Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Jimmy Higgins]

So when a Christian claims she got her views against same-sex marriage from her religion's traditional teachings we have every reason to believe her.

"Traditional teachings" is a nebulous and unhelpful term. What is the minimum necessary for a teaching to qualify as "traditional". Why why do traditional teachings matter compared to "non-traditional" teachings.

There are Christian sects that believe just about anything. So, of course, we can believe whatever they say the believe. That doesn't mean we have to accept that belief as a valid operational guide when we are dealing with social policy.

Indeed, where is this "traditional" thing coming from? My understanding is that the courts aren't built to probe too deeply into religious beliefs and deem whether they are "traditional" enough. There are limits, but only very broadly.

But if one were to claim she got views against black marriage from her religion's traditional teachings we'd have no reason to believe her -- she'd obviously be lying and just trying to game the system.

There are plenty of Christian sects that preach racial bigotry. So, your argument falls apart.

As if Loving v Virginia didn't ever happen. It is like, if we feel it is unreasonable religious based racism today, then it was never consider legitimate religiously held racism in the past... not that long ago. Black leaders were assassinated trying to get rid of that legitimately held religious based racism.

 

[Gospel]

I firmly believe that asserting anti-discrimination laws are at odds with any principles of the U.S. Constitution necessitates an extensive and misguided reinterpretation of American history.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Based on some legal language I recall reading before it seemed to me that the standard was “sincerely held religious belief”. So the “traditional” may be a red herring. Note: I am not a lawyer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Based on some legal language I recall reading before it seemed to me that the standard was “sincerely held religious belief”. So the “traditional” may be a red herring. Note: I am not a lawyer.

Indeed, I don't recall a SCOTUS justice saying "Yabbut in our ruling Henderson v Fake Vomit Inc., Leviticus 5:16 was meant to imply...".

 

[ZiprHead]

But make this simpler: Should a Pakistani Muslim American be forced to create a custom wedding ring set inscribed with a Hebrew blessing for an Israeli American Jewish couple?

Yes.

 

[Gospel]

But make this simpler: Should a Pakistani Muslim American be forced to create a custom wedding ring set inscribed with a Hebrew blessing for an Israeli American Jewish couple?

Yes.

It leaves me bewildered when some interpret the oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution as a commitment to protect only oneself, disregarding others who have pledged the same oath. This oath signifies a social compact, a promise that everyone, regardless of their group affiliations, receives equal treatment under the law. It's a universal principle, not a selective privilege.

Their behavior suggests an erroneous belief that they alone bear the burden of making compromises to partake in public services and accommodations.

 

[Bomb#20]

A recent movement to become more accepting among the more liberal wing of the religion, which only happened by plagiarism of non-Christian moral progress, hardly wipes away either two thousand years of general practice or the existence of a conservative wing. So when a Christian claims she got her views against same-sex marriage from her religion's traditional teachings we have every reason to believe her. But if one were to claim she got views against black marriage from her religion's traditional teachings we'd have no reason to believe her -- she'd obviously be lying and just trying to game the system.

So 250ish years of "we the people" using religion to justify slavery isn't considered traditional. Ok

How the heck are you deducing anti-marriage from pro-slavery?

"MARRIAGE. -n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two."

- Ambrose Bierce ​

Christian churches have been marrying slaves and preaching the virtues of marriage and the evils of non-marital sex to slaves for the same two thousand years they've been doing it to free people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But make this simpler: Should a Pakistani Muslim American be forced to create a custom wedding ring set inscribed with a Hebrew blessing for an Israeli American Jewish couple?

Yes.

I'd say they'd have more interest in denying a white British couple.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A recent movement to become more accepting among the more liberal wing of the religion, which only happened by plagiarism of non-Christian moral progress, hardly wipes away either two thousand years of general practice or the existence of a conservative wing. So when a Christian claims she got her views against same-sex marriage from her religion's traditional teachings we have every reason to believe her. But if one were to claim she got views against black marriage from her religion's traditional teachings we'd have no reason to believe her -- she'd obviously be lying and just trying to game the system.

