Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Jimmy Higgins]

Having expressed my concerns, I'd now like to shift the conversation toward finding potential solutions. Specifically, I'm interested in discussing what compromises could look like. I believe it's important to explore practical solutions that both parties involved in these issues can use to minimize harm to all involved. I am genuinely curious and eager to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Any takers? I previously suggested a potential solution for the baker issue. The couple could opt to accept a custom cake without a personalized message. As a compromise, the baker would ensure they do not deny custom services to same-sex couples. This way, both parties make adjustments, fostering a more inclusive environment.

While I don't like this court one bit I think they got this one right: Creative effort can't be compelled. Note that this is different from merely custom--there are plenty of cases of quasi-custom products that are in no way creative.

Loren, I think you got this one wrong, because creative works are such a broad vague category of works that this decision is very easy to get stretched in all different directions to justify discrimination. The fact that they made it about the broad category of "free speech" rather than religion will open the floodgates to new avenues for discrimination against all sorts of minorities, not just citizens who are LGBTQ. Your take on creativity isn't the kind of criterion that courts are going to find easy to interpret, so there will likely be a tendency to interpret it very broadly in ways that the SCOTUS majority did not foresee. You and Toni don't even agree in every case on what it means. And the problem may look a lot easier to resolve when it is just a small segment of the population like the LGBTQ demographic being discriminated against. It may not seem so cut and dried when it comes to larger groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, and religion.

I agree except the issue with "SCOTUS majority did not foresee". They foresaw it quite clear. Their decisions have been hapless, useless to lower courts. They are providing almost no standard with some of the cases, leaving the lower courts to muddle their way through, ensuring other cases make it back to them, so they can continue to rein in rights via micro (and not so micro) cuts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Having expressed my concerns, I'd now like to shift the conversation toward finding potential solutions. Specifically, I'm interested in discussing what compromises could look like. I believe it's important to explore practical solutions that both parties involved in these issues can use to minimize harm to all involved. I am genuinely curious and eager to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Any takers? I previously suggested a potential solution for the baker issue. The couple could opt to accept a custom cake without a personalized message. As a compromise, the baker would ensure they do not deny custom services to same-sex couples. This way, both parties make adjustments, fostering a more inclusive environment.

While I don't like this court one bit I think they got this one right: Creative effort can't be compelled. Note that this is different from merely custom--there are plenty of cases of quasi-custom products that are in no way creative.

Loren, I think you got this one wrong, because creative works are such a broad vague category of works that this decision is very easy to get stretched in all different directions to justify discrimination. The fact that they made it about the broad category of "free speech" rather than religion will open the floodgates to new avenues for discrimination against all sorts of minorities, not just citizens who are LGBTQ. Your take on creativity isn't the kind of criterion that courts are going to find easy to interpret, so there will likely be a tendency to interpret it very broadly in ways that the SCOTUS majority did not foresee. You and Toni don't even agree in every case on what it means. And the problem may look a lot easier to resolve when it is just a small segment of the population like the LGBTQ demographic being discriminated against. It may not seem so cut and dried when it comes to larger groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, and religion.

Please please do not mistake my seeing the supremacy of the First Amendment as being more ‘convenient’ or easier because in this particular case, it is being applied against a relatively small segment of society or because I see the issue of having a wedding website created specifically for any couple to be trivial. I oppose all bigotry and strongly support equal rights for all people.

Rather, I can so easily see how, if speech/creative expression/religious expression can be compelled in one instance, it can be compelled in any case.

And if this were about freedom, civil rights, etc... I'd quite agree with your take on this. But this isn't about a freedom, it is about creating an excuse. This finding wasn't about ensuring or expanding rights, but the creation of a legal glitch to ensure the legal protection of those who aim to restrict the rights of others.

This was never about religious convictions or compelled speech. It was about allowing certain whites to be supreme again and asserting their conservative moral authority on others.

 

[ZiprHead]

This was never about religious convictions or compelled speech. It was about allowing certain whites to be supreme again and asserting their conservative moral authority on others.

The fake nature of this case makes the above almost certain to be true. I guess they forgot that lying is a sin part.

 

[Gospel]

Rather, I can so easily see how, if speech/creative expression/religious expression can be compelled in one instance, it can be compelled in any case.

The term 'creative expression' encompasses a wide array of elements, including, but certainly not limited to, the following examples.

