Look at the standard I posted earlier: Different people = substantially different results.

Merely being forced to express sentiments they find repugnant isn't a high enough bar. Some states require doctors to express positions that are not only repugnant but outright medical lies.

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

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

As a general rule "we will not accept ads from hate groups" is fine. For a political candidate, though, I'm inclined to say they should have to accept it. They shouldn't get to squash a campaign they don't like.

 

[Gospel]

The reality is that creators do select which clients they accept for all sorts of reasons---whether the scope of work falls within their expertise or time frame, if the client is pleasant to work with or a pain in the ass, if the client pays on time or is offering a premium or if the client has someone else who is doing part of the project and you don't like working with that other person or DO like working with that other person. Lots of reasons. People who do creative work tend to be picky about which clients and which commissions they agree to take on.

You're correct.

1. Project Scope: Creatives yearn for assignments that fall within their realm of expertise, ensuring they possess the necessary skills, resources, and time for successful completion. The project should also resonate with their interests and spark a sense of fulfilment.
2. Client Relations: A harmonious working relationship is essential. Creatives prefer clients who respect their time, acknowledge their expertise, communicate effectively, and are open to giving and receiving constructive feedback.
3. Compensation: Fair remuneration for their work is a key consideration for creatives. They seek reliable clients who uphold their payment commitments punctually.
4. Team Dynamics: Familiarity and trust within a project team often contribute to a more conducive work environment. Creatives may also consider prior experiences, preferring to steer clear of collaborations that resulted in negative encounters.

What appears to be overlooked in your argument, however, is the fact that making decisions to provide services to someone based on their protected class is unlawful, and unrelated to the things you've mentioned.

 

[laughing dog]

I have to agree that beliefs of the vendor have nothing to do with commercial activity.

Frankly, it is not the business of the vendor to approve or disapprove of the legal use of their product. by anyone.

But it's not merely the use of their product. It's the use of their creative efforts to create a product especially for the couple.

So? It is commerce. Trades people of all types use their creative efforts to create a product or solution especially for a customer. Should they be permitted by law to say "Sorry, I won't use my creativity to solve your problem because you (or what you stand for) violates my beliefs"? I don't think a just civil society should legally permit that.

In my view, SCOTUS erred, but that is that for now.

The reality is that creators do select which clients they accept for all sorts of reasons---whether the scope of work falls within their expertise or time frame, if the client is pleasant to work with or a pain in the ass, if the client pays on time or is offering a premium or if the client has someone else who is doing part of the project and you don't like working with that other person or DO like working with that other person. Lots of reasons. People who do creative work tend to be picky about which clients and which commissions they agree to take on.

So? In a just, fair civilized society, those lots of reasons should not include race, religion, gender or sexual preference because doing business is not speech or expression in my view.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Poverty can only be cured with education, not with money

What?

That's absurd.

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

Throwing money at poverty has an extremely poor track record.

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

But money doesn't solve them.

 

[Gospel]

I find it challenging not to perceive individuals who demand society at large conform to their personal beliefs as both privileged and uninformed. Civilization hinges on fundamental rights, which are for example explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution. Yet, some individuals, who I characterize as uninformed, behave as though their having personal principles are unique, exhibiting a lack of awareness of the broader societal context.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Cultural.

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

It's the culture of poverty, not black culture. You see similar things in the white trash areas--not as obvious because they're typically rural but it's the same forces at work.

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

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

Which doesn't address my point at all.

The real issue is poverty.

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

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

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

But the offered help does nothing--you can't make the horse drink. Meanwhile, blaming provides an excuse not to look within. I do not know how to fix the problem but I can see the current approach is a total failure.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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

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

The issue is a custom cake. I don't believe a bakery should have a right to deny a customer wanting a stock cake, even if it's made-to-order from a variety of options.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't want a cake baked by someone who hated me!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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

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

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

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

We have done the experiment. We found that affirmative action quickly broke society-wide discrimination. However, look at what's happened more recently--it does basically nothing. That's because it's already addressed the problem it could solve, we are continuing to apply it to a problem it can't solve.

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.

They work against actual discrimination. They don't work when it's not discrimination. Disparate outcomes are not proof of discrimination--the left repeatedly "agrees" with this and then turns right around and uses a disparate outcome as proof of discrimination.

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

But what we are doing now is provoking backlash and thus increasing bigotry.

All you have is a hammer so plenty of not-nails are getting hit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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

I think it's more a matter that the cult has isolated them from reality enough they feel more free to show their true opinions rather than opinions themselves actually changing much.

 

[TomC]

I find it challenging not to perceive individuals who demand society at large conform to their personal beliefs as both privileged and uninformed.

That's what you've been doing throughout this and similar threads.

Demanding that society at large conforms to your personal beliefs about who is privileged and who is victim. Who is entitled to what and why.

Your exact words concerning people who don't want to accept your conclusions is
"Throw them in jail and call it a day".
Tom

 

[Gospel]

I find it challenging not to perceive individuals who demand society at large conform to their personal beliefs as both privileged and uninformed.

That's what you've been doing throughout this and similar threads.

Demanding that society at large conforms to your personal beliefs about who is privileged and who is victim. Who is entitled to what and why.

Your exact words concerning people who don't want to accept your conclusions is
"Throw them in jail and call it a day".
Tom

U.S. law prescribed penalties for discriminatory practices long before I was born. Though I believe they are not adequately enforced, said legal structure isn't a doing (though upheld and honored) by a forum users under the handle "Gospel." Stop making this about me.

 

[Toni]

Poverty can only be cured with education, not with money

What?

That's absurd.

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

Throwing money at poverty has an extremely poor track record.

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

But money doesn't solve them.

I disagree. Money certainly moved me out of poverty.