Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Gospel]

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.

A company may assert that serving certain demographics conflicts with its foundational principles. This notion stems from the legal concept of corporate personhood, where corporations possess equivalent First Amendment rights to individuals. Therefore, when an employee carries out their duties aligned with the company's principles, it nullifies any contention about creativity in the process.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Chef gets to refuse if SCOTUS says chef gets to refuse. At the end of the 20th century, SCOTUS was trending "expansion of Civil Rights". The conservative justices O'Conner and Kennedy, always ceded to that. So generally, when a rights case went to SCOTUS, there was a likely direction it was going to go.

Now in 2023, SCOTUS is trending "contraction of Civil Rights" (yes, I get that some people think the right to discriminate is a thing, but I can't be held responsible for such nonsensical stupidity). So, as with bribery = free speech and corporations can find religion, we understand that as these cases move forward, brought forth by the alt-right / bigots, the access to services will be contracted by SCOTUS, for the next couple of decades.

So while the chef isn't allowed to do something yet, it should be understood that the emphasis is on the word "yet".

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

People are compelled to be creative all the time. Screenwriters, ghost writers, directors, etc.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Directors generally work at the whims of the producers. It's the producer's vision that the director is hired and instructed to put on film.

Yes, the directors have some leeway but if they stray too far from what the producers want they can be fired.

 

[Gospel]

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.

The First Amendment stands as a safeguard for the citizens, not against each other, but against potential governmental overreach. It ensures that our freedom of expression remains unfettered by the government, even when such expression might be perceived as offensive or inflammatory.

Contrastingly, the Civil Rights Act operates as a bulwark against discrimination in a wide array of social and economic realms. Conceived with the aspiration to eradicate bias-based conduct, it expressly forbids discrimination rooted in race, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin. The notion that some individuals perceive themselves as unprotected is indeed puzzling. Regardless of one's origin—even if hypothetically hailing from the farthest reaches of the cosmos, whimsically referred to as 'planet numskull'—every individual is shielded from discrimination predicated on race, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin.

TLDR :

1st Amendment protects the people from the government
Civil Rights act was crafted with the aim of eliminating prejudiced practices

There exists no inherent contradiction here; rather, it's an issue of misinterpretation. Some individuals seek to camouflage their discriminatory practices under the guise of exercising their First Amendment rights, despite the fact that these rights do not confer immunity from the actions of other citizens.

 

[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.

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.

People are compelled to be creative all the time. Screenwriters, ghost writers, directors, etc.

Do you know what happens if a screen writer or ghost writer or director fails to do what someone with the power to so tells them to do? They are fired and somebody more amenable is hired.

 

[Toni]

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.

The First Amendment stands as a safeguard for the citizens, not against each other, but against potential governmental overreach. It ensures that our freedom of expression remains unfettered by the government, even when such expression might be perceived as offensive or inflammatory.

Contrastingly, the Civil Rights Act operates as a bulwark against discrimination in a wide array of social and economic realms. Conceived with the aspiration to eradicate bias-based conduct, it expressly forbids discrimination rooted in race, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin. The notion that some individuals perceive themselves as unprotected is indeed puzzling. Regardless of one's origin—even if hypothetically hailing from the farthest reaches of the cosmos, whimsically referred to as 'planet numskull'—every individual is shielded from discrimination predicated on race, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin.

TLDR :

1st Amendment protects the people from the government
Civil Rights act was crafted with the aim of eliminating prejudiced practices

There exists no inherent contradiction here; rather, it's an issue of misinterpretation. Some individuals seek to camouflage their discriminatory practices under the guise of exercising their First Amendment rights, despite the fact that these rights do not confer immunity from the actions of other citizens.

You are correct: The Civil Rights Act was crafted with the aim of eliminating prejudiced practices. The Government through its various layers and agencies was given the power to enforce the Civil Rights Act.

