Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Loren Pechtel]

Right. I've done that as well, although not for a wedding website. But I've published newsletters using an established template/software; I've created programs for performances using (and sometimes slightly modifying) a template and using mostly text provided to me. That particular job it was necessary to be consistent with institution standards--very few degrees of freedom to be creative. That's not what I'm talking about. That's not this.

I've seen enough wedding websites to know that it is NOT cut and paste. It's curating photographs. It's selecting font. It's selecting poetry or music (original or otherwise), it's guiding the customers to make tasteful selections that go with their entire theme. There's a LOT to it, if it's done well.

If it were that easy, people would just use an online template and create their own. Some people do and do it well! Others? Not.

Then you should make it clearer. You're acting like cut and paste into a template is enough to make it protected. I've never looked at a wedding website but I would expect to find creativity there--if it's just fill in the blanks why would you do it in the first place?

 

[Toni]

Right. I've done that as well, although not for a wedding website. But I've published newsletters using an established template/software; I've created programs for performances using (and sometimes slightly modifying) a template and using mostly text provided to me. That particular job it was necessary to be consistent with institution standards--very few degrees of freedom to be creative. That's not what I'm talking about. That's not this.

I've seen enough wedding websites to know that it is NOT cut and paste. It's curating photographs. It's selecting font. It's selecting poetry or music (original or otherwise), it's guiding the customers to make tasteful selections that go with their entire theme. There's a LOT to it, if it's done well.

If it were that easy, people would just use an online template and create their own. Some people do and do it well! Others? Not.

Then you should make it clearer. You're acting like cut and paste into a template is enough to make it protected. I've never looked at a wedding website but I would expect to find creativity there--if it's just fill in the blanks why would you do it in the first place?

No, I’ve said, several times, that a template into which the customer inserts their own content must be offered to any interested party.

The ONLY reason that I balk AT ALL at the website designer not legally being required to accept any customer is that I absolutely do not believe that anyone can be legally forced to create content or to express ideas and sentiments that they find in conflict with their deeply held principles. I would not limit this to beliefs or principles based on religion.

There has been a lot said here about protected classes being those who cannot be turned away because of discrimination. But the designer in this fake case is a devout evangelical Christian who has the right to adhere to the teachings of her religion however fucked up those teachings are.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

Right. I've done that as well, although not for a wedding website. But I've published newsletters using an established template/software; I've created programs for performances using (and sometimes slightly modifying) a template and using mostly text provided to me. That particular job it was necessary to be consistent with institution standards--very few degrees of freedom to be creative. That's not what I'm talking about. That's not this.

I've seen enough wedding websites to know that it is NOT cut and paste. It's curating photographs. It's selecting font. It's selecting poetry or music (original or otherwise), it's guiding the customers to make tasteful selections that go with their entire theme. There's a LOT to it, if it's done well.

If it were that easy, people would just use an online template and create their own. Some people do and do it well! Others? Not.

Then you should make it clearer. You're acting like cut and paste into a template is enough to make it protected. I've never looked at a wedding website but I would expect to find creativity there--if it's just fill in the blanks why would you do it in the first place?

No, I’ve said, several times, that a template into which the customer inserts their own content must be offered to any interested party.

The ONLY reason that I balk AT ALL at the website designer not legally being required to accept any customer is that I absolutely do not believe that anyone can be legally forced to create content or to express ideas and sentiments that they find in conflict with their deeply held principles. I would not limit this to beliefs or principles based on religion.

There has been a lot said here about protected classes being those who cannot be turned away because of discrimination. But the designer in this fake case is a devout evangelical Christian who has the right to adhere to the teachings of her religion however fucked up those teachings are.

Save yourself the keystrokes, Toni, and just say that you support segregation. Let's call a spade a spade.

 

[Bomb#20]

Bilby's argument plainly implies it should be illegal to quit your job for discriminatory reasons.

No, it really doesn't.

An employee is not a one person labour hire business.

The IRS can tell you the difference between an employee and a labour hire business.

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/business-structures

Businesses are clearly defined in US taxation and corporate law, and an employee is not a business, and so could not be a business engaged in unlawful discrimination, regardless of their level of bigotry.

