Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Elixir]

I actually agree with B20. Assholes will be assholes, and it’s just as well to let them advertise the fact that they’re assholes. That way you know who they are. I wouldn‘t want to rely on the services of an asshole, anyway. For all this retaliatory talk of “refuse service to religious bigots and xyz assholes”, I don’t think any of it is going anywhere because it’s just not heartfelt like assholes’ assholery is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

I do not read that as calling you a bigot. Rather, I think she believes you to be arrogant about identifying supposed bigotry--that you're sure you see it but are mistaken.

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.

Most of what a photographer does has nothing to do with who one's partner is.

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

The reality is the photographer who tried it would find their business seriously hurt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Yeah, they're scumbags. That doesn't make them automatically wrong about everything.

This ruling is about creative work. The vast majority of work sold to the consumer is not creative at the point of sale. A large majority of workers are not in creative professions.

I see this ruling as providing an out for conflicts of interest that can't be avoided. It's not reasonable to expect someone to do a good job when they are fundamentally opposed to something and there's no yardstick by which "good job" can be measured.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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.

Segregation is not definitionally specific to race. Sexual orientation based separation is also segregation.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/segregation

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.

Rather, what we are saying is that compelling creativity

No one was being compelled to do anything. That bigot Lorie Smith already had a web designer site. No one was compelling her to expand her business to include wedding websites. That was her choice. No one compelled her to do anything. She chose all of this.

is a worse sin than a few people getting turned away.

So discrimination and segregation are ok so long as it's just a small number of people? Where do you draw the line? 5%? 2%? 10%?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 43702

1) Ringing up a product is not creative.

2) I do not believe any worker should be protected at a job where they refuse a routine part of it. The store owner is free to not stock condoms he doesn't want to sell them, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Why does the chef even know that we are an interracial couple? And how are our races reflected in dish produced?

I do not believe the chef gets to refuse.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I actually agree with B20. Assholes will be assholes, and it’s just as well to let them advertise the fact that they’re assholes. That way you know who they are. I wouldn‘t want to rely on the services of an asshole, anyway. For all this retaliatory talk of “refuse service to religious bigots and xyz assholes”, I don’t think any of it is going anywhere because it’s just not heartfelt like assholes’ assholery is.

Yeah. I have previously suggested that businesses should be allowed to put up "No <X> allowed" signs, but only so long as it also appears on all advertising/signs. Minimal impact on <X> and I think the market would keep the number of such assholes low enough not to matter. Put all the bad apples in one barrel.

 

[Bomb#20]

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,’

... 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.

Glad you noticed. There is likewise a difference between refusing to work for gay persons because they are gay, and refusing to do work that has a pro-same-sex-marriage message.

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

Here's more info about this organization that you side with, Toni:
<snip>
Those are some real nice people there. Real champions of freedom and liberty.

But somehow, I'm the bigot. Amazing.

So, you're still peddling your trademark ad hominem arguments and guilt-by-association character assassination. What a surprise.

Voldemort ("He who must not be named") was against Stalin. So if you and Toni were in an argument about Stalin's virtues, no doubt you'd tell her "Here's more info about Voldemort whom you side with, Toni:" and then go on at length about what a piece of human sludge Voldemort was, and finish up with a rhetorical fluorish, "That's some real nice person there. Real champion of freedom and liberty. But somehow, I'm the bigot. Amazing.".

Yes, you'd be the bigot. The fact that Voldemort was a bigot and was against Stalin is not evidence that Stalin was a good guy; it is not evidence that Stalin wasn't a bigot too; it is not evidence that being anti-Stalin is bigoted; and it is not evidence that Toni "sides with" Voldemort. But the fact that you would go there -- that you would insinuate Toni is a bigot because Voldemort happens to agree with her about Stalin -- would be evidence that you're the bigot.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

Yes, obviously. Directors remove characters from movie scripts all the time. Lately it's apt to be because leaving them in will rub the PRC censors the wrong way. This decision doesn't change any of that.

Or refuse to film any scenes that don’t adhere to his or her personal beliefs?

Of course. Again, this decision doesn't change any of that.

And everyone has to go with it?

Come again? Of course not. Everyone makes his or her own personal decision about whether to go with it.

If the director were fired would that violate their first Amendment rights? Apparently so.

Where the heck are you getting that? If the producer doesn't like all those directorial decisions she can fire the director. Producers fire directors all the time. The one who's paying the director's salary can stop, the same as the actors can stop acting if they don't want "to go with it".

Likewise, nothing in the website ruling says anybody has to employ Lorie Smith. Reacting to her refusal to do same-sex weddings by firing her ass has not been held to violate her First Amendment rights. The Colorado government is not her employer.

 

[Elixir]

the fact that you would go there -- that you would insinuate Toni is a bigot because Voldemort happens to agree with her about Stalin -- would be evidence that you're the bigot.

Nah. Emotional word choice maybe.

 

[Toni]

View attachment 43702

There is an obvious difference between refusing to sell someone an existing product ( not allowed) and creating one which expresses beliefs that are contrary to one’s own religious beliefs ( including atheism).

 

[Elixir]

View attachment 43702

There is an obvious difference between refusing to sell someone an existing product ( not allowed) and creating one which expresses beliefs that are contrary to one’s own religious beliefs ( including atheism).

I don't think that meme was going for realism, just poking fun at what 'taking SCOTUS' apparent intent to its logical extreme' would look like.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

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.

