Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Bomb#20]

For some people, yes, it is on par. A gay wedding website is a substantively different product than a straight wedding website in the same way that a ham sandwich is different than a corned beef on rye. For some people.

Ham sandwiches are delicious. Corned beef on rye is revolting. Just sayin'.

 

[Shadowy Man]

A better analogy might be something like the government imposes a law that all Businesses be open seven days a week. A Jewish business owner then says this infringes on his right to free exercise of his religion because his religion compels him not to work on the Sabbath. Then you can say: “Shadowy Man, are you saying that because his religion does not compel him to have a business that it is ok for the government to just say to him ‘don’t run a business if you don’t like the regulations’?”

See? You can come up with your own counterexamples too. So why do you assume "Therefore running the business is itself not a religious exercise. You agree. Regulations on businesses are not religious restrictions." is a good argument? Running the business is itself not a religious exercise and yet a regulation that all businesses must be open seven days a week is obviously a religious restriction on Jewish business owners.

In the case of the hypothetical wedding website woman the parallel would then be that her religion compels her to discriminate against gay people even if it doesn’t compel her to run the business. That’s what is being said, yes?

No, that's not what's being said. Her religion doesn't compel her to discriminate against gay people. In the first place she was challenging a state requirement not to discriminate against pro-gay messages, not gay people. And in the second place, the circumstances that would lead to her coming up against a pro-gay message to discriminate against may well never arise, in which case her religion would not compel any such discrimination. She might not open a web design business, for instance.

What is being said is that "Therefore running the business is itself not a religious exercise. You agree. Regulations on businesses are not religious restrictions." is an illogical argument.

Ok. I think you’ve gotten me to come around. I am willing to concede the point.

However I think the “it’s not against gay people just pro-gay messages” is a semantic loophole. Basically if gay people want to make a wedding website for their heterosexual weddings (which they aren’t going to have) she’d be ok with that, that’s what you’re saying, yes?

 

[Bomb#20]

Ok. I think you’ve gotten me to come around. I am willing to concede the point.

Wow! And I thought nobody ever changed his mind around here.

However I think the “it’s not against gay people just pro-gay messages” is a semantic loophole. Basically if gay people want to make a wedding website for their heterosexual weddings (which they aren’t going to have) she’d be ok with that, that’s what you’re saying, yes?

Realistically, it's more like if gay people want to make a wedding website for their son's heterosexual wedding, she'd be okay with that. (As far as I know, based on what she says.) If you want to call that a semantic loophole, well, it's a semantic loophole built into the Constitution. If you think it's bad to have freedom of speech in the Constitution overruling any old random forced-speech statute passed by the Colorado legislature, that's what the constitutional amendment procedure is for.

But be careful what you wish for. Last year there was a discussion of a scenario where a Palestinian baker who writes messages on cakes for customers refuses to write "Judea and Samaria are Eretz Israel". Is it a semantic loophole to say she's not discriminating against Jews because she also wouldn't write that message for a Muslim customer (who isn't going to ask for it)? There are messages that only one protected group wants. Such is life -- it doesn't magically change being unwilling to write something you think is a lie into being unwilling to deal with a person. And do you really want to be in the business of coercing Arabs to write Zionist propaganda?

 

[Gospel]

Okay, now you're talking poetic metaphor, not law. Slaves didn't have contracts. (And "forced contract" is a contradiction in terms.)

You're correct. It is poetic metaphor. However, black people were not exempt from the system of indentured slavery. In truth, some of the earliest black individuals who arrived in the American colonies became indentured servants. Despite being assured of their freedom after a designated period, numerous among them were deceitfully coerced into prolonged servitude.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In the case of the hypothetical wedding website woman the parallel would then be that her religion compels her to discriminate against gay people even if it doesn’t compel her to run the business. That’s what is being said, yes?

