Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Bomb#20]

As well as a crime when it occurs in legal filings. I'm am still waiting for news of the fair and just Amurica of Tom and Bomb and Emily and L. P. charging the perjurous litigant and her lawyers.

Amurica? You mean this place?

I don't think it has jurisdiction.

 

[jab]

Michelangelo was forced to paint the Sistine Chapel by his patron

Yes, clearly Renaissance artists are totally relevant to this discussion, makes perfect sense.

well, um, the claims being made, perhaps not by you, is that the perjurous web designer may be a businessperson but is also an artist. Also, you remove my line from the context of the post to which I am replying. That tactic makes perfect sense--yep, I get you.

 

[jab]

dear me, can't ya take a campy joke. Pearl-clutching prissiness, such as you exhibit here, is often a response to camp. I know, I done it myself.
I gather you don't, on principle, approve of the Beatles British perspective in "Happiness is a Warm Gun".
Your country's gun policy, leaning on the second amendment, is crazed, racist in application, and appalling. It facilitates depriving large numbers of Americans of their right to life, so other citizens of democracies can look at the likes of Toni gloating over having a constitution and not having a monarch and think, yeah, but you got guns, guns, guns embedded in your very constitution. Or, have i misunderstood the right to life in America? As another poster reminded me about the right to the pursuit of happiness, it the right to life merely in the your apparently insignificant Declaration of Independence, and therefore not constitutionally guaranteed?

Is it too much to ask that you keep a lid on your nation-based hatred and bigotry?

more prissy pearl-clutching. And Toni has been baiting non-Americans with not having a constitution and having a monarchy---to which I was responding. Perhaps you could jerk your knee in her direction on this issue?

 

[Bomb#20]

... 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.

And if this were about freedom, civil rights, etc... I'd quite agree with your take on this. But this isn't about a freedom, it is about creating an excuse. This finding wasn't about ensuring or expanding rights, but the creation of a legal glitch to ensure the legal protection of those who aim to restrict the rights of others.

This was never about religious convictions or compelled speech. It was about allowing certain whites to be supreme again and asserting their conservative moral authority on others.

Yeah, it's funny that socially conservative Christian homophobes are never black or Latino, isn't it?

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

<back-and-forth snipped>
It means pretty much no one has freedom of speech in the workplace like you decribed above.

There have been a lot of posts expressing that theory, one way or another; that one can serve as a canonical example of this prevalent counterfactual notion of what it means to be forced. When someone says what she says in violation of her values or beliefs because she's paid to, she isn't doing it because she's forced to. Duh! "Freedom of speech" means the government doesn't punish you for not saying what it wants, or for saying what it doesn't want. It doesn't mean some other private citizen will pay you for not doing what she wants you to do. ...

The wedding website designer has the same choice as others. Don't be a wedding website designer if you cannot follow the rules and ethics of the business.

That's a moral judgment; it's an opinion about who should win. So it's a whole separate issue from the legal question of what "freedom of speech" means and the factual question of who is forcing whom. If you want to make a case for "The wedding website designer has the same choice as others. Don't be a wedding website designer if you cannot follow the rules and ethics of the business.", go for it, but do it without spreading disinformation about employees being forced by private workplaces. Paying somebody to get him to do your bidding isn't forcing him.

 

[jab]

What's your point? Are you trying to say I need to shut my uppity negro mouth and not question the authoritah of the SCOTUS? Why state the obvious?

Dude, talk about trying to discern other people's hidden motives. Jesus fucking christ on a cracker - where the fuck do you get off insinuating that Toni is racist? GTFOH with that bullshit.

You can't really say that.
Gospel is staff
Tom

Then Gospel needs to act like staff, and not low-key accuse other posters of being racists when he's having a bit of a tantrum.

and if you can't accuse people who are different than you and complaining of discrimination, of not being adult when they speak up, you can complain them of having a bit of a tantrum (which also has an implication of childishness).

