Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[laughing dog]

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.

The core issue is the extent to which those freedoms pertain to commerce. Any bigot has the freedom to express their views, but in my opinion their views should not allow them to discriminate between customers in a civil, sectarian and just society.

 

[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.

The core issue is the extent to which those freedoms pertain to commerce. Any bigot has the freedom to express their views, but in my opinion their views should not allow them to discriminate between customers in a civil, sectarian and just society.

I don't disagree. But that does not seem to be what the Constitution says. It does not mention circumstances or any circumstance or situation as being expressly exempt or especially compelled.

 

[Toni]

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?

I don't really disagree--except with what the Constitution says and what it means.

 

[Toni]

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.

Not really. The ONLY point that this web designer has is that her religion forbids gay marriage and it is a violation of her religion to support gay marriage by specifically creating content for a gay couple's wedding.

If it were simply a plug in type of template, then she'd have zero grounds. But actually creating content supporting something she says her religion forbids? That's where the line is crossed.

 

[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?

I don't really disagree--except with what the Constitution says and what it means.

I will note that this isn't just the Constitution talking. It is 80 or so years of Constitutional law since Brown v Board of Education, which was all in context to how poorly America historically mismanaged civil liberties.

When I ponder the idea of civil liberties being considered a nuisance to businesses, the first thing that comes to mind is Kurt Vonnegut / Kilgore Trout, it is so absurdly ridiculous.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

The core issue is the extent to which those freedoms pertain to commerce. Any bigot has the freedom to express their views, but in my opinion their views should not allow them to discriminate between customers in a civil, sectarian and just society.

I don't disagree. But that does not seem to be what the Constitution says. It does not mention circumstances or any circumstance or situation as being expressly exempt or especially compelled.

The Constitution is silent on many issues. It is more like a guide and a manual. That It is why there is a SCOTUS: to insure the manual is followed and to interpolate it when necessary.

 

[jonatha]

That store needs to sell any product they produce to anyone.

It seems to me the fundamental difference between situations in which arbitrary discrimination has been permitted and those in which it hasn't is that there is to some degree or another a larger provision of services (rather than goods) in the former than in the latter.

Someone making decorated cakes or wedding websites is in less of a position to provide service to everyone who might demand it (due to the amount of time involved) than someone churning out doughnuts...

 

[Gospel]

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?

Yeah, seems I might need to add the list of protected classes to my signature for this discussion. Neither the Nazis nor the KKK made the list. Yet.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That store needs to sell any product they produce to anyone.

It seems to me the fundamental difference between situations in which arbitrary discrimination has been permitted and those in which it hasn't is that there is to some degree or another a larger provision of services (rather than goods) in the former than in the latter.

Someone making decorated cakes or wedding websites is in less of a position to provide service to everyone who might demand it (due to the amount of time involved) than someone churning out doughnuts...

At the moment, the difference is the alleged "expression" of the proprietor when it comes to something "customized". It was like the argument was manufactured and tweaked in an alt-right law laboratory.

It is this odd idea that a bakery is really happy for Johnny and his fifth birthday or they give a damn about Michelle retiring after 35 years of employment or they really hope the Eagles win this super bowl. That in designing any of those cakes, they are expressing a damn thing. But toss in a same sex couple... all of a sudden the term "expression" becomes expectant and the cake baker might as well be treated as the wedding officiant!

 

[Toni]

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?

Yeah, seems I might need to add the list of protected classes to my signature for this discussion. Neither the Nazis nor the KKK made the list. Yet.

In the instance of the bigoted web site designer, and the pretend gay couple, there is a conflict between two rights: freedom of expression vs freedom from discrimination.

 

[Emily Lake]

I have to agree that beliefs of the vendor have nothing to do with commercial activity.

Frankly, it is not the business of the vendor to approve or disapprove of the legal use of their product. by anyone.

But it's not merely the use of their product. It's the use of their creative efforts to create a product especially for the couple.

So? It is commerce. Trades people of all types use their creative efforts to create a product or solution especially for a customer. Should they be permitted by law to say "Sorry, I won't use my creativity to solve your problem because you (or what you stand for) violates my beliefs"? I don't think a just civil society should legally permit that.

In my view, SCOTUS erred, but that is that for now.

Yeah, and one also doesn't need to invoke a fabricated deity to harbor prejudice against individuals who identify as gay. The argument for the freedom to discriminate, extending even to mere whims , seems to elude the understanding of those advocating for it.

Religion is a protected class - regardless of whether you believe in their religion or not

 

[Emily Lake]

Why would an atheist care about a hijab? The burka is the offensive bodywear.

I'll mark you down as supporting religions that require females cover their hair when in the presence of males as being a-okay and not something that any liberal atheist should give a shit about, I guess?

