Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Gospel]

Next step is to require businesses to post restricted consumers up front. I can't wait to see the no niggers allowed signs come back. Wow-wee! So much fun.

 

[Gospel]

NEWS FLASH!!

• Genesis 9:18-27: This passage tells the story of Noah's curse on Ham, one of his sons. The curse says that Ham's descendants will be slaves to Noah's other sons. This passage has been used to justify slavery and racism.
• Leviticus 18:22: This passage prohibits male same-sex sexual relations. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.
• 1 Timothy 2:11-12: This passage says that women should not teach or have authority over men. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against women in leadership roles.

That's what they want. I'm not even going to touch on what other religious groups want at this time because they aren't operating at the SCOTUS level (yet)

Luke 5:

36 He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.

I wouldn't equate the repeal of laws with their transformation, but everyone is entitled to their own perspective.

 

[Toni]

Imagine a gay couple approaches the minister or priest of a denomination which is known to oppose gay marriage and asks that clergy member to conduct their wedding.

No church in the US has ever been required to marry a gay couple. Organized religion tends to get a lot of exemptions. The church can still deny women entry into the priesthood, for another example. Wall of separation, and all that.

Does anyone believe that the priest or minister should be compelled to perform the wedding ceremony?

No. As far as I'm concerned, the more people the church alienates, the better.

What is the difference between a minister and a web designer being compelled to celebrate the wedding of a gay couple?

The church and its minister are entities engaging in religious speech, which enjoys robust protection under the First Amendment. Conversely, the web designer, before the recent court rulings, operated in the sphere of commercial speech, providing website creation services to clients. Commercial speech is not as stringently safeguarded by the First Amendment as religious speech.

In other words a web designer's advertisment that does not include restrictions on designing websites for same sex marriage up front would be considered misleading commercial speech. However, If they advertised with religious connotations it would have been protected speech.

Under the new interpretation, there's no distinction between the speech of a minister in a church and commercial speech & they didn't have to use a red herring like Nazis to get there.

Edit: Lets not forget that the web designer's injury was faked.

Since it’s an entirely fake case, there is an opportunity for Colorado to challenge the ruling, which it’s expected to do—and which could cause the USSC to throw out the case and the ruling. I am flabbergasted and outraged that this this was not discovered by Colorado before it reached its Supreme Court.

 

[Toni]

That involves YOUR free speech and you cannot be compelled to express ideas or sentiments that you find repugnant.

No one has ever been compelled to be a wedding website designer. No one has a right to be a wedding website designer. Someone who finds interracial marriage repugnant can drive a forklift for a living.

And that is precisely the point here. The right that one has is freedom of speech and expression, not a right to run a business. For that, one has to obey the laws that govern business practices, and one of those is a prohibition on discrimination against protected classes of citizens.

Many businesses are based upon freedom of speech. By your logic, a newspaper could be compelled to parrot the teachings of anything registered as a church. Or by any protected group.

 

[Gospel]

I'm flabbergasted and outraged that people really believe this is only about a web designers speech.

 

[Toni]

NEWS FLASH!!

• Genesis 9:18-27: This passage tells the story of Noah's curse on Ham, one of his sons. The curse says that Ham's descendants will be slaves to Noah's other sons. This passage has been used to justify slavery and racism.
• Leviticus 18:22: This passage prohibits male same-sex sexual relations. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.
• 1 Timothy 2:11-12: This passage says that women should not teach or have authority over men. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against women in leadership roles.

That's what they want. I'm not even going to touch on what other religious groups want at this time because they aren't operating at the SCOTUS level (yet)

Luke 5:

36 He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.

I wouldn't equate the repeal of laws with their transformation, but everyone is entitled to their own perspective.

Eh, I rarely attend church but years ago, one of my kids was friends with a minister’s kid ( lovely people and good friends) and actually sang in the choir. We went to hear the choir sing one Sunday and that passage from Luke was part of the sermon, the point being exactly that the New Testament took precedence over the Old Testament. The New Testament focuses on love and not fire and brimstone. This is something that many evangelicals seem to have forgotten.

