Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Copernicus]

What message is this conveying?

Maybe it's "I ate it and I'm still hungry."

And I paid a lot of money for it.

Perhaps if you had been in a lesbian marriage and wanted to celebrate an important anniversary with your spouse, the message would have been that the restaurant doesn't allow such celebrations in its establishment, as that would make the owners feel like they were compelled to support same-sex marriages. Better to find another restaurant, albeit not with this particular creation that is otherwise available to heterosexual marriage celebrations. I'm assuming that interracial heterosexual marriage celebrations would be fine, because Justice Thomas and his wife Ginni. And didn't you bother to read the sign posted by the door as you entered?

 

[Elixir]

What message is this conveying?

“No fo you, roundeye!”

 

[Toni]

What message is this conveying?

Maybe it's "I ate it and I'm still hungry."

And I paid a lot of money for it.

Perhaps if you had been in a lesbian marriage and wanted to celebrate an important anniversary with your spouse, the message would have been that the restaurant doesn't allow such celebrations in its establishment, as that would make the owners feel like they were compelled to support same-sex marriages. Better to find another restaurant, albeit not with this particular creation that is otherwise available to heterosexual marriage celebrations. I'm assuming that interracial heterosexual marriage celebrations would be fine, because Justice Thomas and his wife Ginni. And didn't you bother to read the sign posted by the door as you entered?

I absolutely take your point, do not consider that bit of food speech and will note on the handful of occasions when we’ve gone out to dinner on our anniversary, only one time did we share with the restaurant t that we were celebration—basically in an attempt to get seated when it was crowded enough that even with reservations, our wait was very unreasonably long. Again, I live in a fairly rural area—at the time, no other decent restaurant within driving distance —and we were hungry.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 43702

There is an obvious difference between refusing to sell someone an existing product ( not allowed) and creating one which expresses beliefs that are contrary to one’s own religious beliefs ( including atheism).

You're making a binary out of a trinary.

There are existing products/made to order from stock options products/custom products.

You seem to be grouping this middle with the custom rather than the stock stuff it should be grouped with.

If I want pink frosting on a blue cake the relevant criteria should be offer-pink-frosting, offer-blue-cake and combination-doesn't-cause-a-conflict. (Note that the first two options might actually reduce further.) It is possible for options to interact badly and thus be disallowed (I'm currently looking at a file of nearly 10mb where over 90% of the file is listing disallowed combinations) but they should have a legitimate reason (most of that file is simply enforcing reality, supplier X doesn't offer color Y and the like.) You don't get to reject the order because you think it's for a transgender coming out party.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The level of smug bigotry arrogance and gaslighting displayed in your posts do not merit further comment.

What the fuck? I'm the bigot? Who exactly am I bigoted against, Toni?

I do not read that as calling you a bigot. Rather, I think she believes you to be arrogant about identifying supposed bigotry--that you're sure you see it but are mistaken.

If a gay couple goes to a photographer that has a "NO FAGS ALLOWED" sign on the door, they have no recourse as of this ruling. They can no longer sue over discriminatory practices because equal protection no longer exists where "expressive services" are involved. That is LITERAL SEGREGATION.

Most of what a photographer does has nothing to do with who one's partner is.

If a wedding website designer can turn away a gay couple, I don't see why a photographer couldn't. Photographer was one of the professions discussed in the ruling.

Note that I said "most of". I would accept a wedding photographer rejecting couples they disagree with.

And of course, your response is "Well, they just have to go somewhere else, no biggie." That's you LITERALLY ENDORSING SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

Separate but equal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The reality is the photographer who tried it would find their business seriously hurt.

Maybe in New York city and San Francisco.

In most places.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I actually agree with B20. Assholes will be assholes, and it’s just as well to let them advertise the fact that they’re assholes. That way you know who they are. I wouldn‘t want to rely on the services of an asshole, anyway. For all this retaliatory talk of “refuse service to religious bigots and xyz assholes”, I don’t think any of it is going anywhere because it’s just not heartfelt like assholes’ assholery is.

Yeah. I have previously suggested that businesses should be allowed to put up "No <X> allowed" signs, but only so long as it also appears on all advertising/signs. Minimal impact on <X> and I think the market would keep the number of such assholes low enough not to matter. Put all the bad apples in one barrel.

You're literally endorsing the return of "N X Allowed" signs. Jesus.