1. Visual Arts: This can include painting, sculpture, photography, graphic design, filmmaking, and other visual media where individuals create to represent their unique perspective or interpretation of the world.
2. Literature: Writing poetry, stories, novels, or plays allows for creative exploration of language, narrative, and character. This also includes creative non-fiction, where factual narratives are conveyed using literary techniques.
3. Performing Arts: In theater, dance, music, or performance art, individuals can express their creativity in a performative manner.
4. Music: Composing melodies, harmonies, rhythms, or lyrics, or even creating new ways to produce sound, is a form of creative expression.
5. Crafts and Design: From fashion design to woodworking, pottery to jewelry making, crafts allow for the expression of creativity in functional or decorative items.
6. Digital Arts: This newer field includes things like digital illustration, animation, video game design, and virtual reality experiences.
7. Culinary Arts: The creation of unique recipes or culinary techniques can also be seen as a form of creative expression.

So, are we to understand that in the six-decade span since anti-discrimination laws were established, not a single individual in any of the aforementioned fields was forced to artistically express a belief contrary to their own, until this fictional incident arose? Is it not peculiar that after 60 years, we find ourselves discussing a solitary, hypothetical case? It seems curious, doesn't it? You're voicing apprehensions over an event that hasn't even occurred, yet are prepared to dismantle anti-discrimination laws – laws designed to safeguard everyone – over a damn fabricated scenario?

Six decades of legislation supposedly coercing people into doing things against their will, and we have precisely one, imaginary instance to show for it. Truly remarkable.

 

[Toni]

Rather, I can so easily see how, if speech/creative expression/religious expression can be compelled in one instance, it can be compelled in any case.

The term 'creative expression' encompasses a wide array of elements, including, but certainly not limited to, the following examples.

1. Visual Arts: This can include painting, sculpture, photography, graphic design, filmmaking, and other visual media where individuals create to represent their unique perspective or interpretation of the world.
2. Literature: Writing poetry, stories, novels, or plays allows for creative exploration of language, narrative, and character. This also includes creative non-fiction, where factual narratives are conveyed using literary techniques.
3. Performing Arts: In theater, dance, music, or performance art, individuals can express their creativity in a performative manner.
4. Music: Composing melodies, harmonies, rhythms, or lyrics, or even creating new ways to produce sound, is a form of creative expression.
5. Crafts and Design: From fashion design to woodworking, pottery to jewelry making, crafts allow for the expression of creativity in functional or decorative items.
6. Digital Arts: This newer field includes things like digital illustration, animation, video game design, and virtual reality experiences.
7. Culinary Arts: The creation of unique recipes or culinary techniques can also be seen as a form of creative expression.

So, are we to understand that in the six-decade span since anti-discrimination laws were established, not a single individual in any of the aforementioned fields was forced to artistically express a belief contrary to their own, until this fictional incident arose? Is it not peculiar that after 60 years, we find ourselves discussing a solitary, hypothetical case? It seems curious, doesn't it? You're voicing apprehensions over an event that hasn't even occurred, yet are prepared to dismantle anti-discrimination laws – laws designed to safeguard everyone – over a damn fabricated scenario?

Six decades of legislation supposedly coercing people into doing things against their will, and we have precisely one, imaginary instance to show for it. Truly remarkable.

No, I'm not proposing dismantling antidiscrimination laws. I'm pointing out a logical next step if we ignore the First Amendment. You think this won't happen? Of course it will. Of course it will. You do not strike me as naive. Please do not be naive here.

So what is your point? Are we to believe that you are asserting that there are no more civil rights violations today? And that there have not been in the past 60 years? Because of those laws? Of course not. Nor is everyone prosecuted or fined or even told not to do it again when they do something that is in violation of civil rights statutes. You know this as well as I do. It happens every single day in schools across the US, to name an easy example. You know that girls' wardrobes and the hair and sometimes the clothing of persons of color and the clothes and hair of LGBTQIA persons are both much more highly scrutinized and much more likely to be punished. You know this as well as I do. We know that policing is different for persons of color than for white folks, and for persons of financial means compared with poor folks. We know that people still get punished by the government for being who they are in ways that are not against any law and that some laws are designed to punish certain people--usually people who are not white and/or not male and/or not hetereo-straight cis.

We know--we ALL know that plenty of performers, to name one group of artists, have been forced into sexual situations as a condition of their employment and have indeed been forced to provide sexual favors, have been raped by those in power over their careers---and others, as well. We know that people are sometimes in a position where they must produce something they profoundly disagree with--or be fired. Some so choose to quit or choose to be fired. Some do not.

