Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Emily Lake]

The impact on the reputation of the designer is totally irrelevant.

Why do you believe that reputational impact is irrelevant?

 

[TomC]

The impact on the reputation of the designer is totally irrelevant.

Why do you believe that reputational impact is irrelevant?

Because not believing that would be a problem for his ideological world view.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

I appreciate your attention to the highlighted section. However, my main point was to draw attention to the explicit constitutional decree that prohibits the government from enacting laws that favor any particular religion.

By referring to 'whims', I intended to imply that if a person can leverage their religious beliefs to avoid expressing something contrary to their faith, it should be just as permissible for non-believers to exercise a similar right. Anything less would imply a governmental bias towards religious beliefs, which stands in contradiction to the constitutional mandate.

There are a couple of nuances here, and it gets messy in between them.

First, let's talk about the role of religion in the life of a true believer. Whether you or I or anybody else thinks it makes sense at all, I think we can all agree that an orthodox jewish person truly believes that if they eat pork, their eternal soul is damned to hell. They truly believe that eating pork is a sin, and that knowingly and intentionally committing sins will result in eternal punishment. Whether any of us agree that it is true or not isn't directly relevant. To that orthodox jew, forcing them to eat pork is a fundamental violation of their religious beliefs, and the consequence to them is extreme. We could make this more tangible, and talk about the beliefs of sharia muslims with respect to women not showing their hair. I think that's an absurd belief... but a sharia muslim holds it to be deeply and unquestionably true. If I were to walk up to a devout sharia muslim woman on the sidewalk and yank the scarf off of her head, I would be forcing her to violate her relgious beliefs. But in this case, the consequences to her go beyond mere eternal damnation - it could very feasibly result in her being beaten by her husband.

Regardless of whether you or I ascribe to someone else's beliefs, there remain cases where the consequences (real or believed) are manifest and important to the person who does believe.

Second, I agree that non-believers should also be protected from being forced to express something in violation of their values or beliefs. I don't think this should be limited to religion. You say it with rolling eyes, but this is something I hold to be extremely important. Nobody should EVER be forced to express a sentiment which violates their belief. Whether that belief is religious or secular, whether the belief is based in fact or fiction is irrelevant. To me, coerced expression is as big a violation as suppression of expression - potentially more so. Being forbidden from expressing one's views and beliefs gives no direct indication of what one believes to be true. It is a non-response. Being forced to express something in opposition of one's views and beliefs gives a false indication, it is a lie.

Suppressed expression leaves a lot unsaid, and it is a threat to democracy. Coerced expression is even worse, it gives the impression of consensus where none exists.

 

[Emily Lake]

Clearly we've just witnessed a perfect demonstration of what tardiness to a conversation combined with an impressive lack of knowledge regarding what is a protected class looks like.

I know what protected classes are. I also know that being a member of a protected class is not carte blanche for violating the rights of other people.

Being gay doesn't give the gay person the right to force a religious person to violate their doctrine and tenets.
Being transgender doesn't give Yaniv the right to force muslim women to handle his balls.

I wish to clarify that my comment was a precise depiction of a post where Nazis were substituted for a protected class in the analogy. This substitution had already been identified and highlighted as such previously in this discussion.

Why not simply acknowledge it's accuracy and move on? Nah, you want to again do that reinforcing thing.

There's a reason it comes up though. It highlights the implicit bias in this discussion. Let's temporarily remove the content, and boil this down to bare bones. The situation is one in which a supplier of a good holds a belief-based opposition to a group of people. What I see happening here - and which has been noted by Toni and Tom as well - is that the sentiment involved is entirely based on the bias toward that specific group of people. You can dress it up as "protected class", but in truth both the supplier and the customer are members of protected classes. So what we have is the elevation of one protected class above another protected class. At the end of the day, whether or not there is a protected class involved does not matter at all. What matters is that you and several others have an emotional response to one group of people, and you are letting that emotional response cloud your thinking. You are perceiving a deep injustice toward one party, while simultaneously ignoring the injustice done to the other party - because you do not like the other party. Because your beliefs conflict with those of the other party.

