Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[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.

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?

Yes, actually it DOES give Colorado standing. And it might be enough to get them to overturn, far right or not.

 

[Gospel]

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".

Your perspective and Toni's might include a minor misapprehension. The right to express religious beliefs or free speech doesn't necessitate a career change. In private and public domains, individuals are entitled to express their religious principles, and there are no governmental prohibitions against this. The issue arises when these freedoms encroach upon the rights of others, particularly those who are part of a protected class, through discriminatory service denial.

For instance, if a cake is made for a heterosexual couple, it must be equally available to a same-sex couple. The government is tasked with ensuring universal access to services, irrespective of sexual orientation. The key point isn't about changing or suppressing religious beliefs; individuals can retain personal convictions that might disapprove of same-sex relationships. It's about acknowledging that the government's role in the commercial sphere is to uphold the rights of all citizens, including ensuring equal service access.

Striking a balance between personal convictions and public services is a challenge that we all encounter. By pledging to uphold the US constitution, you're entering into this social contract. If you're not in agreement with the terms, you have options: exit the contract or negotiate a new one with all involved parties.

The Supreme Court seems to be reinterpreting this contract without any overt alterations, under the misguided assumption that these changes only impact the immediate parties involved, without considering the wider ramifications for all the stakeholders implicated in the execution of the contract.

 

[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.

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.

No, the harm on the creator is every bit as big a harm as the customer, who could simply go to a different website designer. The Knot even goes into detail about how to screen for vendors who are gay friendly.

Until this discussion I had not before seen how establishing protected classes actually causes unequal protection under such laws.

I’m not that smart. If I see it, you can bet that lots of others see it. Which is one reason why I said earlier that I can see an end to protected classes. The other is that I hope that in another generation or two, there will be no need for protected classes, that such bigotry will be a thing of the past.

My husband sees this re-emergence if the right wing as he last desperate gasp of a dying ideology. I hope he’s right.

 

[Gospel]

Toni, your assertion seems to suggest that the responsibility of setting aside personal beliefs to ensure fairness — a mandate under the US Constitution — is exclusive to the web designer. However, that's not the case. For instance, consider a scenario where the web designer's Internet Service Provider (ISP), guided by its own core values, chooses not to support prejudiced behavior. If companies like Google and Amazon decided to remove the web designer's access to their physical infrastructure (AKA the internet) due to perceived bigotry, would that be viewed as acceptable?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

No, the harm on the creator is every bit as big a harm as the customer, who could simply go to a different website designer. The Knot even goes into detail about how to screen for vendors who are gay friendly.

The harms are different. Clearly. One is classic and can be measured. The other isn't unimportant, but it is intangible. One can not say a tangible harm and intangible harm are the same thing.

Until this discussion I had not before seen how establishing protected classes actually causes unequal protection under such laws.

I’m not that smart.

Clearly! *scurries off into the distance*

Seriously, I'm not smart either, but I am clairbuoyant, which means I can read thought bubbles based on how things are said (or not said).

If I see it, you can bet that lots of others see it. Which is one reason why I said earlier that I can see an end to protected classes. The other is that I hope that in another generation or two, there will be no need for protected classes, that such bigotry will be a thing of the past.

Except we are moving in the wrong direction. This SCOTUS has set America back 30 years on some things, 50+ years in others.

My husband sees this re-emergence if the right wing as he last desperate gasp of a dying ideology. I hope he’s right.

They own SCOTUS, made abortion ban-able, corporations are people, affirmative action is (kind of) dead (let's just let them think it is), and legal hacks are being allowed. If the GOP win in 2024, SCOTUS will be locked for the next 20 to 30 years in far-right wing mode.

If this is the right-wing dying, I'd hate to see their power when they are thriving.

 

[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?

Yes, actually it DOES give Colorado standing. And it might be enough to get them to overturn, far right or not.

