Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Emily Lake]

Is this a First Amendment issue? A detailed examination of the Constitution suggests that the First Amendment's protection extends primarily against governmental intrusion rather than private disputes. So my answer is arguably no.

It becomes a 1st Am issue when the government is invoking its power in order to force the baker to violate his religious tenets. It's at that point that it becomes the government prohibiting the free exercise of the baker's religion.

Indeed, it seems we've looped back to the very beginning, effectively disregarding the historical record of discrimination and the subsequent laws enacted to counter it. A long history steeped in sacrifice and struggle seems to have been glossed over to address a perceived, rather than a concrete, injury*. Considering these dynamics, it's hardly surprising if we, as Black individuals, feel less than welcome in America. Or is this realization something that still eludes comprehension?

Edit: * A make-believe injury

I'm pretty sure that your "we" is quite hyperbolic. Maybe you personally don't feel welcome in the US, but to speak for all black people seems a bit arrogant. You sure as hell don't speak for my family on that matter.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

If one thinks homosexuality is a mortal sin, then helping a homosexual stay healthy is promoting sin.

 

[Emily Lake]

The rationale is that the analogy to racial segregation is a poor analogy. Racial segregation didn't involve a conflict between two different codified rights. It was a conflict between tradition and rights, and was part of gaining equality. There isn't a religious doctrine that backed segregation, it was pure dislike and bigotry.

And I'm not fooling myself here, nor anybody else of course - prejudice and bigotry is very likely part of the baker's position. But the baker also has religious doctrine as an element of his position. So even though I strongly dislike his apparent prejudice, I still defend his right to religious freedom.

So which is it? It is a "religious doctrine" or is it "pure dislike and bigotry"? Just to be clear, you indicated "pure" there, not me.

They're not mutually exclusive.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

And yet, Christian Churches have been marring gay couples for a number of years, yet the SCOTUS fell for that web designer's views.

 

[bilby]

They're not mutually exclusive.

The word "pure" renders them mutually exclusive, unless you're of the opinion that "religious doctrine" is a subset of "dislike and bigotry".

(An opinion that is perhaps not completely without merit, I must admit).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The rationale is that the analogy to racial segregation is a poor analogy. Racial segregation didn't involve a conflict between two different codified rights. It was a conflict between tradition and rights, and was part of gaining equality. There isn't a religious doctrine that backed segregation, it was pure dislike and bigotry.

And I'm not fooling myself here, nor anybody else of course - prejudice and bigotry is very likely part of the baker's position. But the baker also has religious doctrine as an element of his position. So even though I strongly dislike his apparent prejudice, I still defend his right to religious freedom.

So which is it? It is a "religious doctrine" or is it "pure dislike and bigotry"? Just to be clear, you indicated "pure" there, not me.

They're not mutually exclusive.

Your two statements are not compatible.

"There isn't a religious doctrine that backed segregation, it was pure dislike and bigotry."
"...prejudice and bigotry is very likely part of the baker's position. But the baker also has religious doctrine as an element of his position."

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Actually, I really don't think anyone has been LEGALLY forced to artistically express a belief contrary to their own in any of those fields. There are certainly cases where they have been ILLEGALLY forced to do so, through threat or coercion.

 

[Toni]

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.

And yet, Christian Churches have been marring gay couples for a number of years, yet the SCOTUS fell for that web designer's views.

Some have, and even have gay pastors. Others absolutely do not accept gay marriage.

I think it's an ignorant, bigoted opinion and one that I disagree with vehemently.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

If one thinks homosexuality is a mortal sin, then helping a homosexual stay healthy is promoting sin.

There's a nuance in here that I'm having trouble expressing. It seems clear to me that treating an illness has no connection to one's views on sexual orientation... but that creating a product for a wedding does have a connection to one's views on sexual orientation. And because of that distinction, the health care provider would have no standing in claiming a religious position. On the other hand, a doctor prescribing or a pharmacist dispensing an abortifacient does have a connection to their beliefs with respect to abortion. I'm struggling to find the right words, but there's a more direct connection between the view and the actions being demanded, which to me makes it a more acceptable argument.

If the product being created were for a birthday, then there would be no argument that I would respect. The sexual orientation of a person - or their race or sex or country of origin or anything else - is completely irrelevant to birthdays. The two things are disconnected. But marriage does have an intersection with sexual orientation. Even if I disagree with the view of the person that believes homosexuality is a sin, I can still respect and acknowledge that there is a legitimate intersection. I also (rather strongly) disagree with the view of the pharmacist who refuses to dispense a prescription for an abortifacient... but I still respect and acknowledge that there is a legitimate intersection between my (for the moment in my state) right to obtain that drug and their right to their religious beliefs.

It's not a matter of right or wrong (either factually or morally). It's a matter of recognizing that a genuine conflict of rights can exist, and considering those conflicts on a case by case basis. I don't think it's possible to take a hard line on most of these situations without engaging directly in discrimination myself.

You either allow some people to discriminate on the basis of their beliefs in limited circumstances... or you directly engage in discrimination against those people on the basis of their religions. I don't think you can stop discrimination by discriminating.

 

[Emily Lake]

They're not mutually exclusive.

The word "pure" renders them mutually exclusive, unless you're of the opinion that "religious doctrine" is a subset of "dislike and bigotry".

(An opinion that is perhaps not completely without merit, I must admit).

Are you seriously going to hang your hat on a semantic quibble when it's clear you know exactly what I mean?