Of course, when an employee is acting on behalf of your business, your business is required to ensure that they act within the law; But quitting for bigoted reasons isn't an action on behalf of your business, and so is not subject to legal constraints against discriminatory behaviour by businesses.

I said "implies it should be", because you made a moral claim. That's an "ought". Why do you imagine all those "is"s are a counterargument? What all your "is"s show is merely that the U.S. government isn't basing its legal decisions on following your argument to its natural conclusion.

The justification you offered was "You can be as bigoted as you like. But you may not exhibit that bigotry during any business transaction." Selling your labor is a business transaction. You can dispute this if you please, but all of us know if we were talking about companies discriminating against employees instead of against customers you'd classify buying someone's labor as a business transaction. The same transaction is not simultaneously a business transaction and a non-business transaction.

Moreover, there's nothing in your argument explaining why it ought to apply to whatever activities the U.S. government currently defines as businesses but not to others. It simply takes for granted that suppressing bigotry is more important than respecting people's constitutional rights "If you want to run a business", even though the constitution doesn't say its guarantees vanish in a puff of businesshood. When you say "They are right to do so, and the constitution in no way prevents them from doing so.", without offering some sort of justification for the defining line between business and non-business being drawn where it is, your claim amounts to "The government is right to make up a label, attach it to whom it pleases, and disregard the constitutional rights of those so labeled." Well, if the constitution can't prevent the government from ruling "Your right to free speech goes poof because we say you're a business", how the heck is it going to prevent the government from ruling "Your right to quit your job goes poof because we say you're a bricklayer."? Will the courts take judicial notice of bilby liking the 13th Amendment better than the 1st?

 

[Copernicus]

There has been a lot said here about protected classes being those who cannot be turned away because of discrimination. But the designer in this fake case is a devout evangelical Christian who has the right to adhere to the teachings of her religion however fucked up those teachings are.

That's true, and that may require sacrifices on her part. Her business should not be entitled to discriminate against protected groups because she believes that her religion demands that of her. It was not so long ago (until 1978) that many Mormon sects excluded black citizens from their religion and forbade interracial marriages. They finally disavowed their past teachings on race in 2013. (See  Black People and Mormonism.) I think it likely that some so-called fundamentalist groups still do preach racism. This unprecedented new ruling from SCOTUS seems to hold that their businesses can now advertise denial of services on a racial basis, if they construe those services to be in line with their right to free and creative expression.

I know that you oppose racism, but what isn't clear is where exactly you and others defending this SCOTUS decision draw the line on when businesses can deny their goods and services to protected groups. One thing is certain. Business owners are going to test the limits of their new freedom to discriminate. This is America, and people with privileged status, wealth, and power have always struggled against the restrictions that the freedoms of other people have put on their own freedom to do whatever they please.

 

[Toni]

Right. I've done that as well, although not for a wedding website. But I've published newsletters using an established template/software; I've created programs for performances using (and sometimes slightly modifying) a template and using mostly text provided to me. That particular job it was necessary to be consistent with institution standards--very few degrees of freedom to be creative. That's not what I'm talking about. That's not this.

I've seen enough wedding websites to know that it is NOT cut and paste. It's curating photographs. It's selecting font. It's selecting poetry or music (original or otherwise), it's guiding the customers to make tasteful selections that go with their entire theme. There's a LOT to it, if it's done well.

If it were that easy, people would just use an online template and create their own. Some people do and do it well! Others? Not.

Then you should make it clearer. You're acting like cut and paste into a template is enough to make it protected. I've never looked at a wedding website but I would expect to find creativity there--if it's just fill in the blanks why would you do it in the first place?

No, I’ve said, several times, that a template into which the customer inserts their own content must be offered to any interested party.

The ONLY reason that I balk AT ALL at the website designer not legally being required to accept any customer is that I absolutely do not believe that anyone can be legally forced to create content or to express ideas and sentiments that they find in conflict with their deeply held principles. I would not limit this to beliefs or principles based on religion.

There has been a lot said here about protected classes being those who cannot be turned away because of discrimination. But the designer in this fake case is a devout evangelical Christian who has the right to adhere to the teachings of her religion however fucked up those teachings are.

