Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[ZiprHead]

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

That was a power the court took for themselves. The court didn't start out that way and many consider the power grab to be unconstitutional.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Both are clearly creative works. I see nothing murky here.

 

[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.

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.

Market reality is that such things are often called semi-custom. I do agree it's not creative.

 

[Copernicus]

Both are clearly creative works. I see nothing murky here.

Market reality is that such things are often called semi-custom. I do agree it's not creative.

I can see where Loren might have a lucrative career as an expert witness in court cases in the future after this SCOTUS ruling. He has an unerring sense of what is creative and what is not, whereas the rest of us seem hesitant and mired in the murk.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Both are clearly creative works. I see nothing murky here.

Both could simply involve regurgitating what is known. How could that be clearly creative while a doctor dealing with a difficult diagnosis and subsequent treatment is not creative?

 

[Toni]

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.

Market reality is that such things are often called semi-custom. I do agree it's not creative.

Really?

Try it. Seriously. Try designing a wedding website for some couple you know, married or not. Let them come to you with their wishes, hopes and dreams for their pretend wedding website.

I have learned that it is very easy to think that something is no trouble/no work at all if you have absolutely no idea what actually goes into designing something for someone else, a client whom you must please. It’s especially ‘fun’ when there is as much emotion attached as there is to the wedding of someone who wants a wedding website designed just for them.

Please note: I am NOT defending the fake designer in this fake case. I’m defending the efforts of creative people who are being judged by those who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

It is extremely easy for people who are not very creative to think that someone else’s efforts are not creative. They simply have no idea and judge others by their own particular talents.

 

[Copernicus]

I presume that the SCOTUS decision actually applies to the creation of any website at all, not just wedding websites. However, since we have all spent a lot of time imagining what goes into a wedding website, it might be worth actually looking at the product. There are all kinds of examples of the service out there. Basically, they provide templates, a checklist of things that need to be included, and a hosting service. You can even create these sites for free nowadays, but professionals are in business to get projects accomplished efficiently. So they aren't exactly artistic geniuses. Here is a good site to visit in order to get an idea of how such a service works:

Tips for Creating a Wedding Website

I briefly visited several of these sites for creating and hosting. Most of the ones I saw had same-sex couples on display, which must horrify the anti-gay hordes of wannabe web designers. Anyway, it looks like creating one of these websites is a fairly well thought out activity. I don't think people would need the help of a professional unless they are uncomfortable around computers or don't have the time to get down into the weeds. It's a bit like the activity of a home decorator, who comes up with options that give customers ideas of how to design a comfortable living space.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

That was a power the court took for themselves. The court didn't start out that way and many consider the power grab to be unconstitutional.

Yes, many people do that. But how do they square that opinion with the plain text of the Constitution?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"​

If the SCOTUS has no power of judicial review then in what sense are the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof the supreme law of the land? If Congress can do whatever it pleases and nobody can overrule them then every random federal law not in pursuance of the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

 

[Bomb#20]

The press already has a special place in the constitution that gives it its rights.

Interestingly, that "special place" is the exact same place in the constitution that gives us rights for both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

The Constitution doesn't give the people our rights. We already had the rights; the Constitution merely guarantees them. The theory that we get our rights from the Constitution is not consistent with "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 

[Bomb#20]

One of the more aggravating aspects of modern American society is treating The Constitution like Holy Writ. People decide what they want to happen then find a verse(I mean clause) that supports their opinions and insist that's what The Constitution says.

Where in the Holy Writ of any religion is an amendment procedure laid out?

Like the Founding Fathers are a divine pantheon.

We don't treat the Constitution like it matters rather than like birdcage paper because we think the Founding Fathers are a divine pantheon. They were largely a passel of self-interested Grade A pricks. We treat it like it matters because the alternative is unlimited government -- the Constitution is the only club we have to bludgeon the government out of doing whatever it damn well pleases. Just as Donald Rumsfeld bewailed needing to go to war with the army we have rather than the army we want, so the rest of us must go to court with the law we have rather than the law we want.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

It doesn't imply that, provided atheism and agnosticism and secular humanism and so forth are also protected classes. This is an example of how framing antidiscrimination law in terms of portected classes instead of in terms of prohibited decision criteria tends to lead people's minds down a garden path.

 

[Bomb#20]

The US Constitution created a massive firewall between Federal and State rights.

The US Constitution recognizes the right of a State to a jury trial in disputes of over $20. Not seeing any other "States' rights" in there. The Rights it lists are Rights of the People.

Tenth Amendment anyone? Also see Barron v Baltimore, which held the states were not handcuffed by the Bill of Rights.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."​

In the first place, that says "powers", not "rights". That a state has the power to do something only implies it has the right to do it if you subscribe to the "Might makes right" theory.

And in the second place, it doesn't say those undelegated powers are reserved to the states. It says they're reserved to the states or to the people. If you construe that as reserving them to the states, that would amount to construing the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I see this new Bizarro SCOTUS that aims to Plessy v Ferguson the nation back up, caring more for the technicalities of the law instead the heart of it.

I guess that depends on what you see as the heart of it. If you see the function of government to be holding down class enemies so you can impose your will on them, maybe so. But I'd have thought the heart of judicial review is to have limited government rather than a British-style unrestrained Parliament.

Holding down class enemies? Requiring corporations provide the services they sell to all comers isn't "holding down class enemies".