 

[ZiprHead]

Comparing making a website for gay people to rape seems a little bit of a stretch to me.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I think they’re talking past each other there. Toni’s point seems quite different than Gospel’s point.

 

[Gospel]

I think they’re talking past each other there. Toni’s point seems quite different than Gospel’s point.

It's called topic toboggan - swiftly sledding away from the issue at hand.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Having expressed my concerns, I'd now like to shift the conversation toward finding potential solutions. Specifically, I'm interested in discussing what compromises could look like. I believe it's important to explore practical solutions that both parties involved in these issues can use to minimize harm to all involved. I am genuinely curious and eager to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Any takers? I previously suggested a potential solution for the baker issue. The couple could opt to accept a custom cake without a personalized message. As a compromise, the baker would ensure they do not deny custom services to same-sex couples. This way, both parties make adjustments, fostering a more inclusive environment.

While I don't like this court one bit I think they got this one right: Creative effort can't be compelled. Note that this is different from merely custom--there are plenty of cases of quasi-custom products that are in no way creative.

Loren, I think you got this one wrong, because creative works are such a broad vague category of works that this decision is very easy to get stretched in all different directions to justify discrimination. The fact that they made it about the broad category of "free speech" rather than religion will open the floodgates to new avenues for discrimination against all sorts of minorities, not just citizens who are LGBTQ. Your take on creativity isn't the kind of criterion that courts are going to find easy to interpret, so there will likely be a tendency to interpret it very broadly in ways that the SCOTUS majority did not foresee. You and Toni don't even agree in every case on what it means. And the problem may look a lot easier to resolve when it is just a small segment of the population like the LGBTQ demographic being discriminated against. It may not seem so cut and dried when it comes to larger groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, and religion.

While I do not trust the current court not to interpret it broadly I do not favor that--I believe it should be fairly narrow. I do not want to be compelled to make a website (not that I actually do websites--I know I stink at anything that needs to look nice) for a neo-nazi organization, I think it's just as wrong to compel a fundie to make a website for a gay wedding. I see them as two sides of the same coin--whether one is a protected category or not isn't relevant to me. On the other hand, if it's to recover deleted files (again, a hypothetical--it's not something I've done for others in decades) there's no creativity involved, I'd hold my nose and do the job unless their personal behavior was unacceptable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Rather, I can so easily see how, if speech/creative expression/religious expression can be compelled in one instance, it can be compelled in any case.

The term 'creative expression' encompasses a wide array of elements, including, but certainly not limited to, the following examples.

1. Visual Arts: This can include painting, sculpture, photography, graphic design, filmmaking, and other visual media where individuals create to represent their unique perspective or interpretation of the world.
2. Literature: Writing poetry, stories, novels, or plays allows for creative exploration of language, narrative, and character. This also includes creative non-fiction, where factual narratives are conveyed using literary techniques.
3. Performing Arts: In theater, dance, music, or performance art, individuals can express their creativity in a performative manner.
4. Music: Composing melodies, harmonies, rhythms, or lyrics, or even creating new ways to produce sound, is a form of creative expression.
5. Crafts and Design: From fashion design to woodworking, pottery to jewelry making, crafts allow for the expression of creativity in functional or decorative items.
6. Digital Arts: This newer field includes things like digital illustration, animation, video game design, and virtual reality experiences.
7. Culinary Arts: The creation of unique recipes or culinary techniques can also be seen as a form of creative expression.

So, are we to understand that in the six-decade span since anti-discrimination laws were established, not a single individual in any of the aforementioned fields was forced to artistically express a belief contrary to their own, until this fictional incident arose? Is it not peculiar that after 60 years, we find ourselves discussing a solitary, hypothetical case? It seems curious, doesn't it? You're voicing apprehensions over an event that hasn't even occurred, yet are prepared to dismantle anti-discrimination laws – laws designed to safeguard everyone – over a damn fabricated scenario?

Six decades of legislation supposedly coercing people into doing things against their will, and we have precisely one, imaginary instance to show for it. Truly remarkable.

However, rarely are these things designed for a single client. You design an item and sell it to all comers.

 

[Gospel]

Wow. Just. Wow.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Rather, I can so easily see how, if speech/creative expression/religious expression can be compelled in one instance, it can be compelled in any case.

The term 'creative expression' encompasses a wide array of elements, including, but certainly not limited to, the following examples.