Upon re-reading this post I think that my wording was unclear. Let me try to clarify:

The ONLY reason that I believe that the website designer cannot be compelled to create content they find repugnant or contrary to their beliefs is that the web designer has freedom of speech and freedom of religion under the First Amendment. So does every other person in the United Statees.

This includes speech that I or any other person may believe is bigoted or otherwise repugnant.

 

[Copernicus]

Upon re-reading this post I think that my wording was unclear. Let me try to clarify:

The ONLY reason that I believe that the website designer cannot be compelled to create content they find repugnant or contrary to their beliefs is that the web designer has freedom of speech and freedom of religion under the First Amendment. So does every other person in the United Statees.

This includes speech that I or any other person may believe is bigoted or otherwise repugnant.

Then you oppose the broader SCOTUS ruling that goes beyond religion? This ruling is based on freedom of expression. In theory, deeply held political convictions should also be exempted from antidiscrimination laws. Theoretically, QAnon cult members are now free to run businesses that sell "creatively designed" services and goods that are denied to protected groups that they want to discriminate against. The previous wedding cake decision was about religion. This one goes beyond that.

 

[Toni]

There has been a lot said here about protected classes being those who cannot be turned away because of discrimination. But the designer in this fake case is a devout evangelical Christian who has the right to adhere to the teachings of her religion however fucked up those teachings are.

That's true, and that may require sacrifices on her part. Her business should not be entitled to discriminate against protected groups because she believes that her religion demands that of her. It was not so long ago (until 1978) that many Mormon sects excluded black citizens from their religion and forbade interracial marriages. They finally disavowed their past teachings on race in 2013. (See  Black People and Mormonism.) I think it likely that some so-called fundamentalist groups still do preach racism. This unprecedented new ruling from SCOTUS seems to now hold that their businesses can now advertise denial of services on a racial basis, if they construe those services to be in line with their right to free and creative expression.

I know that you oppose racism, but what isn't clear is where exactly you and others defending this SCOTUS decision draw the line on when businesses can deny their goods and services to protected groups. One thing is certain. Business owners are going to test the limits of their new freedom to discriminate. This is America, and people with privileged status, wealth, and power have always struggled against the restrictions that the freedoms of other people have put on their own freedom to do whatever they please.

Oh, I am aware of the history of the LDS church. It is important to note that the Mormons decided fir themselves that Heavenly Father had decided that black people had sufficiently atoned for the sins of their forefathers thousands of years ago that they can now be considered worthy of Mormon heaven. The US government did not decide this for them or not compel that change.

As far as I am aware, the Mormon church —no church or religious denomination was never compelled to admit non-white people or members of the LGBTQIA+ community.

I realize that some here believe that this ruling will allow businesses to refuse customers on the basis of race. I don’t agree. I am not a lawyer of any kind —perhaps others are.

I see this ruling ( which I think likely to be tossed out) very narrowly to affirm first amendment rights for all people.

 

[Toni]

Upon re-reading this post I think that my wording was unclear. Let me try to clarify:

The ONLY reason that I believe that the website designer cannot be compelled to create content they find repugnant or contrary to their beliefs is that the web designer has freedom of speech and freedom of religion under the First Amendment. So does every other person in the United Statees.

This includes speech that I or any other person may believe is bigoted or otherwise repugnant.

Then you oppose the broader SCOTUS ruling that goes beyond religion? This ruling is based on freedom of expression. In theory, deeply held political convictions should also be exempted from antidiscrimination laws. Theoretically, QAnon cult members are now free to run businesses that sell "creatively designed" services and goods that are denied to protected groups that they want to discriminate against. The previous wedding cake decision was about religion. This one goes beyond that.

Creatively designed services are not the same thing as specifically created for a particular customer.

Maybe I’m parsing things wrong. Maybe I’m just not seeing an implication that others are seeing.

 

[Bomb#20]

Let's not misconstrue this. Statutory laws can be revised if they are deemed unconstitutional. The crux of the matter here, particularly with reference to the Civil Rights Act, is whether you truly condone the idea of enabling discrimination. Debating the legality of a law is one aspect; aligning with its fundamental purpose is a different conversation.