They perfectly well might toss it out themselves out of embarrassment at looking like they were taken in by a fraud upon the court. What's the downside to them? It's the same as trying to unring the bell with "The jury is instructed to disregard what they just heard." The SCOTUS could issue a statement deploring the fraud. They could declare the case to have no precedent value, much as they did in Bush v Gore. They could piously declare that they will openmindedly reconsider the issue once a genuine controversy comes before them. And all the appellate courts will know perfectly well how to rule on those genuine controversies if they don't want to get overturned.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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?

I do not read that as calling you a bigot. Rather, I think she believes you to be arrogant about identifying supposed bigotry--that you're sure you see it but are mistaken.

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.

Most of what a photographer does has nothing to do with who one's partner is.

If a wedding website designer can turn away a gay couple, I don't see why a photographer couldn't. Photographer was one of the professions discussed in the ruling.

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

The reality is the photographer who tried it would find their business seriously hurt.

Maybe in New York city and San Francisco.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

I actually agree with B20. Assholes will be assholes, and it’s just as well to let them advertise the fact that they’re assholes. That way you know who they are. I wouldn‘t want to rely on the services of an asshole, anyway. For all this retaliatory talk of “refuse service to religious bigots and xyz assholes”, I don’t think any of it is going anywhere because it’s just not heartfelt like assholes’ assholery is.

Yeah. I have previously suggested that businesses should be allowed to put up "No <X> allowed" signs, but only so long as it also appears on all advertising/signs. Minimal impact on <X> and I think the market would keep the number of such assholes low enough not to matter. Put all the bad apples in one barrel.

You're literally endorsing the return of "N X Allowed" signs. Jesus.

The "sunlight is the best disinfectant" approach is not borne out by history. Sunlight didn't make the No N*** Allowed signs go away; Civil Rights laws did.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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,’

... 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.

Glad you noticed. There is likewise a difference between refusing to work for gay persons because they are gay, and refusing to do work that has a pro-same-sex-marriage message.

A gay wedding doesn't have a pro-same-sex-marriage message any more than heterosexual marriage has a pro-heterosexual marriage message. Your homophobia is showing. Merely existing as a gay person is not a fucking message nor is it an endorsement of being gay nor is it a statement that gay people are better than straight people or that gay marriage is better than straight marriage.

Homosexuality is not a fucking message. Gay people are just human beings who happen to be attracted to the same sex, FFS. All they want is to be treated like everyone else.

It's not like gay couples expect Lorie Smith to put pro-gay messages like "Gay marriage is superior to hetero marriage" or "I, Lorie Smith personally endorse gay marriage" on their fucking wedding websites. If a particular gay couple did expect her to put such messages on their site, then she'd have every fucking right and every fucking reason to refuse.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, we’re all ok with a director being hired for a movie and then dropping all the gay characters from the script and sending the actors home because it’s his artistic vision and he hates gay people. His first amendment right, no? As long as the producers are ok with it then there’s no problem? And the actors can simply “stop acting” if they don’t like it?

I guess I was just misunderstanding the reality of the situation. I apologize.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

I understand your points perfectly well. You've given a lot of thought to how the law ought to work, especially if most people agree with your personal take on what the Supreme Court meant. Never mind that three other justices on that same court did not and thought that the majority opinion would have far broader consequences than your narrow interpretation would seem to allow. We could debate the subject of creativity endlessly, which is why the opinion is so damaging. Not just you and Tony will be arguing the nuances of where to draw the line on protecting protected groups now. Everyone will be. But the line seems clear to you. I get that. What I don't think you get is that people can get very imaginative when it comes to defining creativity. It need not be defined as narrowly as you personally would like.

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

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.

They perfectly well might toss it out themselves out of embarrassment at looking like they were taken in by a fraud upon the court. What's the downside to them? It's the same as trying to unring the bell with "The jury is instructed to disregard what they just heard." The SCOTUS could issue a statement deploring the fraud. They could declare the case to have no precedent value, much as they did in Bush v Gore. They could piously declare that they will openmindedly reconsider the issue once a genuine controversy comes before them. And all the appellate courts will know perfectly well how to rule on those genuine controversies if they don't want to get overturned.

Sure, they could make themselves look like flip-flopping idiots. What's the downside of that to them? All they have to do is say...

 

[Bomb#20]

So, we’re all ok with a director being hired for a movie and then dropping all the gay characters from the script and sending the actors home because it’s his artistic vision and he hates gay people. His first amendment right, no? As long as the producers are ok with it then there’s no problem?

Where do you get this stuff? How the heck do you infer "we’re all ok" and "there’s no problem" from "It isn't illegal"? Of course there's a problem and lots of people aren't okay with it. Not everything in the world you have a problem with is a problem best solved by prosecution.

And the actors can simply “stop acting” if they don’t like it?

Um, you know in this context "stop acting" doesn't mean "quit the profession", don't you? It means "go on strike".

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, we’re all ok with a director being hired for a movie and then dropping all the gay characters from the script and sending the actors home because it’s his artistic vision and he hates gay people. His first amendment right, no? As long as the producers are ok with it then there’s no problem?

Where do you get this stuff? How the heck do you infer "we’re all ok" and "there’s no problem" from "It isn't illegal"? Of course there's a problem and lots of people aren't okay with it. Not everything in the world you have a problem with is a problem best solved by prosecution.

You’re taking it too literally. I do mean “no problem” as “isn’t illegal”. I do expect that some if not many would have a problem with it but I guess I’m just wrong in thinking that perhaps discrimination like this should be illegal.

And the actors can simply “stop acting” if they don’t like it?

Um, you know in this context "stop acting" doesn't mean "quit the profession", don't you? It means "go on strike".

I guess this is how civil rights in general have been advanced. Not by government action but by social pressure through things like protests and strikes. I’m sorry for not understanding history correctly. I’ll gladly bow out of this conversation.