Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[southernhybrid]

It is ENTIRELY about whether or not someone can be legally compelled to create content that they find repugnant.

Do you think a racist graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites should be allowed to refuse to work with interracial couples? Wedding websites are going to have custom content, including pictures of the betrothed couple displaying affection in various ways that a racist will likely find repugnant.

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled on Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.

The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn't want to make wedding websites for gay couples

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with gay couples, a setback for LGBTQ+ people and another win for religious plaintiffs.

apnews.com

I think a graphic artist should be legally allowed to accept or refuse any clients they choose fir whatever selection criteria they use.

I believe that selecting clients on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender identity, sex or sexual preferences or because the clients are a mixed race couple is morally repugnant and disgusting, the same as I believe that belonging to a Nazi organization is disgusting and morally repugnant. But it’s not constitutionally forbidden to be disgusting or morally repugnant.

I find two parts of that debatable. First of all, since this was a fake case i, we don't really know exactly what a gay couple might ask to be created for the website. So, if what they wanted was very tasteful and similar to the same art that straight couples asked to have done, I see it as a violation of the gay couple's rights not to have the same type of website done as the straight couple.

So, perhaps a website owner might be expected to do a website for a Nazi group, but it would have to be similar to those created for, let's say the Democratic Party or the Green Party, just a simple add for their party. It would be difficult for someone like you and me to do that, but they are paying you for it and it's no different from other things you do for different groups.

The thing is that when you go into business, you benefit from certain aspects of the infrastructure, tax breaks, etc. So, I'm not crazy about the idea that one should be permitted to refuse to create a similar website for a group they find against their religion or despicable for moral reasons.. I don't personally see this as different from being able to refuse to serve Nazis in a little restaurant owned by liberals or secular humanists etc. Or the opposite, a bigoted redneck having to serve a Black couple etc. Where do you draw the line? I personally think it's okay to allow people to refuse to create certain types of artwork, for example, a website with a couple having sex or something along those lines. But if a straight couple and a gay couple simply want a pretty website with their photo dressed up for their wedding, it doesn't seem right to me to allow the website designer to refuse to serve the other couple simply because they are same sex. Why would you disagree with that?

And, please let me add a little vent by saying this is the most corrupt, despicable, partisan court I remember in my life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Please consider a different scenario:

Suppose I'm a web designer who despises the whole stupid white nationalism and nazi thing. Suppose someone contacts me and asks me to design a website for their organization. Suppose that organization is actually white nationalism/Nazi or adjacent. Am I legally or morally required to create the website that they wish me to create?

Suppose I am also baker who specializes in special occasion cakes, with words as part of the decoration. Am I required to provide a cake for the above organization if it insists I write words in support of white nationalism or Nazis?

I see both scenarios as legally equivalent.

I contend that I am not required to create any content that I find repugnant or morally offensive or wrong. I believe that I would be required to sell a cake to the cretins asking for one but I am NOT required to write offensive (to me) content on that cake. I contend that I am NOT required to create a website that includes or supports any organization or includes content I find repugnant.

Yup, I partially agree with the court on this one.

When the task at hand involves actual creativity I believe they should be free to reject any task they find repulsive. Your judgment is going to suffer in such a case, you should not be compelled to do it.

However, I believe this should only apply in cases involving actual creativity and only to those actually being creative. Thus the cake decorator can refuse to make a design they don't approve of, but can't refuse to simply print an offensive image. The baker who actually makes the cake that's being decorated isn't being creative, they don't get a say. (Note, though, that it's quite possible the baker and the decorator are one in the same--the decorator hat wins.)

I also have no problem with a bakery saying they will not make cakes that are offensive to more than a tiny sliver of the population (the lone nut that hates flowers doesn't get to say flower decorations are offensive) but they need to be uniform about this. You don't get to make a swastika but refuse a pride flag.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, I could not go into a Jewish delicatessen and insist that they sell me food that is halal*. They would be compelled to sell me whatever they sold any other customer.