You appear to be taking for granted there's a conflict between this decision and the fundamental purpose of the Civil Rights Act. That depends on what the fundamental purpose of the Civil Rights Act was. If you're assuming its purpose was to end discrimination, no, I don't think it was. Its purpose was to end discrimination in public accommodation. I.e. its purpose was to take away the keys to a bigot's motel and hand them over to a weary traveler. This was because the government liked weary travelers better than bigots -- and rightly so. But its purpose was not to take away the keys to a bigot's mouth and hand them over to whom the government liked better. Somebody else's mouth is not a place of public accommodation, and I don't see any evidence that the Congress that passed the Civil Rights Act intended to make it one.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

Right. I've done that as well, although not for a wedding website. But I've published newsletters using an established template/software; I've created programs for performances using (and sometimes slightly modifying) a template and using mostly text provided to me. That particular job it was necessary to be consistent with institution standards--very few degrees of freedom to be creative. That's not what I'm talking about. That's not this.

I've seen enough wedding websites to know that it is NOT cut and paste. It's curating photographs. It's selecting font. It's selecting poetry or music (original or otherwise), it's guiding the customers to make tasteful selections that go with their entire theme. There's a LOT to it, if it's done well.

If it were that easy, people would just use an online template and create their own. Some people do and do it well! Others? Not.

Then you should make it clearer. You're acting like cut and paste into a template is enough to make it protected. I've never looked at a wedding website but I would expect to find creativity there--if it's just fill in the blanks why would you do it in the first place?

No, I’ve said, several times, that a template into which the customer inserts their own content must be offered to any interested party.

The ONLY reason that I balk AT ALL at the website designer not legally being required to accept any customer is that I absolutely do not believe that anyone can be legally forced to create content or to express ideas and sentiments that they find in conflict with their deeply held principles. I would not limit this to beliefs or principles based on religion.

There has been a lot said here about protected classes being those who cannot be turned away because of discrimination. But the designer in this fake case is a devout evangelical Christian who has the right to adhere to the teachings of her religion however fucked up those teachings are.

Save yourself the keystrokes, Toni, and just say that you support segregation. Let's call a spade a spade.

The level of smug bigotry arrogance and gaslighting displayed in your posts do not merit further comment.

What the fuck? I'm the bigot? Who exactly am I bigoted against, Toni?

Are the dissenting SCOTUS justices also smug, bigoted, arrogant gaslighters? Because I haven't expressed any concerns they haven't.

Meanwhile, you're here vigorously and wholeheartedly endorsing and defending a ruling handed down by far-right Federalist Society judges that is being celebrated by bigots all over, but, somehow, I'm the bigot. Unbelievable. It's like a bad episode of Twilight Zone.

You're in denial, Toni.

If a gay couple goes to a photographer that has a "NO FAGS ALLOWED" sign on the door, they have no recourse as of this ruling. They can no longer sue over discriminatory practices because equal protection no longer exists where "expressive services" are involved. That is LITERAL SEGREGATION.

And of course, your response is "Well, they just have to go somewhere else, no biggie." That's you LITERALLY ENDORSING SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

Separate but equal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jesus H. Christ, but somehow, I'm the bigot? Unbelievable.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

Telling someone that they are not permitted to operate a business, because they refuse to comply with the laws relating to that business, is not a violation of free speech.

Nobody can be compelled to create a website; But anybody can be required to choose between creating websites for a living, or being bigoted in their choice of for whom they create websites.

If you want to exercise your freedom to create wedding websites only for people whose marriages you endorse, then you need to do it free of charge.

By that reasoning, telling someone he is not permitted to load boxes into trucks because he refuses to comply with the laws relating to truck loading is not a violation of freedom of religion, even if you enact a law relating to truck loading that says "You may not load trucks unless you'll do it under a woman's orders as well as under a man's, or you'll do it free of charge." Nobody can be compelled to not carry boxes; but anybody can be required to choose between carrying boxes for a living, or being bigoted in their choice of for whom they carry boxes. The government could exclude fundamentalist Christians from earning a living anywhere in the economy, and your premises would still imply it wasn't a violation of freedom of religion.

If you want to do it as a business, you forfeit the right to discriminate; But, of course, you don't forfeit your right to freedom of expression, just your "right" to be paid for that expression - a "right" that doesn't exist in law. Too bad, so sad.

