Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[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.

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.

I absolutely 100% agree that they should not. I don't do business with people/businesses that I am aware discriminate against others for those reasons.

But I stand by my belief that First Amendment Rights guarantee the right to not express feelings, thoughts, ideas which you disagree with. To me, this addresses the line crossed between offering a product or service to any/all customers on the same basis and creating, expressing sentiments or ideas which are contrary to your beliefs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

This part I agree with. Protections only for the groups I agree with is not protection. It's normally only the unpopular positions that are under threat, if you don't protect them you do nothing.

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.

But here I disagree. I do not see this as a speech issue at all. Rather, they said you can't compel creativity.

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.

Disagree on the former--jaywalking. They can't compel your speech but they can compel the manner--and standing in the middle of the road is normally an unacceptable manner.

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

This I definitely agree with. It's why the ACLU supported the right of the Nazis to march.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

In most places such a business would find themselves rapidly out of business.

 

[Gospel]

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.

In most places such a business would find themselves rapidly out of business.

Absent the Civil Rights Act—which ideally should be enshrined in the Constitution, not merely as a federal law—the present situation could potentially be different.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I'm not going to track down the state but it's legal somewhere in the US. Wikipedia says there are 6 states with no minimum age, all require parental consent or court consent or both--which means there must be one that permits it with just parental consent.

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.

Agreed--I think she's taking it too far, mixing up simple speech with creativity.

 

[Gospel]

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.

I absolutely 100% agree that they should not. I don't do business with people/businesses that I am aware discriminate against others for those reasons.

But I stand by my belief that First Amendment Rights guarantee the right to not express feelings, thoughts, ideas which you disagree with. To me, this addresses the line crossed between offering a product or service to any/all customers on the same basis and creating, expressing sentiments or ideas which are contrary to your beliefs.

The First Amendment rights primarily safeguard citizens from governmental interference. They do not serve to protect individuals from each other, a role wherein the government steps in as the adjudicator.

 

[Gospel]

I can't believe I have to tell white people that.

 

[TomC]

In most places such a business would find themselves rapidly out of business.

In the overwhelming majority of places and businesses, nobody will get away with that sort of irrational racism for long.

Like, maybe a month. If the staff were stupid enough to do it and the owners rich enough to hang on for a month.
I don't think even that is going to happen.
Tom

 

[TomC]

I can't believe I have to tell white people that.

Well, as you obviously know,
White people are stupid.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

I can't believe I have to tell white people that.

Well, as you obviously know,
White people are stupid.
Tom

Not all of them.

 

[zorq]

I find this SC rulling to be quite troubling. "Expressive" is such a subjective word. It is bullshit. What is expressive? A painting? Probably. A photograph? Maybe. A hot dog? Probably not. But a hotdog with a little creative flair added in? Who knows.

I'm sure that Gordon Ramsey considers his culinary creations to be creative and artistic. Asking the chef to prepare a meal for a person in Ramsey's restaurant is asking the chef to create something creative specifically for a specific customer. Isn't that expressive? Suppose all the restaurants in town agree that their culinary creations are custom works of art, and they all decide to hang a "No coloreds allowed," sign outside their places of business. That sounds perfectly legal under this law and perfectly disgusting.

Can we count on an entrepreneur to break the racist racket? Why should we even need to hope for this outcome? What if the racists win and all the colored folk just leave town because they are sick of being discriminated against? Not just at every restaurant (supposedly expressive culinary creations), but also at every bar (performative pouring and creative cocktails), comedy club (improv crowd work), theatre(interactive theatrical elements) and who knows what else.

It is a huge fucking loophole that now anyone can drive a mac truck through (maybe literally if the f'ing bigot mechanic thinks his service is creative or "expressive" enough). The system wasn't broken before. It didn't need to get fixed. This SC decision makes the country a worse place to live for anyone who isn't a bigot.

 

[Gospel]

? 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!

Suppose the cake you desire was to be crafted by a certain celebrity. I'm not insinuating that this celebrity harbors any negative sentiments toward you (a point which remains uncertain). Yet, the unique creation they could provide might hold unparalleled importance for the person you're intending to surprise with this gift. Picture yourself, endeavoring to delight a friend or family member with this remarkable present. Unexpectedly, you discover that the celebrity declines your request, despite the fact that the cake is not for your personal enjoyment. Imagine they object to a specific characteristic of yours, which falls under a protected class, and this objection underpins their refusal to provide a cake you know said friend would truly cherish. Are you comfortable with this situation?

This question holds substantial importance given the wide array of goods and services we acquire, not just for ourselves, but also as commodities or necessities for those dear to us. Prioritizing personal beliefs over broader societal benefits could significantly impact this interaction. Imagine the uproar if a supermarket displayed a sign saying "no whites allowed." Would that not be an exercise of the freedom to render services based on personal principles? This hypothetical situation underscores the potential consequences of such an approach.

 

[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.

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.

I don't think you have any idea what my arguments are. You've been talking to me like I've been advocating for radical, draconian changes to US laws that would decimate free speech in America, when in fact all I have done is defend the ones that were already in place before this ruling.

You're the one who supports the radical change to anti-discrimination laws that SCOTUS just handed down.

I support the status quo that we had just a few days ago. That was a status quo that had been around since the 1960s, and it did nothing to decimate free speech like you think I want to. The notion that I want anything that would decimate free speech is absurd on its face.

 

[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?

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

My point was that no one can force you be a wedding web designer or cake decorator or anything of that nature.

 

[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

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...

Strawman. No one here is arguing that people should be compelled to express views that are in opposition to their beliefs. No one is forced to be a wedding website designer.

while all of us are being told what we ought to believe by a group that is almost exclusively heterosexual

Sexual orientation is a protected class.

white

Race is a protected class.

men?

Sex is a protected class.

Also, I'm biracial.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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"

I'm not surprised you think those are logically equivalent.

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.

Irrelevant. Anti-discrimination protections do not apply to these.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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

Well, why is a "culture of poverty" so much more pronounced in Black America than in White America? How did it happen? Could it be four centuries of brutal racism and oppression? The point is, they didn't do it to themselves.

--not as obvious because they're typically rural but it's the same forces at work.

The same forces are definitely not at work. If that were true, then white and black people would have the same wealth on average. Like, there was no Jim Crow for white people, the New Deal was applied unevenly, there has always been racial bias in hiring, and so on.

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.

Sure it does. Black immigrants aren't burdened with the cultural baggage that comes with having a boot stamping on their face for four centuries.

Additionally, our immigration laws tend to favor skilled and educated workers.

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.

The "help" we've given thus far is so inadequate as to be comical if it weren't so pathetic. Nothing this country has done to "help" has come anywhere near being adequate enough to offset the damage done in the past.

Meanwhile, blaming provides an excuse not to look within.

Lol. Like it or not, they have every right to blame. They didn't do it to themselves. I'm sure if this country ever actually takes drastic steps to rectify the problem, they'll stop blaming.

I do not know how to fix the problem but I can see the current approach is a total failure.

Well, I'm likely way to left of you, so you probably wouldn't like what I have to say about this.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

You know what it doesn't require? Faith in a fake deity that says gays are bad.

 

[Gospel]

Yeah, and one also doesn't need to invoke a fabricated deity to harbor prejudice against individuals who identify as gay. The argument for the freedom to discriminate, extending even to mere whims , seems to elude the understanding of those advocating for it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

A doctor is compelled to act in the best interest of their patients even if that conflicts with their religious beliefs. That's inherent in the profession.