Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Toni]

And some of us believe that the Klan has a constitutional right to march in public streets ( assuming they obtained relevant permits) however disgusting, un-American, hateful, immoral and horrifying we find their bigotry.

And whether the Klan members are gay or not should have no bearing on their right to obtaining a permit.

Totally agree.

 

[Toni]

Regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof, everyone holds convictions. It's crucial for all to respect public norms and laws to maintain equal treatment. While a Christian might modify their behavior in public spaces out of fairness to same-sex couples, those couples, in turn, should offer understanding to Christians with contrasting perspectives. As much as a Christian might choose not to provide services to same-sex couples, these couples have an equal right to voice their concerns, even through organized events. That's the normal process. What is not normal is the fucking Jussie Smollett of web designers lying to the SCOTUS to alter foundational laws in a way that unduly favors Christian beliefs which also challenges the Constitution's directive against favoring any religion.

Except that as far as I can tell, the SCOTUS ruling would be the same of the fake web designer were Muslim or Orthodox Jew or Mormon ( don’t @me about whether or not Mormons are Christian —I have lots of thoughts on that one!) or any other faith that does not sanction marriage between same sex couples.

But that would have made that ‘test case’ interesting, wouldn’t it? Would they have ruled the same if this web designer were Muslim? Would right wing talking heads support them?

If it were purely an intellectual exercise and would not be unnecessarily hurtful to real people, it would be interesting to find out…

 

[Shadowy Man]

Regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof, everyone holds convictions. It's crucial for all to respect public norms and laws to maintain equal treatment. While a Christian might modify their behavior in public spaces out of fairness to same-sex couples, those couples, in turn, should offer understanding to Christians with contrasting perspectives. As much as a Christian might choose not to provide services to same-sex couples, these couples have an equal right to voice their concerns, even through organized events. That's the normal process. What is not normal is the fucking Jussie Smollett of web designers lying to the SCOTUS to alter foundational laws in a way that unduly favors Christian beliefs which also challenges the Constitution's directive against favoring any religion.

Except that as far as I can tell, the SCOTUS ruling would be the same of the fake web designer were Muslim or Orthodox Jew or Mormon ( don’t @me about whether or not Mormons are Christian —I have lots of thoughts on that one!) or any other faith that does not sanction marriage between same sex couples.

But that would have made that ‘test case’ interesting, wouldn’t it? Would they have ruled the same if this web designer were Muslim? Would right wing talking heads support them?

If it were purely an intellectual exercise and would not be unnecessarily hurtful to real people, it would be interesting to find out…

Apparently this case is purely an intellectual exercise as nothing actually happened. No one asked her for a gay wedding website so she hasn’t discriminated against anyone yet.

 

[TomC]

Apparently this case is purely an intellectual exercise as nothing actually happened. No one asked her for a gay wedding website so she hasn’t discriminated against anyone yet.

As far as I can tell,
It's an exercise in manufactured outrage.

Some people are outraged over a fake case of discrimination. Other people are outraged over a fake case of discrimination.

Oh wait, everybody is outraged. Over a fake case.

That's the bottom line, to me. Everyone is outraged over something that didn't even happen.

Outrage sells in the modern media. Sells bigly! No wonder there lots of it.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof, everyone holds convictions. It's crucial for all to respect public norms and laws to maintain equal treatment. While a Christian might modify their behavior in public spaces out of fairness to same-sex couples, those couples, in turn, should offer understanding to Christians with contrasting perspectives. As much as a Christian might choose not to provide services to same-sex couples, these couples have an equal right to voice their concerns, even through organized events. That's the normal process. What is not normal is the fucking Jussie Smollett of web designers lying to the SCOTUS to alter foundational laws in a way that unduly favors Christian beliefs which also challenges the Constitution's directive against favoring any religion.

Except that as far as I can tell, the SCOTUS ruling would be the same of the fake web designer were Muslim or Orthodox Jew or Mormon ( don’t @me about whether or not Mormons are Christian —I have lots of thoughts on that one!) or any other faith that does not sanction marriage between same sex couples.