The government has the duty to regulate commerce, and to prohibit discrimination against protected groups in the course of such commerce. This in no way effects the rights of citizens to freely express bigoted and discriminatory views outside a commercial context; Freedom of speech and expression remains a fundamental right.

Taking a job loading boxes into trucks for a wage is commerce, every bit as much as any of the activities you arbitrarily label "do it as a business". If the government actually has a duty to regulate commerce, and to prohibit discrimination against protected groups in the course of such commerce, then it has a duty to ban people who quit their truck loading jobs because their new bosses were women from getting a wage from a man to load boxes into trucks.

For that matter, buying food is commerce. There are people who deliberately seek out black-owned grocery stores to patronize -- people who discriminate against Korean-American grocers. Korean-Americans are a protected group. If the government actually has a duty to regulate commerce, and to prohibit discrimination against protected groups in the course of such commerce, then it has a duty to ban those people from buying food.

 

[Toni]

Creating a bespoke website is different from creating a generic website or a website template.

Loading trucks is not creating anything nor is it an expression of ideas or thought or free speech. Selling food is not creating food in a grocery store is not free speech or expression.

 

[Bomb#20]

Save yourself the keystrokes, Toni, and just say that you support segregation. Let's call a spade a spade.

The level of smug bigotry arrogance and gaslighting displayed in your posts do not merit further comment.

I'm the bigot? Who exactly am I bigoted against, Toni?

You're quite evidently bigoted against nonmembers of your religion. You used a strawman argument. You trumped up a false accusation against Toni. You know perfectly well she does not support segregation. "Segregation" refers to Jim Crow laws, black sections on buses, separate schools for black people, whites-only drinking fountains. "Segregation" does not refer to not being able to order somebody to compose fifty pages of html code singing praises to your marriage and sic the law on her if she won't do it. You treated Toni as unworthy of simple truthfulness merely because she doesn't believe in your articles of faith. That's smug bigotry, arrogance, and gaslighting.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

I realize that some here believe that this ruling will allow businesses to refuse customers on the basis of race. I don’t agree.

Show me where this ruling is limited to sexual orientation. I can't find it.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

But you don't have to take my word for it. Here's a law professor at University of Texas who can't find it either.

Opinion: With its 303 Creative decision, the Supreme Court opens the door to discrimination

For the first time in U.S. history, the Supreme Court granted a business open to the public the constitutional right to discriminate against would-be customers

www.latimes.com

Not all businesses are exempted. But the opinion is not limited to the facts of this specific case. Under its reasoning, businesses that offer customized or “expressive” goods can discriminate. And while Smith asserted religion as her motivation, this is a speech case, so it won’t matter whether business owners are motivated to discriminate by sincere religious values, secular bigotry or no reason at all. Antidiscrimination law equally will be seen as targeting their speech. They may deny service and post “No Gay Weddings Served,” reminiscent of the “No Dogs or Jews” signs in businesses of our not-so-distant past.

So what businesses will have this freedom to discriminate based on their speech rights? In recent years, courts have seen lawsuits from videographers, wedding venues, photographers, florists, calligraphers, print shops and bakeries that do not want to serve LGBTQ+ customers. These are all businesses that use images and writing, and therefore expression. Law firms and advertising agencies primarily engage in speech, so they may fit the definition. And many businesses customize their goods. Think dance studios, tutoring services, caterers and hair salons. The boundaries are hopelessly muddy.

Over the last century, businesses at various junctures have thrown all kinds of constitutional claims at the courts in an attempt to discriminate. They have argued that antidiscrimination requirements amounted to involuntary servitude — that is, slavery — prohibited by the 13th Amendment. They have claimed interference in their rights of association, speech and religion. But never before has a commercial business succeeded before the high court.

Friday’s decision throws open the door to a consumer market of denial and humiliation. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes in her dissent, “If you have ever taken advantage of a public business without being denied service because of who you are, then you have come to enjoy the dignity and freedom that this principle” — antidiscrimination — “protects.” For many Americans, that dignity and freedom will no longer apply.

