Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Bomb#20]

If the government has certain Regulations pertaining to businesses of public accommodation then if you find they conflict with your religious attitudes you don’t have to start a business. Just make websites or cakes for your friends. The government isnt forcing you. Running the business itself is not a religious practice. There are also many government regulations over free speech too.

You're simply repeating your argument and failing to address the counterargument. Let's try this again. "If a Muslim argued "If the government has certain Regulations pertaining to non-jizya-payers then if you find they conflict with your religious attitudes you don’t have to start non-jizya-paying. Just pay the jizya. The government isn't forcing you to say Muslim prayers. "Not paying the jizya" itself is not a religious practice.", would that convince you imposing the jizya on non-Muslims isn't a religious freedom infringement?

 

[Shadowy Man]

If the government has certain Regulations pertaining to businesses of public accommodation then if you find they conflict with your religious attitudes you don’t have to start a business. Just make websites or cakes for your friends. The government isnt forcing you. Running the business itself is not a religious practice. There are also many government regulations over free speech too.

You're simply repeating your argument and failing to address the counterargument. Let's try this again. "If a Muslim argued "If the government has certain Regulations pertaining to non-jizya-payers then if you find they conflict with your religious attitudes you don’t have to start non-jizya-paying. Just pay the jizya. The government isn't forcing you to say Muslim prayers. "Not paying the jizya" itself is not a religious practice.", would that convince you imposing the jizya on non-Muslims isn't a religious freedom infringement?

That’s not a comparable situation so I don’t see the value in addressing it in the current discussion. Lest you take my response as some kind of concession about discriminatory business practices.

I am addressing the specific issue of starting a business of public accommodation and assuming your religious viewpoints should override the government’s interest in non-discrimination.

If you come up with an analogy that appropriately fits within this then we may have a fruitful exchange of ideas.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You specifically used this phrasing:

proposing that a requirement on someone to disobey her religion

And I’m wondering about which part of her religion requires her to start a business. Which commandment is she “disobeying”?

If she lived in a Christian theocracy I’d assume her government would have different rules about discrimination but she doesn’t. She lives in a pluralistic society for which the government has legitimate interest in non-discriminatory business practices. They also have interest in not infringing on religious exercise but running a website business is not a religious exercise even if performed by a religious person.

 

[Bomb#20]

If a government enacts a law that all must say Muhammad is the Prophet of God five times a day, or else pay the jizya tax on non-Muslims, are you curious about which religions have not paying the jizya as tenets in their holy books? Do you see how that law is infringement on the exercise of religion even though Christianity and Judaism and Hinduism don't forbid their believers to pay to be allowed to not perform Muslim religious obligations?

How is this even remotely a good comparison to the matter at hand?

1-to-1 correspondence of elements. What reason do you have to consider it not a good comparison, apart from finding it distasteful for something you like to be compared with a theocracy?

The government is saying you can’t discriminate who your customers are based on protected classes if you run a business of public accommodation.

And the other government is saying you can't skip their prayers if you don't pay the tax. Both governments say "Do what we want or we'll subject you to a financial penalty."

If she makes websites as a hobby the government isn’t forcing her to make gay wedding websites or pay a tax

I.e. the government of Colorado was forcing a Christian to not have the money some customer wanted to give her for some service. And until about 1900 Morocco was forcing a Christian to not have the money some customer wanted to give him for some service. That Colorado imposed this punishment by preventing the money from being given in the first place and Morocco imposed it by taking the money away after the fact made no difference to their respective punished persons.

That’s not a comparable situation so I don’t see the value in addressing it in the current discussion. Lest you take my response as some kind of concession about discriminatory business practices.

I am addressing the specific issue of starting a business of public accommodation and assuming your religious viewpoints should override the government’s interest in non-discrimination.

If you come up with an analogy that appropriately fits within this then we may have a fruitful exchange of ideas.

