Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Gospel]

That's an amusing yet thought-provoking point. Given that the Constitution mentions 'established religion,' and with Christianity, by nature, grounded in the Bible, it's a plausible assumption that the Bible should guide a website creator's conduct to avoid any spiritual conflict arising from creating a website inconsistent with their faith.

to me, the question is whether making a website is itself a religious exercise. Can we point to anything in the Bible or other relevant theological sources/guidelines that show that running a business is itself an exercise of religion? If not, it would seem that running a business is a personal choice and if adhering to government regulations of businesses goes against the tenets of your religion it would seem you’d have to sacrifice the business because those regulations are not infringements of your exercising of religion.

With this input, consider the debate effectively concluded. .

 

[Elixir]

That’s an interesting take. How is such privilege earned? If ayone can just do it and call it a privilege, it’s not really a privilege IMO. But being able to treat it as such, if that’s possible, would likely be a good thing.

I see we're dwelling on the term 'privilege', which appears to be a point of contention for you. Perhaps it would be more productive to identify where the Constitution explicitly grants individuals the right to conduct business or provide services.

I think it runs into the dilemma that it is already covered under the provision that all rights not otherwise allocated, accrue to the people. So it’s a battle over whether the unallocated right to refuse service or the unallocated right to be served takes precedence.
I am pretty jaded about efforts to create equality bit by bit. Much easier to take them away bit by bit, as we see in high relief right now. Let’s focus our efforts on getting hold of SCOTUS and eliminating the Alito/Thomas social/economic activist coalition. Then we can look at some truly sweeping reforms that might last longer than “until the next hypothetical problem for a conservative arises”.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

I believe that in most every scenario trying to stomp out 100% of a bad thing is bad for society, the stomping causes higher costs than not getting 100%.

What else should we allow to be done to lgbt people? Child molestation? Spousal abuse? Physical assault? Murder?

How about addressing the point? The cost of driving bad behavior to zero is higher than the cost of a small amount of bad behavior.

No, I don't think any amount of discrimination against lgbt people is acceptable, and I don't think a single solitary inch should be given to fascists, ever.

As the rate gets lower and lower the cost to stamp out each instance gets higher and higher. Eventually it becomes totally prohibitive. Whatever the evil, the same pattern applies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My assertion is that equal services should be extended to all protected classes without discrimination. If the provision of tailored services cannot be uniformly available to all such classes, then perhaps such specialized services shouldn't be offered at all.

Once again, a completely unreasonable approach.

Shall we not be allowed to offer IVF services because gay couples can't use them?

Shall we not be allowed to offer laser tattoo removal because black people can't use it?

Shall we not be allowed to offer childcare because the childless can't use it?

Shall Ringbolt Hot Springs be removed because it's completely inaccessible to anyone in a wheelchair and many other people with mobility issues?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Michigan Salon Owner Refuses to Serve LGBTQ+ Community Because of ‘Pedophiles’

She says because she believes that the “+” indicates “pedophiles,” she’s refusing to serve the “TQ+” community.

www.advocate.com

Some members of the LGBTQ+ community have been banned from a hair salon in Michigan in a breathtaking display of ignorance and bigotry.

The owner of Studio 8 Hair Lab, Christine Geiger, said in a Facebook post that she is exercising her right to free speech by refusing specific customers her services. She also compared gender-diverse people to animals, the Kansas City Star reports.

“If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer,” urged the hair salon owner. “You are not welcome at this salon. Period.”

The salon’s Facebook page was later deleted, and its Instagram profile was set to private. A description of the business on Instagram says it is “A private CONSERVATIVE business that does not cater to woke ideologies.”

A few days earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a web designer was protected under the First Amendment from building a website for same-sex marriages if she refused to do so based on her beliefs.

“We are not bound to any oaths as realtors are regarding discrimination,” Geiger’s post on the salon’s page noted.

And the market is dealing with it fine: Dumped by a supplier.

Hair Care Company Jack Winn Pro Pulls Support of Transphobic Michigan Salon

The company said it was shocked to discover the salon owner’s comments and immediately initiated an investigation.

www.advocate.com

 

[Gospel]

Shall we not be allowed to offer IVF services because gay couples can't use them?

Umm, if IVF means the same thing I'm thinking, they've already been using it. Where have you been?

Shall we not be allowed to offer laser tattoo removal because black people can't use it?

Black people can get laser tattoo removal.

Shall we not be allowed to offer childcare because the childless can't use it?

Childless people have used childcare services.

Shall Ringbolt Hot Springs be removed because it's completely inaccessible to anyone in a wheelchair and many other people with mobility issues?

