Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Gospel]

Jesus: I gave my life so that all who believe in me are saved!
Faithful Web designer: This website will undo Christ's sacrifice!

 

[Gospel]

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

I didn't say it yawl

 

[Toni]

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.

I disagree strongly. I can stand on my front porch and scream every racist sexist homophobic anti Muslim and to Semitic slur I want at the top of my lungs. So can anyone. I can write and self publish all that crap. So can you. I can create poetry, song, literature, art, photographs, websites reflecting my horrible points of view.

What I cannot be allowed to do is to refuse to sell an already created work to someone based on their race, religion, national origins, sex, gender, gender identity, etc. Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person. No matter how repugnant and ignorant my reasons.

The US Constitution affords me the right to be as disgusting a human being as I like—unless I break a law. In which case I must be afforded all the protections and rights under the constitution.

 

[Gospel]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

 

[Toni]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights. It’s not pretty—in fact, it’s quite ugly in cases where someone discriminates on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc.

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

 

[Gospel]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights. It’s not pretty—in fact, it’s quite ugly in cases where someone discriminates on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc.

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

There is nothing to differentiate from. The general public is mandated to have access to both "already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual" equally. If you disagree with the mandate take it up with your local representative or utilize other options available to you, but don't pretend like you're being compelled to not take the liberty to operate privately, jet off to a nation that aligns more with your beliefs, & stopped from privately or publicly practicing your faith considering you have the option to run faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on your own.

 

[Toni]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights. It’s not pretty—in fact, it’s quite ugly in cases where someone discriminates on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc.

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

There is nothing to differentiate from. The general public is mandated to have access to both "already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual" equally. If you disagree with the mandate take it up with your local representative or utilize other options available to you, but don't pretend like you're being compelled to not take the liberty to operate privately, jet off to a nation that aligns more with your beliefs, & stopped from privately or publicly practicing your faith considering you have the option to run faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on your own.

WHERE does it specify already created/made/manufactured AND created specifically for an individual equally? Aside from your posts, I mean. It's the 'created specifically for an individual' part that is the issue, apparently with the current SCOTUS who seem to disagree with your interpretation.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

As far as I can see, there is one (1) provision in the US Constitution imposing an obligation to adhere to it on US citizens: "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" in the 6th Amendment. The entire rest of the document imposes obligations to adhere to it only on public officials.

"Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; & anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would. I dunno." - Mark Twain​

Ensuring that US citizens adhere to its provisions is the skin of paint on the Constitution's pinnacle-knob.

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.

Right. So what makes you think it's constitutional for those labeled "business owners" to be singled out for different treatment? Phillips doesn't get to compel Scardina to speak and create what Phillips wants by force of government; why would it be constitutional for Scardina to get to compel Phillips to speak and create what Scardina wants by force of government? The same rules we are all being compelled by are "(1) You have the right to remain silent." and "(2) When somebody won't say or create what you want, your legal recourse against him is limited to not paying him. The government will back your right not to pay him to the hilt, but will take no further action, because see (1)."

 

[Gospel]

If you offer a service to one protected group, you are obligated to extend it to all protected groups, irrespective of the service's specifics. However, there are exceptions, such as gender-specific clubs or openly faith-based businesses.

I just don't see why there is such a confusion.

 

[Gospel]

As far as I can see, there is one (1) provision in the US Constitution imposing an obligation to adhere to it on US citizens: "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" in the 6th Amendment. The entire rest of the document imposes obligations to adhere to it only on public officials.

Oh, sure! The U.S. Constitution isn't the supreme law of the land. Right. Why bother with it at all, eh? Let me know how that works out for you.

Spoiler

Folks are pretty much compelled to follow it.

 

[Gospel]

Right. So what makes you think it's constitutional for those labeled "business owners" to be singled out for different treatment? Phillips doesn't get to compel Scardina to speak and create what Phillips wants by force of government; why would it be constitutional for Scardina to get to compel Phillips to speak and create what Scardina wants by force of government? The same rules we are all being compelled by are "(1) You have the right to remain silent." and "(2) When somebody won't say or create what you want, your legal recourse against him is limited to not paying him. The government will back your right not to pay him to the hilt, but will take no further action, because see (1)."

Let me be concise, given your tendency to be verbose. Businesses aren't a protected class, and Scardina isn't denying service to a protected class.

 

[bilby]

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

Yeah, that's why Australia is indistinguishable from North Korea.

You Americans don't half love your hyperbole, particularly with regards to your sacred Bill of Rights. It's just a dated list of legal principles of varying quality. The First Amendment isn't a bad principle, but it's not perfect, and it's certainly not an indispensable prerequisite for the very existence of legal rights for citizens.

 

[Bomb#20]

As far as I can see, there is one (1) provision in the US Constitution imposing an obligation to adhere to it on US citizens: "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" in the 6th Amendment. The entire rest of the document imposes obligations to adhere to it only on public officials.

Oh, sure! The U.S. Constitution isn't the supreme law of the land. Right. Why bother with it at all, eh? Let me know how that works out for you.

Spoiler

Folks are pretty much compelled to follow it.

Of course folks are compelled to follow it. Duh. Where the bejesus do you see anything in my post challenging that?