The "sunlight is the best disinfectant" approach is not borne out by history. Sunlight didn't make the No N*** Allowed signs go away; Civil Rights laws did.

Sunlight didn't get rid of them when there was a strong economic incentive to keep them (driving away more customers than you attract). Now it's the other way around, the economic incentive is going to favor not having the sign (you'll drive away far more business than you attract.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A gay wedding doesn't have a pro-same-sex-marriage message any more than heterosexual marriage has a pro-heterosexual marriage message. Your homophobia is showing. Merely existing as a gay person is not a fucking message nor is it an endorsement of being gay nor is it a statement that gay people are better than straight people or that gay marriage is better than straight marriage.

It's not a matter of the message. It's harder to take a good picture when you don't like the subject matter. (And, yes, I have been called upon to take pictures of unpleasant subjects. My father taught cultural anthropology, growing up I spent a total of close to a year in a variety of third world nations. I could take pictures without it being apparent I was doing so--composition might not be perfect but the purpose was documentary rather than artistic so that was tolerable. I've had plenty of shit in the viewfinder--mostly just abject poverty but occasionally literally.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then you oppose the broader SCOTUS ruling that goes beyond religion? This ruling is based on freedom of expression. In theory, deeply held political convictions should also be exempted from antidiscrimination laws. Theoretically, QAnon cult members are now free to run businesses that sell "creatively designed" services and goods that are denied to protected groups that they want to discriminate against. The previous wedding cake decision was about religion. This one goes beyond that.

"Creatively designed" is not something you can reasonably apply to most businesses. While I can't speak for her my position on this:

1) The item in question must be truly creative. Custom, not variation on stock and requiring actual creative thought on the part of the person doing it. (Designing the decoration for a cake: yes. Creating the provided design, whether from the customer or an in-house source: no.) I can't recall ever purchasing such a product.

2) The reason must be relevant to the product, not merely to the customer. If we go to the cabinet store it doesn't matter how vehemently the designer objects to miscegenation, there's nothing about races in cabinets.

I understand your points perfectly well. You've given a lot of thought to how the law ought to work, especially if most people agree with your personal take on what the Supreme Court meant. Never mind that three other justices on that same court did not and thought that the majority opinion would have far broader consequences than your narrow interpretation would seem to allow. We could debate the subject of creativity endlessly, which is why the opinion is so damaging. Not just you and Tony will be arguing the nuances of where to draw the line on protecting protected groups now. Everyone will be. But the line seems clear to you. I get that. What I don't think you get is that people can get very imaginative when it comes to defining creativity. It need not be defined as narrowly as you personally would like.

While people can get very creative about it that doesn't mean the court won't see through the ruse. Same as in the civil rights era they struck down bogus job requirements meant to keep out the undesired populations. (For example, height requirements to keep out women.) The court's ruling seems clear enough to me and I think the left is pretending that it's far more extensive than I see it as being.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then you oppose the broader SCOTUS ruling that goes beyond religion? This ruling is based on freedom of expression. In theory, deeply held political convictions should also be exempted from antidiscrimination laws. Theoretically, QAnon cult members are now free to run businesses that sell "creatively designed" services and goods that are denied to protected groups that they want to discriminate against. The previous wedding cake decision was about religion. This one goes beyond that.

"Creatively designed" is not something you can reasonably apply to most businesses. While I can't speak for her my position on this:

1) The item in question must be truly creative. Custom, not variation on stock and requiring actual creative thought on the part of the person doing it. (Designing the decoration for a cake: yes. Creating the provided design, whether from the customer or an in-house source: no.) I can't recall ever purchasing such a product.

2) The reason must be relevant to the product, not merely to the customer. If we go to the cabinet store it doesn't matter how vehemently the designer objects to miscegenation, there's nothing about races in cabinets.

A company may assert that serving certain demographics conflicts with its foundational principles. This notion stems from the legal concept of corporate personhood, where corporations possess equivalent First Amendment rights to individuals. Therefore, when an employee carries out their duties aligned with the company's principles, it nullifies any contention about creativity in the process.

I'm simply confused here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They used the morally repugnant bullshit to keep Jim Crowe happy and healthy. If a restaurant owner, who is also the chef, says it goes against his "morals" to "cook for" an interracial couple, you're a-ok with that?

Why does the chef even know that we are an interracial couple? And how are our races reflected in dish produced?

I do not believe the chef gets to refuse.