While no official records indicate that a person with disabilities has visited Ringbolt Hot Springs, there's certainly no barrier preventing them from doing so. Nestled in a secluded area, the springs can be reached via a well-tended trail, designed to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Moreover, ample accessible parking options are conveniently located close to the trailhead. Maybe they just don't want to go? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ You know what there also is no record of? Documented laws or regulations restricting disabled individuals with disabilities from visiting due to religious beliefs.


Thank you for attempting to leverage protected classes to set an unfortunately misguided trap.

 

[Gospel]

That’s an interesting take. How is such privilege earned? If ayone can just do it and call it a privilege, it’s not really a privilege IMO. But being able to treat it as such, if that’s possible, would likely be a good thing.

I see we're dwelling on the term 'privilege', which appears to be a point of contention for you. Perhaps it would be more productive to identify where the Constitution explicitly grants individuals the right to conduct business or provide services.

I think it runs into the dilemma that it is already covered under the provision that all rights not otherwise allocated, accrue to the people. So it’s a battle over whether the unallocated right to refuse service or the unallocated right to be served takes precedence.
I am pretty jaded about efforts to create equality bit by bit. Much easier to take them away bit by bit, as we see in high relief right now. Let’s focus our efforts on getting hold of SCOTUS and eliminating the Alito/Thomas social/economic activist coalition. Then we can look at some truly sweeping reforms that might last longer than “until the next hypothetical problem for a conservative arises”.

Rights have been allocated under the Civil rights Act. An Act which the government has already proven it has compelling government interest in doing so.

 

[Gospel]

Do the world a favor and please show how the government has a compelling interest to allow discrimination based on religious faith. Keep in mind that America has seen how that worked out at home & in Britain.

Edit: Church of England ring bells?

 

[Gospel]

Michigan Salon Owner Refuses to Serve LGBTQ+ Community Because of ‘Pedophiles’

She says because she believes that the “+” indicates “pedophiles,” she’s refusing to serve the “TQ+” community.

www.advocate.com

Some members of the LGBTQ+ community have been banned from a hair salon in Michigan in a breathtaking display of ignorance and bigotry.

The owner of Studio 8 Hair Lab, Christine Geiger, said in a Facebook post that she is exercising her right to free speech by refusing specific customers her services. She also compared gender-diverse people to animals, the Kansas City Star reports.

“If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer,” urged the hair salon owner. “You are not welcome at this salon. Period.”

The salon’s Facebook page was later deleted, and its Instagram profile was set to private. A description of the business on Instagram says it is “A private CONSERVATIVE business that does not cater to woke ideologies.”

A few days earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a web designer was protected under the First Amendment from building a website for same-sex marriages if she refused to do so based on her beliefs.

“We are not bound to any oaths as realtors are regarding discrimination,” Geiger’s post on the salon’s page noted.

And the market is dealing with it fine: Dumped by a supplier.

Hair Care Company Jack Winn Pro Pulls Support of Transphobic Michigan Salon

The company said it was shocked to discover the salon owner’s comments and immediately initiated an investigation.

www.advocate.com

Can't you discern the gravity of this situation? Are you of the opinion that this issue won't ripple out into other sectors? Do you genuinely believe it won't escalate to a point where it inflicts damage on every American eventually? This pattern reminds me of how trends typically emerge. While some trends fizzle out and vanish, many others persist and escalate to a national scale. Take Hip Hop as an example. There was a time in your life when it was active and you never herd of it. However, once it began to gain traction and enjoyed commercial success, its spread was nothing short of exponential. I foresee a similar trajectory for this issue. It begins modestly, but then proliferates to such an extent that it becomes impossible to go a single day without encountering it.

Discrimination has no place in the marketplace. While a few misguided individuals may desire it, they can certainly manage without it, as has been demonstrated for quite some time now.

 

[Bomb#20]

The case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District represents an instance of a citizen versus government dispute. Given that the First Amendment primarily serves to protect citizens from government interference, this case aligns logically with that constitutional provision. However, it's important to note that the First Amendment does not extend to provide protections for citizens against other citizens.

Kindly spare me the need to rephrase the same point in countless variations.

Upheld to protect them from the government.

Ok let me clarify, all of the cases mentioned in your link involves a Citizens Vs Government dispute. Do you get it now?

... Its purpose was to end discrimination in public accommodation. ... Somebody else's mouth is not a place of public accommodation, and I don't see any evidence that the Congress that passed the Civil Rights Act intended to make it one.

The First Amendment stands as a safeguard for the citizens, not against each other, but against potential governmental overreach. It ensures that our freedom of expression remains unfettered by the government, even when such expression might be perceived as offensive or inflammatory.