What you're not grasping is, provided that when you're the guy who knows that the defendant is innocent, and he subpoenas you, you actually show up in court and testify, you are following it! You're done. You adhered to the US Constitution. Unless you're a public official, you did everything the U.S. Constitution requires of you. The million other things the government makes you do are matters of run-of-the-mill statute law, not matters of constitutional law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and in its supreme supremacy, it barely gives a rat's ass about anything as unimportant as you and me. As a minor aside it tells us we all have to obey subpoenas; everything else in it says what public officials must do. Ensuring the citizens adhere to it is blatantly not its primary purpose.

If you still disagree with this, show me another provision of the Constitution that says what a private citizen must do.

 

[Gospel]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights. It’s not pretty—in fact, it’s quite ugly in cases where someone discriminates on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc.

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

There is nothing to differentiate from. The general public is mandated to have access to both "already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual" equally. If you disagree with the mandate take it up with your local representative or utilize other options available to you, but don't pretend like you're being compelled to not take the liberty to operate privately, jet off to a nation that aligns more with your beliefs, & stopped from privately or publicly practicing your faith considering you have the option to run faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on your own.

WHERE does it specify already created/made/manufactured AND created specifically for an individual equally? Aside from your posts, I mean. It's the 'created specifically for an individual' part that is the issue, apparently with the current SCOTUS who seem to disagree with your interpretation.

Generally, businesses that provide services to the public can't refuse service based on protected characteristics. Anything classified as a service falls under this mandate.

Gosh!

 

[Gospel]

As far as I can see, there is one (1) provision in the US Constitution imposing an obligation to adhere to it on US citizens: "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" in the 6th Amendment. The entire rest of the document imposes obligations to adhere to it only on public officials.

Oh, sure! The U.S. Constitution isn't the supreme law of the land. Right. Why bother with it at all, eh? Let me know how that works out for you.

Spoiler

Folks are pretty much compelled to follow it.

Of course folks are compelled to follow it. Duh. Where the bejesus do you see anything in my post challenging that?

What you're not grasping is, provided that when you're the guy who knows that the defendant is innocent, and he subpoenas you, you actually show up in court and testify, you are following it! You're done. You adhered to the US Constitution. Unless you're a public official, you did everything the U.S. Constitution requires of you. The million other things the government makes you do are matters of run-of-the-mill statute law, not matters of constitutional law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and in its supreme supremacy, it barely gives a rat's ass about anything as unimportant as you and me. As a minor aside it tells us we all have to obey subpoenas; everything else in it says what public officials must do. Ensuring the citizens adhere to it is blatantly not its primary purpose.

If you still disagree with this, show me another provision of the Constitution that says what a private citizen must do.

Are you asking if I still disagree with 'this'? I'm trying to figure out how 'this' even pertains to my argument, whether in agreement or contradiction.

 

[Bomb#20]

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

Yeah, that's why Australia is indistinguishable from North Korea.

Dude. She didn't say without First Amendment rights, you have no rights at all. Just because Australians are civilized people who can be depended upon not to turn their country into North Korea if left to their unchecked despotic impulses doesn't mean Americans are.

 

[Gospel]

 

[Toni]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights. It’s not pretty—in fact, it’s quite ugly in cases where someone discriminates on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc.

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

There is nothing to differentiate from. The general public is mandated to have access to both "already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual" equally. If you disagree with the mandate take it up with your local representative or utilize other options available to you, but don't pretend like you're being compelled to not take the liberty to operate privately, jet off to a nation that aligns more with your beliefs, & stopped from privately or publicly practicing your faith considering you have the option to run faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on your own.

WHERE does it specify already created/made/manufactured AND created specifically for an individual equally? Aside from your posts, I mean. It's the 'created specifically for an individual' part that is the issue, apparently with the current SCOTUS who seem to disagree with your interpretation.

Generally, businesses that provide services to the public can't refuse service based on protected characteristics. Anything classified as a service falls under this mandate.

Gosh!

Can you cite federal legislation that agrees with what you posted?

 

[Toni]

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

Yeah, that's why Australia is indistinguishable from North Korea.

Dude. She didn't say without First Amendment rights, you have no rights at all. Just because Australians are civilized people who can be depended upon not to turn their country into North Korea if left to their unchecked despotic impulses doesn't mean Americans are.

Really? Not a lot of Australian politics is reported widely here but I’ve done enough digging to know Australians should not be nearly as smug as some are.

 

[Bomb#20]

Of course folks are compelled to follow it. Duh. Where the bejesus do you see anything in my post challenging that?

What you're not grasping is, provided that when you're the guy who knows that the defendant is innocent, and he subpoenas you, you actually show up in court and testify, you are following it! You're done. ... Ensuring the citizens adhere to it is blatantly not its primary purpose.

If you still disagree with this, show me another provision of the Constitution that says what a private citizen must do.

Are you asking if I still disagree with 'this'?

Did it look like I'm asking? Did you see a question mark? I'm assuming you probably still disagree, so I'm challenging you to cough up some empirical evidence for your claim.

I'm trying to figure out how 'this' even pertains to my argument, whether in agreement or contradiction.

According to you, "Its primary purpose is to ensure that US citizens adhere to its provisions." According to it, there are about nine hundred things public officials must do and one thing US citizens must do. So show your work. Show some evidence that ensuring that US citizens adhere to its provisions is its primary purpose.