Can you exhibit any substantive way in which the analogy fails to appropriately fit apart from the fact that you approve of Colorado's demand and you disapprove of Morocco's demand? You keep trying to get mileage out of the fact that getting money from Colorado customers isn't a Christian religious practice, even though keeping money gotten from Moroccan customers equally isn't a Christian religious practice.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If a government enacts a law that all must say Muhammad is the Prophet of God five times a day, or else pay the jizya tax on non-Muslims, are you curious about which religions have not paying the jizya as tenets in their holy books? Do you see how that law is infringement on the exercise of religion even though Christianity and Judaism and Hinduism don't forbid their believers to pay to be allowed to not perform Muslim religious obligations?

How is this even remotely a good comparison to the matter at hand?

1-to-1 correspondence of elements. What reason do you have to consider it not a good comparison, apart from finding it distasteful for something you like to be compared with a theocracy?

The government is saying you can’t discriminate who your customers are based on protected classes if you run a business of public accommodation.

And the other government is saying you can't skip their prayers if you don't pay the tax. Both governments say "Do what we want or we'll subject you to a financial penalty."

If she makes websites as a hobby the government isn’t forcing her to make gay wedding websites or pay a tax

I.e. the government of Colorado was forcing a Christian to not have the money some customer wanted to give her for some service. And until about 1900 Morocco was forcing a Christian to not have the money some customer wanted to give him for some service. That Colorado imposed this punishment by preventing the money from being given in the first place and Morocco imposed it by taking the money away after the fact made no difference to their respective punished persons.

That’s not a comparable situation so I don’t see the value in addressing it in the current discussion. Lest you take my response as some kind of concession about discriminatory business practices.

I am addressing the specific issue of starting a business of public accommodation and assuming your religious viewpoints should override the government’s interest in non-discrimination.

If you come up with an analogy that appropriately fits within this then we may have a fruitful exchange of ideas.

Can you exhibit any substantive way in which the analogy fails to appropriately fit apart from the fact that you approve of Colorado's demand and you disapprove of Morocco's demand? You keep trying to get mileage out of the fact that getting money from Colorado customers isn't a Christian religious practice, even though keeping money gotten from Moroccan customers equally isn't a Christian religious practice.

Ive already stated my argument for the dissimilarity Repeating it won’t help. If you disagree with my reasoning then so be it.

I don’t care what the Moroccan government is or was doing. Your example seems to be about government compulsion of religious speech. . I’d rather discuss the current issue at hand within its appropriate context. . If you don’t want to do that then we have nothing further to discuss.

You’ll likely see that as a win for your side of the argument and I’m ok with that.

 

[Bomb#20]

You specifically used this phrasing:

proposing that a requirement on someone to disobey her religion

And I’m wondering about which part of her religion requires her to start a business. Which commandment is she “disobeying”?

Oh please. The religious requirement is to not blaspheme against her imagined god's holy sacraments by endorsing a mockery of them. Would you say the speed limit isn't a "requirement on someone not to drive above 65 mph" because he has the option of driving 75 mph and paying his speeding ticket? The law imposes a punishment on people who do not make same-sex wedding websites: being prohibited from making opposite-sex wedding websites for pay.

If she lived in a Christian theocracy I’d assume her government would have different rules about discrimination but she doesn’t. She lives in a pluralistic society for which the government has legitimate interest in non-discriminatory business practices. They also have interest in not infringing on religious exercise but running a website business is not a religious exercise even if performed by a religious person.

And I expect the average Moroccan figured his government had a legitimate interest in compulsory prayer. They also had interest in not infringing on religious exercise but evading the jizya is not a religious exercise even if performed by a religious person. You have not exhibited a difference other than your opinion of which government interests are legitimate.

 

[Bomb#20]

That’s not a comparable situation so I don’t see the value in addressing it in the current discussion. Lest you take my response as some kind of concession about discriminatory business practices.

I am addressing the specific issue of starting a business of public accommodation and assuming your religious viewpoints should override the government’s interest in non-discrimination.

If you come up with an analogy that appropriately fits within this then we may have a fruitful exchange of ideas.

