Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[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.

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.

Prior to slavery practiced in the US, people left Europe because they were persecuted for their religion.

SCOTUS has drawn a very bright line protecting religion in many, many different ways, including affirming Hobby Lobby's right to refuse to allow their insurance coverage to include routine gynecological care to female employees. We're all good here boycotting Hobby Lobby, right? We all think that's as far as we can take that particular issue, right?

Some more recent SCOTUS rulings affirming religious freedom:

Supreme Court broadens religious protections for workers - Roll Call

The ruling says employers must accommodate a worker's religious needs unless it would lead to “substantial increased costs” for the business.

rollcall.com

No one here is suggesting the postal worker just find a different job.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/religion/ Bunch of recent cases

This recent case of the fake issue with the Colorado webdesigner is consistent with other rulings.

 

[Toni]

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?

You don't seem to care about the webdesigner's religious beliefs.

 

[Emily Lake]

Let's make that argument for blacks now (or Jews?). Or is it just okay just to limit options for gays or maybe just gays getting married?

What are your limits for allowed discrimination?

Help me out here. Can you provide me with a scenario in which a person's first amendment right to practice their religious beliefs is in conflict with statutes around non-discrimination on the basis of skin color or ethnicity?

This is what seems to be consistently glossed over in this discussion. This isn't just a blanket "to discriminate or not" situation. We're taking about a conflict of rights here. On the one hand is the right of people to not be discriminated against on the basis of their innate characteristics. On the other hand is the right of people to practice their religion and to express their beliefs without interference.

In this (fictional) case, the conflict is explicit, and is the entire basis of the case itself. If this were a baker who made custom birthday cakes, and they refused to make a birthday cake for a gay guy, that would be an entirely different situation, and I would 100% object to the baker being allowed to do so, even for a custom cake. I would object, because birthdays have nothing at all to do with sexual orientation, and there is no religious guideline against birthdays for gay people. Similarly, if the baker made custom wedding cakes, and refused to make a birthday cake for a black couple, I would object - there is no religious guideline prohibiting the marriage of people on the basis of melanin content.

In this specific case, however, there IS a conflict - even if it's one that I think is dumb. There IS a religious guideline against same-sex marriage. So we have a direct conflict between the baker's right to practice their religion free from interference, and the right of the (fictional) gay couple to get married.

At the end of the day, the gay couple does not need a cake in order to get married. They certainly don't need a custom cake. And they definitely don't need a custom cake from this particular baker. The baker's refusal to create a custom cake that violates his religious views does NOT create a barrier to the gay guys getting married, nor does it even create a reasonable barrier to the gay guys getting a wedding cake.

On the other hand, forcing this baker to create a cake for the gay couple's wedding directly forces him to violate his religious beliefs.

The closest parallel I have is the case years ago where Yaniv* sued a bunch of middle-eastern small business women who refused to wax his balls. He argued that because he identifies as transgender, and these businesses performed pubic waxing for women, they should be forced to wax his balls because transgender is a protected characteristic in Canada. On the other hand, the women were almost exclusively muslim women, whose religion prohibits them from handling the genitals of men other than their husbands in any way. In that situation I sided with the aestheticians. Forcing them to wax Yaniv's balls would be a direct violation of their right to religious observance; having waxed balls or not is not a fundamental requirement for Yaniv to be transgender; there are many other businesses that either specialize in the waxing of male genitals or which were willing to wax his balls. In that situation, Yaniv's desire to force females to handle his junk against their will and in violation of their beliefs was something I did not support - and neither did the Canadian court ultimately.

I have the same core position with this case. Off-the-Shelf wedding cakes are ubiquitously available; other custom wedding cakes that are happy to make same-sex cakes are easily available. Forcing this baker to make a gay wedding cake does not have any affect on gay rights as a whole, but it does violate the baker's rights.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nonsense.
If there are 20 bakers in town and 1 doesn't want to make you a cake to your specifications, you don't really have a problem.

Wrong. The problem is segregation. There is a bakery that your folk can use and a bakery your folk can't use. I presume you're not ok with "heterosexuals only" water fountains right?

Please provide me with some reference to a religious view that prohibits people of different skin colors from using the same water source.

 

[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)

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?