What I see is a conflict between two rights: The right to equal protection under the law and the right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

Here is a link to a number of cases related to challenges of law where there was an alleged violation of freedom of religion.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-4-4/ALDE_00000733/#:~:text=First%20Amendment%3A,for%20a%20redress%20of%20grievances.&text=Kennedy%20v.,-Bremerton%20Sch.

 

[Gospel]

What I see is a conflict between two rights: The right to equal protection under the law and the right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

All individuals are granted equal protection under the Civil Rights Act, thus ensuring equal protection under the law for everyone. The First Amendment, while providing protections from governmental interference, applies equally to all and is not directly related to the Civil Rights Act.

The Civil Rights Act does not provide the government with the authority to infringe upon your First Amendment rights. However, it does empower the government to intervene and serve as an arbitrator when the civil rights of citizens — rights which apply universally — are violated.

The situation at hand involves individuals seeking to expand the scope of First Amendment protections. They aim to leverage these protections not just against government interference, but also against actions from fellow citizens, thereby legitimizing discriminatory practices.

 

[Gospel]

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-4-4/ALDE_00000733/#:~:text=First%20Amendment%3A,for%20a%20redress%20of%20grievances.&text=Kennedy%20v.,-Bremerton%20Sch.

The case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District represents an instance of a citizen versus government dispute. Given that the First Amendment primarily serves to protect citizens from government interference, this case aligns logically with that constitutional provision. However, it's important to note that the First Amendment does not extend to provide protections for citizens against other citizens.

Kindly spare me the need to rephrase the same point in countless variations.

 

[Toni]

What I see is a conflict between two rights: The right to equal protection under the law and the right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

All individuals are granted equal protection under the Civil Rights Act, thus ensuring equal protection under the law for everyone. The First Amendment, while providing protections from governmental interference, applies equally to all and is not directly related to the Civil Rights Act.

The Civil Rights Act does not provide the government with the authority to infringe upon your First Amendment rights. However, it does empower the government to intervene and serve as an arbitrator when the civil rights of citizens — rights which apply universally — are violated.

The situation at hand involves individuals seeking to expand the scope of First Amendment protections. They aim to leverage these protections not just against government interference, but also against actions from fellow citizens, thereby legitimizing discriminatory practices.

The Civil Rights Act was used to dismantle racist laws and policies and practices such as allowing restaurants to refuse to serve customers based upon their race. The same laws are now being used to prohibit equal access to LGBTQIA+.

If you read the link I posted above, you will see that this is simply the latest in a long list of instances when the religious rights of a person or a group were upheld.

 

[Gospel]

I would direct less focus on the issue of individuals baking cakes for those they disapprove of and more on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law, which seems to favor a certain religion. This is a concern, especially when considering that the Constitution explicitly states that Congress, as the legislative body, shall not establish laws favoring any religion.

Spoiler: The rub

The SCOTUS gets the laws they interpret from Congress.

Understanding this predicament, it's no wonder that observers from other countries might question the logic of the American system.

 

[Gospel]

If you read the link I posted above, you will see that this is simply the latest in a long list of instances when the religious rights of a person or a group were upheld.

Upheld to protect them from the government.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

People are compelled to be creative all the time. Screenwriters, ghost writers, directors, etc.

Do you know what happens if a screen writer or ghost writer or director fails to do what someone with the power to so tells them to do? They are fired and somebody more amenable is hired.

I said exactly that in my next post.

 

[Toni]

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-4-4/ALDE_00000733/#:~:text=First%20Amendment%3A,for%20a%20redress%20of%20grievances.&text=Kennedy%20v.,-Bremerton%20Sch.

The case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District represents an instance of a citizen versus government dispute. Given that the First Amendment primarily serves to protect citizens from government interference, this case aligns logically with that constitutional provision. However, it's important to note that the First Amendment does not extend to provide protections for citizens against other citizens.

Kindly spare me the need to rephrase the same point in countless variations.

Maybe read further down in the text in the link: Masterpiece Creations re: cake. Read the few paragraphs there. They are consistent.