Chef gets to refuse if SCOTUS says chef gets to refuse. At the end of the 20th century, SCOTUS was trending "expansion of Civil Rights". The conservative justices O'Conner and Kennedy, always ceded to that. So generally, when a rights case went to SCOTUS, there was a likely direction it was going to go.

Now in 2023, SCOTUS is trending "contraction of Civil Rights" (yes, I get that some people think the right to discriminate is a thing, but I can't be held responsible for such nonsensical stupidity). So, as with bribery = free speech and corporations can find religion, we understand that as these cases move forward, brought forth by the alt-right / bigots, the access to services will be contracted by SCOTUS, for the next couple of decades.

So while the chef isn't allowed to do something yet, it should be understood that the emphasis is on the word "yet".

I believe SCOTUS put the peg where it belongs. While they might go further next time that doesn't mean I would support them in such a decision. I don't see most rights as standing alone where we should always seek to maximize it. Rather, rights bump into other rights and I believe we need to draw borders between them to minimize the harm as removing all harm is not possible. Taking such borders to either extreme is wrong. (I say "most" because I can't see anything the Third Amendment bumps into, I think it probably stands alone. It's also basically irrelevant these days. Also, the 21st clearly stands alone.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There has been a lot said here about protected classes being those who cannot be turned away because of discrimination. But the designer in this fake case is a devout evangelical Christian who has the right to adhere to the teachings of her religion however fucked up those teachings are.

Save yourself the keystrokes, Toni, and just say that you support segregation. Let's call a spade a spade.

I do not believe she supports segregation in racial matters (bathroom matters are another issue...) and I certainly don't. Rather, what we are saying is that compelling creativity is a worse sin than a few people getting turned away.

People are compelled to be creative all the time. Screenwriters, ghost writers, directors, etc.

And I wouldn't ask any of them to work on a project they disagree with.

Most people do not work in such jobs and most things people hire done aren't creative.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know it's neither here nor there... But don't you find a bit of irony in the fact that it's two women and a gay man - all elements of those "protected classes" arguing that people should not be compelled to express views that are in opposition to their beliefs... while all of us are being told what we ought to believe by a group that is almost exclusively heterosexual white men?

How do you know other people's sexual orientation? On-line gaydar?

If you have the fields under a person's name turned on (I think they're still switchable in this version of the software) TomC's orientation is obvious.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

And yes, even if they eventually find someone willing to photograph them, it's still segregation.

If? Eventually?
I suppose that if you’re a black person in a lily white area full of ignorants - or vice versa - it’s possible that your pursuit of a willing photographer could be frustrated. If it was food, your point would seem pretty compelling. But in your example any segregation involved is initiated and enforced by individuals, to the trivial outcome of delaying the critical 125th of a second,

But this won't be limited to photography and wedding websites. We've already seen a salon get in on the action. Do you really think we've seen the end of this shit?

and while the idea of outlawing it has some appeal, the idea of enforcing it gives me the creeps.

You took offense at me for asking if you're opposed to civil rights laws, but you keep arguing against civil rights laws. Do America's civil rights laws give you the creeps?

Civil right acts in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you think America's civil rights laws have had a positive, negative, or neutral effect on society? Do you think we'd be better off had those civil rights laws never been passed?

People should be allowed to live in fantasy bubbles of their own creation as long as they don’t actively impinge on others’ rights. I don’t think that hanging a shingle for some nonessential frivolity confers any impotant rights on anyone else unless it’s food, shelter, clothing or other necessities.

So you're totally ok with discrimination and segregation so long as minorities are covered on bare necessities. How magnanimous of you. How can you not see how insanely callous this is?

In an ideal world, compelling any business serving any “public” to actually serve the public, should be a legal no brainer. But it’s a handy, irrelevant battleground of distraction for the extreme right, in the current climate.

A "distraction". You're calling actual segregation a distraction. This isn't a "distraction" to the people being targeted by these fascists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What does "curating" photographs mean?

Professional photographers always have shot far more than they ever used. Digital cameras drive the per-click cost to nearly zero and have only amplified this trend. I occasionally post in the wildlife photography thread--but I typically post around 1% of the wildlife shots I take. When using high-end cameras on action shots these days you very often simply rapid fire to the limits of your camera's capability and see what's best.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

The level of smug bigotry arrogance and gaslighting displayed in your posts do not merit further comment.

What the fuck? I'm the bigot? Who exactly am I bigoted against, Toni?