 

[scombrid]

Web design is not the same thing as publishing. There is a line somewhere between publishing, hosting content, and pasting in content as requested by a client. Whereever that line is doesn't matter to me in this case because the case we have here is a christofascist camel sticking its nose under the tent under the guise of protecting speech.

 

[Gospel]

Web design is not the same thing as publishing. There is a line somewhere between publishing, hosting content, and pasting in content as requested by a client. Whereever that line is doesn't matter to me in this case because the case we have here is a christofascist camel sticking its nose under the tent under the guise of protecting speech.

Not to mention that the press is specifically protected by the first amendment. Know what's strange though? The first amendment lovers seem to miss the part that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Herp derp, I wonder why the courts believe they have the power to interoperate laws (made by congress) in such a way that respects an establishment of religion (edit: over a protected class at that).

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

That involves YOUR free speech and you cannot be compelled to express ideas or sentiments that you find repugnant.

No one has ever been compelled to be a wedding website designer. No one has a right to be a wedding website designer. Someone who finds interracial marriage repugnant can drive a forklift for a living.

And that is precisely the point here. The right that one has is freedom of speech and expression, not a right to run a business. For that, one has to obey the laws that govern business practices, and one of those is a prohibition on discrimination against protected classes of citizens.

Many businesses are based upon freedom of speech. By your logic, a newspaper could be compelled to parrot the teachings of anything registered as a church. Or by any protected group.

Lol, no they couldn't. All they have to do is treat black people, white people, and gay people the same.

 

[Toni]

Web design is not the same thing as publishing. There is a line somewhere between publishing, hosting content, and pasting in content as requested by a client. Whereever that line is doesn't matter to me in this case because the case we have here is a christofascist camel sticking its nose under the tent under the guise of protecting speech.

But it’s not ‘pasting in content as requested by client.’ Clients who are capable of creating their own content would use a template.

It’s actually creating content for the clients. To me, that is absolutely key.

 

[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 someone to create/express something which they find repugnant is a violation of free speech.

Still a red herring.

The anti-discrimination laws we've had since the 1960s don't do that.

No one has ever been compelled to be a wedding website designer. No one has a right to be a wedding website designer. Someone who finds interracial marriage repugnant can repair windmills for a living.

 

[Copernicus]

Next step is to require businesses to post restricted consumers up front. I can't wait to see the no niggers allowed signs come back. Wow-wee! So much fun.

What I read in Sotomayor's dissent was that businesses are now allowed to post such signs in cases of "creative expression" such as web design. That is, they can now post notices that they do not provide the service for same-sex marriages. A special notice to inform such people that they are going to be treated as separate from the rest of the public. Sort of separate but equal in the sense that they can patronize other web designer businesses, if they can find one that will still deal with them.

 

[Gospel]

NEWS FLASH!!

• Genesis 9:18-27: This passage tells the story of Noah's curse on Ham, one of his sons. The curse says that Ham's descendants will be slaves to Noah's other sons. This passage has been used to justify slavery and racism.
• Leviticus 18:22: This passage prohibits male same-sex sexual relations. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.
• 1 Timothy 2:11-12: This passage says that women should not teach or have authority over men. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against women in leadership roles.

That's what they want. I'm not even going to touch on what other religious groups want at this time because they aren't operating at the SCOTUS level (yet)

Luke 5:

36 He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.

I wouldn't equate the repeal of laws with their transformation, but everyone is entitled to their own perspective.

Eh, I rarely attend church but years ago, one of my kids was friends with a minister’s kid ( lovely people and good friends) and actually sang in the choir. We went to hear the choir sing one Sunday and that passage from Luke was part of the sermon, the point being exactly that the New Testament took precedence over the Old Testament. The New Testament focuses on love and not fire and brimstone. This is something that many evangelicals seem to have forgotten.

The Supreme Court is interpreting law in a manner that seemingly upholds both a religious institution's rights and draws from Old Testament principles. You've supported this decision by drawing a parallel between the protected class of citizens and those responsible for the Holocaust, ostensibly to clarify the court's ruling. Now, what precisely are you asserting? Are you suggesting that the court's reliance on Old Testament principles for their decision is misguided?

 

[Toni]

NEWS FLASH!!