 

[jab]

dear me, can't ya take a campy joke. Pearl-clutching prissiness, such as you exhibit here, is often a response to camp. I know, I done it myself.
I gather you don't, on principle, approve of the Beatles British perspective in "Happiness is a Warm Gun".
Your country's gun policy, leaning on the second amendment, is crazed, racist in application, and appalling. It facilitates depriving large numbers of Americans of their right to life, so other citizens of democracies can look at the likes of Toni gloating over having a constitution and not having a monarch and think, yeah, but you got guns, guns, guns embedded in your very constitution. Or, have i misunderstood the right to life in America? As another poster reminded me about the right to the pursuit of happiness, it the right to life merely in the your apparently insignificant Declaration of Independence, and therefore not constitutionally guaranteed?

Is it too much to ask that you keep a lid on your nation-based hatred and bigotry?

It would be more constructive to provide a counter-argument at this point.

perhaps I wasn't wanting to be constructive. . . .

 

[jab]

Regarding "Happiness is a Warm Gun" by The Beatles, art often provides commentary, satire, or prompts introspection.

To clarify for the youngsters,
Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings. It was famous in the day.
Tom

What does Paul McCarntney's previous stint in the Quarrymen have to do with your Supreme Court using your constitution to side with a perjurous homophobe?

 

[jab]

Now, speaking of art, let me do my Dionne Warwick impersonation.....

What this thread needs now is love, sweet love
It's the only thing that there's just too little of
What this thread needs now is love, sweet love
No, not just for some but for everyone.

*sigh*

How long has this been going on?

What do you all expect to accomplish by repeating the same things over and over again and do attacks and criticisms of others help change the viewpoint's of others? That's news to me.

And btw, Black people do own guns, even here in the South. Lots of them do and it's just as easy for a Black person to buy a gun as it is for anyone who is of a different race or ethnicity. I hate guns, but I'm married to a gun owner and the last time I went to a shooting range with him and his brother, we were the only three white people in the place. Actually, I was the only white one. My husband and his brother are of Arabic descent, which is now considered brown. I just call them "Whitish". And Michelle Obama can "bare" her arms anytime she wants.

This thread certainly needs some humor along with some love.

Who is more likely to be killed by cops on the mere suspicion of exercising their right to carry a gun--a white American male, or a black American male?

 

[jab]

As well as a crime when it occurs in legal filings. I'm am still waiting for news of the fair and just Amurica of Tom and Bomb and Emily and L. P. charging the perjurous litigant and her lawyers.

Amurica? You mean this place?

I don't think it has jurisdiction.

Gotta love Merkins' attempts at humour. If you can't laugh with them, you can sure enough laugh at them.

 

[Bomb#20]

To clarify for the youngsters,
Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings. It was famous in the day.
Tom

What does Paul McCarntney's previous stint in the Quarrymen have to do with your Supreme Court using your constitution to side with a perjurous homophobe a perjurous homophobe to side with your constitution?

FIFY

 

[Gospel]

Does anyone wonder why Muslims don't open liquor stores and Jews don't open pork processing facilities? But the Christian wants special dispensation.

There are businesses which butcher individual customer-provided animals. If a Jew is running such a business is he free to say they will not process pigs?

(These exist primarily to process animals brought in by hunters. Bring them a deer, get a bunch of venison back.)

We've discussed this before. If they choose not to process pigs for everyone, then they're not singling out any group. However, if they selectively process pigs for one specific group based on a protected class, then it breaches anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Does anyone wonder why Muslims don't open liquor stores and Jews don't open pork processing facilities? But the Christian wants special dispensation.

There are businesses which butcher individual customer-provided animals. If a Jew is running such a business is he free to say they will not process pigs?

A couple things. Firstly, is it not kosher to process a pig? Secondly, if they don't process pigs at all, this isn't a restriction to an arbitrary consumer. Of course, if the customer asked for specific cuts, we could say that the butcher is being compelled to speak with the custom butchering.