It only does if they say it does... and they don't have to say it does. They have provided no reasoning to suggest they would. Also, standing is determined in the active case, not afterwards. They can't reverse a SCOTUS decision because they forgot about standing related issues. It is done.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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

All individuals are—or were, rather, before this SCOTUS ruling—protected by anti-discrimination laws. Gay is not a protected class, sexual orientation is.

and and protecting the right of religious freedom and freedom of expression.

Did we not have freedom of expression and freedom of religion before this SCOTUS ruling?

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.

Why wouldn't the newer one be the one doing the trumping? Not that it really matters.

In any case, you're over-egging the pudding with regard to the amount of trumping going on. Trumping levels were fine before this ruling.

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?

Pork butcher isn't a protected class. There's no reason the owner of a kosher deli couldn't put certain stipulations in a rental contract regarding kosher standards, so long as they treat black/white/gay/straight people the same.

 

[ZiprHead]

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

What ever happened to the Christian tenet that says lying is a sin?

 

[jab]

I see both scenarios as legally equivalent.

You think being gay and being Nazi are equivalent??

Do you think Nazis are born Nazis?

Do you think restaurant owners should be allowed to refuse service to black people?

or web designers refuse to design websites for inter-racial or inter-faith marriages or atheist marriages?

 

[jab]

There is nothing that I am aware of that prevents any person who is turned down by one creator from taking their business to another creator. Or creating the desired content themselves.

This is different from whether or not someone/company that makes templates for wedding sites for couples has a right to refuse to sell a template to a couple who, for whatever reason, they do not feel inclined to help. The template should be provided, whether it not the couple is gay, bi-racial, gender-non-conforming, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Wiccan, whatever. Specific content: No. No one should be so compelled to create content that violates their principles.

A baker could and should be compelled to sell a wedding cake to any couple who wishes and us able to afford one of their cakes so long as the cake is within the baker’s repertoire. But that does NOT include providing wedding toppers, specific themes, or writing that they find repugnant.


.

I also find it a little difficult to believe that a business who does not wish to work with a client would be so foolish as to cite religious grounds for refusing the prospective client.

and if nobody will, what then? I do see a problem. Also, this lying Christian should be indicted for perjury.

 

[jab]

I understand why an interracial couple or gay couple would specifically attempt to gain the services of a bigoted business owner. I am not disagreeing with their right to do so.

I do to.
They're "Woker than thou!"

They're edgelords looking for internet cred.

They know how popular it will make them amongst the people they care about.

They're really not very different from the TeaParty Trumpistas who say and do stupid things on the netz.
Tom

So do we now know your retroactive opinions of suffragettes and Freedom Riders, not to mention American Revolutionaries--No taxation without representation--how dare they kill the King's ordained representatives in the colonies over the right to democratic representation?

 

[Gospel]

Welcome to the New/Old America!