But that would have made that ‘test case’ interesting, wouldn’t it? Would they have ruled the same if this web designer were Muslim? Would right wing talking heads support them?

If it were purely an intellectual exercise and would not be unnecessarily hurtful to real people, it would be interesting to find out…

Apparently this case is purely an intellectual exercise as nothing actually happened. No one asked her for a gay wedding website so she hasn’t discriminated against anyone yet.

Of course people have been hurt already. Too many gay people now fear for their recently recognized rights. Other minorities fear what the implications are for them. And why would they not? They only have to look at women’s rights, including and especially the right to medical care and travel across state borders and their HIPPA rights.

 

[laughing dog]

Apparently this case is purely an intellectual exercise as nothing actually happened. No one asked her for a gay wedding website so she hasn’t discriminated against anyone yet.

As far as I can tell,
It's an exercise in manufactured outrage.

Some people are outraged over a fake case of discrimination. Other people are outraged over a fake case of discrimination.

Oh wait, everybody is outraged. Over a fake case.

That's the bottom line, to me. Everyone is outraged over something that didn't even happen.

Outrage sells in the modern media. Sells bigly! No wonder there lots of it.
Tom

Something did happen - SCOTUS made a ruling that institutionalized discrimination under the guise of freedom of speech an/or religious freedom.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

They didn't rule companies can make contributions to candidates. They ruled a company can make its own movie criticizing a candidate. Yes, I get that you and the other opponents of the ruling have decided that making a movie that says "Hillary sucks!" is the same thing as paying a bribe to Hillary's opponent -- apparently some people think Citizens United was a bunch of right-wingers thinking they could curry favor with Barack Obama -- but for the love of god, can't you see that if the government is allowed to redefine political speech as "bribery", all our First Amendment rights are dead and buried? Stand on a soapbox and say Senator Bedfellow is a corrupt tool of the oil industry and he'll be able to have you arrested for "trying to bribe a potential future Senator". If the First Amendment isn't a completely toothless joke, if it bans the government from anything, surely it bans the government from suppressing movies for attacking politicians.

”
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.

Yeah, I've read that dissent. It was a hypocritical smear job. Stevens just blatantly brushed aside the constitutional arguments without refuting them, advocated for his preferred outcome on public policy considerations as if the SCOTUS were a legislature rather than a court, groundlessly accused the majority of doing the same, and pretty much betrayed every principle he'd stood up for in his spot-on Bush v Gore dissent.

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.

By "corporate funding restrictions", you're referring to a law that de facto said "Corporations the government doesn't like may not engage in express advocacy. Corporations the government likes may engage in express advocacy to their hearts' content."

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.

Effectively, it says suppressing a movie and pretending what you're suppressing is only money and not speech is not a legal way to get around the rule that the government should not be in the business of keeping politicians in power by suppressing movies.

Effectively, Citizens United and 303 Creative are the same decision: the SCOTUS held that a vanilla act of a legislature does not outrank the Constitution even if it's for a good cause. Reducing the impact of money on politics and getting people not to practice homophobia are good causes; but limited government is a good cause too.

 

[Rhea]

Apparently this case is purely an intellectual exercise as nothing actually happened. No one asked her for a gay wedding website so she hasn’t discriminated against anyone yet.

As far as I can tell,
It's an exercise in manufactured outrage.

Some people are outraged over a fake case of discrimination. Other people are outraged over a fake case of discrimination. a new ruling that will create space for discrimination

Oh wait, everybody is outraged. Half Over a fake case. And the other half over a real court decision on that fake case.

That's the bottom line, to me. Everyone is outraged over something that didn't even happen.

Fixed that for you. Not sure how you missed the real court decision.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Apparently this case is purely an intellectual exercise as nothing actually happened. No one asked her for a gay wedding website so she hasn’t discriminated against anyone yet.