 

[Elixir]

And since the SCOTUS has ruled both that you can speak in favor of a candidate anonymously and also that you can't donate money to a candidate anonymously, those rulings de facto amount to the SCOTUS having ruled that money is not expression.

Wishful thinking. In fact the individual can take Corporate money and make unlimited contributions to candidates and PACs.
IF they have a controlling interest in the Company or an assenting BoD.

”
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on January 21, 2010 struck down the 60-year-old federal prohibition on corporate independent expenditures in candidate elections in Citizens United v. FEC … In finding the longstanding corporate prohibition unconstitutional, Justice Kennedy writing for the majority overturned part of the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in McConnell v. FEC (2003) and all of its decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), both of which had upheld the constitutionality of restrictions on corporate expenditure. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.

The Citizens United case began as a challenge to BCRA's "electioneering communications" corporate funding restriction and disclosure requirements as applied to plaintiff's film Hillary: The Movie and its advertisements promoting the film. On July 18, 2008, the district court granted the FEC's motion for summary judgment, holding that the film was the "functional equivalent of express advocacy" and therefore could be constitutionally subject to the corporate funding restrictions. Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court.

It was only in its opening brief filed with the Supreme Court that Citizens United first argued that the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce should be overruled. Instead of deciding the case on statutory grounds or on narrow constitutional grounds, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of ordering reargument on the question of whether the Court should overrule its past decisions affirming the constitutionality of restrictions on corporate electoral expenditures. The decision that followed rejected or reinterpreted the Supreme Court’s previous decisions finding that the government had a compelling interest in regulating corporate spending in elections.”

Effectively, it says money is expression and may be used as such by Corporations.

 

[Toni]

dear me, can't ya take a campy joke. Pearl-clutching prissiness, such as you exhibit here, is often a response to camp. I know, I done it myself.
I gather you don't, on principle, approve of the Beatles British perspective in "Happiness is a Warm Gun".
Your country's gun policy, leaning on the second amendment, is crazed, racist in application, and appalling. It facilitates depriving large numbers of Americans of their right to life, so other citizens of democracies can look at the likes of Toni gloating over having a constitution and not having a monarch and think, yeah, but you got guns, guns, guns embedded in your very constitution. Or, have i misunderstood the right to life in America? As another poster reminded me about the right to the pursuit of happiness, it the right to life merely in the your apparently insignificant Declaration of Independence, and therefore not constitutionally guaranteed?

Is it too much to ask that you keep a lid on your nation-based hatred and bigotry?

more prissy pearl-clutching. And Toni has been baiting non-Americans with not having a constitution and having a monarchy---to which I was responding. Perhaps you could jerk your knee in her direction on this issue?

Oh, please. Bilby and I sometimes have a bit of a back and forth when he is (imo) unfairly and not as informed as he should be critical about the US. I think at this point it's mostly for laughs (on my end, anyway, and genuinely don't want to offend bilby or anyone else)---a kind of an open/inside joke. My sincere apologies to anyone I have offended. I definitely realize that this forum is dominated by US citizens and that there is precious little that we Americans are sufficiently informed to constructively contribute to a discussion of the politics of say, Australia. But there are genuinely different cultural differences as well as differences in POV, and in origins of our countries. Depressingly, both nations share a shameful history of subjugating the indigenous population, a history that has tragic ramifications today. We both have primary roots in England but at least in the US, many other roots as well. We won our independence through war. Australia by other means, retaining more ceremonial ties to Britain and actually more cultural ones as well. The US deliberately set out to do things differently 250+ years ago. Australia's autonomy is more recent.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Well, I'm just going to call bullshit on this legal case. A for-profit business owner is not endorsing any message, artistic or not. Also, wedding websites are functional, they integrate RSVPs, they are documentarian, they set up calendar reminders, allow upload/download of photos, and they link to or integrate registries and guestbooks. This is not pure expression, but instead meeting job requirements by utilizing internet skills to copy-paste or use templates or whatever. Also, wedding websites are a thing people do for a temporary length of time as a means of organization for the wedding and they are freely available or can be used through automated services with extremely cheap fees. Who on earth would be going to a graphic artist with no experience in all the features of wedding website functionality and configuration? Nope, it's bullshit.