No, that's not what's being said. Her religion doesn't compel her to discriminate against gay people. In the first place she was challenging a state requirement not to discriminate against pro-gay messages, not gay people.

Wait, the designer was required to create an arbitrary whatever to promote a pro-gay message?

Curious, what is a "pro-gay message"?

And in the second place, the circumstances that would lead to her coming up against a pro-gay message to discriminate against may well never arise, in which case her religion would not compel any such discrimination. She might not open a web design business, for instance.

What is being said is that "Therefore running the business is itself not a religious exercise. You agree. Regulations on businesses are not religious restrictions." is an illogical argument.

Perhaps if one lights and shadows the subject in a certain way, but these exact same arguments were made (no hypotheticals) regarding blacks. So why does this help create a loophole for person to avoid providing a service to gays, but not blacks?

 

[Toni]

I think a better analogy would be to compel
a restauranteur who is Jewish or Muslim to serve a ham sandwich. We would all respect the right of a Jewish or Muslim establishment to refuse to sell a ham sandwich even if they sold chicken and beef sandwiches.

So the analogy here is that anti-gay discrimination in Christianity is on par with the Jewish and Islamic dietary restrictions. And that a gay wedding website is substantively a different product than a heterosexual wedding website. Got it.

For some people, yes, it is on par. A gay wedding website is a substantively different product than a straight wedding website in the same way that a ham sandwich is different than a corned beef on rye. For some people.

Your analogy about sandwiches seems misplaced to me. It seems to me that if an establishment sells _____ (fill in the blank), it should sell ____ to anyone who is legally entitled to buy it. If an establishment sells ham sandwiches, it should not be legally able to deny a ham sandwich any legal customer who can pay for it. And even though I think that cooking and creating food is a creative form of expression, I do not think an establishment should be able to say it will create for some customers but not others. I think my argument holds for wedding cakes and wedding websites.

I take your point, but I disagree. No matter how morally wrong, disgusting and repugnant I or anyone else believes it to be. I believe that the Constitution gives everyone—even bigots— freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The KKK can march in any parade if they have a valid permit—no matter how repugnant and invalid their message. One cannot compel anyone to create specific, custom content for anyone if they choose not to create that specific content.

 

[Gospel]

I think a better analogy would be to compel
a restauranteur who is Jewish or Muslim to serve a ham sandwich. We would all respect the right of a Jewish or Muslim establishment to refuse to sell a ham sandwich even if they sold chicken and beef sandwiches.

So the analogy here is that anti-gay discrimination in Christianity is on par with the Jewish and Islamic dietary restrictions. And that a gay wedding website is substantively a different product than a heterosexual wedding website. Got it.

For some people, yes, it is on par. A gay wedding website is a substantively different product than a straight wedding website in the same way that a ham sandwich is different than a corned beef on rye. For some people.

Your analogy about sandwiches seems misplaced to me. It seems to me that if an establishment sells _____ (fill in the blank), it should sell ____ to anyone who is legally entitled to buy it. If an establishment sells ham sandwiches, it should not be legally able to deny a ham sandwich any legal customer who can pay for it. And even though I think that cooking and creating food is a creative form of expression, I do not think an establishment should be able to say it will create for some customers but not others. I think my argument holds for wedding cakes and wedding websites.

I take your point, but I disagree. No matter how morally wrong, disgusting and repugnant I or anyone else believes it to be. I believe that the Constitution gives everyone—even bigots— freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The KKK can march in any parade if they have a valid permit—no matter how repugnant and invalid their message. One cannot compel anyone to create specific, custom content for anyone if they choose not to create that specific content.

Indeed, the government lacks the authority to interfere in anyone's abhorrent and repugnant beliefs, unless a compelling interest is clearly demonstrated. Regrettably for groups like the Nazis and the KKK, their actions and behavior have inadvertently created that compelling interest, particularly in matters concerning public accommodations.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think a better analogy would be to compel
a restauranteur who is Jewish or Muslim to serve a ham sandwich. We would all respect the right of a Jewish or Muslim establishment to refuse to sell a ham sandwich even if they sold chicken and beef sandwiches.