Contrastingly, the Civil Rights Act operates as a bulwark against discrimination in a wide array of social and economic realms. Conceived with the aspiration to eradicate bias-based conduct, it expressly forbids discrimination rooted in race, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin. The notion that some individuals perceive themselves as unprotected is indeed puzzling. Regardless of one's origin—even if hypothetically hailing from the farthest reaches of the cosmos, whimsically referred to as 'planet numskull'—every individual is shielded from discrimination predicated on race, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin.

TLDR :

1st Amendment protects the people from the government
Civil Rights act was crafted with the aim of eliminating prejudiced practices

Hey Florida Man, you appear to be giving free rein to your inner Texas Man.

A lifetime ago, in a state far, far away, when the Constitution still stood as a safeguard for the citizens so Roe v Wade was still the law of the land, this made a bunch of Republican state legislators sad. They felt really strongly that women should not get abortions, and that fellow citizens should not help women get abortions, and that Republican state legislators were entitled to stop them, because all of your uteri belong to us now or some equivalently dumb-ass mansplainy reason, so they really, really wanted a way around that pesky Constitution thing. Well, long story short, they invented one. They passed a law authorizing citizens to sue one another for getting or aiding and abetting abortions. That way, according to some clever, clever Texas Man, the government would not be involved. The Constitution only prohibits government from stopping abortions. If private citizens want to stop abortions, that's none of the Constitution's beeswax. Thus spake Texas Man.

So, Florida Man, do you agree with Texas Man's reasoning? When Texas ex-husband John Doe files a lawsuit with a Texas court and serves a court writ on former-friend Jenny Roe, for driving ex-wife Jane Doe to an abortion clinic in Indiana where she terminated his god-given embryo, said court writ ordering Jenny to pay John $10,000 or else present herself in a Texas courtroom and explain why she shouldn't have to pay John to a Texas judge, wherein said courtroom if she fails to persuade said Texas judge then he will order her assets to be seized and turned over to John by a Texas Sheriff's Deputy, do you agree with Texas Man that the government of Texas is not involved?

What Texas was doing to pregnant women and their supporters before Roe was overturned was government action from top to bottom. The theory that it was just private citizen on private citizen was a legal fiction. Likewise, when a would-be customer sics the Colorado Civil Rights Division on a business-owner and gets them to pull her license, which is to say, gets them to threaten her with prosecution for selling her services, or he sics a Colorado court on her and gets a judgment against her, which is to say, gets them to confiscate her property, that is government action from top to bottom.

Are there any other Constitutional rights besides free speech you think the government should be able to contract around by using private citizens as make-believe intermediaries in government courts? In a criminal prosecution, when a defendant exercises her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, do you think the judge should award the alleged crime victim $10,000 when he sues the defendant for refusing to incriminate herself, and we should all make believe that the $10,000 was seized by the victim and not by the judge?

 

[Copernicus]

Are there any other Constitutional rights besides free speech you think the government should be able to contract around by using private citizens as make-believe intermediaries in government courts? In a criminal prosecution, when a defendant exercises her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, do you think the judge should award the alleged crime victim $10,000 when he sues the defendant for refusing to incriminate herself, and we should all make believe that the $10,000 was seized by the victim and not by the judge?

Do bear in mind that the Colorado case was based on a fraudulent claim of injury to a business owner that she was being compelled to sell her services to a same-sex couple seeking her advertised support for designing a wedding website. Technically, the Supreme Court was not supposed to take a case in which no actual injury occurred, because there was no actual party seeking her business's services. The Constitution requires there to be actual injuries, not just imaginary or hypothetical ones.

 

[jab]

It's called commercial speech. Commercial speech refers to any form of verbal or written communication initiated by a business with the primary aim of generating income or profit.

So what is the verbal or written communication in a plate of food?

proper nutrition

 

[jab]

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.)

did you get consent for teh photos?

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.

Again, I wasn't talking about him--she said he was gay. I was talking about me, and other posters whom Lake incorrectly assumed were white and straight.
BTW isn't it strange that Lake felicitates with Toni in gendered and racialized and sexual oriented terms for disagreeing with the majority of women Supremes, disagreeing with all the racialized women Supremes, and agreeing with all the male Supremes. Yep men judges know the law for gay weddings better than women judges, and much better than racialized women judges.
Kowtow to the het-positive patriarchy.

 

[jab]

I've seen enough wedding websites to know that it is NOT cut and paste. It's curating photographs. It's selecting font. It's selecting poetry or music (original or otherwise), it's guiding the customers to make tasteful selections that go with their entire theme. There's a LOT to it, if it's done well.