1. A bakery could refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.
2. A florist could refuse to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.
3. A photographer could refuse to take pictures of a same-sex wedding.
4. A caterer could refuse to cater a same-sex wedding.
5. A venue could refuse to host a same-sex wedding.
6. A hotel could refuse to rent a room to a same-sex couple.
7. A restaurant could refuse to serve a same-sex couple.
8. A doctor could refuse to treat a same-sex couple.
9. A lawyer could refuse to represent a same-sex couple.
10. A school could refuse to admit a student because of their race.
11. A landlord could refuse to rent to a person of color.
12. An employer could refuse to hire a person of color.
13. A bank could refuse to give a loan to a person of color.
14. A store could refuse to serve a person of color.
15. A restaurant could refuse to serve a person of color.
16. A doctor could refuse to treat a person of color.
17. A lawyer could refuse to represent a person of color.
18. A school could refuse to admit a student because of their religion.
19. A landlord could refuse to rent to a person of a certain religion.
20. An employer could refuse to hire a person of a certain religion.
21. A bank could refuse to give a loan to a person of a certain religion.
22. A store could refuse to serve a person of a certain religion.
23. A restaurant could refuse to serve a person of a certain religion.
24. A doctor could refuse to treat a person of a certain religion.
25. A lawyer could refuse to represent a person of a certain religion.
26. A school could refuse to admit a student because of their gender.
27. A landlord could refuse to rent to a person of a certain gender.
28. An employer could refuse to hire a person of a certain gender.
29. A bank could refuse to give a loan to a person of a certain gender.
30. A store could refuse to serve a person of a certain gender.
31. A restaurant could refuse to serve a person of a certain gender.
32. A doctor could refuse to treat a person of a certain gender.
33. A lawyer could refuse to represent a person of a certain gender.
34. A business could refuse to serve a person with a disability.
35. A landlord could refuse to rent to a person with a disability.
36. An employer could refuse to hire a person with a disability.
37. A bank could refuse to give a loan to a person with a disability.
38. A store could refuse to serve a person with a disability.
39. A restaurant could refuse to serve a person with a disability.
40. A doctor could refuse to treat a person with a disability.
41. A lawyer could refuse to represent a person with a disability.
42. A business could refuse to serve a person based on their age.
43. A landlord could refuse to rent to a person based on their age.
44. An employer could refuse to hire a person based on their age.
45. A bank could refuse to give a loan to a person based on their age.
46. A store could refuse to serve a person based on their age.
47. A restaurant could refuse to serve a person based on their age.
48. A doctor could refuse to treat a person based on their age.
49. A lawyer could refuse to represent a person based on their age.
50. A business could refuse to serve anyone who they believe is a member of a protected class.

 

[jab]

What if the next creator is also a bigot? And the next one. And the next one. And the next one after that.

This was exactly the problem during the Jim Crow era. If you wanted to run a business that catered to the majority white population, then you made sure that the clientele was not mixed race. Businesses were encouraged not to integrate, and that's why there was fierce resistance to the lunch counter sit-ins.

When the law forced businesses to serve protected classes, the businesses that catered to integration gained protection and legitimacy. If they didn't want to serve protected classes, the rights of protected classes were elevated above their right to serve whomever they pleased. Governments exist to resolve disputes of this sort, because equal rights doesn't mean that everyone has the right to do what they want. Someone's freedom is always going to come into conflict with someone else's freedom.

oh, those lunch counter sitter-in's were just too woke for words, don't you know?

 

[jab]

Being in a protected class does not give someone the right to demand that someone else create content specifically for them.

No, but prior to this, protected classes were protected from discrimination. With this ruling, they are no longer protected where "expressive original design" is concerned.

Really, you think that gay couples all over the country were patronizing homophobic wedding website creators and forcing them to create websites for them? I don’t think so.

You think that gay people, black people, women, everybody who is for some reason part of the group of protected classes did not face discrimination-/dangerous discrimination that is carried out with impunity every single day before this decision was handed down?

Not even close.

Do I agree with this decision? I do agree that no one can force someone to create something especially for them. I believe that under the United States Constitution, everyone has the right to free speech, even hateful speech, within a few limitations ( yelling fire in a crowded theater).

As I stated earlier, I am absolutely appalled that any court, much less the USSC agreed to hear a case that was built on a lie and deliberate deception.

I also believe that racism is wrong, homophobia is wrong, antisemitism is wrong, all bigotry and hatred directed at anyone because of any inborn characteristic or religious affiliation is wrong. Such sentiments, especially expressed in any way that causes harm to other people is despicable and disgusting.

I don’t believe that that the law should protect such hate mongers and bigots from the consequences of their actions.

But I also believe that all of us have the constitutionally protected freedom of speech, with some limitations.

I'm am not sure that such a business, always hypothetical in this case, should be lisenced or recognized as legit by the State. But then I'm not an American.
The slovenly and gimcrack way in which this case was conducted and adjudicated indicates strong homophobia in America.
Reminds me of a few years ago when your (allegedly less conservative then) Supreme court gave West Burrownian Baptists the right to harass funerals of American soldiers in person and online because "God Hates Fags".

 

[jab]

Do you think a racist graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites should be allowed to refuse to work with interracial couples?

Yes. Absolutely.