So 250ish years of "we the people" using religion to justify slavery isn't considered traditional. Ok

How the heck are you deducing anti-marriage from pro-slavery?

From slavery, a stretch. From the anti-miscegenation laws passed in the United States, probably a bit more there.

 

[Gospel]

A recent movement to become more accepting among the more liberal wing of the religion, which only happened by plagiarism of non-Christian moral progress, hardly wipes away either two thousand years of general practice or the existence of a conservative wing. So when a Christian claims she got her views against same-sex marriage from her religion's traditional teachings we have every reason to believe her. But if one were to claim she got views against black marriage from her religion's traditional teachings we'd have no reason to believe her -- she'd obviously be lying and just trying to game the system.

So 250ish years of "we the people" using religion to justify slavery isn't considered traditional. Ok

How the heck are you deducing anti-marriage from pro-slavery?

"MARRIAGE. -n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two."​

- Ambrose Bierce ​

Christian churches have been marrying slaves and preaching the virtues of marriage and the evils of non-marital sex to slaves for the same two thousand years they've been doing it to free people.

Oh, absolutely! How could I have missed that? Certainly, the use of Christianity to justify slavery is entirely different from invoking it to support anti-interracial marriage legislation. I must have gotten those two mixed up!

 

[Gospel]

Let's not forget that slave marriages weren't even legally recognized, so I'm at a loss as to what you're attempting to argue here. Further, the slave owner could whimsically dissolve these marriages, even going so far as to sell off one spouse, with no legal recourse for the other to follow. It's truly puzzling to discern your point.

You taking history lessons from DeSantis?

 

[Toni]

But make this simpler: Should a Pakistani Muslim American be forced to create a custom wedding ring set inscribed with a Hebrew blessing for an Israeli American Jewish couple?

Yes.

Yeah, I disagree. I also don't think this would really happen anymore than a gay couple would approach a bigoted webdesigner and ask them to design a wedding website for them--unless they were trying to set up a test case. Most people who are going to the trouble of having a wedding website designed specifically for them have already thoroughly vetted ALL the vendors or their wedding planner has done that for them. There is a LOT of word of mouth. Also, most very religious couples are also very traditional and would frequent a jeweler who had done work for family members before. Thoroughly vetted. Plus, one would want someone familiar with the language to be inscribed, and thorough enough to catch any mistakes.

It was just the best example I could come up with at the time.

I realize that some people are hired for companies to do creative work that may lie outside of their own personal aesthetic and do it to put food on the table and often to fund their own creative endeavors. But that's what they signed up to do. Someone who is in the business of creating custom (x) work has a different work situation. Their name/brand is going on the work, for one thing. A lot of people will only take on work that they think they can do very successfully and part of that is working well with the client. Otherwise, they risk not doing as satisfactory a job as they themselves would like, much less the client.

When you are talking about expecting someone to create something that they find morally offensive or that offends their religious principles or personal or cultural ethics, then I think they cannot so be compelled.

Imagine a young graphic designer has been working successfully for an ad company, creating many successful ad campaigns for the corporation. Then they are asked to create an ad campaign for the pork industry. This graphic designer is Jewish. Or Muslim. It is even more repugnant to them than it would be for a vegan designer. They refuse, citing religious grounds. If their company attempted to force them to work on this particular campaign on threat of being fired, they would have grounds to sue for religious discrimination.

 

[Gospel]

What's the merit in engaging with your hypothetical situations, only for you to inevitably respond with "I disagree"? It seems rather fruitless.

Anyhow

A lot of people will only take on work that they think they can do very successfully and part of that is working well with the client. Otherwise, they risk not doing as satisfactory a job as they themselves would like, much less the client.