Too long to post in it's entirety (trying to keep within the limits of copyright, etc.),

 

[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.

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.

People are compelled to be creative all the time. Screenwriters, ghost writers, directors, etc.

Do you know what happens if a screen writer or ghost writer or director fails to do what someone with the power to so tells them to do? They are fired and somebody more amenable is hired.

I said exactly that in my next post.

did not see that.

I'm out

 

[Gospel]

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-4-4/ALDE_00000733/#:~:text=First%20Amendment%3A,for%20a%20redress%20of%20grievances.&text=Kennedy%20v.,-Bremerton%20Sch.

The case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District represents an instance of a citizen versus government dispute. Given that the First Amendment primarily serves to protect citizens from government interference, this case aligns logically with that constitutional provision. However, it's important to note that the First Amendment does not extend to provide protections for citizens against other citizens.

Kindly spare me the need to rephrase the same point in countless variations.

Maybe read further down in the text in the link: Masterpiece Creations re: cake. Read the few paragraphs there. They are consistent.

Too long to post in it's entirety (trying to keep within the limits of copyright, etc.),

So the case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District DOES NOT represent an instance of a citizen versus government dispute?

 

[Gospel]

Ok let me clarify, all of the cases mentioned in your link involves a Citizens Vs Government dispute. Do you get it now?

 

[jab]

My position is that the status quo with respect to our free speech laws and anti-discrimination laws WERE ALREADY FINE before this SCOTUS ruling.

What you and Toni seem unable to grasp is that YOU are the radical ones.

Funny, in a deeply ironic way.

Emily, Toni, and I, among others don't think that what was a good policy in the 60s is necessarily good policy in the 2020's. U.S. society is very different.

You have become the curmudgeonly old conservative, unwilling to change. Demanding that "What was good enough for my grandma is good enough for me!"

"Affirmative Action today!
Affirmative Action tomorrow!
Affirmative Action forevah!"

Tom

deflection, like so much of ConAm discourse today--this is not a thread about affirmative action, I think there is another thread on the US supreme court's ruling on that.
And of course, there is nothing conservative about foundational appeals to a document written over 200 years ago--or the perjurous litigant's foundational appeal to an even older document that Don the Con was once photographed holding upside-down.

 

[jab]

My position is that the status quo with respect to our free speech laws and anti-discrimination laws WERE ALREADY FINE before this SCOTUS ruling.

What you and Toni seem unable to grasp is that YOU are the radical ones.

Funny, in a deeply ironic way.

Emily, Toni, and I, among others don't think that what was a good policy in the 60s is necessarily good policy in the 2020's. U.S. society is very different.

You have become the curmudgeonly old conservative, unwilling to change. Demanding that "What was good enough for my grandma is good enough for me!"

"Affirmative Action today!
Affirmative Action tomorrow!
Affirmative Action forevah!"

Tom

I know it's neither here nor there... But don't you find a bit of irony in the fact that it's two women and a gay man - all elements of those "protected classes" arguing that people should not be compelled to express views that are in opposition to their beliefs... while all of us are being told what we ought to believe by a group that is almost exclusively heterosexual white men?

How do you know other people's sexual orientation? On-line gaydar?

 

[Gospel]

It's quite an intriguing observation how some individuals with conservative views are often willing to compromise their own civil liberties for the sake of expressing prejudice against others. The irony is not lost, it's rather humorous even. These individuals fail to realize that the same principles they advocate 1st Amendment protections for could lead to widespread discrimination, even in commonplace activities like shopping.

Imagine the surprise and disbelief they might encounter when they realize this could affect them directly. Picture them wanting to make a simple online purchase or walk into their favorite store, only to be met with an invasive questionnaire they have to fill out before being allowed to buy anything.

The very principles they held dear could very well turn their routine shopping experiences into an exercise of discarding those principles in the bin, just to carry on with their normal life. It's as if they're seeking to live the real-life version of the 'surprised Pikachu' meme, stunned by the consequences of the very policies they supported.