Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[CosmicJellyfish]

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.

A scotus ruling is going to supersede these.

The practitioner is not expressing free speech by deciding to perform a c-section or to give a speeder a warning.

You're responding to my response to Loren's statement regarding "custom work". Two different arguments are getting confused here.

 

[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.

The first amendment guarantees that she can create whatever type of website she chooses ( subject to some laws regarding public safety).

Creating a website is one thing. Running a business that provides a service to the public is another thing entirely. No one is arguing that she can't create a hate website.

It does not mandate that she not be a bigot

No one is saying that it does. "not being a bigot" and "discriminating against gays" are two different things.

any more that it compels someone who has a printing business to print materials that promote bigotry just because a customer demands it.

Once again, "bigot" is not a protected class. No one is arguing that someone should be compelled to print bigoted material.

 

[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).

Creating a website is one thing. Running a business that provides a service to the public is another thing entirely. No one is arguing that she can't create a hate website.

It does not mandate that she not be a bigot

No one is saying that it does. "not being a bigot" and "discriminating against gays" are two different things.

any more that it compels someone who has a printing business to print materials that promote bigotry just because a customer demands it.

Once again, "bigot" is not a protected class. No one is arguing that someone should be compelled to print bigoted material.

If she is compelled to create a website for a gay couple, then why isn't she likewise compelled to create a website for a Nazi wedding?

A lot depends on what is provided in the service. Does she merely provide a generic template she designed for couples planning their wedding? If so, then the template must be offered to any paying customer. Does she offer to create actual content for couples? Groom will take Bride to be his lawful wedded wife according to the laws and covenants set forth by the Holy Bible and the State of Missouri? If she does, then she has a right to decline to create a website promoting the marriage of a gay couple or a mixed race couple or an atheist couple however disgusting and horrible and bigoted that is.

If a furniture maker makes custom pieces of furniture and has say, a table, for sale in his shop, he must sell it to any buyer who meets the terms of purchase. However, he can decline to MAKE a table for any specific customer he chooses to, for whatever reason he wishes. If a person wishes to commission a table in a style that the furniture maker does not work in, or in a wood species the table maker doesn't use or isn't available, or at a price point or in a time frame the furniture maker cannot or is unwilling to meet, then the table maker isn't compelled to create the table for the person.

If someone paints portraits of persons, they may decline to paint the portrait of anyone they choose, for whatever reason. If a person paints landscapes, and offers them for sale to the public, then the person must sell to whoever wishes to buy a particular painting. They are NOT compelled to create a custom painting (or a generic one) specifically for someone.

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).

It's the same principle. Someone cannot be compelled to create any content. Full stop. Their reasons to refuse to create specific content are irrelevant.

 

[Toni]

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.

A scotus ruling is going to supersede these.

The practitioner is not expressing free speech by deciding to perform a c-section or to give a speeder a warning.

You're responding to my response to Loren's statement regarding "custom work". Two different arguments are getting confused here.

Not sure of either point you think you are making?

 

[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).

Creating a website is one thing. Running a business that provides a service to the public is another thing entirely. No one is arguing that she can't create a hate website.

It does not mandate that she not be a bigot

No one is saying that it does. "not being a bigot" and "discriminating against gays" are two different things.

any more that it compels someone who has a printing business to print materials that promote bigotry just because a customer demands it.

Once again, "bigot" is not a protected class. No one is arguing that someone should be compelled to print bigoted material.

Being in a protected class does not give someone the right to demand that someone else create content specifically for them.

 

[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.

The first amendment guarantees that she can create whatever type of website she chooses ( subject to some laws regarding public safety).

Creating a website is one thing. Running a business that provides a service to the public is another thing entirely. No one is arguing that she can't create a hate website.

It does not mandate that she not be a bigot

No one is saying that it does. "not being a bigot" and "discriminating against gays" are two different things.

any more that it compels someone who has a printing business to print materials that promote bigotry just because a customer demands it.

Once again, "bigot" is not a protected class. No one is arguing that someone should be compelled to print bigoted material.

If she is compelled to create a website for a gay couple, then why isn't she likewise compelled to create a website for a Nazi wedding?

No one has argued that anyone should be compelled to create a website for a Nazi wedding. No one is born Nazi, and Nazis aren't a protected class, and no aspect of this case had anything to do with anyone being compelled to make wedding sites for Nazis.