Not only is it bullshit, the hypothetical website designer is like a Social Justice Warrior carpenter who refuses to make the frames for a house and build the front porch if the house is for a gay married couple because he or she will be participating in some kind of support of how the gay married couple chose to live their lives. That's the real truth--this is a test of whether religious people have special privileges to engage in discrimination and what kind of faux legal arguments they can get away with. It's part of a larger concerted effort of Social Justice Warrior activists creating legal cases before courts of conservative judicial activists to chip away as much as possible and create a framework of legal theory to discriminate and they can call upon this framework and case law more and more as it snowballs.

What they want: Businesses involving printed words can discriminate based on religion. Government employees can discriminate based on religion. Doctors, Nurses, Pharmacists can discriminate based on religion. The legal cases won't end until there is de facto apartheid for gay people or if gay people are just outright banned, which would be simpler for their SJW minds.

 

[Gospel]

Well, I'm just going to call bullshit on this legal case. A for-profit business owner is not endorsing any message, artistic or not. Also, wedding websites are functional, they integrate RSVPs, they are documentarian, they set up calendar reminders, allow upload/download of photos, and they link to or integrate registries and guestbooks. This is not pure expression, but instead meeting job requirements by utilizing internet skills to copy-paste or use templates or whatever. Also, wedding websites are a thing people do for a temporary length of time as a means of organization for the wedding and they are freely available or can be used through automated services with extremely cheap fees. Who on earth would be going to a graphic artist with no experience in all the features of wedding website functionality and configuration? Nope, it's bullshit.

Not only is it bullshit, the hypothetical website designer is like a Social Justice Warrior carpenter who refuses to make the frames for a house and build the front porch if the house is for a gay married couple because he or she will be participating in some kind of support of how the gay married couple chose to live their lives. That's the real truth--this is a test of whether religious people have special privileges to engage in discrimination and what kind of faux legal arguments they can get away with. It's part of a larger concerted effort of Social Justice Warrior activists creating legal cases before courts of conservative judicial activists to chip away as much as possible and create a framework of legal theory to discriminate and they can call upon this framework and case law more and more as it snowballs.

What they want: Businesses involving printed words can discriminate based on religion. Government employees can discriminate based on religion. Doctors, Nurses, Pharmacists can discriminate based on religion. The legal cases won't end until there is de facto apartheid for gay people or if gay people are just outright banned, which would be simpler for their SJW minds.

Spot on. I'm baffled by how fervently some people defend this nonsense. Their arguments have a fart in a hurricane's chance of passing the sniff test.

 

[Gospel]

And since the SCOTUS has ruled both that you can speak in favor of a candidate anonymously and also that you can't donate money to a candidate anonymously, those rulings de facto amount to the SCOTUS having ruled that money is not expression.

Wishful thinking. In fact the individual can take Corporate money and make unlimited contributions to candidates and PACs.
IF they have a controlling interest in the Company or an assenting BoD.

”
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on January 21, 2010 struck down the 60-year-old federal prohibition on corporate independent expenditures in candidate elections in Citizens United v. FEC … In finding the longstanding corporate prohibition unconstitutional, Justice Kennedy writing for the majority overturned part of the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in McConnell v. FEC (2003) and all of its decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), both of which had upheld the constitutionality of restrictions on corporate expenditure. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.

The Citizens United case began as a challenge to BCRA's "electioneering communications" corporate funding restriction and disclosure requirements as applied to plaintiff's film Hillary: The Movie and its advertisements promoting the film. On July 18, 2008, the district court granted the FEC's motion for summary judgment, holding that the film was the "functional equivalent of express advocacy" and therefore could be constitutionally subject to the corporate funding restrictions. Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court.