So the analogy here is that anti-gay discrimination in Christianity is on par with the Jewish and Islamic dietary restrictions. And that a gay wedding website is substantively a different product than a heterosexual wedding website. Got it.

For some people, yes, it is on par. A gay wedding website is a substantively different product than a straight wedding website in the same way that a ham sandwich is different than a corned beef on rye. For some people.

Your analogy about sandwiches seems misplaced to me. It seems to me that if an establishment sells _____ (fill in the blank), it should sell ____ to anyone who is legally entitled to buy it. If an establishment sells ham sandwiches, it should not be legally able to deny a ham sandwich any legal customer who can pay for it. And even though I think that cooking and creating food is a creative form of expression, I do not think an establishment should be able to say it will create for some customers but not others. I think my argument holds for wedding cakes and wedding websites.

I take your point, but I disagree. No matter how morally wrong, disgusting and repugnant I or anyone else believes it to be. I believe that the Constitution gives everyone—even bigots— freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The KKK can march in any parade if they have a valid permit—no matter how repugnant and invalid their message.

This isn't even remotely in question. The question is whether nazis or bigots or Christians or Muslims have the right to refuse service to customers. Currently, the law is being hacked by abusing the word "custom".

 

[TomC]

This isn't even remotely in question. The question is whether nazis or bigots or Christians or Muslims have the right to refuse service to customers. Currently, the law is being hacked by abusing the word "custom".

To me, this isn't the important question.

The important question is "Should the government have the power to enforce a socio-political agenda?" I'm saying No. I don't want the government to have that much power.

There are some goods and services I'm fine with regulations and enforcement. Government services are an example. Also essential services, like emergency response and health care.

Wedding cakes and websites, hairdos? Not so much. If they can make you do a gay wedding website, they can make you do a Klan rally website.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This isn't even remotely in question. The question is whether nazis or bigots or Christians or Muslims have the right to refuse service to customers. Currently, the law is being hacked by abusing the word "custom".

To me, this isn't the important question.

Well, it is the question that matters. Whether you put much importance is an arbitrary decision by you.

The important question is "Should the government have the power to enforce a socio-political agenda?" I'm saying No. I don't want the government to have that much power.

That is the problem. You keep going to this bogus agenda angle. That store needs to sell any product they produce to anyone. Nazis getting married, yes. Blacks, yes. Whites, yes. Gays, not anymore but were supposed to. There is no agenda when all people are supposed to have access to the services being provided.

There are some goods and services I'm fine with regulations and enforcement. Government services are an example. Also essential services, like emergency response and health care. Wedding cakes and websites, hairdos? Not so much.

So access to services should be based on an arbitrary importance system? I'm curious, why are "important" services required to be unimpacted due to identity by private industry, but not ones you find unimportant. What is the basis for forcing one, but not the other?

If they can make you do a gay wedding website, they can make you do a Klan rally website.

Except gay weddings aren't profanity.

 

[ZiprHead]

Not all Christians or Christian denominations oppose gay marriage. Some have endorsed gay marriage for a number of years. Some have gay pastors.

I have a second cousin who is a gay pastor of a Lutheran church.

 

[ZiprHead]

...But if she wants to open a business then she has to follow the government’s non-discriminatory policies.

Sadly, not anymore.

"If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

Opening a business to create websites for other people is not free expression. It's directed expression.

What is your criterion for labeling other people's expressions "directed"? And do you think there's something in the Constitution that excludes expressions from First Amendment protection when they satisfy your criterion?

The website creator is expressing the thoughts and feelings of the person who requested the website. They may add their own artistic flourishes but the main message is from the person requesting the work. It's like someone translating one language to another.

 

[ZiprHead]

Wedding cakes and websites, hairdos? Not so much. If they can make you do a gay wedding website, they can make you do a Klan rally website.