• Genesis 9:18-27: This passage tells the story of Noah's curse on Ham, one of his sons. The curse says that Ham's descendants will be slaves to Noah's other sons. This passage has been used to justify slavery and racism.
• Leviticus 18:22: This passage prohibits male same-sex sexual relations. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.
• 1 Timothy 2:11-12: This passage says that women should not teach or have authority over men. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against women in leadership roles.

That's what they want. I'm not even going to touch on what other religious groups want at this time because they aren't operating at the SCOTUS level (yet)

Luke 5:

36 He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.

I wouldn't equate the repeal of laws with their transformation, but everyone is entitled to their own perspective.

Eh, I rarely attend church but years ago, one of my kids was friends with a minister’s kid ( lovely people and good friends) and actually sang in the choir. We went to hear the choir sing one Sunday and that passage from Luke was part of the sermon, the point being exactly that the New Testament took precedence over the Old Testament. The New Testament focuses on love and not fire and brimstone. This is something that many evangelicals seem to have forgotten.

The Supreme Court is interpreting law in a manner that seemingly upholds both a religious institution's rights and draws from Old Testament principles. You've supported this decision by drawing a parallel between the protected class of citizens and those responsible for the Holocaust, ostensibly to clarify the court's ruling. Now, what precisely are you asserting? Are you suggesting that the court's reliance on Old Testament principles for their decision is misguided?

I think that modern evangelical reliance on the Old Testament explains a lot about their political positions.

The purpose of protected classes is to ensure that no one is denied services or the opportunity to equal protection under the law on the basis of inborn characteristics ( and some chosen ones).

But the Constitution also guarantees freedom of ( and when chosen, from) religion.

You see it as bigotry ( and I agree that it is bigotry) that is not protected but I see it as a conflict between protecting the rights of a class of individuals who have faced discrimination and and protecting the right of religious freedom and freedom of expression.

The very first amendment is freedom of speech and freedom of/from religion. I think that trumps the need to protect someone from refusal for services, protected class or not.

Suppose a restaurant that specializes in kosher meals rents out its kitchen space to groups during off hours in order make ends meet. Do they have the right to insist that any group renting their space adhere to kosher rules sufficiently to maintain their kosher kitchen?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Edit: Lets not forget that the web designer's injury was faked.

This seems to be one of the bigger issues. I remember the Michael Newdow "Under God" case... the trial... the talk... the decision, 'no standing'. CJ Roberts seemed pissed in one case where it was suggested there was no standing to take the case and he indicated he had the right.

Standing is a technicality that seems to have disappeared as long as the conservatives watch to redact Constitutional Law and redefine words.

 

[Toni]

Edit: Lets not forget that the web designer's injury was faked.

This seems to be one of the bigger issues. I remember the Michael Newdow "Under God" case... the trial... the talk... the decision, 'no standing'. CJ Roberts seemed pissed in one case where it was suggested there was no standing to take the case and he indicated he had the right.

Standing is a technicality that seems to have disappeared as long as the conservatives watch to redact Constitutional Law and redefine words.

Yes, as I’ve mentioned, the fake case gives Colorado the opportunity to challenge the USSC.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

NEWS FLASH!!

• Genesis 9:18-27: This passage tells the story of Noah's curse on Ham, one of his sons. The curse says that Ham's descendants will be slaves to Noah's other sons. This passage has been used to justify slavery and racism.
• Leviticus 18:22: This passage prohibits male same-sex sexual relations. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.
• 1 Timothy 2:11-12: This passage says that women should not teach or have authority over men. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against women in leadership roles.

That's what they want. I'm not even going to touch on what other religious groups want at this time because they aren't operating at the SCOTUS level (yet)

Luke 5:

36 He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.

I wouldn't equate the repeal of laws with their transformation, but everyone is entitled to their own perspective.

Eh, I rarely attend church but years ago, one of my kids was friends with a minister’s kid ( lovely people and good friends) and actually sang in the choir. We went to hear the choir sing one Sunday and that passage from Luke was part of the sermon, the point being exactly that the New Testament took precedence over the Old Testament. The New Testament focuses on love and not fire and brimstone. This is something that many evangelicals seem to have forgotten.