It is when you treat the corporations' owners' constitutional rights as irrelevant distractions and you target them because they're business owners. So if you don't want me quoting Marx at you about how government upholding the Rights of Man is just class warfare by the Bourgeoisie, then tell me you also want to prohibit customers from discriminating against capitalists.

The justification for reversing Plessy v Ferguson is not that it was bad for the country but that it was wrongly decided.

If that were the case, it wouldn't have taken nearly six decades to reverse.

How do you figure that? You think there's a time limit on idiocy? People went on believing in the imbalance of humours theory of disease for two thousand years.

I'm not suggesting special pleading or different. I've been saying the whole time, if it is the product they make and isn't obscene, it should be provided for the customer. No swastika or porn cakes on demand. But wedding cake, yeah. You'll notice, that unlike your distorted claim of my argument, my position is rather neutral. People must be served! Not gays, not blacks, not Christians, just people. All people.

"All people", the man says, two seconds after he says "if it isn't obscene". So not all people. Not the people who want obscene stuff. And you're just the man to decide which products are obscene.

 

[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.

It doesn't imply that, provided atheism and agnosticism and secular humanism and so forth are also protected classes. This is an example of how framing antidiscrimination law in terms of portected classes instead of in terms of prohibited decision criteria tends to lead people's minds down a garden path.

The notion that designating protected classes within antidiscrimination laws inadvertently guides people's perspectives in a particular direction is a valid point. However, the underlying purpose of establishing these classes shouldn't be overlooked. By pinpointing groups that have historically faced discrimination, the law aims to create a level playing field.

Regarding the notion that classifying religion as a protected category might be unconstitutional, one must not only consider the literal text of the Constitution but also the intentions of its framers. Their writings clearly indicate an intent to maintain a separation between religious affairs and governmental actions and decisions.

 

[Gospel]

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.

Regardless of his desire to be the Messiah, his death did not hinder that role. Thanks for making a entirely unrelated point though.

 

[Toni]

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.

It doesn't imply that, provided atheism and agnosticism and secular humanism and so forth are also protected classes. This is an example of how framing antidiscrimination law in terms of portected classes instead of in terms of prohibited decision criteria tends to lead people's minds down a garden path.

The notion that designating protected classes within antidiscrimination laws inadvertently guides people's perspectives in a particular direction is a valid point. However, the underlying purpose of establishing these classes shouldn't be overlooked. By pinpointing groups that have historically faced discrimination, the law aims to create a level playing field.

Regarding the notion that classifying religion as a protected category might be unconstitutional, one must not only consider the literal text of the Constitution but also the intentions of its framers. Their writings clearly indicate an intent to maintain a separation between religious affairs and governmental actions and decisions.

Yes, absolutely that is the purpose of antidiscrimination laws. 100%. I am hoping that one day, such laws will become almost obsolete because people will truly be equal in all aspects under the law. We are not there yet. Some days, it seems like it will take forever. Some days, it seems as though it is not that far away. The arc of justice is long but it does bend towards justice.


That said, I do not believe that it furthers justice to compel speech, religion, creativity.

 

[ZiprHead]

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

That was a power the court took for themselves. The court didn't start out that way and many consider the power grab to be unconstitutional.

Yes, many people do that. But how do they square that opinion with the plain text of the Constitution?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"​

If the SCOTUS has no power of judicial review then in what sense are the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof the supreme law of the land? If Congress can do whatever it pleases and nobody can overrule them then every random federal law not in pursuance of the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Nothing you say here makes Marbury vs Madison constitutional. If/therefore doesn't work here.

And what you say here:

If Congress can do whatever it pleases and nobody can overrule them then every random federal law not in pursuance of the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Could also be said of the SC. They can do whatever it pleases and nobody can overrule them. Judges can be impeached but then the court can rule the impeachment is unconstitutional. Presently there are several members of the court that are clearly taking bribes and there's nothing that can be done about it.

In so many ways the founding fathers were kinda' stupid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Both are clearly creative works. I see nothing murky here.

Both could simply involve regurgitating what is known. How could that be clearly creative while a doctor dealing with a difficult diagnosis and subsequent treatment is not creative?

You are clearly failing to apply the standard I already presented: Whether you will get substantially different results from different people.

 

[Gospel]

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.

The First Amendment ensures that the government cannot infringe upon one's right to practice their religion or force a specific religious belief upon them. This was fundamentally about limiting governmental power rather than protecting individual or societal religious interactions.

Regarding your second comment, I must ask: why can't we engage in an open discussion without attempting to deduce someone's underlying intentions behind their arguments? If you're suggesting that I don't consider land-owning white men as a protected class, you're greatly mistaken.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Both are clearly creative works. I see nothing murky here.

Both could simply involve regurgitating what is known. How could that be clearly creative while a doctor dealing with a difficult diagnosis and subsequent treatment is not creative?

You are clearly failing to apply the standard I already presented: Whether you will get substantially different results from different people.

You are clearly failing to competently reason. First, your standard is stupid. Second, even applying your stupid standard, it is quite possible that manuals on the same subject written by different people do not substantially differ. It is quite possible that diagnoses and/or treatment from different doctors on a difficult case may substantially differ.

 

[Gospel]

hat said, I do not believe that it furthers justice to compel speech, religion, creativity.

If that's your stance, then you're essentially opposing the entire US Constitution. Its primary purpose is to ensure that US citizens adhere to its provisions. Believing that certain mandates don't apply universally reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of equality embedded within the document. In essence, we are all being compelled by the same rules. To single out one group for different treatment is constitutionally counterintuitive.