As far as I can tell,
It's an exercise in manufactured outrage.

Some people are outraged over a fake case of discrimination. Other people are outraged over a fake case of discrimination.

Oh wait, everybody is outraged. Over a fake case.

That's the bottom line, to me. Everyone is outraged over something that didn't even happen.

Outrage sells in the modern media. Sells bigly! No wonder there lots of it.
Tom

Something did happen - SCOTUS made a ruling that institutionalized discrimination under the guise of freedom of speech an/or religious freedom.

Yes. The case did indeed happen and so did the ruling. But it was based on a hypothetical intellectual exercise. As others have pointed out it may have real consequences despite that.

 

[Bomb#20]

A for-profit business owner is not endorsing any message, artistic or not.

What's your point? Are you proposing that it's okay for a ruler to order one of her subjects to communicate a message he disagrees with as long as he isn't "endorsing" what she's making him say? Do you think it was legitimate for the government to order me to recite the Lord's Prayer when I was a little kid, because I only had to say it and didn't have to "endorse" it?

... 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? ...

I.e., this ruling is going to have next to no practical impact. The only activities it exempts from the ever-growing reach of government control of the economy are creative arts that no customer in his right mind would have gone to an unwilling seller for in the first place.

...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.

They're "like" in some ways, not in others. The hypothetical website designer is unlike a Social Justice Warrior carpenter in that the SCOTUS won't have the SJW carpenter's back, because Freedom of Carpentry isn't in the Bill of Rights.

That's the real truth--this is a test of whether religious people have special privileges to engage in discrimination

No. Not having to take work you don't want is not a "special privilege". It's the default. Everybody gets to not take work she doesn't want, in nearly all situations. It's getting to make another person serve you against her will that's a "special privilege". The legislature decided to bestow that special privilege on certain designated specially privileged persons -- for good and sufficient reason -- but that didn't magically make what they were bestowing stop being a special privilege. This is a test of whether a legislature's power to bestow special privileges on specially privileged people is unlimited, or only extends as far as the Constitution empowers that legislature.

and what kind of faux legal arguments they can get away with.

"The Constitution outranks an act of a legislature" is not "faux". It's just a legal argument. If it were "faux", then back when Congress said it was a crime for a Communist to be a union employee, the SCOTUS should have tugged its forelock and said "Okay, Yer Lordship".

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.

No doubt. And Communists won't be satisfied with getting to advocate communism. What they want: Communists can seize the means of production and overthrow the government by force and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat and shoot the capitalists. Is that a reason we should treat "The Constitution says he has a right to advocate communism." as a "faux legal argument"? People wishing they had rights the Constitution doesn't guarantee is not a good reason to strip them of the rights it does.

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.

Or it will end when the SJWs file a bunch of legal cases where they defend discriminators who aren't doing creative expression, and they get bored of losing them because the Constitution doesn't guarantee Freedom of Carpentry.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Whereas when it turns out the literal truth or falsity of the claims they make in their arguments are unimportant to them, that's a sign that people are on solid ground, is it?

 

[Bomb#20]

And some of us believe that the Klan has a constitutional right to march in public streets ( assuming they obtained relevant permits) however disgusting, un-American, hateful, immoral and horrifying we find their bigotry.

And whether the Klan members are gay or not should have no bearing on their right to obtaining a permit.

And it has no bearing on it. The fact that there are circumstances where private citizens have the right to treat people unequally has no bearing on whether public officials get to treat people unequally. The 14th Amendment restricts public officials, not private citizens. So if you're implying that the 303 Creative decision means the government can deny a permit to someone for being gay, that's a non-sequitur.

 

[Bomb#20]

And the webmaster won't make gay wedding websites for anyone.

I'm pretty sure that's how it is.

Back in January of 2021, a private concern decided not to do business with a private individual. So they refused to do so. The individual hasn't been convicted of any crime. The private company simply exercised their right to not do business with someone.