Like Black people driving through the Jim Crow South, gay couples planning their weddings will have to shop selectively. Nor is the newfound free speech right established by 303 Creative vs. Elenis limited to sexual orientation. The court’s reasoning could apply equally to race, disability, sex and religion. People across the country may encounter a marketplace where a business could invite them in, only to then slam the door because of who they love, how they look or what they believe.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

Save yourself the keystrokes, Toni, and just say that you support segregation. Let's call a spade a spade.

The level of smug bigotry arrogance and gaslighting displayed in your posts do not merit further comment.

I'm the bigot? Who exactly am I bigoted against, Toni?

You're quite evidently bigoted against nonmembers of your religion.

I have no religion, <Edited by Mod>

You used a strawman argument. You trumped up a false accusation against Toni. You know perfectly well she does not support segregation.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

1 the act or practice of segregating; a setting apart or separation of people or things from others or from the main body or group
2 the institutional separation of an ethnic, racial, religious, or other minority group from the dominant majority.

"Segregation" refers to Jim Crow laws, black sections on buses, separate schools for black people, whites-only drinking fountains.

The notion that segregation only refers to that specific time and place is fucking idiotic.

"Segregation" does not refer to not being able to order somebody to compose fifty pages of html code singing praises to your marriage and sic the law on her if she won't do it. You treated Toni as unworthy of simple truthfulness merely because she doesn't believe in your articles of faith. That's smug bigotry, arrogance, and gaslighting.

If gay people can be denied service that everyone else has access to, because of their sexual orientation, that's segregation.

 

[Bomb#20]

This unprecedented new ruling from SCOTUS seems to hold that their businesses can now advertise denial of services on a racial basis, if they construe those services to be in line with their right to free and creative expression.

Not seeing that. There's plenty of precedent that the degree of scrutiny for censorship is lower than that for compelled speech.

I know that you oppose racism, but what isn't clear is where exactly you and others defending this SCOTUS decision draw the line on when businesses can deny their goods and services to protected groups.

I think Toni and I are in sync on this -- denying someone your speech because you object to the requested message is not the same thing as denying it because you object to the requesting customer. Opponents of the decision will inevitably conflate those two things. So there are two lines. The first is the line between whether the service counts as speech or not; if it's speech, the second line between whether the grounds for objection are what is said rather than who it will be said for comes into play.

Clearly whether something should be considered speech or not is a continuous spectrum and reasonable people will disagree in edge cases. We already saw this in Masterpiece, when the justices were grilling Phillips' lawyer about whether if cake design counted as speech, what about flower arranging? That said, it seems to me patently ridiculous to propose that burning a flag counts as speech but writing fifty pages of original html does not.

One thing is certain. Business owners are going to test the limits of their new freedom to discriminate. This is America, and people with privileged status, wealth, and power have always struggled against the restrictions that the freedoms of other people have put on their own freedom to do whatever they please.

Indeed so. Modern culture and legislation have given people who have the privilege, status, and power that come from being designated as members of protected groups an unprecedented level of freedom to restrict other people's freedom; they are testing the limits of their new freedom to command others' noses to yield to where they wish to swing their fists. This is America. If you ever find yourself in a position to demand that others express your opinions instead of their own, and get your demand met, you may rest assured that you are the one with the privilege, status and power.

 

[Copernicus]

There has been a lot said here about protected classes being those who cannot be turned away because of discrimination. But the designer in this fake case is a devout evangelical Christian who has the right to adhere to the teachings of her religion however fucked up those teachings are.

That's true, and that may require sacrifices on her part. Her business should not be entitled to discriminate against protected groups because she believes that her religion demands that of her. It was not so long ago (until 1978) that many Mormon sects excluded black citizens from their religion and forbade interracial marriages. They finally disavowed their past teachings on race in 2013. (See  Black People and Mormonism.) I think it likely that some so-called fundamentalist groups still do preach racism. This unprecedented new ruling from SCOTUS seems to now hold that their businesses can now advertise denial of services on a racial basis, if they construe those services to be in line with their right to free and creative expression.

I know that you oppose racism, but what isn't clear is where exactly you and others defending this SCOTUS decision draw the line on when businesses can deny their goods and services to protected groups. One thing is certain. Business owners are going to test the limits of their new freedom to discriminate. This is America, and people with privileged status, wealth, and power have always struggled against the restrictions that the freedoms of other people have put on their own freedom to do whatever they please.

