Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn't mean to implay it was. I was extrapolating the future cases that will involve "stock", that this case is a stepping stone to.

I think that’s the bright line: custom vs stock.

Except you're omitting the semi-custom (build to order from a set of options).

To me there's also an issue of whether it actually entails design, or simply following a recipe.

 

[Copernicus]

It latterly says "make no law".

Your point? Obviously it is Congress’ job to make laws. The clause restricts itself to “the establishment of any religion”. The word “respecting” meant “with respect to”or “regarding” not “paying respect“, though I can see that included in the proscription.

Sorry I made the clarification too late. Yes, Congress is the only one that can make laws. And as such congress is mandated by the constitution to avoid writing laws that have anything to do with religion. Yet here we are with religion as a protect class on the law books.

And you should also point out that constitutional rights apply to state and local legislatures, as well, because of the incorporation doctrine, which was expanded by the 14th amendment. But I'm not sure that the current extremist supermajority on SCOTUS will uphold precedent on that doctrine.

 

[Gospel]

The government is explicitly forbidden from instituting a national religion, showing favoritism towards any religion, or demonstrating a bias either for religion in general or against it.

From this, it appears evident that they should refrain from drafting or interpreting laws in any way that might establish a national religion, grant preference to a specific religion, or exhibit a bias either in favor of religion overall or against it.

Given that Congress—the body responsible for crafting all laws—is barred from creating laws that would do any of the above, it stands to reason that the Supreme Court must also avoid interpreting laws in a manner that:

1. Institutes a national religion,
2. Displays favoritism towards a certain religion,
3. Promotes religion over non-religion, or
4. Advocates for non-religion over religion.

This suggests that the Supreme Court should steer clear of making any rulings that directly involve religious matters.

 

[Gospel]

With that said. It's really the wild wild west after all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the Muslim woman does male body waxing, then yes.
In my world, the Jewish jeweler would have to make it. They could do a lousy job and/or charge an exorbitant price up front, but yes.

[devil's advocate] so you're saying it's okay for the muslim woman to discriminate on the basis of sex?

I don't see discrimination here, just a wrong yardstick.

It's not the stated gender of the person that's even relevant--but rather the bit of that person she's working on. She's not trained to wax testicles, it's not part of her job description.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another is essential services.
If Joe EMT shows up at a bad car wreck he's got to do his job. It doesn't matter if the victim is a sweet old lady in a granny dress or a fat trans woman in a bikini. Joe has got to do whatever necessary.

Wedding websites are in a different category.
Tom

I don't think this is so much essential services (you can't just walk into a doctor's office and demand treatment) as inherently a lack of choice in providing services.

You put yourself in a position where the other party doesn't get to choose who to deal with, you don't get to choose to reject them without a very solid reason. You drive a heavy lift tow truck, the cops call you to where the KKK bus hit the Stormfront bus and you still have to tow them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

[
Another non-answer.

Are you going to address the issue of creativity or keep throwing up non-answers to avoid addressing it?

It is no more a non- answer than your ironic replies. You think web design requires more creativity than practicing medicine and I don’t. Your self- serving definitions do not create the differentiation you wish to make.

I presented a simple yardstick that you have never addressed.

I agree with Laughing Dog on this one. Your subjective yardstick seems simple and clear in your mind, but it seems vague and murky to others. It almost certainly won't be a yardstick that will be clear in the minds of business owners and judges that actually have to deal with real cases of discrimination, unlike the imaginary one that SCOTUS decided to base their decision on. The legal definition of "creativity" is a real mental football when it comes to issues like patent law. I don't see it getting any easier when it comes to goods and services designed by businesses.

If it's vague and murky show an example thereof!

 

[ZiprHead]

It becomes entitlement when it crosses the line from off-the-shelf to bespoke. Because at that point, it crosses from protecting one person from discrimination to giving that person the privilege of compelling others.

That's one aspect.
Another is essential services.
If Joe EMT shows up at a bad car wreck he's got to do his job. It doesn't matter if the victim is a sweet old lady in a granny dress or a fat trans woman in a bikini. Joe has got to do whatever necessary.

Wedding websites are in a different category.
Tom

Separate but equal.

 

[TomC]

I don't think this is so much essential services (you can't just walk into a doctor's office and demand treatment) as inherently a lack of choice in providing services.

I don't think that walking into a doctor's office is an essential service either.
An EMT definitely is. An ER definitely is. Any emergency service probably is.
Not wedding frivolity.
Tom

 

[TomC]

It becomes entitlement when it crosses the line from off-the-shelf to bespoke. Because at that point, it crosses from protecting one person from discrimination to giving that person the privilege of compelling others.

That's one aspect.
Another is essential services.
If Joe EMT shows up at a bad car wreck he's got to do his job. It doesn't matter if the victim is a sweet old lady in a granny dress or a fat trans woman in a bikini. Joe has got to do whatever necessary.

Wedding websites are in a different category.
Tom

Separate but equal.

Simple usually means wrong.

Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, I believe religion being a protected class makes sense and I have no desire to change that.

At this point, I'm pretty sure I suck at reading what you write.

 

[Emily Lake]

To my reading “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” doesn’t refer to respecting religion(s). It is just meant to guarantee that the gov won’t get on your shit for your religion or lack thereof.

It literally says "make no law".

Edit: Which is what the point I'm making is that Religion as a protected class is a law respecting an establishment of religion. Heck it's respecting multiple establishments of religions.

I get what you're saying, but I think the meaning of the word "establishment" that you're using here is a different meaning to the one used in the 1st am.