How many times does the above bullshit need to be refuted?

 

[Toni]

This isn't even remotely in question. The question is whether nazis or bigots or Christians or Muslims have the right to refuse service to customers. Currently, the law is being hacked by abusing the word "custom".

To me, this isn't the important question.

Well, it is the question that matters. Whether you put much importance is an arbitrary decision by you.

The important question is "Should the government have the power to enforce a socio-political agenda?" I'm saying No. I don't want the government to have that much power.

That is the problem. You keep going to this bogus agenda angle. That store needs to sell any product they produce to anyone. Nazis getting married, yes. Blacks, yes. Whites, yes. Gays, not anymore but were supposed to. There is no agenda when all people are supposed to have access to the services being provided.

There are some goods and services I'm fine with regulations and enforcement. Government services are an example. Also essential services, like emergency response and health care. Wedding cakes and websites, hairdos? Not so much.

So access to services should be based on an arbitrary importance system? I'm curious, why are "important" services required to be unimpacted due to identity by private industry, but not ones you find unimportant. What is the basis for forcing one, but not the other?

If they can make you do a gay wedding website, they can make you do a Klan rally website.

Except gay weddings aren't profanity.

To some people, gay weddings are profane.

The question for me is entirely freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

If the government can compel speech, in this case, forcing someone to create something that violates their conscience, they can also forbid speech, and the expression of one’s conscience.

I am certain that you are as horrified by the outspoken power grab of the right wing in this country. I am appalled by what is happening in Florida, Texas and other places. I do not understand what is keeping someine from challenging DeSantis’s education, or rather, ‘education’ policies limiting what teachers are allowed to say and teach in classrooms. I can very easily see that horror spreading, and freedom of speech being limited throughout the country. This particular case is about compelling an individual to create something that violates their conscience. If the court had ruled against this plaintiff, then it could well rule in favor of forcing teachers or any person to display the 10 Commandments or quotes from Mein Kampf or The Art of the Deal or swearing allegiance to Donald Trump or whatever other atrocity is next.

 

[TomC]

Well, it is the question that matters. Whether you put much importance is an arbitrary decision by you.

At the moment, you and people like you control who is privileged enough to demand obedience. So, you're OK with giving the government the power to enforce it.

Give Trump(or worse) and the TeaParty a few more years in power. Then you might not be as happy when the government disregards your fee-fees.
Tom

 

[Toni]

...But if she wants to open a business then she has to follow the government’s non-discriminatory policies.

Sadly, not anymore.

"If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

Opening a business to create websites for other people is not free expression. It's directed expression.

What is your criterion for labeling other people's expressions "directed"? And do you think there's something in the Constitution that excludes expressions from First Amendment protection when they satisfy your criterion?

The website creator is expressing the thoughts and feelings of the person who requested the website. They may add their own artistic flourishes but the main message is from the person requesting the work. It's like someone translating one language to another.

Not really. People who ask for this type of service typically need a lot of help with design, text, photographs, art, etc. if it were all or mostly cut and paste —as in a template, then that web designer would have no case: their creation was already complete before this person wanted to buy it.

But that’s not typically how such websites work. People want their own unique story told. They lack the skills ( and often the taste and the contacts) to complete their vision, so they hire someone to create to for them.

 

[ZiprHead]

But that’s not typically how such websites work. People want their own unique story told. They lack the skills ( and often the taste and the contacts) to complete their vision, so they hire someone to create to for them.

You just agreed with me.

 

[TomC]

But that’s not typically how such websites work. People want their own unique story told. They lack the skills ( and often the taste and the contacts) to complete their vision, so they hire someone to create to for them.

You just agreed with me.

No.
Really she didn't.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

Ok. I think you’ve gotten me to come around. I am willing to concede the point.

Wow! And I thought nobody ever changed his mind around here.