1. Visual Arts: This can include painting, sculpture, photography, graphic design, filmmaking, and other visual media where individuals create to represent their unique perspective or interpretation of the world.
2. Literature: Writing poetry, stories, novels, or plays allows for creative exploration of language, narrative, and character. This also includes creative non-fiction, where factual narratives are conveyed using literary techniques.
3. Performing Arts: In theater, dance, music, or performance art, individuals can express their creativity in a performative manner.
4. Music: Composing melodies, harmonies, rhythms, or lyrics, or even creating new ways to produce sound, is a form of creative expression.
5. Crafts and Design: From fashion design to woodworking, pottery to jewelry making, crafts allow for the expression of creativity in functional or decorative items.
6. Digital Arts: This newer field includes things like digital illustration, animation, video game design, and virtual reality experiences.
7. Culinary Arts: The creation of unique recipes or culinary techniques can also be seen as a form of creative expression.

So, are we to understand that in the six-decade span since anti-discrimination laws were established, not a single individual in any of the aforementioned fields was forced to artistically express a belief contrary to their own, until this fictional incident arose? Is it not peculiar that after 60 years, we find ourselves discussing a solitary, hypothetical case? It seems curious, doesn't it? You're voicing apprehensions over an event that hasn't even occurred, yet are prepared to dismantle anti-discrimination laws – laws designed to safeguard everyone – over a damn fabricated scenario?

Six decades of legislation supposedly coercing people into doing things against their will, and we have precisely one, imaginary instance to show for it. Truly remarkable.

However, rarely are these things designed for a single client. You design an item and sell it to all comers.

'Cept when we talk custom wedding cake we aren't talking Buddy or Duff level CUSTOM cake that is 10 ft long and looks like a real unicorn. We are talking about barely customized at all.

 

[Gospel]

Upon further investigation, I stand corrected. I discovered a case with similarities, but even in that instance, the involvement of creative expression wasn't unequivocally established.

Arlene's Flowers lawsuit

Rather, I can so easily see how, if speech/creative expression/religious expression can be compelled in one instance, it can be compelled in any case.

The term 'creative expression' encompasses a wide array of elements, including, but certainly not limited to, the following examples.

1. Visual Arts: This can include painting, sculpture, photography, graphic design, filmmaking, and other visual media where individuals create to represent their unique perspective or interpretation of the world.
2. Literature: Writing poetry, stories, novels, or plays allows for creative exploration of language, narrative, and character. This also includes creative non-fiction, where factual narratives are conveyed using literary techniques.
3. Performing Arts: In theater, dance, music, or performance art, individuals can express their creativity in a performative manner.
4. Music: Composing melodies, harmonies, rhythms, or lyrics, or even creating new ways to produce sound, is a form of creative expression.
5. Crafts and Design: From fashion design to woodworking, pottery to jewelry making, crafts allow for the expression of creativity in functional or decorative items.
6. Digital Arts: This newer field includes things like digital illustration, animation, video game design, and virtual reality experiences.
7. Culinary Arts: The creation of unique recipes or culinary techniques can also be seen as a form of creative expression.

So, are we to understand that in the six-decade span since anti-discrimination laws were established, not a single individual in any of the aforementioned fields was forced to artistically express a belief contrary to their own, until this fictional incident arose? Is it not peculiar that after 60 years, we find ourselves discussing a solitary, hypothetical case? It seems curious, doesn't it? You're voicing apprehensions over an event that hasn't even occurred, yet are prepared to dismantle anti-discrimination laws – laws designed to safeguard everyone – over a damn fabricated scenario?

Six decades of legislation supposedly coercing people into doing things against their will, and we have precisely one, imaginary instance to show for it. Truly remarkable.

No, I'm not proposing dismantling antidiscrimination laws. I'm pointing out a logical next step if we ignore the First Amendment. You think this won't happen? Of course it will. Of course it will. You do not strike me as naive. Please do not be naive here.

So what is your point? Are we to believe that you are asserting that there are no more civil rights violations today? And that there have not been in the past 60 years? Because of those laws? Of course not. Nor is everyone prosecuted or fined or even told not to do it again when they do something that is in violation of civil rights statutes. You know this as well as I do. It happens every single day in schools across the US, to name an easy example. You know that girls' wardrobes and the hair and sometimes the clothing of persons of color and the clothes and hair of LGBTQIA persons are both much more highly scrutinized and much more likely to be punished. You know this as well as I do. We know that policing is different for persons of color than for white folks, and for persons of financial means compared with poor folks. We know that people still get punished by the government for being who they are in ways that are not against any law and that some laws are designed to punish certain people--usually people who are not white and/or not male and/or not hetereo-straight cis.

