Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[jab]

The above flowery words are all empty rhetoric if you support legalized discrimination. And if you support this SCOTUS ruling, you support legalized discrimination.

Nah, you're missing a fundamental point here. You're focused solely on discrimination against gay people - and I share your dislike of such discrimination. What you're missing is the discrimination on the basis of belief that you are actively supporting in your approach.

"My approach" has nothing to do with belief.

"My approach" is nothing more than an endorsement of the anti-discrimination model THAT WE HAVE HAD SINCE THE 1960s.

Anti-discrimination laws have nothing to do with belief.

They merely require that in places of business, black people be treated like white people.


Can you and Toni stop and think and try to understand that you two are the ones defending a radical change to anti-discrimination law and that I have only been defending what was already there before this ruling? This is literally insane.

I swear to god, I have never had this much trouble communicating with anyone in my life. This is what happens when people refuse to do the homework and read a few wikipedia entries.

You are communicating just fine. Perhaps you are accustomed to people either agreeing with you or pretending they do or simply ignoring you if you throw enough words at them.

I don’t particularly care. I don’t find your arguments very convincing.

I don't think you have any idea what my arguments are. You've been talking to me like I've been advocating for radical, draconian changes to US laws that would decimate free speech in America, when in fact all I have done is defend the ones that were already in place before this ruling.

You're the one who supports the radical change to anti-discrimination laws that SCOTUS just handed down.

I support the status quo that we had just a few days ago. That was a status quo that had been around since the 1960s, and it did nothing to decimate free speech like you think I want to. The notion that I want anything that would decimate free speech is absurd on its face.

Actually, you're off in your time line in this particular case. Sexual orientation was not a protected class in your country in the 1960s, and same-sex marriages were not a thing until the 2000s. What is happening with this fake case is that a part of your country has not adjusted to these recent changes, indeed abhors them, and is trying to stymie them bit by bit.

 

[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...

Strawman. No one here is arguing that people should be compelled to express views that are in opposition to their beliefs. No one is forced to be a wedding website designer.

while all of us are being told what we ought to believe by a group that is almost exclusively heterosexual

Sexual orientation is a protected class.

white

Race is a protected class.

men?

Sex is a protected class.

Also, I'm bira

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...

Strawman. No one here is arguing that people should be compelled to express views that are in opposition to their beliefs. No one is forced to be a wedding website designer.

while all of us are being told what we ought to believe by a group that is almost exclusively heterosexual

Sexual orientation is a protected class.

white

Race is a protected class.

men?

Sex is a protected class.

Also, I'm biracial.

touche

 

[Gospel]

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.

The First Amendment, my friend, serves as a shield for citizens from potential governmental overreach, not as a barrier between citizens themselves. Any grandstanding falls flat when confronted with this fundamental reality.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop case indeed revolved around a First Amendment dispute between a citizen and the government, not between two private citizens. It bears no relevance to the hypothetical situation of employing the First Amendment as a tool to promote discrimination.

 

[jab]

Two years ago, I would not have thought that abortion rights would be dismantled.

They've been talking about this for 50 years.

Free speech must be free even when it is repugnant.

For the umpteenth time, anti-discrimination laws do not prohibit free speech.

The anti-discrimination laws that were in place for the last 80 years did not suppress free speech. Bigotry has been alive and well and expressed freely during that time.

Free speech is under serious attack with the newly revived pastime of banning books, forbidding medics professionals from counseling their patients, forbidding teachers from saying gay or teaching actual history, not the aptly described white washed version.

And who's doing this? The right. The same right that just radically altered our anti-discrimination laws.

Compelling speech is absolutely the opposite of protecting free speech.

When you create a business of web design and web designing is speech you certainly just put yourself out there to have your speech compelled. You cannot properly serve the customer without doing so.

Imagine a gay couple approaches the minister or priest of a denomination which is known to oppose gay marriage and asks that clergy member to conduct their wedding.
Does anyone believe that the priest or minister should be compelled to perform the wedding ceremony?

Religions are not business in the US, and had the Perjurous litigant been proposing running a non-profit wedding web design operation, clearly affiliated with a particular, recognized religious group, it would have been a different case.

 

[TomC]

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

It doesn't take gaydar to figure out that the openly, even annoyingly, gay guy is gay.

I've put "faggot" under gender in my profile for pete's sake. I talk about my male partner of ~30 years regularly.
Tom

 

[jab]

Excellent point. Let's preemptively address a potential misconception here that real estate agents don't employ creativity in their line of work. They absolutely do. It's through their ingenious methods that they uncover properties aligning perfectly with your specifications. They don't just stop at finding you a property, they also artfully negotiate on your behalf, ensuring you get the best deal possible. They are instrumental in closing the deal, a process that often requires innovative problem-solving and strategic thinking.