A lot depends on what is provided in the service. Does she merely provide a generic template she designed for couples planning their wedding? If so, then the template must be offered to any paying customer. Does she offer to create actual content for couples? Groom will take Bride to be his lawful wedded wife according to the laws and covenants set forth by the Holy Bible and the State of Missouri? If she does, then she has a right to decline to create a website promoting the marriage of a gay couple or a mixed race couple or an atheist couple however disgusting and horrible and bigoted that is.

Yes, she does now that SCOTUS has legalized discrimination.

If a furniture maker makes custom pieces of furniture and has say, a table, for sale in his shop, he must sell it to any buyer who meets the terms of purchase. However, he can decline to MAKE a table for any specific customer he chooses to, for whatever reason he wishes.

Yes, thanks to this SCOTUS ruling.

If a person wishes to commission a table in a style that the furniture maker does not work in, or in a wood species the table maker doesn't use or isn't available, or at a price point or in a time frame the furniture maker cannot or is unwilling to meet, then the table maker isn't compelled to create the table for the person.

This was never in question.

If someone paints portraits of persons, they may decline to paint the portrait of anyone they choose, for whatever reason.

Yes, thanks to this SCOTUS ruling.

If a person paints landscapes, and offers them for sale to the public, then the person must sell to whoever wishes to buy a particular painting. They are NOT compelled to create a custom painting (or a generic one) specifically for someone.

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).

It's the same principle.

No, these are not the same. The SCOTUS ruling is about whether someone should be allowed to discriminate against gay people (and by extension other protected classes). You're talking about whether someone should be compelled to create certain products. This case had nothing to do with whether someone should have a constitutional right to be served pork or vegan food. There is no constitutional right to be served vegan food or pork, and no one is fighting for such a right.

Someone cannot be compelled to create any content. Full stop. Their reasons to refuse to create specific content are irrelevant.

The case wasn't about compelling people to create any content. It was about whether people who create content are allowed to refuse to service to protected classes. The court's ruling has legalized discrimination in cases of "expressive, original design".

 

[Patooka]

What is the difference between a business and an expressive business, out of curiosity? Where in the constitution does it say that?

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

Being in a protected class does not give someone the right to demand that someone else create content specifically for them.

No, but prior to this, protected classes were protected from discrimination. With this ruling, they are no longer protected where "expressive original design" is concerned.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

What is the difference between a business and an expressive business, out of curiosity?

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

The decision suggests that artists, photographers, videographers and writers are among those who can refuse to offer what the court called expressive services

Where in the constitution does it say that?

The right-wing argument is that it is implied in the First Amendment.

 

[Toni]

Being in a protected class does not give someone the right to demand that someone else create content specifically for them.

No, but prior to this, protected classes were protected from discrimination. With this ruling, they are no longer protected where "expressive original design" is concerned.

Really, you think that gay couples all over the country were patronizing homophobic wedding website creators and forcing them to create websites for them? I don’t think so.

You think that gay people, black people, women, everybody who is for some reason part of the group of protected classes did not face discrimination-/dangerous discrimination that is carried out with impunity every single day before this decision was handed down?

Not even close.

Do I agree with this decision? I do agree that no one can force someone to create something especially for them. I believe that under the United States Constitution, everyone has the right to free speech, even hateful speech, within a few limitations ( yelling fire in a crowded theater).

As I stated earlier, I am absolutely appalled that any court, much less the USSC agreed to hear a case that was built on a lie and deliberate deception.

I also believe that racism is wrong, homophobia is wrong, antisemitism is wrong, all bigotry and hatred directed at anyone because of any inborn characteristic or religious affiliation is wrong. Such sentiments, especially expressed in any way that causes harm to other people is despicable and disgusting.

I don’t believe that that the law should protect such hate mongers and bigots from the consequences of their actions.

But I also believe that all of us have the constitutionally protected freedom of speech, with some limitations.

 

[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).

Creating a website is one thing. Running a business that provides a service to the public is another thing entirely. No one is arguing that she can't create a hate website.

It does not mandate that she not be a bigot

No one is saying that it does. "not being a bigot" and "discriminating against gays" are two different things.

any more that it compels someone who has a printing business to print materials that promote bigotry just because a customer demands it.

