Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't believe this is a free speech issue. When someone hangs out their shingle to be a web designer and website design is speech, they are asking for their speech to be directed by the client.

And please stop bringing up fucking Nazis.

We bring up the fucking Nazis because they make a good yardstick for free speech issues. If Nazi speech isn't protected then it isn't really free speech. Free speech is really about unpopular speech as popular speech isn't going to be blocked.

But it's a red herring because Nazis aren't a protected class, and anti-discrimination laws do not prohibit free speech.

The entire Nazi thing is a red herring. It has nothing to do with protected class. It has everything to do with what the business sells and as to why the refuse to sell something. Nazism is raised because it is obscene. But if a cake baker made Nazi cakes for Nazis, they'd need to make them for other people as well.

I brought Nazi up because most people would see Naziism as repugnant and understand why someone would want to refuse to help spread their message be creating content for Nazis. It’s a pretty hard thing to explain that one can refuse to create support in favor of one thing you detest ( Nazis) but not something that your religion or your conscience tells you is mortally wrong.

It isn't hard at all, when one considers that Nazism is obscenity while gay marriage is not.

I suppose the funny thing is, oral sex, anal sex are not kosher. Gay marriage isn't even in the Bible, though the Bible suggests murdering gays. I'm just going to leave it with something Jesus said to someone complaining about sinners, "Go fuck yourself, you sinner."

They want to protest gay marriage, go to a hate parade. But while they are running their business... they should need to do business with any and all comers that show up to get a product/service that they sell.

 

[Copernicus]

So, creativity is the benchmark now, superseding principles, is it?

Loren can't exactly define creativity, but he knows it when he sees it. What we have here is a creative interpretation of the First Amendment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, creativity is the benchmark now, superseding principles, is it?

That's what the Supreme Court said--you can't be compelled to be creative for something you disagree with. It's recognition of human reality.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, creativity is the benchmark now, superseding principles, is it?

That's what the Supreme Court said--you can't be compelled to be creative for something you disagree with. It's recognition of human reality.

"disagree with"? That'd be a pretty fucking low bar. I don't think SCOTUS has gotten to that point yet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, creativity is the benchmark now, superseding principles, is it?

Loren can't exactly define creativity, but he knows it when he sees it. What we have here is a creative interpretation of the First Amendment.

I have defined it--something where you expect substantially different results from different people doing it.

 

[laughing dog]

So, creativity is the benchmark now, superseding principles, is it?

Loren can't exactly define creativity, but he knows it when he sees it. What we have here is a creative interpretation of the First Amendment.

I have defined it--something where you expect substantially different results from different people doing it.

So, IIDB posts are "creative expression"?

 

[Gospel]

So, creativity is the benchmark now, superseding principles, is it?

That's what the Supreme Court said--you can't be compelled to be creative for something you disagree with. It's recognition of human reality.

The Supreme Court's ruling doesn't center around creativity, contrary to what you believe. Instead, it focuses on the protection of one's right to refrain from expressing messages that conflict with their religious beliefs.

 

[Toni]

I brought Nazi up because most people would see Naziism as repugnant and understand why someone would want to refuse to help spread their message be creating content for Nazis. It’s a pretty hard thing to explain that one can refuse to create support in favor of one thing you detest ( Nazis) but not something that your religion or your conscience tells you is mortally wrong ( gay marriage—Again, I fully support gay marriage and I think that resistance to gay marriage is declining rapidly). We’ve seen affirmative action destroyed. This will end up destroying the concept of protected classes.

The reason that people keep rejecting your Nazi red herring is that Nazis are not a protected class, which you never seem to pay attention to. You just keep bringing it up as if Nazis were a protected class. In the above post, you even end up claiming that "This will end up destroying the concept of protected classes." But Nazis are not a protected class. People have even posted the Wikipedia page on protected group to try to explain the difference between Nazis and a protected class. Doesn't seem to help. Everyone agrees with you that Nazism is repugnant and "why someone would want to refuse to help spread their message by creating content for Nazis." Yet you still seem to think that they don't agree with you. This ruling is not what protects businesses from having to publish Nazi hate messages...because Nazis are not a protected class. This ruling is about letting businesses decline to provide their goods and services to a protected class. Which Nazis are not.

I know that Nazis are not a protected class.

