Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[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.

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.

Yes, I’m extremely aware of what the motivations of the Mormon church—or churches in general are. I’m extremely aware of why they changed their minds about who was abc who was not allowed into their heaven and about why they have decided against polygamy ( mainstream LDS).

Like almost everything, money/profit and its corollary, power, is the core motivation. Law often recognizes that fact: it levies fines, taxes, etc. Broad acceptance of social change often lags behind law.

In other posts, I have referred to the prohibition against the USSC ruling on hypothetical cases, such as this one. From what I have read, this gives Colorado the chance to challenge this Supreme Court ruling and it is expected that this will cause the court to throw out the case.

 

[Toni]

This contains some analysis of the SCOTUS ruling:

Supreme Court rules website designer can decline to create same-sex wedding websites - SCOTUSblog

The court handed a major victory to business owners who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons on Friday. A six-justice majority agreed that Colorado cannot enforce a state anti-discrimination law against a Christian website designer who does not want to create wedding websites for same-sex

www.scotusblog.com

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

No one is being forced. Get a differant job if you don't want to follow the laws.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

This contains some analysis of the SCOTUS ruling:

Supreme Court rules website designer can decline to create same-sex wedding websites - SCOTUSblog

The court handed a major victory to business owners who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons on Friday. A six-justice majority agreed that Colorado cannot enforce a state anti-discrimination law against a Christian website designer who does not want to create wedding websites for same-sex

www.scotusblog.com

Smith wanted to expand her business to include wedding websites – but only for heterosexual couples, and she wanted to post a message on her own website to make that clear. But such a statement would run afoul of Colorado’s public-accommodations law, which bars businesses that are open to the public from discriminating against (among others) LGBTQ people or announcing their intent to do so.

Do you know what that means, Toni? "NO FAGS ALLOWED" signs.

In this case, Gorsuch observed, even the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed that the websites that Smith wants to create are speech. But if Smith wants to speak, he stressed, she must choose between following her conscience, which means only creating wedding websites for opposite-sex couples, and violating Colorado law, or following the law and violating her religious beliefs.

This asshole left out the other choice: she could have simply kept her business as it was, and not expanded to making wedding websites.

And Gorsuch warned that Colorado’s position could lead to “dangerous” consequences. As Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich noted in his dissent from the 10th Circuit’s decision, Gorsuch wrote, “governments could force ‘an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message,’

Oy vey, these fucking idiots.

Religion is a protected class.
"Filmmaker who wants to make a zionist film" is not a protected class.

There is a difference between refusing to work for a Jewish person because they are Jewish, and refusing to do work that has a Zionist message.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Smith, hailed Friday’s decision.

Here's more info about this organization that you side with, Toni:

Alliance Defending Freedom

Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of...

www.splcenter.org

Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has contended that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia; and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society. ADF also works to develop “religious liberty” legislation and case law that will allow the denial of goods and services to LGBTQ people on the basis of religion. Since the election of President Trump, ADF has become one of the most influential groups informing the administration’s attack on LGBTQ rights.

ADF also works to develop “religious liberty” legislation and case law that will allow the denial of goods and services to LGBTQ people on the basis of religion. Despite its regular defamation of LGBTQ people, the group has managed to win special advisory status at the United Nations, in the European Union, and with the Organization of American States. Since the election of President Trump, ADF has become one of the most influential groups informing the administration’s attack on LGBTQ rights

According to its website, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) was launched on the morning of Jan. 31, 1994, during a meeting of more than 30 Christian leaders, in order to “defend religious freedom before it was too late.”

The founding board and original funders included James Dobson of Focus on the Family; Bill Bright of the Campus Crusade for Christ; D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries (now D. James Kennedy Ministries); and Don Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association. Its original purpose was to oppose the ACLU and other “radical groups” as well as to fight for “religious liberty.” Since its founding, ADF has expanded its operations abroad as it battles abortion, LGBTQ equality, and what it considers the “myth” of the separation of church and state.

Those are some real nice people there. Real champions of freedom and liberty.

But somehow, I'm the bigot. Amazing.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

No one is being forced. Get a differant job if you don't want to follow the laws.

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

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

No one is being forced. Get a differant job if you don't want to follow the laws.

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

Is there any reason to not think this could be used against atheists and agnostics? Or really anyone any religious person believes their religion says is bad. Not to mention that they can even make up the tenets of a religion and use them against others.

 

[Toni]

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.

No one is being forced. Get a differant job if you don't want to follow the laws.

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

Is there any reason to not think this could be used against atheists and agnostics? Or really anyone any religious person believes their religion says is bad. Not to mention that they can even make up the tenets of a religion and use them against others.

Is there a reason that an atheist could not be forced to create something celebrating right wing religious beliefs?

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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.

No one is being forced. Get a differant job if you don't want to follow the laws.

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

Is there any reason to not think this could be used against atheists and agnostics? Or really anyone any religious person believes their religion says is bad. Not to mention that they can even make up the tenets of a religion and use them against others.

Is there a reason that an atheist could not be forced to create something celebrating right wing religious beliefs?

Yes, for the thousandth time, having equal protection under the law means that people can't discriminate against you for your race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. It does not mean they have to obey your every command. How are you not getting this? Anti-discrimination laws require that businesses treat black/white/gay/straight the same. They do not force you to obey every command a gay person gives you.

 

[Shadowy Man]

This contains some analysis of the SCOTUS ruling:

Supreme Court rules website designer can decline to create same-sex wedding websites - SCOTUSblog

The court handed a major victory to business owners who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons on Friday. A six-justice majority agreed that Colorado cannot enforce a state anti-discrimination law against a Christian website designer who does not want to create wedding websites for same-sex

www.scotusblog.com

This is interesting:

“And he indicated that the court’s decision would provide similar protection to other business owners whose services involve speech, such as artists, speechwriters, and movie directors.”