Once again, "bigot" is not a protected class. No one is arguing that someone should be compelled to print bigoted material.

If she is compelled to create a website for a gay couple, then why isn't she likewise compelled to create a website for a Nazi wedding?

No one has argued that anyone should be compelled to create a website for a Nazi wedding. No one is born Nazi, and Nazis aren't a protected class, and no aspect of this case had anything to do with anyone being compelled to make wedding sites for Nazis.

A lot depends on what is provided in the service. Does she merely provide a generic template she designed for couples planning their wedding? If so, then the template must be offered to any paying customer. Does she offer to create actual content for couples? Groom will take Bride to be his lawful wedded wife according to the laws and covenants set forth by the Holy Bible and the State of Missouri? If she does, then she has a right to decline to create a website promoting the marriage of a gay couple or a mixed race couple or an atheist couple however disgusting and horrible and bigoted that is.

Yes, she does now that SCOTUS has legalized discrimination.

If a furniture maker makes custom pieces of furniture and has say, a table, for sale in his shop, he must sell it to any buyer who meets the terms of purchase. However, he can decline to MAKE a table for any specific customer he chooses to, for whatever reason he wishes.

Yes, thanks to this SCOTUS ruling.

If a person wishes to commission a table in a style that the furniture maker does not work in, or in a wood species the table maker doesn't use or isn't available, or at a price point or in a time frame the furniture maker cannot or is unwilling to meet, then the table maker isn't compelled to create the table for the person.

This was never in question.

If someone paints portraits of persons, they may decline to paint the portrait of anyone they choose, for whatever reason.

Yes, thanks to this SCOTUS ruling.

If a person paints landscapes, and offers them for sale to the public, then the person must sell to whoever wishes to buy a particular painting. They are NOT compelled to create a custom painting (or a generic one) specifically for someone.

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).

It's the same principle.

No, these are not the same. The SCOTUS ruling is about whether someone should be allowed to discriminate against gay people (and by extension other protected classes). You're talking about whether someone should be compelled to create certain products. This case had nothing to do with whether someone should have a constitutional right to be served pork or vegan food. There is no constitutional right to be served vegan food or pork, and no one is fighting for such a right.

Someone cannot be compelled to create any content. Full stop. Their reasons to refuse to create specific content are irrelevant.

The case wasn't about compelling people to create any content. It was about whether people who create content are allowed to refuse to service to protected classes. The court's ruling has legalized discrimination in cases of "expressive, original design".

It IS the same principle!

The (fake) case WAS about whether anyone can be compelled to create anything that violates their principles and beliefs!

Similarly, a web designer could not be forced to help an anti-gay person or group create a website dedicating cater to anti-gay sentiments.

Or do you think they should be so compelled? Because you cannot have it both ways.

 

[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).

Creating a website is one thing. Running a business that provides a service to the public is another thing entirely. No one is arguing that she can't create a hate website.

It does not mandate that she not be a bigot

No one is saying that it does. "not being a bigot" and "discriminating against gays" are two different things.

any more that it compels someone who has a printing business to print materials that promote bigotry just because a customer demands it.

Once again, "bigot" is not a protected class. No one is arguing that someone should be compelled to print bigoted material.

The question is: can she be compelled to create a hate website because a customer demands it? This decision says no, she would not.

 

[ideologyhunter]

There are too many weeds to this discussion for me to etch a straight line through it. It does seem to me that SCOTUS is now going to sanction any amount of bigotry as a God-given privilege if the bigot can cite "sincere religious beliefs." When it comes to women and their autonomy, anything that offends a bishop has to go.
One wonders what the present court would do with a pharmacist who refused to vend birth control products or "abortifacients" (that's in quotes because the right wing so often lies about them.) Or with Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky -- a divorcee (three times over!) who decided to hew to a strict Biblical view of marriage.
With my sincere atheist beliefs, I wouldn't spend a nickel at Hobby Lobby, Chic-Fil-A, Papa John's, or WalMart, so there's that. (At least one of those has changed hands since its activist heyday on the right -- but all four of 'em wouldn't be in my interest range anyway.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Yes there is, there has been a great deal of Constitutional Law suggesting as such. I mean just because it isn't hip anymore to say that the Bible forbids mixing of the races, this was quite the religious justification for segregation and preventing blacks, Jews, *insert whomever else* from establishments (or quaint things like schools). Those objections were based on "principles" just as much as people who want to say making a website for a gay marriage is based on "principles".