If we were to alter the relationship, and to present you with a customer that you do not like, a customer whose beliefs are in conflict with your own, you come to a different outcome. This is because your premise is flawed - your reasoning is based on special pleading. Your reasoning is based on the fundamental premise that gay people should not be subjected to treatment they dislike... but that it's acceptable to subject religious patrons to treatment that they dislike.

By introducing a party that every single one of us without reservation despise, it serves to highlight the special pleading involved.

By the way - this is also why I continue to get zero responses to the direct parallel of Yaniv trying to force muslim women to wax his balls. Almost all of us have some degree of sympathy with women of any sort being forced to handle a man's genitals against their will, and the religious beliefs of the women in question only amplifies that. But the actual situation is a direct parallel.

Another reason nazis come up is because it stresses both the creative nature of the work (and the resulting reputational effect of the supplier) and also the sheer non-necessity of the good itself.

Should it be legal for a hospital to deny cancer treatment to a known nazi on the basis of their irrationally hateful beliefs? I would say no, and I think that most of us would. A person's beliefs, no matter how odious we find them, should not be justification for a denial of necessary medical care. Should it be legal for an apartment landlord to deny residence to a known nazi? No, I don't think it should be legal, and I would hope that none of you think it should. Regardless of how much I might despise someone else's beliefs, that should not justify making them homeless.

Should a nightclub be allowed to refuse entry to a person in nazi regalia? Yes, I think they should be allowed to. Becaue nightclubs are not public necessities - they are niceties and are not a basic requirement. Refusing someone entry to a nightclub, for any reason at all, does not produce a materially negative outcome for their lives. Should a baker be allowed to refuse to make a custom cake for a nazi celebration? Yes they should. Not because nazis aren't protected classes, but because nobody actually needs to have a custom cake, and the baker should have the right to refuse custom work for something they have a strong belief-based opposition to.

Should Costco be allowed to refuse to sell an off-the-shelf cake to a nazi? No. It's right there, it's already made, and no specific effort is being put forth on behalf of the nazi, and no implied support can reasonably be inferred.

 

[Emily Lake]

I know what protected classes are. I also know that being a member of a protected class is not carte blanche for violating the rights of other people.

Being gay doesn't give the gay person the right to force a religious person to violate their doctrine and tenets.

Really? Because the Tanakh says to put gays to death. A Muslim, Christian, or Jewish person would be sent to prison for murdering a gay person.

Anybody of any religion would be sent to death for murdering any person of any religion in the US. There is no special pleading here, and there are accepted limits within which we prohibit a person from directly taking action on their beliefs.

Prohibition is not the same as coercion.

In the US, they'll refuse to make a wedding cake because the couple is gay. And we applaud their "right" to do this?

None of us applaud it here. But some of us do protect that right - because failure to protect that right sets a precedent that can be easily abused and have disastrous consequences for us all.

Is discrimination only okay when it is trite?

Triteness has nothing to do with it. Let me turn that around on you: Is it only okay to violate someone's constitutional rights when you think they're bad people and deserve it?

 

[Emily Lake]

I know what we used to call it, when privileged folks could use the power of the government to force other people to do things that they didn't want to do.
Tom

This cuts to the heart of the problem.

This is a case where people in a protected class (protected by statute and law, but not by constitutional right) are seeking to have the government violate other people's constitutional rights on their behalf.

If TomC's reference pertains to slavery, I'm afraid it doesn't capture the crux of our current issue. Slavery, while reprehensible, was technically lawful during its time. Our ongoing discussion, as both you and Toni have framed it, revolves around two existing laws that are seemingly in conflict with each other. Did yawl take History classes in Florida?

There's a disconnect on the core concepts involved here, Gospel.

Let's step back: Do you think that {prohibiting a person from doing what they want to do} is the same as {forcing someone to do something they don't want to do}? Let's start there, because that's at the crux of this. If you view those as being the same then we're going to be at an impasse no matter what - there is no shared view from which to work, and we need to go have an entirely different discussion first.

 

[ZiprHead]

Let's apply your logic to a different question of belief. Would you argue that the same designer should be required to design a wedding website for nazis, on the basis that there is no implicit message about the designer included in the work?

Is it really necessary to refute this bullshit.

Yes. I wish you to state that a designer consenting to build a custom website for a couple who are out as Nazis has exactly zero impact on the reputation of the designer.

How many times does it have to be said? Nazis are NOT a protected class.