Plenty of people have criticized this private concern for refusing to do business with the individual. But not many here on this forum. Certainly not me, I'm fine with private concerns deciding not to do business if they don't want to. From bakers and website developers to social media platforms, I may find their reasons appalling but I support their rights to do as they see fit under near all circumstances.
Tom

Yes. But one reason so appalling I wouldn't support their right to do as they see fit is when their reason is that the government put them up to it. That's the "extraordinary rendition" system of censorship. What the government has no authority to do itself, it has no authority to do by outsourcing its dirty work to a third party.

Judge limits Biden administration in working with social media companies

A judge on Tuesday prohibited several federal agencies and officials of the Biden administration from working with social media companies about “protected speech,” a decision called “a blow to censorship” by one of the Republican officials whose lawsuit prompted the ruling.

apnews.com

 

[Bomb#20]

Bigoted, racist, abhorrent, disgusting and completely reprehensible people do, IMO, have a right to be bigoted, racist, abhorrent, disgusting and completely reprehensible as long as they don’t impinge on anyone else’s rights (except gay black female KKK members of course).

One could equally put it, members of protected classes do have a right to whatever the legislature says they have a right to as long as they don't impinge on anyone else's rights. But phrasing it one way or the other doesn't actually tell us who should get his way when there's a conflict of rights.

There used to be widespread acceptance of the principle that your right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose. But that's passe in modern discourse; people now blithely assert that your right to an unpunched nose ends at someone else's fist, and they don't even notice anything out of the ordinary about their claim or feel any need to offer a justification for it.

So let me run a hypothetical scenario past you. Suppose Congress passes a law making incumbent congressthings a "protected class" whom private citizens are not allowed to discriminate against. Suppose you put up a "Joe Blow for Congress" sign in your yard. The police show up and read you the discrimination act, warning you you'll be fined if you don't also put up a "Marjorie Taylor Greene for Congress" sign pronto. Your Republican neighbor hears you gripe about this, so he argues "Bigoted, Democrat, abhorrent, disgusting and completely reprehensible people do, IMO, have a right to be bigoted, Democrat, abhorrent, disgusting and completely reprehensible as long as they don’t impinge on anyone else’s rights. MTG has a legal right to have you put up a sign supporting her reelection bid. As long as you have up only the Joe Blow sign you're impinging her rights." Would you find that a sound argument?

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

They didn't rule companies can make contributions to candidates. They ruled a company can make its own movie criticizing a candidate. Yes, I get that you and the other opponents of the ruling have decided that making a movie that says "Hillary sucks!" is the same thing as paying a bribe to Hillary's opponent -- apparently some people think Citizens United was a bunch of right-wingers thinking they could curry favor with Barack Obama -- but for the love of god, can't you see that if the government is allowed to redefine political speech as "bribery", all our First Amendment rights are dead and buried? Stand on a soapbox and say Senator Bedfellow is a corrupt tool of the oil industry and he'll be able to have you arrested for "trying to bribe a potential future Senator". If the First Amendment isn't a completely toothless joke, if it bans the government from anything, surely it bans the government from suppressing movies for attacking politicians.

”
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.

Yeah, I've read that dissent. It was a hypocritical smear job. Stevens just blatantly brushed aside the constitutional arguments without refuting them, advocated for his preferred outcome on public policy considerations as if the SCOTUS were a legislature rather than a court, groundlessly accused the majority of doing the same, and pretty much betrayed every principle he'd stood up for in his spot-on Bush v Gore dissent.

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.

By "corporate funding restrictions", you're referring to a law that de facto said "Corporations the government doesn't like may not engage in express advocacy. Corporations the government likes may engage in express advocacy to their hearts' content."

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.

Effectively, it says suppressing a movie and pretending what you're suppressing is only money and not speech is not a legal way to get around the rule that the government should not be in the business of keeping politicians in power by suppressing movies.

Effectively, Citizens United and 303 Creative are the same decision: the SCOTUS held that a vanilla act of a legislature does not outrank the Constitution even if it's for a good cause. Reducing the impact of money on politics and getting people not to practice homophobia are good causes; but limited government is a good cause too.

