Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Toni]

And the postal worker in the case I cited upthread is free to take a different job if he doesn't want to work on Sundays (SCOTUS affirmed his right to not work on Sundays, which I think is shaky because I know a ton of Christians who work on Sundays but...)

 

[Emily Lake]

I said This:

The website creator is expressing the thoughts and feelings of the person who requested the website. They may add their own artistic flourishes but the main message is from the person requesting the work. It's like someone translating one language to another.

In response, you said this:

But that’s not typically how such websites work. People want their own unique story told. They lack the skills ( and often the taste and the contacts) to complete their vision, so they hire someone to create to for them.

What's the difference?

Well, it's the difference between you as the purchaser filling out a book of adlibs, and you as the purchaser hiring a ghost writer to turn your story into a book.

 

[Emily Lake]

Help me out here. Can you provide me with a scenario in which a person's first amendment right to practice their religious beliefs is in conflict with statutes around non-discrimination on the basis of skin color or ethnicity?

I'm a white wedding website designer but I cannot make designs for anyone but white people because god seperated the races and doesn't want us to mingle.

Can you provide some doctrine that can be interpreted to support your view in even a semi-rational way?

 

[TomC]

You keep making this about compelled speech, but no one cares what the baker or web designer does.

You really believe this!

Dayum!

 

[Emily Lake]

Let's make that argument for blacks now (or Jews?). Or is it just okay just to limit options for gays or maybe just gays getting married?

What are your limits for allowed discrimination?

Help me out here. Can you provide me with a scenario in which a person's first amendment right to practice their religious beliefs is in conflict with statutes around non-discrimination on the basis of skin color or ethnicity?

So just the gays then? Also, I'm not being flippant. I'm trying to make certain what threshold you are trying to use here. It'll matter further on in the reply.

In this (fictional) case, the conflict is explicit, and is the entire basis of the case itself. If this were a baker who made custom birthday cakes, and they refused to make a birthday cake for a gay guy, that would be an entirely different situation, and I would 100% object to the baker being allowed to do so, even for a custom cake. I would object, because birthdays have nothing at all to do with sexual orientation, and there is no religious guideline against birthdays for gay people. Similarly, if the baker made custom wedding cakes, and refused to make a birthday cake for a black couple, I would object - there is no religious guideline prohibiting the marriage of people on the basis of melanin content.

I'm glad you'd object. Of course, in the 1920s (1960s?) "religion" had a different take on blacks in America. This is one problem I have with this case. This adherence to religious standards. The same standards that criminalized inter-racial marriage. You've managed to make with one parallel above, but what about the inter-racial marriage? What is the basis for forcing a baker or website designer to make a "custom" product for a mixed race couple? We already have the historical precedent for that.

What's your take on Yaniv trying to force muslim women to wax his balls? Whose side do you land on in that, and why did you snip it out? Here, let me copy it for you so you don't have to scroll back up:

The closest parallel I have is the case years ago where Yaniv* sued a bunch of middle-eastern small business women who refused to wax his balls. He argued that because he identifies as transgender, and these businesses performed pubic waxing for women, they should be forced to wax his balls because transgender is a protected characteristic in Canada. On the other hand, the women were almost exclusively muslim women, whose religion prohibits them from handling the genitals of men other than their husbands in any way. In that situation I sided with the aestheticians. Forcing them to wax Yaniv's balls would be a direct violation of their right to religious observance; having waxed balls or not is not a fundamental requirement for Yaniv to be transgender; there are many other businesses that either specialize in the waxing of male genitals or which were willing to wax his balls. In that situation, Yaniv's desire to force females to handle his junk against their will and in violation of their beliefs was something I did not support - and neither did the Canadian court ultimately.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm concerned about individual civil liberties. I'm concerned that terms like "expression" are being bastardized to create a hyper-technical legal glitch that aims to make it as such that a person's individual civil liberties can be deemed an undue burden for a company to withstand.

You don't seem concerned about the civil liberties of the baker though. You seem to only be concerned with some people's civil liberties, and are willing to deprive others of their civil liberties when it suits you.

 

[Emily Lake]

You keep making this about compelled speech, but no one cares what the baker or web designer does. No one is considering their expression. A wedding cake is meant to express the couple. A website is meant to express the couple. It is not intended to be a vocal piece for the programmer or baker.