Another question might be, "Why would an interracial couple demand a wedding website by a racist? What possible reasons are there for wanting a website by that particular designer?"

I'm curious, where in the advertisements for said website designers indicates their political positions on mixed race, religious, or gay marriages?

You seem quite happy to blame victims of discrimination for seeking out discrimination. Thanks to SCOTUS, even those egregious attention whore gays will be joined by other gay couples who were just trying to a service for a wedding. Hopefully there will be signs on the door or a notable disclaimer on the website indicating that "No gays" instead of the doors just being slammed in their face.

Actually, no doors were slammed in anyone's face.

But they will. This ruling ensures it. And its open-endedness will help chip some more stone away.

I don't think that Tom is blaming the victims of discrimination. I think that Tom is expressing the sentiments often shared by oppressed peoples (not saying Tom is oppressed) to avoid confrontation and use someone who is supportive of whatever it is you wish to commission.

You mean that TomC is judging people for doing this, but doesn't have a damn clue about it. It is a theme of TomC's to negatively judge people he doesn't know.

Black people often consulted the Green Book when traveling for exactly this reason. It is despicable that they needed to do so.

Is this supposed to be comforting that gays can do this now too?

In fact, in a lot of places people will choose a designer or a vendor or say, a wedding planner who has already demonstrated that they do an especially good job with the type of work the client wishes to have. Most Jewish couples (or Muslim couples) will choose someone who has helped with the same sort of event, with their traditions and done so well. There is a lot of self selection going on when people look for photographers, wedding planners, caterers, jewelry designers, etc. Most creators do have lanes, or areas of their expertise. Some are more willing and able to step outside those boundaries more than others.

And now, they have to. The number of choices available to gay couples has been decreased (Constitutionally approved). Gay couples will have fewer options (possibly very limited to no options). Sure, big city gays will be fine, but rural gays... well, that is God's country now. Honestly, I can't see how gays have a fundamental right to marriage, but not marriage services? #butwhataboutthehomophobes?!

I agree with you that this is an appalling, bigotted ruling. However, one thing about web design is that you don't have to frequent a business in your immediate vicinity.

 

[jab]

I want to preface this post by saying, unequivocally, that I think that the whole fake customer, fake request was/is/will always be utterly and completely reprehensible and I find it flabbergasting that the falsehood behind this was not revealed initially and that the Supreme Court ever heard the case. Hopefully you all realize that I am also completely supportive of gay marriage. Also I have not read the decision myself.

Please consider a different scenario:

Suppose I'm a web designer who despises the whole stupid white nationalism and nazi thing. Suppose someone contacts me and asks me to design a website for their organization. Suppose that organization is actually white nationalism/Nazi or adjacent. Am I legally or morally required to create the website that they wish me to create?

Suppose I am also baker who specializes in special occasion cakes, with words as part of the decoration. Am I required to provide a cake for the above organization if it insists I write words in support of white nationalism or Nazis?

I see both scenarios as legally equivalent.

I contend that I am not required to create any content that I find repugnant or morally offensive or wrong. I believe that I would be required to sell a cake to the cretins asking for one but I am NOT required to write offensive (to me) content on that cake. I contend that I am NOT required to create a website that includes or supports any organization or includes content I find repugnant.

They are not equivalent, as Nazis aren't born Nazis. Gays, blacks, whites are dealt their hands at birth. Allowing the prohibition of sales can create islands of no service to groups of people that are considered legally deprivable of their rights.

This has nothing to do with Nazis and their repugnant existance. This has to do with human beings trying to enjoy the rights and privileges that are promised to them in the Constitution of the United States.

But there is no right or privilege that allows anyone to compel another person to create content that they find repugnant or that violates their principles, religious or not.

Yes there is, there has been a great deal of Constitutional Law suggesting as such. I mean just because it isn't hip anymore to say that the Bible forbids mixing of the races, this was quite the religious justification for segregation and preventing blacks, Jews, *insert whomever else* from establishments (or quaint things like schools). Those objections were based on "principles" just as much as people who want to say making a website for a gay marriage is based on "principles".