*halal is the set of Muslim dietary laws. I am not Muslim nor am I Jewish but the principle of what a person can or cannot compel a business to provide is the same.

Yup, although for the most part Kosher food is also Halal. AFIAK exceptions being alcohol (Halal does not permit even trace amounts--things like vanilla extract are thus forbidden) and rules about how an animal is killed.

 

[Toni]

There is nothing that I am aware of that prevents any person who is turned down by one creator from taking their business to another creator. Or creating the desired content themselves.

This is different from whether or not someone/company that makes templates for wedding sites for couples has a right to refuse to sell a template to a couple who, for whatever reason, they do not feel inclined to help. The template should be provided, whether it not the couple is gay, bi-racial, gender-non-conforming, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Wiccan, whatever. Specific content: No. No one should be so compelled to create content that violates their principles.

A baker could and should be compelled to sell a wedding cake to any couple who wishes and us able to afford one of their cakes so long as the cake is within the baker’s repertoire. But that does NOT include providing wedding toppers, specific themes, or writing that they find repugnant.


.

I also find it a little difficult to believe that a business who does not wish to work with a client would be so foolish as to cite religious grounds for refusing the prospective client.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's see how it plays out when a web design business decides that it won't display pictures of interracial marriages because the owner of the business is against race mixing. I suppose that Thomas would be in favor of the Colorado law putting an end to that, but maybe not. He could take the libertarian route and say that people can just patronize a business that is not against race mixing, assuming that the Klan has not found ways to limit the availability of such separate but equal businesses.

Display != design.

 

[Toni]

I want to preface this post by saying, unequivocally, that I think that the whole fake customer, fake request was/is/will always be utterly and completely reprehensible and I find it flabbergasting that the falsehood behind this was not revealed initially and that the Supreme Court ever heard the case. Hopefully you all realize that I am also completely supportive of gay marriage. Also I have not read the decision myself.

Please consider a different scenario:

Suppose I'm a web designer who despises the whole stupid white nationalism and nazi thing. Suppose someone contacts me and asks me to design a website for their organization. Suppose that organization is actually white nationalism/Nazi or adjacent. Am I legally or morally required to create the website that they wish me to create?

Suppose I am also baker who specializes in special occasion cakes, with words as part of the decoration. Am I required to provide a cake for the above organization if it insists I write words in support of white nationalism or Nazis?

I see both scenarios as legally equivalent.

I contend that I am not required to create any content that I find repugnant or morally offensive or wrong. I believe that I would be required to sell a cake to the cretins asking for one but I am NOT required to write offensive (to me) content on that cake. I contend that I am NOT required to create a website that includes or supports any organization or includes content I find repugnant.

They are not equivalent, as Nazis aren't born Nazis. Gays, blacks, whites are dealt their hands at birth. Allowing the prohibition of sales can create islands of no service to groups of people that are considered legally deprivable of their rights.

This has nothing to do with Nazis and their repugnant existance. This has to do with human beings trying to enjoy the rights and privileges that are promised to them in the Constitution of the United States.

But there is no right or privilege that allows anyone to compel another person to create content that they find repugnant or that violates their principles, religious or not.

Generic cake or website template that is already created? They must sell to anyone whether or not they like them. Specifically being required to CREATE content for someone who wishes them to create something in violation of their principles? No.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You think a graphic artist should be allowed to discriminate based on race but a restaurant shouldn't? What's the difference? A chef could argue that his meals are a form of artistic expression.

The chef creates something they offer to all comers. The graphic artist creates custom work. That's the key difference.

 

[Toni]

Do you think a racist graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites should be allowed to refuse to work with interracial couples?

Yes. Absolutely.

Another question might be, "Why would an interracial couple demand a wedding website by a racist? What possible reasons are there for wanting a website by that particular designer?"

The answer is obvious to me.
Do you understand it?
Tom

Black people specifically chose to sit at lunch counters or in white sections of movie theaters or busses in order to challenge unjust laws on racial segregation.