The Supreme Court is interpreting law in a manner that seemingly upholds both a religious institution's rights and draws from Old Testament principles. You've supported this decision by drawing a parallel between the protected class of citizens and those responsible for the Holocaust, ostensibly to clarify the court's ruling. Now, what precisely are you asserting? Are you suggesting that the court's reliance on Old Testament principles for their decision is misguided?

I think that modern evangelical reliance on the Old Testament explains a lot about their political positions.

The purpose of protected classes is to ensure that no one is denied services or the opportunity to equal protection under the law on the basis of inborn characteristics ( and some chosen ones).

But the Constitution also guarantees freedom of ( and when chosen, from) religion.

I don't go to church too often, but I've never seen an LLC or Inc go to church.

You see it as bigotry ( and I agree that it is bigotry) that is not protected but I see it as a conflict between protecting the rights of a class of individuals who have faced discrimination and and protecting the right of religious freedom and freedom of expression.

The very first amendment is freedom of speech and freedom of/from religion. I think that trumps the need to protect someone from refusal for services, protected class or not.

I have a couple different issues with that.

1) Some Founding Fathers didn't want to include a Bill of Rights for this sort of reason... people reading way too far into them. The 10th Amendment tried to manage that, but failed. The "right to privacy" is not explicably written into the Bill of Rights, but it sure the heck is implied. The 4th Amendment actually provides the avenue to protect our rights to being unjustly detained much more than 1st does.

2) Before we even get to the Bill of Rights, we see the Equal Protection. Now technically this is regarding laws passed by the government, however, racists and what not pushed that envelop way too far and the Federal Government and courts expanded how equal protection was managed. History is something the alt-right SCOTUS seem to want to ignore, they've done that a lot recently. They are very Plessy like that.

So we are left with the conflict, is the person regarding what they considered compelled expression harmed more or is the person who is discriminated from services harmed more? The harm on the person providing the service is metaphysical and theoretical. The harm on the person seeking service is harmed in tangible and measurable ways (the same ways that were referenced in justifying Federal intervention for Civil Rights protections of black people in the 60s). It will cost a gay couple their time, their money, more travel, a lesser product, more effort to obtain a service refused to them. In some places, it'll be larger harms than others (rural v urban). Some might find the amount of this harm to be negligible, but it is real, it is measurable, and it is being unequally applied to the American population.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Edit: Lets not forget that the web designer's injury was faked.

This seems to be one of the bigger issues. I remember the Michael Newdow "Under God" case... the trial... the talk... the decision, 'no standing'. CJ Roberts seemed pissed in one case where it was suggested there was no standing to take the case and he indicated he had the right.

Standing is a technicality that seems to have disappeared as long as the conservatives watch to redact Constitutional Law and redefine words.

Yes, as I’ve mentioned, the fake case gives Colorado the opportunity to challenge the USSC.

No it doesn't. What part of the SCOTUS consists of 6 far-right activist judges is hard to understand? SCOTUS can rule however they want. This court have proven that, with nonsensical claims, incomplete or inaccurate history, complete disregard for precedence, etc... So what is one more time in doing that?

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

Imagine a gay couple approaches the minister or priest of a denomination which is known to oppose gay marriage and asks that clergy member to conduct their wedding.

No church in the US has ever been required to marry a gay couple. Organized religion tends to get a lot of exemptions. The church can still deny women entry into the priesthood, for another example. Wall of separation, and all that.

Does anyone believe that the priest or minister should be compelled to perform the wedding ceremony?

No. As far as I'm concerned, the more people the church alienates, the better.

What is the difference between a minister and a web designer being compelled to celebrate the wedding of a gay couple?

If by "compel", you mean "given a choice to treat everyone equally or find a new line of work", the difference is the "wall of separation".

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Establishment Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Free Exercise Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm for the most part ok with this state of affairs. The way I see it, cakes and websites are just normal everyday things that people should have a right to enjoy, but if a gay couple wants to voluntarily subject themselves to the idiotic tyranny of the church, then that is a Leopards Eating People's Faces Party situation, so I say to them good luck, and godspeed.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

I am flabbergasted and outraged that this this was not discovered by Colorado before it reached its Supreme Court.

Why are you flabbergasted and outraged? You agree with the ruling. These are incongruous.