So, can a Christian movie director remove a gay character from a movie script? Or refuse to film any scenes that don’t adhere to his or her personal beliefs? And everyone has to go with it? If the director were fired would that violate their first Amendment rights? Apparently so.

 

[Elixir]

 

[Playball40]

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.

White nationalists are NOT a protected class.

 

[Playball40]

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.

I don't disagree that being a Nazi is a choice and being gay is not. This is absolutely NOT about equivalency of a political position vs being a person of any color, shape, gender identity, sexual preference, religious affiliation or race or nationality or anything else.

It is ENTIRELY about whether or not someone can be legally compelled to create content that they find repugnant.

A bakery would be compelled to sell any of its goods to any paying customer who wished to make a purchase. A bakery would not be compelled to CREATE a product that displayed WORDS or IMAGES that it found repugnant or offensive.

They used the morally repugnant bullshit to keep Jim Crowe happy and healthy. If a restaurant owner, who is also the chef, says it goes against his "morals" to "cook for" an interracial couple, you're a-ok with that?

 

[Toni]

This contains some analysis of the SCOTUS ruling:

Supreme Court rules website designer can decline to create same-sex wedding websites - SCOTUSblog

The court handed a major victory to business owners who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons on Friday. A six-justice majority agreed that Colorado cannot enforce a state anti-discrimination law against a Christian website designer who does not want to create wedding websites for same-sex

www.scotusblog.com

This is interesting:

“And he indicated that the court’s decision would provide similar protection to other business owners whose services involve speech, such as artists, speechwriters, and movie directors.”

So, can a Christian movie director remove a gay character from a movie script? Or refuse to film any scenes that don’t adhere to his or her personal beliefs? And everyone has to go with it? If the director were fired would that violate their first Amendment rights? Apparently so.

I don’t know much about filmmaking, but I’m under the impression that directors have incredibly large latitude to determine which cast, which scenes remain in a film, the look of the film, the direction the film takes, the feel, the atmosphere, etc. who else makes these decisions, if not the director? And the movie studio. The screenwriters have little/no control, usually, over how their story is interpreted on film.

 

[Toni]

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.

I don't disagree that being a Nazi is a choice and being gay is not. This is absolutely NOT about equivalency of a political position vs being a person of any color, shape, gender identity, sexual preference, religious affiliation or race or nationality or anything else.

It is ENTIRELY about whether or not someone can be legally compelled to create content that they find repugnant.

A bakery would be compelled to sell any of its goods to any paying customer who wished to make a purchase. A bakery would not be compelled to CREATE a product that displayed WORDS or IMAGES that it found repugnant or offensive.

They used the morally repugnant bullshit to keep Jim Crowe happy and healthy. If a restaurant owner, who is also the chef, says it goes against his "morals" to "cook for" an interracial couple, you're a-ok with that?

Absolutely not!

But a customer cannot demand to be served pork or shellfish in a kosher restaurant or meat in a vegan one. A restaurant can refuse to serve customers who are being disruptive ( bachelor/ette party or other drunks) but if the restaurant will serve me a hamburger then they must serve the gay black Muslim couple on the table next to me.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

Since a week and a half ago, maybe nobody. Before then, white people and Asians were in groups it was de facto legal to discriminate against. If you want to call those "protected groups" anyway on account of the unenforced Title VI provision, some protection. Either way, what's your point? So whites and Asians have now joined the set of people who can swing their fists and force Harvard to withdraw its nose. That doesn't refute my argument; it expands upon it. It's ridiculous to claim it's the business owners who have "privileged status" and "power" when it's the business owners who have to enter transactions unwillingly and it's some rando who wants to trade with them whether they like it or not who gets to make them bend to his will.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Ok, I think where we differ is on what we count as expressing. I draw the line where they are required to create the text, not merely handle it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I do not believe she supports segregation in racial matters (bathroom matters are another issue...) and I certainly don't. Rather, what we are saying is that compelling creativity is a worse sin than a few people getting turned away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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" is not something you can reasonably apply to most businesses. While I can't speak for her my position on this:

1) The item in question must be truly creative. Custom, not variation on stock and requiring actual creative thought on the part of the person doing it. (Designing the decoration for a cake: yes. Creating the provided design, whether from the customer or an in-house source: no.) I can't recall ever purchasing such a product.

2) The reason must be relevant to the product, not merely to the customer. If we go to the cabinet store it doesn't matter how vehemently the designer objects to miscegenation, there's nothing about races in cabinets.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

Is there any reason to not think this could be used against atheists and agnostics?

You mean, if Lorie Smith believes marriage is a three way bargain between a man, a woman and God, and therefore believes a secular atheist wedding is just as blasphemous a parody of her religion's sacrament as a same-sex wedding, then does this decision mean she can refuse to compose a celebration of our marriages too? Yes, of course it does. What's your point? Accepting other people's autonomy to run their own lives would be pretty meaningless if it vanished in a puff of self-interest the first time the person who'd benefit from coercing them is oneself.

Or really anyone any religious person believes their religion says is bad.

Nothing in this decision authorizes Smith to discriminate against a person her "religion says is bad." This is Christianity we're talking about. It says everyone except Jesus is bad. The court authorized her to reject messages she thinks are bad, not people she thinks are bad.

Not to mention that they can even make up the tenets of a religion and use them against others.

There's nothing to stop a court from examining the facts of a case and deciding a defendant is lying about her reason for turning away business.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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 they're "seeing" an implication that isn't there--pretend "creativity" when there isn't really any involved.