In light of this, one might argue that just as an artist may refuse a commission based on personal beliefs or principles, a real estate agent, too, could conceivably decline to offer their services due to religious convictions.

Yes--the art of the deal. Of course, back in the past, rather openly, there were some people not of sufficiently Aryan descent for whom the Trumps refused to use their peculiar art when in came to making real-estate type deals.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

The above flowery words are all empty rhetoric if you support legalized discrimination. And if you support this SCOTUS ruling, you support legalized discrimination.

Nah, you're missing a fundamental point here. You're focused solely on discrimination against gay people - and I share your dislike of such discrimination. What you're missing is the discrimination on the basis of belief that you are actively supporting in your approach.

"My approach" has nothing to do with belief.

"My approach" is nothing more than an endorsement of the anti-discrimination model THAT WE HAVE HAD SINCE THE 1960s.

Anti-discrimination laws have nothing to do with belief.

They merely require that in places of business, black people be treated like white people.


Can you and Toni stop and think and try to understand that you two are the ones defending a radical change to anti-discrimination law and that I have only been defending what was already there before this ruling? This is literally insane.

I swear to god, I have never had this much trouble communicating with anyone in my life. This is what happens when people refuse to do the homework and read a few wikipedia entries.

You are communicating just fine. Perhaps you are accustomed to people either agreeing with you or pretending they do or simply ignoring you if you throw enough words at them.

I don’t particularly care. I don’t find your arguments very convincing.

I don't think you have any idea what my arguments are. You've been talking to me like I've been advocating for radical, draconian changes to US laws that would decimate free speech in America, when in fact all I have done is defend the ones that were already in place before this ruling.

You're the one who supports the radical change to anti-discrimination laws that SCOTUS just handed down.

I support the status quo that we had just a few days ago. That was a status quo that had been around since the 1960s, and it did nothing to decimate free speech like you think I want to. The notion that I want anything that would decimate free speech is absurd on its face.

Actually, you're off in your time line in this particular case. Sexual orientation was not a protected class in your country in the 1960s, and same-sex marriages were not a thing until the 2000s. What is happening with this fake case is that a part of your country has not adjusted to these recent changes, indeed abhors them, and is trying to stymie them bit by bit.

I'm only saying here that the basic paradigm of how anti-discrimination laws work has remained more or less the same since the 1960s. I mentioned elsewhere that sexual orientation and identity were added in 2020. But those were expansions to who was covered, not fundamental changes to how protections work. Not that those expansions weren't important and welcome, but they didn't upend how the whole system works.This latest ruling is a radical change to the paradigm. Equal protection is gone for any service or good that can be considered "expressive". This is basically a return to segregation, albeit only within the scope of "expressive services".

 

[jab]

NEWS FLASH!!

• Genesis 9:18-27: This passage tells the story of Noah's curse on Ham, one of his sons. The curse says that Ham's descendants will be slaves to Noah's other sons. This passage has been used to justify slavery and racism.
• Leviticus 18:22: This passage prohibits male same-sex sexual relations. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.
• 1 Timothy 2:11-12: This passage says that women should not teach or have authority over men. This passage has been used to justify discrimination against women in leadership roles.

That's what they want. I'm not even going to touch on what other religious groups want at this time because they aren't operating at the SCOTUS level (yet)

Luke 5:

36 He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.

I wouldn't equate the repeal of laws with their transformation, but everyone is entitled to their own perspective.

Eh, I rarely attend church but years ago, one of my kids was friends with a minister’s kid ( lovely people and good friends) and actually sang in the choir. We went to hear the choir sing one Sunday and that passage from Luke was part of the sermon, the point being exactly that the New Testament took precedence over the Old Testament. The New Testament focuses on love and not fire and brimstone. This is something that many evangelicals seem to have forgotten.

Last I looked I Timothy was in the New Testment: So was One Corinithians (as trump designates it):

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV​

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 14:34

English Standard Version

34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.​

 

[ZiprHead]

The letters to the Corinthians were written by Paul. Personally, I've always thought Paul was a crazy fundamentalist. Crazy because the things he did before his conversion were evil so he he had to go overboard to try to gain forgiveness.

I always go back to what did Jesus say about homosexuality.

 

[Elixir]

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

No, not endorsing the sign or it’s return. But let anyone stupid ignorant and bigoted enough to want to post it do as they may - and suffer the consequences. That one of those consequences is not (directly) going to be going to prison, is a minor sidelight.
Let me ask - do you think you would put that sign on your house if you were one of “them”? I think mostly not, even though it wouldn’t be illegal.