You wrote it as though the website creator only provided 'their own flourishes' and that the 'main message is from the person requesting the work.' There's a lot more to it than that. Otherwise, it would simply be a template and some clip art. It's not that.

For that matter, translating something from one language to another is often more than just substituting words from one language to another.

 

[laughing dog]

Nonsense.
If there are 20 bakers in town and 1 doesn't want to make you a cake to your specifications, you don't really have a problem.

Wrong. The problem is segregation. There is a bakery that your folk can use and a bakery your folk can't use. I presume you're not ok with "heterosexuals only" water fountains right?

Please provide me with some reference to a religious view that prohibits people of different skin colors from using the same water source.

It is the same citation that prohibits christians from making wedding cakes or websites for gay marriages.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Fight me

 

[ZiprHead]

Help me out here. Can you provide me with a scenario in which a person's first amendment right to practice their religious beliefs is in conflict with statutes around non-discrimination on the basis of skin color or ethnicity?

I'm a white wedding website designer but I cannot make designs for anyone but white people because god seperated the races and doesn't want us to mingle.

 

[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?

Oh, I am extremely aware of how women's rights are being sacrificed at the alter of conservative beliefs AND at the alter of ensuring that transwomen are accommodated to the extent that the word woman is being erased from women's health care.

 

[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?

So, are you concerned with individuals hardships or are you concerned with freedom of speech (expression and religion)?

Of course I am appalled at schools and states being allowed or even compelled to display the Ten Commandments---I was vehemently opposed to my first grade teacher's in class prayers---and at the time, my family went to church! Big mistake because the minister had preached a sermon about not praying in public (Matthew 6, 5-6.) I was as appalled by that as I was by her racism towards a black student in my class.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let's make that argument for blacks now (or Jews?). Or is it just okay just to limit options for gays or maybe just gays getting married?

What are your limits for allowed discrimination?

Help me out here. Can you provide me with a scenario in which a person's first amendment right to practice their religious beliefs is in conflict with statutes around non-discrimination on the basis of skin color or ethnicity?

So just the gays then? Also, I'm not being flippant. I'm trying to make certain what threshold you are trying to use here. It'll matter further on in the reply.

In this (fictional) case, the conflict is explicit, and is the entire basis of the case itself. If this were a baker who made custom birthday cakes, and they refused to make a birthday cake for a gay guy, that would be an entirely different situation, and I would 100% object to the baker being allowed to do so, even for a custom cake. I would object, because birthdays have nothing at all to do with sexual orientation, and there is no religious guideline against birthdays for gay people. Similarly, if the baker made custom wedding cakes, and refused to make a birthday cake for a black couple, I would object - there is no religious guideline prohibiting the marriage of people on the basis of melanin content.

I'm glad you'd object. Of course, in the 1920s (1960s?) "religion" had a different take on blacks in America. This is one problem I have with this case. This adherence to religious standards. The same standards that criminalized inter-racial marriage. You've managed to make with one parallel above, but what about the inter-racial marriage? What is the basis for forcing a baker or website designer to make a "custom" product for a mixed race couple? We already have the historical precedent for that.

 

[TomC]

Help me out here. Can you provide me with a scenario in which a person's first amendment right to practice their religious beliefs is in conflict with statutes around non-discrimination on the basis of skin color or ethnicity?

I'm a white wedding website designer but I cannot make designs for anyone but white people because god seperated the races and doesn't want us to mingle.

Are you a wedding site designer?

Or an ideologue willing to lie on the internet in pursuit of your ideological goals?

My guess is the second.

Feel free to prove me wrong, by showing me a website you produced on the internet. Just one.


One website you produced. Just one.

 

[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?

So, are you concerned with individuals hardships or are you concerned with freedom of speech (expression and religion)?

I'm concerned about individual civil liberties. I'm concerned that terms like "expression" are being bastardized to create a hyper-technical legal glitch that aims to make it as such that a person's individual civil liberties can be deemed an undue burden for a company to withstand. You are worried about a slippery slope on speech here. Ten Commandments in school? That'll go there with or without this case. This case isn't about speech. I have no idea why you folks are falling for this. This case is about "speech" and "expression" and "what conservatives have to say to get away with not serving certain classes of people".