Can you exhibit any substantive way in which the analogy fails to appropriately fit apart from the fact that you approve of Colorado's demand and you disapprove of Morocco's demand? You keep trying to get mileage out of the fact that getting money from Colorado customers isn't a Christian religious practice, even though keeping money gotten from Moroccan customers equally isn't a Christian religious practice.

Ive already stated my argument for the dissimilarity Repeating it won’t help.

Darn right repeating it won't help: "That’s not a comparable situation" is not an argument for dissimilarity. It's just proof-by-blatant-assertion.

The only thing you've offered remotely resembling an explanation for why they're dissimilar is "the government has legitimate interest in non-discriminatory business practices". That's immaterial to the dispute at hand. It has no magical power to make "Disobey your religion or be punished" not be an infringement on religious exercise. If you want to offer this in justification of the different contention that allowing noncompliance would be worse than infringing religious exercise, so we should enforce such laws even though they infringe religious exercise, that would be a logical argument. But to claim that this means it doesn't infringe religious exercise is not a logical argument.

If you disagree with my reasoning then so be it.

I don’t care what the Moroccan government is or was doing. Your example seems to be about government compulsion of religious speech. .

So's yours. Smith evidently regards marriage as a holy sacrament; to her, saying "Adam and Steve are getting married" is a religious statement.

I’d rather discuss the current issue at hand within its appropriate context. . If you don’t want to do that then we have nothing further to discuss.

But I do want to do that. That is what I've been doing.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The only thing you've offered remotely resembling an explanation for why they're dissimilar is "the government has legitimate interest in non-discriminatory business practices". That's immaterial to the dispute at hand. It has no magical power to make "Disobey your religion or be punished" not be an infringement on religious exercise.

Please show me where in her religion is says she must open a business of public accommodation. No one is forcing her to make a gay wedding website. She can make all the websites she wants for whoever she wants and not for anybody she doesn’t want to. But if she wants to open a business then she has to follow the government’s non-discriminatory policies.

 

[Toni]

If a government enacts a law that all must say Muhammad is the Prophet of God five times a day, or else pay the jizya tax on non-Muslims, are you curious about which religions have not paying the jizya as tenets in their holy books? Do you see how that law is infringement on the exercise of religion even though Christianity and Judaism and Hinduism don't forbid their believers to pay to be allowed to not perform Muslim religious obligations?

How is this even remotely a good comparison to the matter at hand? The government is saying you can’t discriminate who your customers are based on protected classes if you run a business of public accommodation.

If she makes websites as a hobby the government isn’t forcing her to make gay wedding websites or pay a tax

It’s the specific content for the couple who is gay that would be problematic for some bigoted so-called Christians.

 

[ZiprHead]

The only thing you've offered remotely resembling an explanation for why they're dissimilar is "the government has legitimate interest in non-discriminatory business practices". That's immaterial to the dispute at hand. It has no magical power to make "Disobey your religion or be punished" not be an infringement on religious exercise.

Please show me where in her religion is says she must open a business of public accommodation. No one is forcing her to make a gay wedding website. She can make all the websites she wants for whoever she wants and not for anybody she doesn’t want to. But if she wants to open a business then she has to follow the government’s non-discriminatory policies.

Sadly, not anymore.

 

[Gospel]

You know courts in Common-Law countries aren't in the business of chaining up civil lawsuit defendants and having them flogged until they fulfill their contracts, don't you?

They used to do worse. For example:

In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that black people were not citizens and that they could not sue in federal court. The court also ruled that the federal government did not have the power to prohibit slavery in the territories.

Slavery was a forced contract that by today's standards wouldn't be enforceable. Yet it was by your beloved Common-Law country. As for flogging:

In the case of Strader v. Graham (1851), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the federal government did not have the power to prohibit the flogging of slaves in the states. The court held that the issue of slavery was a matter of state law, and that the federal government could not interfere.

Flogging wasn't prohibited by the federal government & was permissible in all but 5 states that prohibited it between 1777-1784.

Then the Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed in part to enforce the provisions of Section 2 of the 13th Amendment.