Well, even though this seems to be an "argument board" more than a "discussion board" these days, I do try to learn from my interactions here and, if appropriate, change my opinion, especially on those topics I haven't thought as much about. I will try out an argument* and see how people respond, and as you pointed out even I eventually came up with a counterexample to my own argument. So, in the end I had to admit that even though it's not a direct restriction on religious exercise, in that the business itself is not a religious exercise, it can be a de facto restriction on religious exercise, it in the process of running the business one must violate the tenets of their religion.

I certainly don't know enough about Christianity to know how crucial anti-gay discrimination is to the Christian faith, at least not compared to more fundamental things in other religions like the dietary laws of Judaism and Islam.

However I think the “it’s not against gay people just pro-gay messages” is a semantic loophole. Basically if gay people want to make a wedding website for their heterosexual weddings (which they aren’t going to have) she’d be ok with that, that’s what you’re saying, yes?

Realistically, it's more like if gay people want to make a wedding website for their son's heterosexual wedding, she'd be okay with that. (As far as I know, based on what she says.) If you want to call that a semantic loophole, well, it's a semantic loophole built into the Constitution. If you think it's bad to have freedom of speech in the Constitution overruling any old random forced-speech statute passed by the Colorado legislature, that's what the constitutional amendment procedure is for.

I guess the point I was getting at here was this sounded akin to when the anti-gay marriage folks used to say things like "we're not discriminating against gay marriage because gays can get married, they just have to be heterosexual marriages". It is a bit of a wordplay distinction without a difference. A letter of the law versus spirit of the law kind of argument that comes across as very disingenuous to me.

But be careful what you wish for. Last year there was a discussion of a scenario where a Palestinian baker who writes messages on cakes for customers refuses to write "Judea and Samaria are Eretz Israel". Is it a semantic loophole to say she's not discriminating against Jews because she also wouldn't write that message for a Muslim customer (who isn't going to ask for it)? There are messages that only one protected group wants. Such is life -- it doesn't magically change being unwilling to write something you think is a lie into being unwilling to deal with a person. And do you really want to be in the business of coercing Arabs to write Zionist propaganda?

I am ambivalent about this case because on the one hand I do think that this kind of discrimination is wrong, but on the other hand I also do feel that compelling someone to *create* against their own conscience is wrong too.


*and I note that on those topics I haven't thought as thoroughly I may not necessarily communicate my thoughts well until I've run it through a few times.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To some people, gay weddings are profane.

And we wander into "what is porn?". Profanity can't just be profanity because someone says it is "profanity". Be like selling a lawn chair and calling it "I can't believe its not butter." If we don't accept definitions to words, the words become useless. And we are wandering into this here. "Profanity" and "custom" and "compelled" have been hacked to the point where civil liberties are being considered an undue nuisance to a business's rights.

I am certain that you are as horrified by the outspoken power grab of the right wing in this country. I am appalled by what is happening in Florida, Texas and other places. I do not understand what is keeping someine from challenging DeSantis’s education, or rather, ‘education’ policies limiting what teachers are allowed to say and teach in classrooms. I can very easily see that horror spreading, and freedom of speech being limited throughout the country. This particular case is about compelling an individual to create something that violates their conscience.

This case was nothing of the sort. It was a technical legal hack to wedge legalized discrimination against other people. There were no sleepless nights of a business owner trying decide whether to close up shop or violate their religious convictions in order to stay open.

If the court had ruled against this plaintiff, then it could well rule in favor of forcing teachers or any person to display the 10 Commandments or quotes from Mein Kampf or The Art of the Deal or swearing allegiance to Donald Trump or whatever other atrocity is next.

You do realize that SCOTUS can rule that regardless, right? If we allow "religious" based exemptions to any person on the street's ability to obtain services, that is a retraction of civil liberties for America. America didn't gain in this case, it lost. Women are already being compelled to give birth, what's a statue compared to that?