I understand why an interracial couple or gay couple would specifically attempt to gain the services of a bigoted business owner. I am not disagreeing with their right to do so.

But at the same time I, freedom of speech applies to a variety of content. No one can be compelled to create content that violates their principles, religious or otherwise.

An anti semitic ( or not) restaurant owner cannot exclude a Jewish person from their restaurant. They are not required to provide a kosher meal or even to identify which menu items might be kosher. They must serve them any item on their menu. They are not required to specially prepare food on keeping with Jewish dietary law.

 

[TomC]

I understand why an interracial couple or gay couple would specifically attempt to gain the services of a bigoted business owner. I am not disagreeing with their right to do so.

I do to.
They're "Woker than thou!"

They're edgelords looking for internet cred.

They know how popular it will make them amongst the people they care about.

They're really not very different from the TeaParty Trumpistas who say and do stupid things on the netz.
Tom

 

[Toni]

I understand why an interracial couple or gay couple would specifically attempt to gain the services of a bigoted business owner. I am not disagreeing with their right to do so.

I do to.
They're "Woker than thou!"

They're edgelords looking for internet cred.

They know how popular it will make them amongst the people they care about.

They're really not very different from the TeaParty Trumpistas who say and do stupid things on the netz.
Tom

You’re much more cynical than I am.

I can understand trying to patronize a business that will likely turn you away in order to attempt to induce them to confront and question their bigotry, and also to generate greater publicity of the businesses bigoted policies—and thereby increase pressure on the business to change.

But we know different people.

 

[Copernicus]

Let's see how it plays out when a web design business decides that it won't display pictures of interracial marriages because the owner of the business is against race mixing. I suppose that Thomas would be in favor of the Colorado law putting an end to that, but maybe not. He could take the libertarian route and say that people can just patronize a business that is not against race mixing, assuming that the Klan has not found ways to limit the availability of such separate but equal businesses.

Display != design.

A logic-chopping distinction. Web designers might well rent hosting services for their products, but, even if they don't, the material makes no sense unless it is ultimately displayed on the web.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

There is nothing that I am aware of that prevents any person who is turned down by one creator from taking their business to another creator.

What if the next creator is also a bigot? And the next one. And the next one. And the next one after that.

 

[Copernicus]

What if the next creator is also a bigot? And the next one. And the next one. And the next one after that.

This was exactly the problem during the Jim Crow era. If you wanted to run a business that catered to the majority white population, then you made sure that the clientele was not mixed race. Businesses were encouraged not to integrate, and that's why there was fierce resistance to the lunch counter sit-ins.

When the law forced businesses to serve protected classes, the businesses that catered to integration gained protection and legitimacy. If they didn't want to serve protected classes, the rights of protected classes were elevated above their right to serve whomever they pleased. Governments exist to resolve disputes of this sort, because equal rights doesn't mean that everyone has the right to do what they want. Someone's freedom is always going to come into conflict with someone else's freedom.

 

[Toni]

There is nothing that I am aware of that prevents any person who is turned down by one creator from taking their business to another creator.

What if the next creator is also a bigot? And the next one. And the next one. And the next one after that.

View attachment 43653

They are still as entitled to free speech, no matter how repellant you are I may find their speech.

If the law can compel a bigot to create content contrary to their bigoted and ignorant opinions, then the law can compel a creator to create content in support of bigots and racists and homophobes. If free speech for one group can be constrained, then there is no free speech.

I’m in favor of free speech. For everyone. No matter how stupid, ignorant or bigoted.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

You think a graphic artist should be allowed to discriminate based on race but a restaurant shouldn't? What's the difference? A chef could argue that his meals are a form of artistic expression.

The chef creates something they offer to all comers. The graphic artist creates custom work. That's the key difference.

The chef can easily claim that every made to order meal he creates is specific to each individual diner.

Healthcare is custom work. You can't go to a hospital and order a generic, off the shelf tumor excision.

Police work is custom. You can't buy an off the shelf, generic police investigation. Police work is tailored to each individual crime, victim, and perpetrator.