 

[Emily Lake]

I know what protected classes are. I also know that being a member of a protected class is not carte blanche for violating the rights of other people.

Yet you're demonstrating agitation for one protected class over the other.

Not really. I'm acknowledging that it's not a balanced equation.

If every single baker in the US took this position, and if custom cakes were a necessity for a reasonable quality of life, you'd get a very different answer from me. As it stands, however, we have a conflict between a constitutional right and a legal statute. Furthermore, the legal statute is being applied to a custom cake for a special occasion. Nobody needs a custom cake for any occasion, it's a nicety. Nobody needs cake at all, it's a discretionary item from top to bottom. The fictional gay couple is not being materially harmed by not being able to get a non-necessary discretionary item from this specific baker. And the reality is that there are a multitude of other options available to this fictional gay couple.

Upholding the baker's constitutional right does no material harm to the gay couple.
Upholding the gay couple's legally supported desire to get a special cake from this one specific baker does harm to this baker.
It's an entirely utilitarian approach to balancing the conflicting rights of two people.

In addition, it's the fundamental difference between prohibition and coercion. I am more strongly opposed to coercion than I am to prohibition. There needs to be an extremely compelling justification for coercion, and I simply don't see that this situation is compelling enough.

 

[Emily Lake]

It gets messy and complicated, but I don't find fault with SCOTUS for overturning Roe v. Wade. The means by which it got put in place have always been sketchy, and the reasoning by which it was overturned is something I find justifiable and rational. I 100% am opposed to the rush from states to make abortion illegal - it hurts to my core. But I still don't think SCOTUS was wrong to overturn it, because the reasoning used to pass it was bad. I'd rather start the process over and seek a fully supported and justifiable law than have it hinge on a sketchy interpretation that can be applied to make other laws that I do not support.

Curious, where was Roe wrong, but Eisenstadt and Griswold were right? Or do you support those going away too and just hoping shit works out?

I actually take a bit of a different view, largely because I am completely opposed to the ends justifying the means.

Yeah, Brown v Board of Education and subsequent decisions took a different approach. Where as Plessy v Ferguson SCOTUS shoved their head in the sand, Brown v Board of Education recognized things weren't working. I suppose blacks could have gone the women's suffrage movement plan and taken another 100 years to make things right. But I'm glad the courts had ruled as they did.

You say this as if case names in general have some meaning to me. They're just words on a page, with no explanation. I'm perfectly willing to entertain whatever argument you think you're making... but I'm not going to go do hours of legal research so I can try to piece together whatever the fuck you're talking about.

Take the few minutes necessary to give me some info abut those cases, and we can talk. Otherwise, you're really coming across as a bombast here, tossing out jargon and names and then relying on the other person's lack of knowledge to make you feel like you've scored a point.

 

[Emily Lake]

Let's apply your logic to a different question of belief. Would you argue that the same designer should be required to design a wedding website for nazis, on the basis that there is no implicit message about the designer included in the work?

Is it really necessary to refute this bullshit.

Yes. I wish you to state that a designer consenting to build a custom website for a couple who are out as Nazis has exactly zero impact on the reputation of the designer.

How many times does it have to be said? Nazis are NOT a protected class.

That is not an answer to the question I asked. It's a deflection.

Try again: Do you believe that there is no reputational impact on a designer who consents to built a custom website for nazis?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It gets messy and complicated, but I don't find fault with SCOTUS for overturning Roe v. Wade. The means by which it got put in place have always been sketchy, and the reasoning by which it was overturned is something I find justifiable and rational. I 100% am opposed to the rush from states to make abortion illegal - it hurts to my core. But I still don't think SCOTUS was wrong to overturn it, because the reasoning used to pass it was bad. I'd rather start the process over and seek a fully supported and justifiable law than have it hinge on a sketchy interpretation that can be applied to make other laws that I do not support.

Curious, where was Roe wrong, but Eisenstadt and Griswold were right? Or do you support those going away too and just hoping shit works out?

I actually take a bit of a different view, largely because I am completely opposed to the ends justifying the means.

Yeah, Brown v Board of Education and subsequent decisions took a different approach. Where as Plessy v Ferguson SCOTUS shoved their head in the sand, Brown v Board of Education recognized things weren't working. I suppose blacks could have gone the women's suffrage movement plan and taken another 100 years to make things right. But I'm glad the courts had ruled as they did.