It was only in its opening brief filed with the Supreme Court that Citizens United first argued that the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce should be overruled. Instead of deciding the case on statutory grounds or on narrow constitutional grounds, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of ordering reargument on the question of whether the Court should overrule its past decisions affirming the constitutionality of restrictions on corporate electoral expenditures. The decision that followed rejected or reinterpreted the Supreme Court’s previous decisions finding that the government had a compelling interest in regulating corporate spending in elections.”

Effectively, it says money is expression and may be used as such by Corporations.

Oh, surely the terms 'person' and 'corporations are people' have never graced the hallowed halls of a courtroom! Because, obviously, something having similar implications is entirely inconsequential.

Said no one ever.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, I'm just going to call bullshit on this legal case. A for-profit business owner is not endorsing any message, artistic or not. Also, wedding websites are functional, they integrate RSVPs, they are documentarian, they set up calendar reminders, allow upload/download of photos, and they link to or integrate registries and guestbooks. This is not pure expression, but instead meeting job requirements by utilizing internet skills to copy-paste or use templates or whatever. Also, wedding websites are a thing people do for a temporary length of time as a means of organization for the wedding and they are freely available or can be used through automated services with extremely cheap fees. Who on earth would be going to a graphic artist with no experience in all the features of wedding website functionality and configuration? Nope, it's bullshit.

Not only is it bullshit, the hypothetical website designer is like a Social Justice Warrior carpenter who refuses to make the frames for a house and build the front porch if the house is for a gay married couple because he or she will be participating in some kind of support of how the gay married couple chose to live their lives. That's the real truth--this is a test of whether religious people have special privileges to engage in discrimination and what kind of faux legal arguments they can get away with. It's part of a larger concerted effort of Social Justice Warrior activists creating legal cases before courts of conservative judicial activists to chip away as much as possible and create a framework of legal theory to discriminate and they can call upon this framework and case law more and more as it snowballs.

What they want: Businesses involving printed words can discriminate based on religion. Government employees can discriminate based on religion. Doctors, Nurses, Pharmacists can discriminate based on religion. The legal cases won't end until there is de facto apartheid for gay people or if gay people are just outright banned, which would be simpler for their SJW minds.

Spot on. I'm baffled by how fervently some people defend this nonsense. Their arguments have a fart in a hurricane's chance of passing the sniff test.

But wouldn't a fart in a hurricane pass the sniff test?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on January 21, 2010 struck down the 60-year-old federal prohibition on corporate independent expenditures in candidate elections in Citizens United v. FEC … In finding the longstanding corporate prohibition unconstitutional, Justice Kennedy writing for the majority overturned part of the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in McConnell v. FEC (2003) and all of its decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), both of which had upheld the constitutionality of restrictions on corporate expenditure. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.

The Citizens United case began as a challenge to BCRA's "electioneering communications" corporate funding restriction and disclosure requirements as applied to plaintiff's film Hillary: The Movie and its advertisements promoting the film. On July 18, 2008, the district court granted the FEC's motion for summary judgment, holding that the film was the "functional equivalent of express advocacy" and therefore could be constitutionally subject to the corporate funding restrictions. Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court.

It was only in its opening brief filed with the Supreme Court that Citizens United first argued that the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce should be overruled. Instead of deciding the case on statutory grounds or on narrow constitutional grounds, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of ordering reargument on the question of whether the Court should overrule its past decisions affirming the constitutionality of restrictions on corporate electoral expenditures. The decision that followed rejected or reinterpreted the Supreme Court’s previous decisions finding that the government had a compelling interest in regulating corporate spending in elections.”

Effectively, it says money is expression and may be used as such by Corporations.

I'm reminded of the days of "President George W. Bush never directly said 'Hussein was involved in 9/11'." People have this tendency to become hyper-critical when it is beneficial to whatever point they are trying to make, when their ground is a bit shaky.