What you fail to understand is there are two warring principles:

1. It is unfair ( and for now unlawful) to discriminate against someone because of an inborn characteristic plus a couple of other categories ( marital status, religion, whether you have children)

2. It is unfair to force someone to CREATE something that promotes or celebrates something they find repugnant or that violates their deeply held convictions.

What I think will happen in the not so distant future is that the conceit of protected classes will be chipped away at and disappear.

In an ideal society, there would be no need for protected classes because no one would discriminate unfairly against anyone else. We obviously are not there yet—and may never be. But I think that just as some people view affirmative action ( recently ruled against) as unfair, plenty of people will argue that it is unfair to force someone to create or express ideas or sentiments which are repugnant to them.

I introduced a couple of examples that I wa certain everyone would see as repugnant: child marriage ( but marriage is marriage, right?) and Nazis ( Nazis are repugnant, right). Everyone sees why someone would balk at creating something for either of these because it’s repugnant and deeply violates our sense of what is right.

Fortunately we can discriminate against Nazis and against 40 year olds marrying children ( legal in some states in the US). It’s fortunate for us because that aligns with our principles and our deeply held beliefs. So nice when those align! And so convenient! We would adamantly defend our right to reject such customers. And not only would we be right but we’d have the legal right to do so.

I am vehemently against discriminating against people because of their race, religions, sex, gender, if they are gay/trans, marital status, whether it not they have children or are pregnant, whether or not they have disabilities and I know I’m forgetting something but you get the idea.

I am also vehemently against forcing anyone to create something that expresses or supports something they find repugnant.

It’s really easy to support someone refusing to create a wedding website for a Nazi themed wedding or for some child marriage. Because we agree that those are repugnant and we’d likely outlaw at least child marriage if we could and perhaps Nazis as well.

It’s harder to see where something is unjust if we disagree with the refusal. Especially if we not only disagree with the refusal but find the request to be repugnant. But I believe that the principle is the same.

I know that no one else agrees with me and that I am not going to change any minds.

I think this will be my last post on the subject.

 

[Gospel]

If only the Supreme Court demonstrated as much reason as you do. If you haven't noticed they've actually ruled that it's permissible to discriminate against a protected class if such discrimination aligns with one's religious beliefs. Today, the group facing discrimination may be the LGBTQ+ community, a recognized protected class. Tomorrow, it could be women, merely because someone's religious doctrine dictates they should not engage in certain activities or behaviors.

Cheerio!

 

[Toni]

This will end up destroying the concept of protected classes.

This is circular logic. You're basically arguing that we shouldn't protect equal rights because then we might lose the ability to protect equal rights.

And then you end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Moreover, there is no evidence that protected classes are in jeopardy. Doing away with protected classes isn't part of the national political conversation.

Two years ago, I would not have thought that abortion rights would be dismantled.

Affirmative action has been on the chopping block for years and finally was executed.

I think that someday there will be no more protected classes because we won’t need them. But I also think, based on recent USSC decisions, that the end of protected classes will come before true equality has been reached and that it won’t just be messy—it will be ugly.

And part of that conversation will be some Nazi or some pedophile challenging someone for refusing to write their love song, inscribe their wedding bands or create their wedding website or something similar.

We need to think seriously, deeply, strategically about how to achieve a more just world for all, including writers, graphic artists, web designers, artists, photographers, etc.

Free speech must be free even when it is repugnant.

Free speech is under serious attack with the newly revived pastime of banning books, forbidding medics professionals from counseling their patients, forbidding teachers from saying gay or teaching actual history, not the aptly described white washed version.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

I am also vehemently against forcing anyone to create something that expresses or supports something they find repugnant.

No one is interested in forcing anyone to create something they find repugnant. No one is forcing anyone to be a wedding website designer. If someone finds interracial marriage repugnant, they can do something else for a living.

We have a right to free speech.
We do not have a constitutionally protected right to have any job we want.

You are putting a higher value on a bigot's "right" to have any job they want than on a minority's right to be treated like a full human being.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

Two years ago, I would not have thought that abortion rights would be dismantled.

They've been talking about this for 50 years.

 

[Toni]

I am also vehemently against forcing anyone to create something that expresses or supports something they find repugnant.