We know--we ALL know that plenty of performers, to name one group of artists, have been forced into sexual situations as a condition of their employment and have indeed been forced to provide sexual favors, have been raped by those in power over their careers---and others, as well. We know that people are sometimes in a position where they must produce something they profoundly disagree with--or be fired. Some so choose to quit or choose to be fired. Some do not.

To clarify my position (again), my focus is on preserving a careful equilibrium between these laws and the First Amendment rights. Rather than predicting calamity, I'm expressing genuine apprehensions about the potential consequences of neglecting our constitutionally enshrined freedoms and long-standing laws, which were not arbitrarily concocted but established through deliberate processes.

The suggestion that I'm stating civil rights violations have been entirely eradicated in the past six decades is a misinterpretation. Despite the crucial presence of anti-discrimination laws, it's undeniable that prejudice and discrimination persist. So yes, I'm fully aware that violations of civil rights occur regularly in numerous contexts, including our educational institutions.

It's correct to presume I'm also conscious of the severe scrutiny and penalties frequently encountered by girls, individuals of every race (yes even white people), and the LGBTQIA+ community. The disparities in policing experienced by different racial and socioeconomic groups are concerning. It's distressing that individuals often face government-imposed penalties for merely being themselves.

Regarding artists, especially performers, as you know, I concur with your argument about the harrowing experiences they often endure in their professional environments. These disgraceful actions transgress both ethical standards and legal boundaries. The question isn't about the occurrence of such injustices—they certainly do—it's about our collective commitment to combating them. Dismantling existing protections by hinging SPOTUS rulings on the Jussie Smollett of web designers is counter productive.

We must recognize the potential conflicts that can emerge during the interpretation and implementation of laws. The web designers case is a poor example of a situation where freedom of expression, religion, and anti-discrimination protections might appear to conflict. My aim isn't to trivialize other issues, but to prompt an inclusive discourse on navigating these intricate legal landscapes more effectively.

I appreciate being given the opportunity to enlighten you with such groundbreaking revelations about my position. Truly, time well spent.

Misapplying the First Amendment to make-believe cases isn't a rational solution, and it damn sure shouldn't be used to undermine rightfully established protections. This is my stance & the last time I'm wasting words on some hypothetical stance being applied to me.

 

[Gospel]

SPOTUS was deliberate by the way. You can guess what the P stands for.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

No. I take it you think you were paraphrasing me.

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

Like, for instance, what "Adam and Steve are pretending to get married and hosting a party for hellbound blasphemers to celebrate their mockery of God's holy sacrament" isn't.

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.

Which exact same arguments? The ones about whether it infringes religious exercise? So what? Infringing religious exercise is perfectly legal provided the government jumps through the SCOTUS's scrutiny hoops. Banning Baalists from practicing human sacrifice infringes religious exercise and we do it anyway. If you mean the arguments about forced speech, cite a case of someone arguing he shouldn't be forced to compose pro-black messages.

So why does this help create a loophole for person to avoid providing a service to gays, but not blacks?

If somebody claims she believes black people getting married is un-Christian, a court could perfectly well take judicial note of the fact that black Christians have been getting married for two thousand years with the full support of Christian churches, and deduce that she's lying about her reason for refusing service.

 

[Gospel]

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

It's astonishing how you express yourself with such confidence, as if you won't eventually find yourself on the receiving end of their ire. I presume must of us are aware that SCOTUS rulings effects every American as well as non-Americans within our borders.

What a bizarre read that was.

 

[TomC]

Bless Your Heart

 

[Gospel]

Well, thank you! Your kindness is truly a beacon in this world.

 

[Elixir]

SPOTUS was deliberate by the way. You can guess what the P stands for.

PKangaroo?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I guess the concept of non-career enhancing statements is unfamiliar to you.

Since I can't figure out what that phrase means, let's go ahead and go with yes - it's unfamiliar to me. Please elaborate.

It means pretty much no one has freedom of speech in the workplace like you decribed above.

Can you give me an example of where a workplace has the right to force their employees to express a view that the employee is morally opposed to?

I'm not aware of this happening, I'm not aware of employers having this degree of power over their employees.

Medical situations. Do you think nurses and doctors can just willy nilly not treat gay people and keep their jobs?

How do you figure that a nurse or doctor treating a patient qualifies as them expressing a view in support of homosexuality?