You're using it in the sense of:
1 : something established: such as
...
d : a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff
e : a public or private institution

1st am is using it in the sense of:
1 : to institute (something, such as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement

You're using it in the sense of "Good sir, you can't come in here without a shirt, this is a respected establishment!" The constitution is using it in the sense of "We're not going to establish an official religion, nor allow any such to happen in the future"

 

[Emily Lake]

It latterly says "make no law".

Your point? Obviously it is Congress’ job to make laws. The clause restricts itself to “the establishment of any religion”. The word “respecting” meant “with respect to”or “regarding” not “paying respect“, though I can see that included in the proscription.

Sorry I made the clarification too late. Yes, Congress is the only one that can make laws. And as such congress is mandated by the constitution to avoid writing laws that have anything to do with religion. Yet here we are with religion as a protect class on the law books.

Religion has been a protected class since the 1st am was penned though. It was the very first protected class in the US.

Well, unless you count "white men who own land", I guess.

 

[Emily Lake]

The government is explicitly forbidden from instituting a national religion, showing favoritism towards any religion, or demonstrating a bias either for religion in general or against it.

From this, it appears evident that they should refrain from drafting or interpreting laws in any way that might establish a national religion, grant preference to a specific religion, or exhibit a bias either in favor of religion overall or against it.

Given that Congress—the body responsible for crafting all laws—is barred from creating laws that would do any of the above, it stands to reason that the Supreme Court must also avoid interpreting laws in a manner that:

1. Institutes a national religion,
2. Displays favoritism towards a certain religion,
3. Promotes religion over non-religion, or
4. Advocates for non-religion over religion.

This suggests that the Supreme Court should steer clear of making any rulings that directly involve religious matters.

Isn't it kind of their job to determine if something violates the constitution though?

Whether or not they're currently doing their job is a different question, the one I'm asking is based on the principles, not the principals.

 

[laughing dog]

I presented a simple yardstick that you have never addressed.

Untrue, You have never shown shy your yardstick is appropriate, and more importantly, why it provides evidence for your absurd claim.

 

[laughing dog]

[
Another non-answer.

Are you going to address the issue of creativity or keep throwing up non-answers to avoid addressing it?

It is no more a non- answer than your ironic replies. You think web design requires more creativity than practicing medicine and I don’t. Your self- serving definitions do not create the differentiation you wish to make.

I presented a simple yardstick that you have never addressed.

I agree with Laughing Dog on this one. Your subjective yardstick seems simple and clear in your mind, but it seems vague and murky to others. It almost certainly won't be a yardstick that will be clear in the minds of business owners and judges that actually have to deal with real cases of discrimination, unlike the imaginary one that SCOTUS decided to base their decision on. The legal definition of "creativity" is a real mental football when it comes to issues like patent law. I don't see it getting any easier when it comes to goods and services designed by businesses.

If it's vague and murky show an example thereof!

Writing a textbook or a manual.

 

[Bomb#20]

When I said,

IMO - The impact of a web designer creating a website for a same-sex couple on their ability to practice their religion is as negligible as the effect of death on Christ's role as the Messiah.

What I implied was if Christ could confront death while maintaining his faith, then surely the act of designing a website would have a lesser impact on one's faith.

Keep in mind Jesus never wanted to be the Messiah -- he only said he was the Messiah because the whackos who wanted him to lead them insisted that only the Messiah would deny being the Messiah.

 

[Shadowy Man]

When I said,

IMO - The impact of a web designer creating a website for a same-sex couple on their ability to practice their religion is as negligible as the effect of death on Christ's role as the Messiah.

What I implied was if Christ could confront death while maintaining his faith, then surely the act of designing a website would have a lesser impact on one's faith.

Keep in mind Jesus never wanted to be the Messiah -- he only said he was the Messiah because the whackos who wanted him to lead them insisted that only the Messiah would deny being the Messiah.

“You are all individuals!”
“We are all individuals.”
“I’m not!”

 

[Jarhyn]

I didn't mean to implay it was. I was extrapolating the future cases that will involve "stock", that this case is a stepping stone to.

I think that’s the bright line: custom vs stock.

Except you're omitting the semi-custom (build to order from a set of options).

To me there's also an issue of whether it actually entails design, or simply following a recipe.

If you can apply the change with a form fill, it's not custom it's "stock formulaic".

You have no basis of argument for not doing work a machine could do with your work product and their request, assuming the machine itself doing the work does not ALSO amount to "creative process".

If I can fully templatize the work and cannot make some justification in terms of LEGAL liability for refusing a customer, then I have NO justification for withholding the service as a "common carrier" of the activity.

 

[Bomb#20]

But I'd have thought the heart of judicial review is to have limited government rather than a British-style unrestrained Parliament

Britain doesn't have an unrestrained parliament.

They just (until the formation of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in 2009) rolled their unelected supreme court into their upper legislative chamber, as the so called "Law Lords", officially the "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary".

That the judges who restrained parliament were sharing the same buildings as the parliament that they restrained, and that they were also directly involved in restraining government legislation even before it had been passed into law, is not an absence of restraint.

If you want to quibble that the Lords' power to delay the Commons' legislation by up to a year counts as restraint, please yourself. I'll amend my statement to "But I'd have thought the heart of judicial review is to have limited government rather than a British-style unstoppable Parliament".

As for their unelected supreme court's power to restrain, according to Wikipedia,

"The Law Lords did not have the power to exercise judicial review over Acts of Parliament."​

As for the changes since 2009, according to Wikipedia,

"The United Kingdom has a doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, so the Supreme Court is much more limited in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries. It cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament. However, as with any law court in the UK, it can overturn secondary legislation if, for an example, that legislation is found to be ultra vires to the powers in primary legislation allowing it to be made.​