Where in the constitution does it say corporations have first amendment rights?

 

[ZiprHead]

Bigoted, racist, abhorrent, disgusting and completely reprehensible people do, IMO, have a right to be bigoted, racist, abhorrent, disgusting and completely reprehensible as long as they don’t impinge on anyone else’s rights (except gay black female KKK members of course).

One could equally put it, members of protected classes do have a right to whatever the legislature says they have a right to as long as they don't impinge on anyone else's rights. But phrasing it one way or the other doesn't actually tell us who should get his way when there's a conflict of rights.

There used to be widespread acceptance of the principle that your right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose. But that's passe in modern discourse; people now blithely assert that your right to an unpunched nose ends at someone else's fist, and they don't even notice anything out of the ordinary about their claim or feel any need to offer a justification for it.

So let me run a hypothetical scenario past you. Suppose Congress passes a law making incumbent congressthings a "protected class" whom private citizens are not allowed to discriminate against. Suppose you put up a "Joe Blow for Congress" sign in your yard. The police show up and read you the discrimination act, warning you you'll be fined if you don't also put up a "Marjorie Taylor Greene for Congress" sign pronto. Your Republican neighbor hears you gripe about this, so he argues "Bigoted, Democrat, abhorrent, disgusting and completely reprehensible people do, IMO, have a right to be bigoted, Democrat, abhorrent, disgusting and completely reprehensible as long as they don’t impinge on anyone else’s rights. MTG has a legal right to have you put up a sign supporting her reelection bid. As long as you have up only the Joe Blow sign you're impinging her rights." Would you find that a sound argument?

 

[Elixir]

“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”

… glossing over that fact doesn’t negate the treatment of corporations as people.
Rulings that equate dollars with words just complete the perversion.

 

[Bomb#20]

No, it should not. But no one is arguing that the government has any right to discriminate with respect to issuing parade permits.

Your argument is hedging towards publicly acceptable Jim Crow... it isn't the government, so it is okay. This whole, "But it is expression...." is such a hyper technical excuse to invade in the dignity of *insert whatever minority*.

This whole "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." is such a hyper technical excuse to invade in the Pledge-of-Allegiance-reciting dignity of our classrooms.

We need endure the KkK parade, but and a gay couple has to drive 45 miles further to get a damn cake for a wedding?

FIFY. And a Korean has to endure relocating her grocery store to a neighborhood where the locals aren't organizing one another to walk 45 minutes extra in order to shop at a black-owned business. Are you going to order her black neighbors to buy their groceries from the Korean? We all need to endure the indignity of other people having rights they sometimes exercise in ways we wish they didn't.

We must remain tolerant to intolerance to the point that we violate the dignity of the intolerated?

We must become intolerant to intolerance to the point that we tolerate a lawless government?

 

[laughing dog]

We must become intolerant to intolerance to the point that we tolerate a lawless government?

Please show your work to explain this seemingly reactionary slippery slope argument.

 

[Bomb#20]

Where in the constitution does it say corporations have first amendment rights?

Where in the constitution does it say laser printers have first amendment rights? Nowhere. Do you think that means if you run off a hundred copies of "Vote Marjorie Taylor Greene out of office" on your laser printer instead of finding some collector on eBay who'll sell you a literal printing press, then a Republican-run government should get to shut you down and confiscate your pamphlets? A corporation is a tool. Attributing human writing to the tools humans use instead of to the humans themselves is a reality-avoiding rationalization -- you will enforce your censorship laws by punishing humans for speech by humans, not by punishing tools for speech by tools. Tools don't suffer and tools don't talk.

The wrongness of your argument aside, be careful what you wish for. "Where in the constitution does it say corporations have first amendment rights?", the man says. Do you really want Richard Nixon to have the authority to stop the Washington Post and the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers? The Washington Post and the New York Times are corporations.

Good argument.