 

[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.

No.
Really she didn't.
Tom

Yes.
Really she did.

 

[Emily Lake]

It isn't opposite. You, might want to think it is, but it isn't. A gay couple trying to get a "custom" wedding cake could have to do exactly that, conceal it is for them because they don't know the political and religious stance of any random bakery that makes wedding cakes. And now that SCOTUS has provided no guidance on the subject, we aren't certain where the line is now for protected discrimination.

Is the premise of your position that there are so incredibly few custom bakeries that a gay couple would be categorically unable to acquire a wedding cake of any sort?

 

[Gospel]

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?

Yeah, seems I might need to add the list of protected classes to my signature for this discussion. Neither the Nazis nor the KKK made the list. Yet.

In the instance of the bigoted web site designer, and the pretend gay couple, there is a conflict between two rights: freedom of expression vs freedom from discrimination.

To clarify, the conversation at hand does not revolve around a virtuous individual exercising their right to free expression privately, either domestically or overseas, or within their religious community, who is then unjustly punished by the government.

By examining the historical context of freedom from discrimination, which has its roots in a deeply disturbing past where religion served as a tool for slavery and subsequently inspired Jim Crow laws, one could argue that the government has a persuasive case for preserving the freedom from discrimination.

Nonetheless, when it comes to this particular web designer, the government's case for infringing upon an individual's freedom from discrimination appears weaker. Their argument is especially unconvincing when it tries to respond to an imagined offense so that a web designer can justify his own discriminatory actions. This web designer is the Jussie Smollett of the 1st Amendment, for faking it.

It is rather enlightening to see this incident unfold, as it reveals the number of individuals willing to attempt to characterize discrimination as an embodiment of fairness.

 

[ZiprHead]

I have to agree that beliefs of the vendor have nothing to do with commercial activity.

Frankly, it is not the business of the vendor to approve or disapprove of the legal use of their product. by anyone.

But it's not merely the use of their product. It's the use of their creative efforts to create a product especially for the couple.

So? It is commerce. Trades people of all types use their creative efforts to create a product or solution especially for a customer. Should they be permitted by law to say "Sorry, I won't use my creativity to solve your problem because you (or what you stand for) violates my beliefs"? I don't think a just civil society should legally permit that.

In my view, SCOTUS erred, but that is that for now.

Yeah, and one also doesn't need to invoke a fabricated deity to harbor prejudice against individuals who identify as gay. The argument for the freedom to discriminate, extending even to mere whims , seems to elude the understanding of those advocating for it.

Religion is a protected class - regardless of whether you believe in their religion or not

The website designer is free to practice her religion. She's also free to take on another career if she cannot follow the rules and ethics of doing the job.

 

[laughing dog]

I have to agree that beliefs of the vendor have nothing to do with commercial activity.

Frankly, it is not the business of the vendor to approve or disapprove of the legal use of their product. by anyone.

But it's not merely the use of their product. It's the use of their creative efforts to create a product especially for the couple.

So? It is commerce. Trades people of all types use their creative efforts to create a product or solution especially for a customer. Should they be permitted by law to say "Sorry, I won't use my creativity to solve your problem because you (or what you stand for) violates my beliefs"? I don't think a just civil society should legally permit that.

In my view, SCOTUS erred, but that is that for now.

Yeah, and one also doesn't need to invoke a fabricated deity to harbor prejudice against individuals who identify as gay. The argument for the freedom to discriminate, extending even to mere whims , seems to elude the understanding of those advocating for it.

Religion is a protected class - regardless of whether you believe in their religion or not

Protection is not absolute which is shy there is debate. For the time being, these a asshole bigots can act on their deplorable feelings. One can only hope the six dupes ion SCOTUS don’t act to expand their discriminatory impulses even further.

 

[Toni]

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

Yes.
Really she did.

In which case: you agreed with me? Is that what you are saying? Because I differentiated between providing a template (for all who wish to purchase, regardless of race, religion, sexual identity or preferences, etc. etc. etc. as being DIFFERENT than providing content that conflicts with your personal beliefs (customizing a website for someone)

 

[Gospel]

Religion is a protected class - regardless of whether you believe in their religion or not

And what exactly did I write that gave you the idea I believed or claimed otherwise?

 

[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.

No.
Really she didn't.
Tom

Yes.
Really she did.

In which case: you agreed with me? Is that what you are saying? Because I differentiated between providing a template (for all who wish to purchase, regardless of race, religion, sexual identity or preferences, etc. etc. etc. as being DIFFERENT than providing content that conflicts with your personal beliefs (customizing a website for someone)

I said This:

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.

In response, you said this:

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.

What's the difference?