If it were that easy, people would just use an online template and create their own. Some people do and do it well! Others? Not.

What does "curating" photographs mean?

Selecting which photos (or portions of photos) to use for a specific use.

Note: wedding planners, and I suspect people who design wedding websites for couples very often work with a specific photographer or set of photographers and when possible, recommend a specific photographer to work with a specific kind of couple: Someone who likes working with animals for the couple whose dog will be ringbearer, for example. There will also be discussions of what kind of 'feel' they want to convey, and select photos, clothing, hair, location, etc. for that purpose.

*A friend is a wedding planner. That's how I know some of this stuff.

So, a pretentious word for selecting.

"Curating" covers a lot more than just selecting.

Think of museum curator.

I did, and indeed I have known museum curators: and the term was borrowed from them to give a pretentious patina of professional elevation to activities in positions which require no specialized scholarship.

 

[jab]

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.

See post 449 below where C/J/fish is overtly called a bigot by another poster.

Disagree--I do not see that post as calling him a bigot, but rather saying he's hypersensitive to supposed bigotry.

Do reread this exchange carefully:

Those are some real nice people there. Real champions of freedom and liberty.

But somehow, I'm the bigot. Amazing.

"So, you're still peddling your trademark ad hominem arguments and guilt-by-association character assassination. What a surprise.

Voldemort ("He who must not be named") was against Stalin. So if you and Toni were in an argument about Stalin's virtues, no doubt you'd tell her "Here's more info about Voldemort whom you side with, Toni:" and then go on at length about what a piece of human sludge Voldemort was, and finish up with a rhetorical fluorish, "That's some real nice person there. Real champion of freedom and liberty. But somehow, I'm the bigot. Amazing.".

Yes, you'd be the bigot. The fact that Voldemort was a bigot and was against Stalin is not evidence that Stalin was a good guy; it is not evidence that Stalin wasn't a bigot too; it is not evidence that being anti-Stalin is bigoted; and it is not evidence that Toni "sides with" Voldemort. But the fact that you would go there -- that you would insinuate Toni is a bigot because Voldemort happens to agree with her about Stalin -- would be evidence that you're the bigot."

 

[jab]

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.

There is more than one non-heterosexual person on this site and I believe more than one posting in this thread. Sometimes posters reveal their gender and/or sexual orientation and even marital status, kids, pets, etc. Some of us ‘know’ each other from years of posting…

Note that it says "two women and a gay man"--that does not address anyone else participating in the thread. The rest of it is "almost"--that doesn't mean they're 100% white, 100% heterosexual or 100% men.

Well, in her ad hominem defence of homphobia, she leaves out Bomb and you, and at least 3 of the posters disagreeing with Toni, Emily, Bomb, Tom--at least 3 of us are either not white or not heterosexual, and that is more than "almost exclusively" Exclusively means 100% and almost exclusively means very close to 100%.
Meanwhile most of the women Supremes and all of the racialized women Supremes are abandoned by Emily Lake, Toni (and you and others) in favour of all the male Supremes, a fact that adds extra irony to Lake's post, and your defense of it.

 

[ZiprHead]

It's called commercial speech. Commercial speech refers to any form of verbal or written communication initiated by a business with the primary aim of generating income or profit.

So what is the verbal or written communication in a plate of food?

proper nutrition

What if it's a Big Mac?

 

[jab]

My assertion is that equal services should be extended to all protected classes without discrimination. If the provision of tailored services cannot be uniformly available to all such classes, then perhaps such specialized services shouldn't be offered at all.

Once again, a completely unreasonable approach.

Shall we not be allowed to offer IVF services because gay couples can't use them?

Shall we not be allowed to offer laser tattoo removal because black people can't use it?

Shall we not be allowed to offer childcare because the childless can't use it?

Shall Ringbolt Hot Springs be removed because it's completely inaccessible to anyone in a wheelchair and many other people with mobility issues?

Um, black people can and do get tatoos.
Lesbians with sperm donors or, more complicatedly, gay men with egg donors and rent a womb can use IVF services.

 

[jab]

It's called commercial speech. Commercial speech refers to any form of verbal or written communication initiated by a business with the primary aim of generating income or profit.

So what is the verbal or written communication in a plate of food?

proper nutrition

What if it's a Big Mac?

Endorsed by Donald Trump as "burp" proper Maga nutrition!!!

 

[Toni]

Do the world a favor and please show how the government has a compelling interest to allow discrimination based on religious faith. Keep in mind that America has seen how that worked out at home & in Britain.

Edit: Church of England ring bells?

Separation of church and state was one of the founding principles of the USA.