Photography, tailoring, portrait painting, house renovation, home decorating, bike fitting, catering, audio recording, ophthalmology, hairdressing, manicuring and pedicuring, automobile customization, print services, ghost writing, tutoring, etc...

Even if we stipulate that this only applies to "expressive services", the logical outcome can potentially be a return to a time when "No n***** allowed" signs were commonplace.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

If the law can compel a bigot to create content contrary to their bigoted and ignorant opinions,

That bigot isn't being compelled to do anything. She doesn't have a constitutional right to be a wedding website designer. She can find a new line of work.

then the law can compel a creator to create content in support of bigots and racists and homophobes.

Again, she's not being compelled, and anyway, bigot, racist, and homophobe aren't protected classes.

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

They are still as entitled to free speech, no matter how repellant you are I may find their speech.

The 1st amendment does not give the bigot a right to run a wedding website business. It guarantees her right to freedom of expression. She is free to express her hatred of gays irrespective of whether she has a wedding website business.

 

[Toni]

You think a graphic artist should be allowed to discriminate based on race but a restaurant shouldn't? What's the difference? A chef could argue that his meals are a form of artistic expression.

The chef creates something they offer to all comers. The graphic artist creates custom work. That's the key difference.

The chef can easily claim that every made to order meal he creates is specific to each individual diner.

Healthcare is custom work. You can't go to a hospital and order a generic, off the shelf tumor excision.

Police work is custom. You can't buy an off the shelf, generic police investigation. Police work is tailored to each individual crime, victim, and perpetrator.

Photography, tailoring, portrait painting, house renovation, home decorating, bike fitting, catering, audio recording, ophthalmology, hairdressing, manicuring and pedicuring, automobile customization, print services, ghost writing, tutoring, etc...

Even if we stipulate that this only applies to "expressive services", the logical outcome can potentially be a return to a time when "No n***** allowed" signs were commonplace.

No. One cannot order up whatever police service or medical service you want, on demand, even if you have enough money to pay for the work you want done.

A chef can claim that all meals are made to order. Frankly, some fast food restaurants make that same claim. But a chef cannot be compelled to create a dish in a cuisine that is outside of the menu or the availability of ingredients. If you order the lobster but table 9 got the last one, you are SOL. Still, aside from following local regulations with regards to food safety and animal cruelty, one cannot compel a chef to serve vegan meals or pork or even make potato salad the way your mamma always made it.

Police work is specific to the situation and within applicable laws and regulations. Medical care is governed by standards of care and medical ethics. There are many other factors that govern how health care and police work is conducted. The practitioner is not expressing free speech by deciding to perform a c-section or to give a speeder a warning. They are exercising professional judgement within the parameters of their jobs.

You are right: It IS possible that laws such as the old Jim Crow laws in some parts of the country can re-emerge and even survive court challenges. Look what happened with Roe v Wade!!!

Which is why elections matter. All of them, from city council to county commissions to judgeships and sheriffs to secretaries of state to representatives and senators at the state and federal level as well as governors and POTUS.

 

[Toni]

They are still as entitled to free speech, no matter how repellant you are I may find their speech.

The 1st amendment does not give the bigot a right to run a wedding website business. It guarantees her right to freedom of expression. She is free to express her hatred of gays irrespective of whether she has a wedding website business.

The first amendment guarantees that she can create whatever type of website she chooses ( subject to some laws regarding public safety). It does not mandate that she not be a bigot any more that it compels someone who has a printing business to print materials that promote bigotry just because a customer demands it.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

one cannot compel a chef to serve vegan meals or pork

That is not what this case was about. This fight is not over whether a chef can be compelled to serve vegan or pork—it is about whether a business is allowed to discriminate against gay people. No one is arguing that you should have a right to be served vegan or pork. The issue is whether someone who serves vegan, or pork, or bread, or whatever, should be allowed to discriminate against gay people (with other protected classes up next, probably, to test this whether the court will apply this precedent to the other classes).