Generic cake or website template that is already created? They must sell to anyone whether or not they like them. Specifically being required to CREATE content for someone who wishes them to create something in violation of their principles? No.

I don't see how this argument doesn't apply to a mixed racial couple, a mixed religious couple, or other classes that are currently (who knows for how long) protected. Why should a person be compelled to bake a cake for a wedding between an upstanding white woman and a mongrel nigger? Their children will be an abomination to the Christian faith! And I don't ask that in any sort of hypothetical, but as in this was an issue in Loving v Virginia (well, not the web site side of it, but whether it was Constitutional to charge a mixed race couple with a crime for getting married).

So what is the difference? Why should a cake baker have to sell to a mixed race heterosexual couple or even a mixed Christian breed of heterosexual couple, but not a gay couple?

This whole "compelled speech" argument is bullshit. This is about SCOTUS recognizing the right to discriminate... as long as someone says it has a religious basis, which reads like Plessy v Fergusson, a wink and nod to bigotry.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are very fundamental rights under the US Constitutioin. That's the first amendment. There are limits: You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater; if your religion dictates human sacrifice, you're SOL. And so on.

I understand why people are upset about this ruling. I'm not happy about any of it. But consider:

If a website designer can be compelled to create a website supporting gay marriage, then a website designer can likewise be compelled to create a website supporting homophobia.

Most artists and designers have a repertoire of the types of work they do. I believe web designers have a set of templates that they use. I think under this ruling, a webdesigner could be compelled to sell the template (assuming they sell the templates to customers) to any customer but cannot be compelled to write Jeff and Ted will celebrate their love in holy matrimony at 6:00 on Friday, October 19.....

homophobes are not a protected class in America, or are they?

 

[jab]

Being in a protected class does not give someone the right to demand that someone else create content specifically for them.

No, but prior to this, protected classes were protected from discrimination. With this ruling, they are no longer protected where "expressive original design" is concerned.

It seems bigots are now a "protected class". It is a little bit of an over-simplification here, but this opens the door for bigots to push open further.

Not really. It does cut both ways.

No, it does not cut both ways. For the love of god, how can I get through to you that you are wrong about this?

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

One cannot be compelled to create content that one finds hateful, either. No one can be compelled to create an anti-gay marriage website or a website specifically against the marriage of Jeff and Ted. A jewelry designer cannot be compelled to create wedding bands with the swastika embedded in it, a diamond in the center. Or one that is engraved Die Faggots Die, if you want a specific protected class. Or paint a portrait of a white person beating a black person.

None of this is in any way, shape, or form related to this SCOTUS case. Had this case gone the other way, all this would still be true.

I’m not wrong.

yes, you are, mostly:
same level of argument,

 

[Gospel]

Most artists and designers have a repertoire of the types of work they do. I believe web designers have a set of templates that they use. I think under this ruling, a webdesigner could be compelled to sell the template (assuming they sell the templates to customers) to any customer but cannot be compelled to write Jeff and Ted will celebrate their love in holy matrimony at 6:00 on Friday, October 19

That would have been a compromise that might have safeguarded constitutional rights, instead of selfishly placing all members of protected classes, including their own , at risk of losing these protections.

Edit: By "selfishly," I'm referring to the act of fabricating a scenario for personal gain. A genuine situation could have potentially been addressed appropriately, either through personal intervention or proper legal channels. The SCOTUS is not the proper legal channel at this time.

 

[ZiprHead]

homophobes are not a protected class in America, or are they?

They are now.

 

[Toni]

Most artists and designers have a repertoire of the types of work they do. I believe web designers have a set of templates that they use. I think under this ruling, a webdesigner could be compelled to sell the template (assuming they sell the templates to customers) to any customer but cannot be compelled to write Jeff and Ted will celebrate their love in holy matrimony at 6:00 on Friday, October 19

That would have been a compromise that might have safeguarded constitutional rights, instead of selfishly placing all members of protected classes, including their own , at risk of losing these protections.

I wholeheartedly agree!!!