If only the web designer's hypothetical grievance could clarify that the refusal wasn't due to the customer's protected class, but rather because they couldn't guarantee delivering the highest quality service. We wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Toni]

What's the merit in engaging with your hypothetical situations, only for you to inevitably respond with "I disagree"? It seems rather fruitless.

Anyhow

A lot of people will only take on work that they think they can do very successfully and part of that is working well with the client. Otherwise, they risk not doing as satisfactory a job as they themselves would like, much less the client.

If only the web designer's hypothetical grievance could clarify that the refusal wasn't due to the customer's protected class, but rather because they couldn't guarantee delivering the highest quality service. We wouldn't be having this conversation.

I think my participation in this thread is perhaps fruitless.

So I will close with this:

I see this case as a conflict between two rights guaranteed under the US Constitution: First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the 14th Amendment along with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I will go further and state that I believe that all rights guaranteed under the Constitution are predicated on the First Amendment. Without the First Amendment, there could be no Civil Rights Act of 1964 nor any other rights guaranteed under the US Constitution.

It is repugnant to me that anyone would discriminate against a person based on their race, sex, religion, national origins, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or whatever else I am forgetting.

It is repugnant to me and horrifying that this case made it to the Colorado Supreme Court much less SCOTUS.

 

[ZiprHead]

I believe there are fewer categories of personal characteristics than services.

And that's why you're OK with giving the government the power to enforce involuntary servitude?

I don't.
But you do you.
Tom

What "involuntary servitude" is being enforced by gov't or are you simply babbling?

You favor compelling people to work on things they find repugnant. Involuntary servitude.

I literally had to do testing on people's shit. If that isn't repugnant I don't know what is.

 

[TomC]

I literally had to do testing on people's shit. If that isn't repugnant I don't know what is.

So, you were in health care.
Yeah, I agree that's an essential service and you don't get to choose patients.

Nothing to do with fancy pastries or wedding websites, though.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

But make this simpler: Should a Pakistani Muslim American be forced to create a custom wedding ring set inscribed with a Hebrew blessing for an Israeli American Jewish couple?

How about we really change this up and instead of a Hebrew blessing make it a Christion blessing. How do you think the court would have decided then?

 

[Gospel]

I see this case as a conflict between two rights guaranteed under the US Constitution: First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the 14th Amendment along with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Let's ponder this for a moment. The First Amendment begins unequivocally with:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The term "no" leaves no room for ambiguity. Thus, any law respecting an establishment of religion would violate the Constitution. This implies that the classification of religion as a protected class could be deemed unconstitutional.

 

[Gospel]

Undeniably, there's a tangible and historical rationale, evident even today in certain radical churches, explaining why the Constitution specifically curtails religious overreach. The Jussie Smollett-like antics of this web designer doesn't exactly tip the scales in their favor either.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What's the merit in engaging with your hypothetical situations, only for you to inevitably respond with "I disagree"? It seems rather fruitless.

Anyhow

A lot of people will only take on work that they think they can do very successfully and part of that is working well with the client. Otherwise, they risk not doing as satisfactory a job as they themselves would like, much less the client.

If only the web designer's hypothetical grievance could clarify that the refusal wasn't due to the customer's protected class, but rather because they couldn't guarantee delivering the highest quality service. We wouldn't be having this conversation.

I think my participation in this thread is perhaps fruitless.

Don't be silly. All of our participation in this this thread has been fruitless.

So I will close with this:

I see this case as a conflict between two rights guaranteed under the US Constitution: First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the 14th Amendment along with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I will go further and state that I believe that all rights guaranteed under the Constitution are predicated on the First Amendment. Without the First Amendment, there could be no Civil Rights Act of 1964 nor any other rights guaranteed under the US Constitution.

You are forgetting the 10th Amendment... and the Equal Protection Clause.

What is at question is what works by a corporation can be considered expression and that can not be compelled by the state, regardless the rights of the customer. Well, at least that is the question right now. Whether gays can be fully refused service at a bakery for a "stock" wedding cake or "stock" wedding website... and then refusing gays services at all could be down the road.