 

[Emily Lake]

The rationale is that the analogy to racial segregation is a poor analogy. Racial segregation didn't involve a conflict between two different codified rights. It was a conflict between tradition and rights, and was part of gaining equality. There isn't a religious doctrine that backed segregation, it was pure dislike and bigotry.

And I'm not fooling myself here, nor anybody else of course - prejudice and bigotry is very likely part of the baker's position. But the baker also has religious doctrine as an element of his position. So even though I strongly dislike his apparent prejudice, I still defend his right to religious freedom.

So which is it? It is a "religious doctrine" or is it "pure dislike and bigotry"? Just to be clear, you indicated "pure" there, not me.

They're not mutually exclusive.

Your two statements are not compatible.

"There isn't a religious doctrine that backed segregation, it was pure dislike and bigotry."
"...prejudice and bigotry is very likely part of the baker's position. But the baker also has religious doctrine as an element of his position."

FFS, sometimes I just want to smack all of you semantic warriors who want to play such time-wasting games.

Group A: DOES NOT have religious doctrine, but DOES have bigotry
Group B: DOES have religious doctrine, and MAY OR MAY NOT have bigotry
I tend to assume that Group B DOES HAVE bigotry as well, but the two cases are not identical, and my statements are not incompatible.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

If one thinks homosexuality is a mortal sin, then helping a homosexual stay healthy is promoting sin.

There's a nuance in here that I'm having trouble expressing. It seems clear to me that treating an illness has no connection to one's views on sexual orientation... but that creating a product for a wedding does have a connection to one's views on sexual orientation.

Why? Both situations involve providing a service or a good.

As to the rest of your response, disallowing people to use religion to discriminate against others in commerce is not discrimination against religion or the religious. No one is forced to believe anything against their will.

 

[bilby]

They're not mutually exclusive.

The word "pure" renders them mutually exclusive, unless you're of the opinion that "religious doctrine" is a subset of "dislike and bigotry".

(An opinion that is perhaps not completely without merit, I must admit).

Are you seriously going to hang your hat on a semantic quibble when it's clear you know exactly what I mean?

Fuck yeah!

Is this your first day on the Internet?

 

[Gospel]

Oh look, another weak ass

Is this a First Amendment issue? A detailed examination of the Constitution suggests that the First Amendment's protection extends primarily against governmental intrusion rather than private disputes. So my answer is arguably no.

It becomes a 1st Am issue when the government is invoking its power in order to force the baker to violate his religious tenets. It's at that point that it becomes the government prohibiting the free exercise of the baker's religion.

Indeed, it seems we've looped back to the very beginning, effectively disregarding the historical record of discrimination and the subsequent laws enacted to counter it. A long history steeped in sacrifice and struggle seems to have been glossed over to address a perceived, rather than a concrete, injury*. Considering these dynamics, it's hardly surprising if we, as Black individuals, feel less than welcome in America. Or is this realization something that still eludes comprehension?

Edit: * A make-believe injury

I'm pretty sure that your "we" is quite hyperbolic. Maybe you personally don't feel welcome in the US, but to speak for all black people seems a bit arrogant. You sure as hell don't speak for my family on that matter.

I noticed that your observation seems to diverge from my main point (again). When I used the term 'we', I was referring not only to the individuals within my personal circle who have experienced feelings of unwelcome but also to potential others you might come across. I appreciate your assumption of understanding what I intended by 'we', however, clarification from the source is often the best way to gain accurate understanding.

Edit: And I also said IF, fucking IF we. I didn't say that we all feel that way. I said IF.

 

[bilby]

If the product being created were for a birthday, then there would be no argument that I would respect. The sexual orientation of a person - or their race or sex or country of origin or anything else - is completely irrelevant to birthdays. The two things are disconnected. But marriage does have an intersection with sexual orientation.

Not in law, it doesn't.

If two people are legally married, the law demands that their marriage be treated equally with all other marriages.

If a hospital has a policy of only discussing a patient's condition with their immediate family, and they include "spouse" as a qualification for these discussions, the doctor can't refuse to deal with a patient's spouse on the grounds that he doesn't believe that a marriage between a white woman and a black man is a real marriage; And that remains true regardless of that doctor having a religious basis for his belief.

Equally if he doesn't believe that a marriage is "real" when it's between two women, or two men, or two Jews, or whatever - there's no such thing as a "gay marriage" or a "mixed marriage" or a "Jewish marriage" in law; There's just marriage.

People are free to believe that certain marriages aren't "real". They have a first amendment right to say that that's what they believe. But the law requires that if they deal with marriages, they treat all legal marriages equally.

Yet, bizarrely, SCOTUS has ruled that this established legal status for marriages, doesn't apply to weddings.

That's insane.

 

[Gospel]

FFS, sometimes I just want to smack all of you semantic warriors who want to play such time-wasting games.

I know the feeling.

 

[TomC]

Not in law, it doesn't.

During my lifetime, "separate but equal" was the law around here.

I don't consider "the law" a moral standard.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

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?

If one thinks homosexuality is a mortal sin, then helping a homosexual stay healthy is promoting sin.

This.

 

[ZiprHead]

There's a nuance in here that I'm having trouble expressing. It seems clear to me that treating an illness has no connection to one's views on sexual orientation...

You weren't around during the AIDS panic, were you?

 

[TomC]

There's a nuance in here that I'm having trouble expressing. It seems clear to me that treating an illness has no connection to one's views on sexual orientation...

You weren't around during the AIDS panic, were you?

I was.
I continue to agree with Emily most always.
Tom