During the era of slavery in the United States, a significant number of people held the belief that slavery was a divine right. This perspective was founded on interpretations of the Bible that asserted the inferiority of black people in comparison to white people, suggesting that they were destined to serve as slaves. Today, the courts of this Common-Law country said bibbidi bobbidi boo so that we may move back towards divine right slavery and flogging.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You specifically used this phrasing:

proposing that a requirement on someone to disobey her religion

And I’m wondering about which part of her religion requires her to start a business. Which commandment is she “disobeying”?

If she lived in a Christian theocracy I’d assume her government would have different rules about discrimination but she doesn’t. She lives in a pluralistic society for which the government has legitimate interest in non-discriminatory business practices. They also have interest in not infringing on religious exercise but running a website business is not a religious exercise even if performed by a religious person.

What you seem to missing is that there is no requirement that any business deal with all customers within the supposed client base it represents.

You will not find durian in the produce section of any mainstream US supermarket. (You will sometimes find it in ethnic supermarkets.) Is that discrimination? No. Just because they sell produce doesn't mean they have any obligation to sell the produce you want. (Not that you do--if you don't know durian you do not want to try it! Supposedly it tastes delicious--if you can get past the smell. It is the only thing I ever knew my mother to not be willing to taste and she was normally very curious about food.)

Likewise, just because they make wedding websites doesn't mean they have to make same-sex wedding websites.

Note that that already says they shouldn't be compelled to make such a site even before you get into the bit of compelling creativity that the person finds repulsive.

Note that this is different than requiring a company to sell a stock product to all comers.

I could open The Orange Store where all products are orange colored. You don't get to demand a blue version. Likewise, you could open the Not Orange Store where no product has any orange on it and I don't get to demand an orange version.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You specifically used this phrasing:

proposing that a requirement on someone to disobey her religion

And I’m wondering about which part of her religion requires her to start a business. Which commandment is she “disobeying”?

If she lived in a Christian theocracy I’d assume her government would have different rules about discrimination but she doesn’t. She lives in a pluralistic society for which the government has legitimate interest in non-discriminatory business practices. They also have interest in not infringing on religious exercise but running a website business is not a religious exercise even if performed by a religious person.

What you seem to missing is that there is no requirement that any business deal with all customers within the supposed client base it represents.

You will not find durian in the produce section of any mainstream US supermarket. (You will sometimes find it in ethnic supermarkets.) Is that discrimination? No. Just because they sell produce doesn't mean they have any obligation to sell the produce you want. (Not that you do--if you don't know durian you do not want to try it! Supposedly it tastes delicious--if you can get past the smell. It is the only thing I ever knew my mother to not be willing to taste and she was normally very curious about food.)

Likewise, just because they make wedding websites doesn't mean they have to make same-sex wedding websites.

Technically there is no such thing as a "same-sex wedding". There aren't "same-sex wedding certificates". They don't go on a "same-sex honeymoon".

So if software can manage a wedding website, it can manage weddings, regardless of the gender of those getting married.

Note that that already says they shouldn't be compelled to make such a site even before you get into the bit of compelling creativity that the person finds repulsive.

Note that this is different than requiring a company to sell a stock product to all comers.

Actually it is no different. This is about selling a product to one couple but not another, simply because they are the same gender. It is ridiculous to argue otherwise. I mean what if Terry is marrying Pat?! OMFG!!! Same gend... wait... Terry a guy or gal... wait is Pat a guy or a gal. Sorry, can't produce a wedding website because my programming abilities can't manage this ambiguity.

I could open The Orange Store where all products are orange colored. You don't get to demand a blue version.

If I read one more fucking supply related analogy to this DEMAND of services being sold to other people case, I'm going to lose my fucking mind!

 

[Shadowy Man]

I could open The Orange Store where all products are orange colored. You don't get to demand a blue version.

If I read one more fucking supply related analogy to this DEMAND of services being sold to other people case, I'm going to lose my fucking mind!

The correct analogy would seem to be this:

I could open The Orange Store where all products are orange colored. You don’t get to demand a gay orange version.

 

[bilby]

I could open The Orange Store where all products are orange colored. You don't get to demand a blue version.