No one is interested in forcing anyone to create something they find repugnant. No one is forcing anyone to be a wedding website designer. If someone finds interracial marriage repugnant, they can do something else for a living.

We have a right to free speech.
We do not have a constitutionally protected right to have any job we want.

You are putting a higher value on a bigot's "right" to have any job they want than on a minority's right to be treated like a full human being.

No one has the right to demand that a particular creator create something for them. If one is turned away, one can always go to a different provider.

Everyone has the right to be treated as a full human being, including people we disagree with.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

Free speech must be free even when it is repugnant.

For the umpteenth time, anti-discrimination laws do not prohibit free speech.

The anti-discrimination laws that were in place for the last 80 years did not suppress free speech. Bigotry has been alive and well and expressed freely during that time.

Free speech is under serious attack with the newly revived pastime of banning books, forbidding medics professionals from counseling their patients, forbidding teachers from saying gay or teaching actual history, not the aptly described white washed version.

And who's doing this? The right. The same right that just radically altered our anti-discrimination laws.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

I am also vehemently against forcing anyone to create something that expresses or supports something they find repugnant.

No one is interested in forcing anyone to create something they find repugnant. No one is forcing anyone to be a wedding website designer. If someone finds interracial marriage repugnant, they can do something else for a living.

We have a right to free speech.
We do not have a constitutionally protected right to have any job we want.

You are putting a higher value on a bigot's "right" to have any job they want than on a minority's right to be treated like a full human being.

No one has the right to demand that a particular creator create something for them.

Omg, over and over again. No one is making that demand. The demand is that they treat everyone the same. If they can't do that, they can get another job.

If one is turned away, one can always go to a different provider.

Yeah, like black people did pre-Civil-Rights era. I don't want to go back to a pre-Civil Rights Era US.

Everyone has the right to be treated as a full human being, including people we disagree with.

But they don't have the right to have any job they want.

 

[Gospel]

This will end up destroying the concept of protected classes.

This is circular logic. You're basically arguing that we shouldn't protect equal rights because then we might lose the ability to protect equal rights.

And then you end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Moreover, there is no evidence that protected classes are in jeopardy. Doing away with protected classes isn't part of the national political conversation.

Two years ago, I would not have thought that abortion rights would be dismantled.

Affirmative action has been on the chopping block for years and finally was executed.

I think that someday there will be no more protected classes because we won’t need them. But I also think, based on recent USSC decisions, that the end of protected classes will come before true equality has been reached and that it won’t just be messy—it will be ugly.

And part of that conversation will be some Nazi or some pedophile challenging someone for refusing to write their love song, inscribe their wedding bands or create their wedding website or something similar.

We need to think seriously, deeply, strategically about how to achieve a more just world for all, including writers, graphic artists, web designers, artists, photographers, etc.

Free speech must be free even when it is repugnant.

Free speech is under serious attack with the newly revived pastime of banning books, forbidding medics professionals from counseling their patients, forbidding teachers from saying gay or teaching actual history, not the aptly described white washed version.

While you ardently await the arrival of a day you hold dear to your heart when classes no longer require protection, understand that others harbor different beliefs just as profound and personal to them. Humans have been doing this for thousands of years. Even the make believe God via flooding the entire planet couldn't stop it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am also vehemently against forcing anyone to create something that expresses or supports something they find repugnant.

No one is interested in forcing anyone to create something they find repugnant. No one is forcing anyone to be a wedding website designer. If someone finds interracial marriage repugnant, they can do something else for a living.

We have a right to free speech.
We do not have a constitutionally protected right to have any job we want.

You are putting a higher value on a bigot's "right" to have any job they want than on a minority's right to be treated like a full human being.

No one has the right to demand that a particular creator create something for them. If one is turned away, one can always go to a different provider.

Everyone has the right to be treated as a full human being, including people we disagree with.

Except that the gays getting married won't. The number of places gays getting married will be able to get services is less than before the SCOTUS ruling. We have no idea how much it'll drop. But I imagine, urban gays will be fine, rural gays... well, I'm told I don't care about rural folk.

Why, because they are gay and getting married. All, so that a person who thinks homosexuality is a sin, can refuse that service so they can sleep at night. People following their messiah who said "you all sinners, bitches."