I do not read that as calling you a bigot. Rather, I think she believes you to be arrogant about identifying supposed bigotry--that you're sure you see it but are mistaken.

If a gay couple goes to a photographer that has a "NO FAGS ALLOWED" sign on the door, they have no recourse as of this ruling. They can no longer sue over discriminatory practices because equal protection no longer exists where "expressive services" are involved. That is LITERAL SEGREGATION.

Most of what a photographer does has nothing to do with who one's partner is.

If a wedding website designer can turn away a gay couple, I don't see why a photographer couldn't. Photographer was one of the professions discussed in the ruling.

Note that I said "most of". I would accept a wedding photographer rejecting couples they disagree with.

And of course, your response is "Well, they just have to go somewhere else, no biggie." That's you LITERALLY ENDORSING SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

Separate but equal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The reality is the photographer who tried it would find their business seriously hurt.

Maybe in New York city and San Francisco.

In most places.

Ok, so just be honest and say that you're ok with a little bit of segregation.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

A gay wedding doesn't have a pro-same-sex-marriage message any more than heterosexual marriage has a pro-heterosexual marriage message. Your homophobia is showing. Merely existing as a gay person is not a fucking message nor is it an endorsement of being gay nor is it a statement that gay people are better than straight people or that gay marriage is better than straight marriage.

It's not a matter of the message. It's harder to take a good picture when you don't like the subject matter.

In that case, I have got the perfect job for Lorie Smith of 303 Creative LLC: web designer who does not do wedding websites.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

While people can get very creative about it that doesn't mean the court won't see through the ruse.

The court didn't see through Lorie Smith's ruse.

 

[Copernicus]

While people can get very creative about it that doesn't mean the court won't see through the ruse.

The court didn't see through Lorie Smith's ruse.

I'm not so sure of that. I suspect that they very much wanted to make an unconstitutional advisory ruling and could not do so if they had acknowledged the ruse. And I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of them was coaching the plaintiff on the need to make a stronger case for standing. The business owner needed a gay couple to come forth with a request for the service they were complaining about in order for it to seem like a realistic threat to the business owner. Obviously, however that request got to the business owner--by hook or by crook--it gave them a stronger case for standing with the federal courts. Whoever was behind the hoax obviously wanted the trial to get up to the Supreme Court.

 

[Gospel]

The resurgence of segregation would inevitably reignite tensions reminiscent of those that precipitated the Civil War. On one hand, you'd have factions advocating for secession from the Union, motivated by racial prejudices. On the other hand, there would be staunch Union supporters willing to make uncomfortable compromises with these groups to maintain unity. Such a situation could provoke a severe and dangerous societal divide.

It is truly astounding to witness the myopia of those willing to permit religion - often used as a pretext for discrimination against all protected classes, including the disabled under the assumption of 'sin' - to invoke First Amendment protections not just against government action, but against fellow citizens as well. When the gravity of such actions finally dawns upon you, I hope it's not moments before an irreversible tragedy befalls you. By then it would have been too late for me as well.

 

[Gospel]

Then you oppose the broader SCOTUS ruling that goes beyond religion? This ruling is based on freedom of expression. In theory, deeply held political convictions should also be exempted from antidiscrimination laws. Theoretically, QAnon cult members are now free to run businesses that sell "creatively designed" services and goods that are denied to protected groups that they want to discriminate against. The previous wedding cake decision was about religion. This one goes beyond that.

"Creatively designed" is not something you can reasonably apply to most businesses. While I can't speak for her my position on this:

1) The item in question must be truly creative. Custom, not variation on stock and requiring actual creative thought on the part of the person doing it. (Designing the decoration for a cake: yes. Creating the provided design, whether from the customer or an in-house source: no.) I can't recall ever purchasing such a product.

2) The reason must be relevant to the product, not merely to the customer. If we go to the cabinet store it doesn't matter how vehemently the designer objects to miscegenation, there's nothing about races in cabinets.

A company may assert that serving certain demographics conflicts with its foundational principles. This notion stems from the legal concept of corporate personhood, where corporations possess equivalent First Amendment rights to individuals. Therefore, when an employee carries out their duties aligned with the company's principles, it nullifies any contention about creativity in the process.

I'm simply confused here.

Your understanding would be clearer if you grasped that the First Amendment primarily safeguards individuals' (including corporations, as they are also considered 'people') freedom of speech against government interference. The emerging interpretation of the law extends this protection, allowing it to be wielded by the people, not only against the government, but also against each other.