If I read one more fucking supply related analogy to this DEMAND of services being sold to other people case, I'm going to lose my fucking mind!

The correct analogy would seem to be this:

I could open The Orange Store where all products are orange colored. You don’t get to demand a gay orange version.

So, can I or can't I buy a Terry's Chocolate Orange?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Shadowy Man announced the closure of his highly popular Orange Store today after litigation over a lawsuit brought forth by an Australian led to disarray and chaos regarding the products the store had to stock and make available to consumers. "I drew the line at The Annoying Orange." In other news, it was a balmy 74 degrees in Santa Monica.

 

[Gospel]

What you seem to missing is that there is no requirement that any business deal with all customers within the supposed client base it represents.

You're right, there is no requirement to deal with

all customers within the supposed client base it represents.

Whatever the heck that means. There WAS a legal requirement to treat all protected classes equally. This meant that if specialized services were provided to one protected class, they must be equally offered to all other protected classes without discrimination. Now anyone can pull faith out of their ass and discriminate against anyone for any reason. Welcome to the new old America!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Likewise, just because they make wedding websites doesn't mean they have to make same-sex wedding websites.

Technically there is no such thing as a "same-sex wedding". There aren't "same-sex wedding certificates". They don't go on a "same-sex honeymoon".

So if software can manage a wedding website, it can manage weddings, regardless of the gender of those getting married.

I've already pointed out one difference: We traditionally use blue for male and pink for female. A same-sex wedding would be blue and blue or pink and pink. Having a stock blue and pink to use won't work same sex wedding sites. (And, yes, it could matter. Plenty of us guys have flawed color vision and can't pick pleasing combinations because we don't see it the same as others.)

Note that that already says they shouldn't be compelled to make such a site even before you get into the bit of compelling creativity that the person finds repulsive.

Note that this is different than requiring a company to sell a stock product to all comers.

Actually it is no different. This is about selling a product to one couple but not another, simply because they are the same gender. It is ridiculous to argue otherwise. I mean what if Terry is marrying Pat?! OMFG!!! Same gend... wait... Terry a guy or gal... wait is Pat a guy or a gal. Sorry, can't produce a wedding website because my programming abilities can't manage this ambiguity.

You still don't understand the difference between a difference in the product vs a difference in the customers.

I could open The Orange Store where all products are orange colored. You don't get to demand a blue version.

If I read one more fucking supply related analogy to this DEMAND of services being sold to other people case, I'm going to lose my fucking mind!

But you want to allow a customer to demand a same-sex wedding site. I'm afraid you're just going to have lose your mind.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you seem to missing is that there is no requirement that any business deal with all customers within the supposed client base it represents.

You're right, there is no requirement to deal with

all customers within the supposed client base it represents.

Whatever the heck that means. There WAS a legal requirement to treat all protected classes equally. This meant that if specialized services were provided to one protected class, they must be equally offered to all other protected classes without discrimination. Now anyone can pull faith out of their ass and discriminate against anyone for any reason. Welcome to the new old America!

You still haven't explained how laser tattoo removal is supposed to work on those with dark enough skin as it's fundamentally based on the tattoo being substantially darker than the surrounding skin.

 

[ZiprHead]

Likewise, just because they make wedding websites doesn't mean they have to make same-sex wedding websites.

Technically there is no such thing as a "same-sex wedding". There aren't "same-sex wedding certificates". They don't go on a "same-sex honeymoon".

So if software can manage a wedding website, it can manage weddings, regardless of the gender of those getting married.

I've already pointed out one difference: We traditionally use blue for male and pink for female. A same-sex wedding would be blue and blue or pink and pink. Having a stock blue and pink to use won't work same sex wedding sites. (And, yes, it could matter. Plenty of us guys have flawed color vision and can't pick pleasing combinations because we don't see it the same as others.)

You're thinking of birth announcements, not weddings. Weddings are not limited to pink and blue and never have been. And if you have bad color vision you should not be in the business of design where color is important.

And even if you were correct, wtf difference does it make?