Who's next? What is next? What will be another bridge too far for the evangelicals who voted en masse for habitual adulterer Donald fucking Trump, to allow to deny the rights of others? You are worried about their rights, when they don't give a damn about you and will gladly try to toss other 14th Amendment related rights, to ones body, to ones relationships, to ones right to have a kid with whom one wants to choose (Loving v Virginia).

Their personal rights end at the INC. That is where they inherit those business rights, which used to come at the cost of needing to serve all Americans. Well, now it is all Americans*. Viable concerns regarding obscenity and their incorporated duty to serving all Americans are not in conflict here. Gays marrying is not obscene.

 

[Toni]

Free speech must be free even when it is repugnant.

For the umpteenth time, anti-discrimination laws do not prohibit free speech.

The anti-discrimination laws that were in place for the last 80 years did not suppress free speech. Bigotry has been alive and well and expressed freely during that time.

Free speech is under serious attack with the newly revived pastime of banning books, forbidding medics professionals from counseling their patients, forbidding teachers from saying gay or teaching actual history, not the aptly described white washed version.

And who's doing this? The right. The same right that just radically altered our anti-discrimination laws.

Compelling speech is absolutely the opposite of protecting free speech.

 

[Toni]

I am also vehemently against forcing anyone to create something that expresses or supports something they find repugnant.

No one is interested in forcing anyone to create something they find repugnant. No one is forcing anyone to be a wedding website designer. If someone finds interracial marriage repugnant, they can do something else for a living.

We have a right to free speech.
We do not have a constitutionally protected right to have any job we want.

You are putting a higher value on a bigot's "right" to have any job they want than on a minority's right to be treated like a full human being.

No one has the right to demand that a particular creator create something for them. If one is turned away, one can always go to a different provider.

Everyone has the right to be treated as a full human being, including people we disagree with.

Except that the gays getting married won't. The number of places gays getting married will be able to get services is less than before the SCOTUS ruling. We have no idea how much it'll drop. But I imagine, urban gays will be fine, rural gays... well, I'm told I don't care about rural folk.

Why, because they are gay and getting married. All, so that a person who thinks homosexuality is a sin, can refuse that service so they can sleep at night. People following their messiah who said "you all sinners, bitches."

Who's next? What is next? What will be another bridge too far for the evangelicals who voted en masse for habitual adulterer Donald fucking Trump, to allow to deny the rights of others? You are worried about their rights, when they don't give a damn about you and will gladly try to toss other 14th Amendment related rights, to ones body, to ones relationships, to ones right to have a kid with whom one wants to choose (Loving v Virginia).

Their personal rights end at the INC. That is where they inherit those business rights, which used to come at the cost of needing to serve all Americans. Well, now it is all Americans*. Viable concerns regarding obscenity and their incorporated duty to serving all Americans are not in conflict here. Gays marrying is not obscene.

Donald Trump will likely be dead in under 20 years.

As far as I’ve been able to discover —and i admit I’m basing this more on the theological knowledge of a long time friend who studied theology and who is gay —and recently married her wife— than I am on my own study of the New Testament, Jesus never spoke against homosexuality.

Who is next, indeed?

If discrimination is wrong, it is wrong, whether or not someone is a member of a protected class.

If free speech is a core value and constitutionally guaranteed right under the US Constitution, ( and it is) then it includes free speech that you or I consider repugnant, with some limitations. Nazis are allowed to march in parades. They are not allowed to burn crosses in peoples front yards.

Do you know what happened to that Woolworth’s that refused to serve those 4 black students? They integrated in July of 1960. Four years before the Civil Rights Act was passed.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

Free speech must be free even when it is repugnant.

For the umpteenth time, anti-discrimination laws do not prohibit free speech.

The anti-discrimination laws that were in place for the last 80 years did not suppress free speech. Bigotry has been alive and well and expressed freely during that time.

Free speech is under serious attack with the newly revived pastime of banning books, forbidding medics professionals from counseling their patients, forbidding teachers from saying gay or teaching actual history, not the aptly described white washed version.

And who's doing this? The right. The same right that just radically altered our anti-discrimination laws.

Compelling speech is absolutely the opposite of protecting free speech.

You would have a point if anyone were compelling speech. No one is obligated to be a wedding website designer. Nor do we have a constitutionally protected right to be a wedding website designer.