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.

I don't see how this argument doesn't apply to a mixed racial couple, a mixed religious couple, or other classes that are currently (who knows for how long) protected. Why should a person be compelled to bake a cake for a wedding between an upstanding white woman and a mongrel nigger? Their children will be an abomination to the Christian faith! And I don't ask that in any sort of hypothetical, but as in this was an issue in Loving v Virginia (well, not the web site side of it, but whether it was Constitutional to charge a mixed race couple with a crime for getting married).

So what is the difference? Why should a cake baker have to sell to a mixed race heterosexual couple or even a mixed Christian breed of heterosexual couple, but not a gay couple?

This whole "compelled speech" argument is bullshit. This is about SCOTUS recognizing the right to discriminate... as long as someone says it has a religious basis, which reads like Plessy v Fergusson, a wink and nod to bigotry.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Being in a protected class does not give someone the right to demand that someone else create content specifically for them.

No, but prior to this, protected classes were protected from discrimination. With this ruling, they are no longer protected where "expressive original design" is concerned.

It seems bigots are now a "protected class". It is a little bit of an over-simplification here, but this opens the door for bigots to push open further.

 

[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.

Yes there is, there has been a great deal of Constitutional Law suggesting as such. I mean just because it isn't hip anymore to say that the Bible forbids mixing of the races, this was quite the religious justification for segregation and preventing blacks, Jews, *insert whomever else* from establishments (or quaint things like schools). Those objections were based on "principles" just as much as people who want to say making a website for a gay marriage is based on "principles".

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.

I don't see how this argument doesn't apply to a mixed racial couple, a mixed religious couple, or other classes that are currently (who knows for how long) protected. Why should a person be compelled to bake a cake for a wedding between an upstanding white woman and a mongrel nigger? Their children will be an abomination to the Christian faith! And I don't ask that in any sort of hypothetical, but as in this was an issue in Loving v Virginia (well, not the web site side of it, but whether it was Constitutional to charge a mixed race couple with a crime for getting married).

So what is the difference? Why should a cake baker have to sell to a mixed race heterosexual couple or even a mixed Christian breed of heterosexual couple, but not a gay couple?

This whole "compelled speech" argument is bullshit. This is about SCOTUS recognizing the right to discriminate... as long as someone says it has a religious basis, which reads like Plessy v Fergusson, a wink and nod to bigotry.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are very fundamental rights under the US Constitutioin. That's the first amendment. There are limits: You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater; if your religion dictates human sacrifice, you're SOL. And so on.

I understand why people are upset about this ruling. I'm not happy about any of it. But consider:

If a website designer can be compelled to create a website supporting gay marriage, then a website designer can likewise be compelled to create a website supporting homophobia.

Most artists and designers have a repertoire of the types of work they do. I believe web designers have a set of templates that they use. I think under this ruling, a webdesigner could be compelled to sell the template (assuming they sell the templates to customers) to any customer but cannot be compelled to write Jeff and Ted will celebrate their love in holy matrimony at 6:00 on Friday, October 19.....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?"

I'm curious, where in the advertisements for said website designers indicates their political positions on mixed race, religious, or gay marriages?

You seem quite happy to blame victims of discrimination for seeking out discrimination. Thanks to SCOTUS, even those egregious attention whore gays will be joined by other gay couples who were just trying to a service for a wedding. Hopefully there will be signs on the door or a notable disclaimer on the website indicating that "No gays" instead of the doors just being slammed in their face.

 

[Toni]

Being in a protected class does not give someone the right to demand that someone else create content specifically for them.

No, but prior to this, protected classes were protected from discrimination. With this ruling, they are no longer protected where "expressive original design" is concerned.

It seems bigots are now a "protected class". It is a little bit of an over-simplification here, but this opens the door for bigots to push open further.

Not really. It does cut both ways. One cannot be compelled to create content that one finds hateful, either. No one can be compelled to create an anti-gay marriage website or a website specifically against the marriage of Jeff and Ted. A jewelry designer cannot be compelled to create wedding bands with the swastika embedded in it, a diamond in the center. Or one that is engraved Die Faggots Die, if you want a specific protected class. Or paint a portrait of a white person beating a black person.