So unless they (companies) are being asked to create obscenity, I don't believe a company has the right to "deprive the personal dignity" (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)) of consumers and violate their rights.

It seems that you're perfectly willing to deprive the baker of his personal dignity and violate his rights... in order to not inconvenience the fictional gay wedding couple by them having to pick a different baker.

 

[ZiprHead]

Help me out here. Can you provide me with a scenario in which a person's first amendment right to practice their religious beliefs is in conflict with statutes around non-discrimination on the basis of skin color or ethnicity?

I'm a white wedding website designer but I cannot make designs for anyone but white people because god seperated the races and doesn't want us to mingle.

Can you provide some doctrine that can be interpreted to support your view in even a semi-rational way?

The curse of Ham, the tower of Babel.

 

[bilby]

Curious, what is a "pro-gay message"?

...and how does a wedding website send such a message about the website's designer?

If a black man marries a black woman, is the designer of their wedding website sending a "pro-black message"?

What if the designer doesn't know that the couple in question are black? Is he still being cruelly and unconstitutionally forced to "speak" in favour of blackness?

If I rent a house, and hang a communist flag in my window, is my landlord sending a "pro-communist message"? Does he have a First Amendment right to cancel my lease? Am I forcing him to speak in favour of communism, even if he doesn't know about it?

 

[bilby]

To some people, gay weddings are profane.

To some people, black weddings are profane. To some people, mixed black and white weddings are profane. To some people, mixed Catholic and Protestant weddings are profane.

But the fact remains that there are no "black weddings" or "gay weddings" or "mixed weddings"; Just weddings, all of which are between two people, neither of whose race, religion, or sexuality are the business of their suppliers, the courts, or anyone else.

 

[bilby]

People who ask for this type of service typically need a lot of help with design, text, photographs, art, etc. if it were all or mostly cut and paste —as in a template, then that web designer would have no case: their creation was already complete before this person wanted to buy it.

But that’s not typically how such websites work. People want their own unique story told. They lack the skills ( and often the taste and the contacts) to complete their vision, so they hire someone to create to for them.

... therefore if the website designer doesn't want to continue working with them once he finds out that they are Jewish, it's perfectly reasonable for him to refuse their custom.

Sorry, did I say "Jewish"? Of course I meant "Black".

Oh, wait...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Exactly: The wedding website is supposed to express the (gay)couple's joy in their impending marriage...

Yes, the website is doing the expression. Not the designers. This was supposedly about the expression of the baker or the designer. Now it is becoming about the product itself. At this point, why should they be compelled to sell a cake (any cake) at all then?

I'm only talking about the website. Do you realize that when a webdesigner sets up a web page for someone's wedding, the webdesigner is CREATING CONTENT for the happy couple? NOT JUST PROVIDING A TEMPLATE for the clients to create their own content. And that doing so for a gay couple is against the religious beliefs of some religions?

The content is created by the couple, which is being translated into a website by a developer.

 

[Toni]

Exactly: The wedding website is supposed to express the (gay)couple's joy in their impending marriage...

Yes, the website is doing the expression. Not the designers. This was supposedly about the expression of the baker or the designer. Now it is becoming about the product itself. At this point, why should they be compelled to sell a cake (any cake) at all then?

I'm only talking about the website. Do you realize that when a webdesigner sets up a web page for someone's wedding, the webdesigner is CREATING CONTENT for the happy couple? NOT JUST PROVIDING A TEMPLATE for the clients to create their own content. And that doing so for a gay couple is against the religious beliefs of some religions?

The content is created by the couple, which is being translated into a website by a developer.

No. It isn't. Not usually. Usually someone who designs wedding websites will work with the couple to create content.

 

[bilby]

Prior to slavery practiced in the US, people left Europe because they were persecuted for their religion.

Some did. Others left Europe because they weren't permitted to persecute people for their religion, so they established their own little puritan colony where they could persecute away to their hearts content.

The Plymouth colony, and the Massachusetts Bay colony into which it was later absorbed, was a bastion of religious intolerance, explicitly and deliberately founded as a refuge from the religious freedoms imposed upon the "pilgrim fathers" in Europe.

The most numerous wave of Europeans who tried to flee European intolerance to settle in the USA were the Jews, in the early twentieth century. The US authorities put a huge amount of effort into preventing most of those who wanted to migrate from doing so.