You say this as if case names in general have some meaning to me. They're just words on a page, with no explanation. I'm perfectly willing to entertain whatever argument you think you're making... but I'm not going to go do hours of legal research so I can try to piece together whatever the fuck you're talking about.

So you did hours of legal research on Roe v Wade, enough you condone the awful Dobbs decision, but not Griswold or Eisenstadt, cases that would been raised in Roe v Wade as they pertained to a woman's right (married couple's right) to intimate privacy and have access to birth control?

Or were you just bluffing about having a clue about Roe and Dobbs?

 

[laughing dog]

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

...and how does a wedding website send such a message about the website's designer?

Let's apply your logic to a different question of belief. Would you argue that the same designer should be required to design a wedding website for nazis, on the basis that there is no implicit message about the designer included in the work?

Yeah, I know, nazi isn't a protected class. But at the end of the day, it does represent a set of truly held beliefs. They're beliefs I find just as odious as I find much of islam and a solid dose of judaism and christianity. Naziism is no less absurd and full of hatred and bigotry than any other religion.

So the ultimate question is whether or not consenting to engage in creative work implies at least some degree of acceptance and support of the belief of the customer.

It has nothing to do with the beliefs of the customers. It is about refusing to provide a product to some customers while providing the same products to others.

If that's the case, then it implies that the supplier has no right to refuse to provide custom work to nazis, and you support forcing them to do so.

That is my view.

 

[laughing dog]

Does freedom of speech to you mean one can
1) lie on the stand about the gov't,
2) promote terrorism,
3) incite riots.
4) incite insurrection, or
5) yell fire in a theater or the DMV, or
6) refuse to write a report for one's company which has the legal right to fire you for not doing your job?

My point is that there is no absolute freedom of speech. Almost every sane person accepts there are legitimate limits to the extent of free speech.

Not a single one of the specific limitations that you have listed is in any way applicable to this situation.

You are mistaken.

Is it your contention that "use the power of the government to force a person to express something that they devoutly believe to be untrue or which violates their religious beliefs" is a legitimate limit to free speech?

In the case of commerce - which I do not consider a form of speech - absolutely yes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Suppose the Clearwater city council enacts an ordinance requiring beachgoers to say "Jesus is Lord" to get a parking permit. A Jew claims this infringes her religious excercise. Do you think "Please show me where in Judaism it says she must go to the beach. No one is forcing her to recite polytheistic blasphemy. She can make all the sandcastles she wants in her own sandbox. But if she wants to use the city's parking lot then she has to follow the government’s speech policies." refutes her?

This is not a good analogy as this is the government requiring religious speech.

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’?”

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?

www.bhphotovideo.com

Jewish business, their website obeys the Shabbath. (You can browse and put stuff in your cart, you can't actually check out.)

 

[Emily Lake]

It gets messy and complicated, but I don't find fault with SCOTUS for overturning Roe v. Wade. The means by which it got put in place have always been sketchy, and the reasoning by which it was overturned is something I find justifiable and rational. I 100% am opposed to the rush from states to make abortion illegal - it hurts to my core. But I still don't think SCOTUS was wrong to overturn it, because the reasoning used to pass it was bad. I'd rather start the process over and seek a fully supported and justifiable law than have it hinge on a sketchy interpretation that can be applied to make other laws that I do not support.

Curious, where was Roe wrong, but Eisenstadt and Griswold were right? Or do you support those going away too and just hoping shit works out?

I actually take a bit of a different view, largely because I am completely opposed to the ends justifying the means.

Yeah, Brown v Board of Education and subsequent decisions took a different approach. Where as Plessy v Ferguson SCOTUS shoved their head in the sand, Brown v Board of Education recognized things weren't working. I suppose blacks could have gone the women's suffrage movement plan and taken another 100 years to make things right. But I'm glad the courts had ruled as they did.

You say this as if case names in general have some meaning to me. They're just words on a page, with no explanation. I'm perfectly willing to entertain whatever argument you think you're making... but I'm not going to go do hours of legal research so I can try to piece together whatever the fuck you're talking about.