 

[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?"

I'm curious, where in the advertisements for said website designers indicates their political positions on mixed race, religious, or gay marriages?

You seem quite happy to blame victims of discrimination for seeking out discrimination. Thanks to SCOTUS, even those egregious attention whore gays will be joined by other gay couples who were just trying to a service for a wedding. Hopefully there will be signs on the door or a notable disclaimer on the website indicating that "No gays" instead of the doors just being slammed in their face.

Actually, no doors were slammed in anyone's face.

I don't think that Tom is blaming the victims of discrimination. I think that Tom is expressing the sentiments often shared by oppressed peoples (not saying Tom is oppressed) to avoid confrontation and use someone who is supportive of whatever it is you wish to commission. Black people often consulted the Green Book when traveling for exactly this reason. It is despicable that they needed to do so.

In fact, in a lot of places people will choose a designer or a vendor or say, a wedding planner who has already demonstrated that they do an especially good job with the type of work the client wishes to have. Most Jewish couples (or Muslim couples) will choose someone who has helped with the same sort of event, with their traditions and done so well. There is a lot of self selection going on when people look for photographers, wedding planners, caterers, jewelry designers, etc. Most creators do have lanes, or areas of their expertise. Some are more willing and able to step outside those boundaries more than others.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Yes there is, there has been a great deal of Constitutional Law suggesting as such. I mean just because it isn't hip anymore to say that the Bible forbids mixing of the races, this was quite the religious justification for segregation and preventing blacks, Jews, *insert whomever else* from establishments (or quaint things like schools). Those objections were based on "principles" just as much as people who want to say making a website for a gay marriage is based on "principles".

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.

I don't see how this argument doesn't apply to a mixed racial couple, a mixed religious couple, or other classes that are currently (who knows for how long) protected. Why should a person be compelled to bake a cake for a wedding between an upstanding white woman and a mongrel nigger? Their children will be an abomination to the Christian faith! And I don't ask that in any sort of hypothetical, but as in this was an issue in Loving v Virginia (well, not the web site side of it, but whether it was Constitutional to charge a mixed race couple with a crime for getting married).

So what is the difference? Why should a cake baker have to sell to a mixed race heterosexual couple or even a mixed Christian breed of heterosexual couple, but not a gay couple?

This whole "compelled speech" argument is bullshit. This is about SCOTUS recognizing the right to discriminate... as long as someone says it has a religious basis, which reads like Plessy v Fergusson, a wink and nod to bigotry.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are very fundamental rights under the US Constitutioin. That's the first amendment. There are limits: You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater; if your religion dictates human sacrifice, you're SOL. And so on.

I understand why people are upset about this ruling. I'm not happy about any of it. But consider:

If a website designer can be compelled to create a website supporting gay marriage, then a website designer can likewise be compelled to create a website supporting homophobia.

A minor nitpick is that you didn't answer my question. Instead you are slippery sloping it in another way. But I want to point out my reservation again, what is the difference between "principles" is web designers creating a mixed race/religion/Pats&Jets fan wedding website verses a gay wedding website? What is the difference between "principles" in the criminalization of mixed race marriages and prohibition of gay marriages?

But to answer your question, it is quite simple, weddings are "a thing". Weddings are a big deal. They are deeply ingrained in our societal culture. Finance, property, custody rights all matter related to marriages that come from weddings. Most people get married. Marriage is a privilege recognized by SCOTUS. So getting a website developed for a wedding, which is a thing these days would be within that privilege venue. Where as getting a website designed to express any arbiitrary message would not. That would be a service and isn't remotely like marriage and would fall under the 'if they put together homophobia websites for Jewish customers, they have to for Islamic customers' venue."

Most artists and designers have a repertoire of the types of work they do. I believe web designers have a set of templates that they use. I think under this ruling, a webdesigner could be compelled to sell the template (assuming they sell the templates to customers) to any customer but cannot be compelled to write Jeff and Ted will celebrate their love in holy matrimony at 6:00 on Friday, October 19.....

And I refer to my initial complaint about this. Does this mean they don't even have to sell to Muslim customers? Or just if a Muslim marries a Xian... or do "Principles" only apply when couples have similar genitalia? And we get to the repeated issue with this activist Court's rulings, they suck... they are pretty much opening Pandora;s box... and not providing ANY guidance.