The USA as a bastion of religious freedom is a very popular ahistorical myth; That so many Americans genuinely believe it is a searing indictment of your educational system.

 

[bilby]

Forcing this baker to make a gay wedding cake

Wedding cakes cannot be "gay"; You're making a category error.

 

[laughing dog]

You keep making this about compelled speech, but no one cares what the baker or web designer does. No one is considering their expression. A wedding cake is meant to express the couple. A website is meant to express the couple. It is not intended to be a vocal piece for the programmer or baker.

So unless they (companies) are being asked to create obscenity, I don't believe a company has the right to "deprive the personal dignity" (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)) of consumers and violate their rights.

It seems that you're perfectly willing to deprive the baker of his personal dignity and violate his rights... in order to not inconvenience the fictional gay wedding couple by them having to pick a different baker.

Not any more than you are perfectly willing to deprive a couple of their dignity and rights in order to not upset a bigoted snowflake.

 

[laughing dog]

Help me out here. Can you provide me with a scenario in which a person's first amendment right to practice their religious beliefs is in conflict with statutes around non-discrimination on the basis of skin color or ethnicity?

I'm a white wedding website designer but I cannot make designs for anyone but white people because god seperated the races and doesn't want us to mingle.

Can you provide some doctrine that can be interpreted to support your view in even a semi-rational way?

I said This:

The website creator is expressing the thoughts and feelings of the person who requested the website. They may add their own artistic flourishes but the main message is from the person requesting the work. It's like someone translating one language to another.

In response, you said this:

But that’s not typically how such websites work. People want their own unique story told. They lack the skills ( and often the taste and the contacts) to complete their vision, so they hire someone to create to for them.

What's the difference?

Well, it's the difference between you as the purchaser filling out a book of adlibs, and you as the purchaser hiring a ghost writer to turn your story into a book.

Please construct your argument in a semi-coherent manner.

 

[Toni]

Prior to slavery practiced in the US, people left Europe because they were persecuted for their religion.

Some did. Others left Europe because they weren't permitted to persecute people for their religion, so they established their own little puritan colony where they could persecute away to their hearts content.

The Plymouth colony, and the Massachusetts Bay colony into which it was later absorbed, was a bastion of religious intolerance, explicitly and deliberately founded as a refuge from the religious freedoms imposed upon the "pilgrim fathers" in Europe.

The most numerous wave of Europeans who tried to flee European intolerance to settle in the USA were the Jews, in the early twentieth century. The US authorities put a huge amount of effort into preventing most of those who wanted to migrate from doing so.

The USA as a bastion of religious freedom is a very popular ahistorical myth; That so many Americans genuinely believe it is a searing indictment of your educational system.

Nonetheless, some of the settlers who came to North America did so seeking religious freedom. The Pilgrims separated from the Puritans over religious differences. It has never been the case that any religion has not discriminated against other religions, usually citing religion as the reason. Bloody wars have been fought over religion or at least religion was the pretext for the bloody war.

People came to the Americas for many reasons--religious ones, seeking freedom to practice their religion as they saw fit and also freedom to convert any they came across, forcibly if possible. People also came to the Americas seeking economic benefits and political freedom.

As far as I know, no saints have established colonies anywhere in the world.

 

[Emily Lake]

Curious, what is a "pro-gay message"?

...and how does a wedding website send such a message about the website's designer?

Let's apply your logic to a different question of belief. Would you argue that the same designer should be required to design a wedding website for nazis, on the basis that there is no implicit message about the designer included in the work?

Yeah, I know, nazi isn't a protected class. But at the end of the day, it does represent a set of truly held beliefs. They're beliefs I find just as odious as I find much of islam and a solid dose of judaism and christianity. Naziism is no less absurd and full of hatred and bigotry than any other religion.

So the ultimate question is whether or not consenting to engage in creative work implies at least some degree of acceptance and support of the belief of the customer.

 

[Gospel]

Religion is a protected class - regardless of whether you believe in their religion or not

And what exactly did I write that gave you the idea I believed or claimed otherwise?

Just reinforcing that this situation represents a conflict between two different protections. It's not as straightforward as it gets portrayed sometimes.

It also doesn't make a parallel with black civil rights and segregation either.

Another claim I never made. Are you doing that reinforcing thing again? Perhaps we could focus on direct responses to the points I've raised? That way, our conversation would be more constructive and meaningful. Kna mean?