So you did hours of legal research on Roe v Wade, enough you condone the awful Dobbs decision, but not Griswold or Eisenstadt, cases that would been raised in Roe v Wade as they pertained to a woman's right (married couple's right) to intimate privacy and have access to birth control?

Or were you just bluffing about having a clue about Roe and Dobbs?

I've heard about Roe v Wade my entire life, and so has pretty much everyone. I read a few summaries of the reasoning for it being overturned, and they made sense to me, even though I don't like the outcome. I haven't done hours of research into any of it.

Don't be needlessly difficult. There are plenty of discussions on here that you - along with everyone else - have read some things about and have a reasonably passing knowledge of, but don't know details of every facet. It never slows you - or anyone else - down a bit.

If you would like to expand on those other cases, by all means do so. Just don't toss out names and think they're obviously going to mean something.

 

[Emily Lake]

It has nothing to do with the beliefs of the customers. It is about refusing to provide a product to some customers while providing the same products to others.

If that's the case, then it implies that the supplier has no right to refuse to provide custom work to nazis, and you support forcing them to do so.

That is my view.

Fair enough. I disagree with your opinion, but it's consistent and I can respect that.

 

[Emily Lake]

Does freedom of speech to you mean one can
1) lie on the stand about the gov't,
2) promote terrorism,
3) incite riots.
4) incite insurrection, or
5) yell fire in a theater or the DMV, or
6) refuse to write a report for one's company which has the legal right to fire you for not doing your job?

My point is that there is no absolute freedom of speech. Almost every sane person accepts there are legitimate limits to the extent of free speech.

Not a single one of the specific limitations that you have listed is in any way applicable to this situation.

You are mistaken.

Please elaborate? I'm not seeing how any of those 6 items relates to this.

Is it your contention that "use the power of the government to force a person to express something that they devoutly believe to be untrue or which violates their religious beliefs" is a legitimate limit to free speech?

In the case of commerce - which I do not consider a form of speech - absolutely yes.

Okay, consistent... but baffling. How far do you extend this? It's unlikely, sure... but what if the government were to pass a law requiring all businesses to have a sticker on their door (or an icon on their website) proclaiming that abortion is murder, and that failure to display such would result in the business being shut down? What if for some insane reason, the government made it a requirement to get a business license that applicants must sign an affidavit that communism is treason and swearing to report any suspicion of communism to the authorities?

 

[laughing dog]

Does freedom of speech to you mean one can
1) lie on the stand about the gov't,
2) promote terrorism,
3) incite riots.
4) incite insurrection, or
5) yell fire in a theater or the DMV, or
6) refuse to write a report for one's company which has the legal right to fire you for not doing your job?

My point is that there is no absolute freedom of speech. Almost every sane person accepts there are legitimate limits to the extent of free speech.

Not a single one of the specific limitations that you have listed is in any way applicable to this situation.

You are mistaken.

Please elaborate? I'm not seeing how any of those 6 items relates to this.

Each one involves an example of speech.

Is it your contention that "use the power of the government to force a person to express something that they devoutly believe to be untrue or which violates their religious beliefs" is a legitimate limit to free speech?

In the case of commerce - which I do not consider a form of speech - absolutely yes.

Okay, consistent... but baffling. How far do you extend this? It's unlikely, sure... but what if the government were to pass a law requiring all businesses to have a sticker on their door (or an icon on their website) proclaiming that abortion is murder, and that failure to display such would result in the business being shut down? What if for some insane reason, the government made it a requirement to get a business license that applicants must sign an affidavit that communism is treason and swearing to report any suspicion of communism to the authorities?

None of those hypotheticals involve actual commercial activity in my view, so they would represent a violation of free speech rights.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You seem to be missing the point Toni and I are making.

We see compelling someone to come up with ideas they find repugnant to be wrong.

The percentage of business interactions that are of this sort are tiny. The vast majority are stock or an assembly of stock options. Neither of us feels a company should be able to reject such a customer based on irrelevant beliefs.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

You seem to be missing the point Toni and I are making.

We see compelling someone to come up with ideas they find repugnant to be wrong.

The percentage of business interactions that are of this sort are tiny. The vast majority are stock or an assembly of stock options. Neither of us feels a company should be able to reject such a customer based on irrelevant beliefs.

Actually you do - religious beliefs are irrelevant to website design.