Of course I am appalled at schools and states being allowed or even compelled to display the Ten Commandments---I was vehemently opposed to my first grade teacher's in class prayers---and at the time, my family went to church! Big mistake because the minister had preached a sermon about not praying in public (Matthew 6, 5-6.) I was as appalled by that as I was by her racism towards a black student in my class.

You keep making this about compelled speech, but no one cares what the baker or web designer does. No one is considering their expression. A wedding cake is meant to express the couple. A website is meant to express the couple. It is not intended to be a vocal piece for the programmer or baker.

So unless they (companies) are being asked to create obscenity, I don't believe a company has the right to "deprive the personal dignity" (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)) of consumers and violate their rights.

 

[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?

So, are you concerned with individuals hardships or are you concerned with freedom of speech (expression and religion)?

I'm concerned about individual civil liberties. I'm concerned that terms like "expression" are being bastardized to create a hyper-technical legal glitch that aims to make it as such that a person's individual civil liberties can be deemed an undue burden for a company to withstand. You are worried about a slippery slope on speech here. Ten Commandments in school? That'll go there with or without this case. This case isn't about speech. I have no idea why you folks are falling for this. This case is about "speech" and "expression" and "what conservatives have to say to get away with not serving certain classes of people".

Of course I am appalled at schools and states being allowed or even compelled to display the Ten Commandments---I was vehemently opposed to my first grade teacher's in class prayers---and at the time, my family went to church! Big mistake because the minister had preached a sermon about not praying in public (Matthew 6, 5-6.) I was as appalled by that as I was by her racism towards a black student in my class.

You keep making this about compelled speech, but no one cares what the baker or web designer does. No one is considering their expression. A wedding cake is meant to express the couple. A website is meant to express the couple. It is not intended to be a vocal piece for the programmer or baker.

So unless they (companies) are being asked to create obscenity, I don't believe a company has the right to "deprive the personal dignity" (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)) of consumers and violate their rights.

Exactly: The wedding website is supposed to express the (gay)couple's joy in their impending marriage--which for some religious people is against their religious teachings, beliefs and laws. They would be, in their eyes, sinning by creating content for the gay couple's wedding site. They would be complicit in the sin of the gay couple. They cannot do it without violating their deeply held religious beliefs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Exactly: The wedding website is supposed to express the (gay)couple's joy in their impending marriage...

Yes, the website is doing the expression. Not the designers. This was supposedly about the expression of the baker or the designer. Now it is becoming about the product itself. At this point, why should they be compelled to sell a cake (any cake) at all then?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Klan rallies aren't profanity either, so what's your point?

They're disgusting to me, and I find the entire concept abhorrent... but that doesn't make it profanity.

 

[Toni]

Exactly: The wedding website is supposed to express the (gay)couple's joy in their impending marriage...

Yes, the website is doing the expression. Not the designers. This was supposedly about the expression of the baker or the designer. Now it is becoming about the product itself. At this point, why should they be compelled to sell a cake (any cake) at all then?

I'm only talking about the website. Do you realize that when a webdesigner sets up a web page for someone's wedding, the webdesigner is CREATING CONTENT for the happy couple? NOT JUST PROVIDING A TEMPLATE for the clients to create their own content. And that doing so for a gay couple is against the religious beliefs of some religions?

 

[ZiprHead]

Help me out here. Can you provide me with a scenario in which a person's first amendment right to practice their religious beliefs is in conflict with statutes around non-discrimination on the basis of skin color or ethnicity?

I'm a white wedding website designer but I cannot make designs for anyone but white people because god seperated the races and doesn't want us to mingle.

Are you a wedding site designer?

Or an ideologue willing to lie on the internet in pursuit of your ideological goals?

My guess is the second.

Feel free to prove me wrong, by showing me a website you produced on the internet. Just one.


One website you produced. Just one.

It's a metaphor. C'mon. You're not that stupid.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

And the aesthetician is free to practice her religion too. And she's free to find a different career if she doesn't want to wax some guy's balls.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

Just reinforcing that this situation represents a conflict between two different protections. It's not as straightforward as it gets portrayed sometimes.

It also doesn't make a parallel with black civil rights and segregation either.