 

[jab]

And in some places it can get you approbation and support and a Q-ueasy fame.

That's perhaps common in Canada.
Around here it isn't.

I live in Trumpish Jesustan, Indiana. For the vast majority of businesses a simple "No Blacks. No Gays" sign on the door would be enough to trash your clientele. Even racist or homophobic people wouldn't want to be seen patronizing your place.

It's simply not 1973 anymore.
Tom

I think that the anti-woke virtue signalling and homphobic baiting of the publicity-seeking perjurous litigant, will up her opportunities in your Q-world of evangelical MAGAs. And there's a lot of money to be raked in from that crowd, even if they're not the majority of Americans. And on-line commerce doesn't require you to go publicly into a noted place of business.

 

[jab]

Web design is not the same thing as publishing. There is a line somewhere between publishing, hosting content, and pasting in content as requested by a client. Whereever that line is doesn't matter to me in this case because the case we have here is a christofascist camel sticking its nose under the tent under the guise of protecting speech.

But it’s not ‘pasting in content as requested by client.’ Clients who are capable of creating their own content would use a template.

It’s actually creating content for the clients. To me, that is absolutely key.

It can be cut and paste. Some people aren't technically literate enough to do it. I have been paid to paste text into a website before--they had no idea of how to use the editor, it was no big deal for me to figure out.

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.

What does "curating" photographs mean?

 

[Toni]

Web design is not the same thing as publishing. There is a line somewhere between publishing, hosting content, and pasting in content as requested by a client. Whereever that line is doesn't matter to me in this case because the case we have here is a christofascist camel sticking its nose under the tent under the guise of protecting speech.

But it’s not ‘pasting in content as requested by client.’ Clients who are capable of creating their own content would use a template.

It’s actually creating content for the clients. To me, that is absolutely key.

It can be cut and paste. Some people aren't technically literate enough to do it. I have been paid to paste text into a website before--they had no idea of how to use the editor, it was no big deal for me to figure out.

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.

What does "curating" photographs mean?

Selecting which photos (or portions of photos) to use for a specific use.

Note: wedding planners, and I suspect people who design wedding websites for couples very often work with a specific photographer or set of photographers and when possible, recommend a specific photographer to work with a specific kind of couple: Someone who likes working with animals for the couple whose dog will be ringbearer, for example. There will also be discussions of what kind of 'feel' they want to convey, and select photos, clothing, hair, location, etc. for that purpose.

*A friend is a wedding planner. That's how I know some of this stuff.

 

[jab]

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?

this isn't about suppressing bigotry, so your argument doesn't quite fit--the issue is about forestalling bigotry from harming Americans' unalienable right to "the pursuit of happiness". And it is about, you are right, what is and isn't a business in America. I think, but this may be naive, that businesses are pretty clearly defined at the moment, and I don't think in a political system where both major parties are in the pay of corporations, that "business" definitions by the American govt are up for serious change, though with your activist supreme Court, you never know.

 

[jab]

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.

I didn't know that people set up businesses and charged customers fees for burning flags. . . well, I guess I'm not too old to learn new things.
Your post seems strangely both disgruntled and assured.

 

[jab]

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.

Not if the Director were hired by a company to do the work. I think Gorsuch, very employer's rights guy, would balk at that.

 

[jab]

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.

See post 449 below where C/J/fish is overtly called a bigot by another poster.

 

[jab]

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.

Actors may be contractually obligated to go with it--compelled speech, compelled creativity--or face legally enforced retribution from the entity with whom they have a contract. Should those contracts be void?

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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

No, not endorsing the sign or it’s return. But let anyone stupid ignorant and bigoted enough to want to post it do as they may - and suffer the consequences.

I don't share your confidence that there will much in the way of suffering of consequences. In bluer parts of the country, perhaps, but not in most areas.

That one of those consequences is not (directly) going to be going to prison, is a minor sidelight.
Let me ask - do you think you would put that sign on your house if you were one of “them”? I think mostly not, even though it wouldn’t be illegal.

I can't presume to know what's in those people's heads, but what I do know is that "No N***** Allowed" signs were normal and commonplace in the US pre-Civil Rights Era. They didn't go away because the owners were shamed, or embarrassed, or boycotted, but because civil rights laws forced the issue.

I feel like many of you might have rose-tinted glasses regarding the scale, magnitude, and viciousness of the bigotry that this country is capable of. Let's remember that the so called progressive, liberal bastion blue state of California voted against gay marriage as recently as 2008. Sexual orientation only became a protected class in 2020, not by popular referendum, but by judicial decree.

This is not an enlightened, tolerant country.

 

[jab]

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.

Well argued.