Oh, I am aware of the history of the LDS church. It is important to note that the Mormons decided fir themselves that Heavenly Father had decided that black people had sufficiently atoned for the sins of their forefathers thousands of years ago that they can now be considered worthy of Mormon heaven. The US government did not decide this for them or not compel that change.

As far as I am aware, the Mormon church —no church or religious denomination was never compelled to admit non-white people or members of the LGBTQIA+ community.

I realize that some here believe that this ruling will allow businesses to refuse customers on the basis of race. I don’t agree. I am not a lawyer of any kind —perhaps others are.

I see this ruling ( which I think likely to be tossed out) very narrowly to affirm first amendment rights for all people.

Mormons were on the wrong side of history when the men running the church jumped on the polygamy bandwagon and took a ride until they needed to become a state. The revelations they underwent in the 1970s were purely motivated by pressure from the civil rights movement, so they had more revelations to loosen and dislodge them from their explicit racial discrimination. Still, they didn't actually disavow their past doctrine until 2013. Sure, they do it all on their own, because they find it in their self-interest to do it.

And who do you think is going to "toss out" this ruling? Do you think that there is some kind of appeals process to hold them accountable? They are even less likely than the Mormon church to have a revelation that will move them to do that. The SCOTUS supermajority is just flexing their muscles. Next up is the set of Republican state laws to deny medical treatment to transgender individuals, and the one in Tennessee just got put back into effect by the appeals court. It will end up with SCOTUS, and I suspect they are alternating between salivating and dry mouth right now. What will they do? How much can they bite off and shove down the throats of others? Luckily, they don't have to stand for reelection after these decisions, so they will have years to reshape what the other two branches of government have tried to do. Congress could fire them from their lifetime appointments. Yeah. There's that.

Upon re-reading this post I think that my wording was unclear. Let me try to clarify:

The ONLY reason that I believe that the website designer cannot be compelled to create content they find repugnant or contrary to their beliefs is that the web designer has freedom of speech and freedom of religion under the First Amendment. So does every other person in the United Statees.

This includes speech that I or any other person may believe is bigoted or otherwise repugnant.

Then you oppose the broader SCOTUS ruling that goes beyond religion? This ruling is based on freedom of expression. In theory, deeply held political convictions should also be exempted from antidiscrimination laws. Theoretically, QAnon cult members are now free to run businesses that sell "creatively designed" services and goods that are denied to protected groups that they want to discriminate against. The previous wedding cake decision was about religion. This one goes beyond that.

Creatively designed services are not the same thing as specifically created for a particular customer.

Maybe I’m parsing things wrong. Maybe I’m just not seeing an implication that others are seeing.

I think that you are parsing it wrong. What I'm seeing between you and Loren Pechtel is a struggle to come up with just how to interpret the "expressive" goods and services so that not just any business can use this decision to ignore antidiscrimination laws. And you are just two people. Imagine how that broad criterion is going to get interpreted and reinterpreted across a country of hundreds of millions of individuals.

 

[ZiprHead]

Indeed so. Modern culture and legislation have given people who have the privilege, status, and power that come from being designated as members of protected groups an unprecedented level of freedom to restrict other people's freedom; they are testing the limits of their new freedom to command others' noses to yield to where they wish to swing their fists. This is America. If you ever find yourself in a position to demand that others express your opinions instead of their own, and get your demand met, you may rest assured that you are the one with the privilege, status and power.

So who are the people not in a protected group?

 

[Bomb#20]

You're quite evidently bigoted against nonmembers of your religion.

I have no religion, <Edited by Mod>

You appear to have articles of faith you acquired from being infected by a contagious meme that parasitizes the human moral sense, crippling it so that it judges other people's morality according to whether they're fellow infection victims. That's the chief characteristic that separates religions from non-religions. If you don't choose to call the irrational conviction club you're in a "religion" because gods happen not to be among its idiosyncratic baseless articles of faith, please yourself. Po-tay-toe, po-tat-oh.

If gay people can be denied service that everyone else has access to, because of their sexual orientation, that's segregation.

Not getting to force other people to pretend not to believe in their own religions is a characteristic gay people have that unites them with the rest of us, not one that separates them.