Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[TomC]

Anybody remember Yaniv suing several muslim aestheticians because they refused to handle and wax his balls? Yaniv claimed it was bigotry against him being transgender,

I'm so glad I have no idea what you're talking about.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Your position on this, however, could feasibly be used to force her to create a hate website that she strongly disagrees with.

Your position produces a situation where as soon as anyone goes into business in any way... they sign away their freedom of speech and religion. Your position would force a fundamentalist to create "hooray for our big gay wedding" websites, and would also force a devout catholic to create "let's celebrate my abortion" cakes. But it would also, by the same logic, force a progressive to create "Nazis are Right" websites, and liberals to create "No Coloreds Allowed at My Birthday" cakes.

It's a double-edged sword. The force by which you seek to do good can be used for ill with no extra effort.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Well, to some extent "bigot" is a protected class, whether you and I like it or not. We all have the right to our own private beliefs, and to the practice of those beliefs to the extent that such practice does not violate the equal rights of others. We all have the right to free speech, provided such speech does not cause direct bodily or reputational harm to another person.

A bigot's right to believe whatever the hell they want is protected by the first amendment - as is their right to spout their beliefs to their heart's content.

Remember that what constitutes "bigotry" is entirely in the eyes of the beholder, it is 100% subjective and a reflection of one's beliefs. What constitutes "bigotry" can turn on a dime.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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.

Your position on this, however, could feasibly be used to force her to create a hate website that she strongly disagrees with.

Your position produces a situation where as soon as anyone goes into business in any way... they sign away their freedom of speech and religion. Your position would force a fundamentalist to create "hooray for our big gay wedding" websites, and would also force a devout catholic to create "let's celebrate my abortion" cakes. But it would also, by the same logic, force a progressive to create "Nazis are Right" websites, and liberals to create "No Coloreds Allowed at My Birthday" cakes.

It's a double-edged sword. The force by which you seek to do good can be used for ill with no extra effort.

No, no, no, for god's sake, I have already been through this with Toni. Have you not read the whole thread? Please read the whole thread. Nazi is not a protected class.

This notion that that there is some sort of reciprocal relationship between protecting minorities from discrimination and people being forced to make Nazi stuff for Nazi customers is a complete fiction. It is made up out of whole cloth. It has nothing to do with this SCOTUS ruling and has no relationship to reality. No one has to make Nazi stuff for Nazis, and this ruling would not have changed that had it gone the other way.

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Emily Lake]

The SCOTUS ruling is about whether someone should be allowed to discriminate against gay people (and by extension other protected classes).

Just for clarity... Gay is not a constitutionally protected class at all. There are, to my knowledge, no constitutionally protected classes at all. Technically, SCOTUS of yesteryear did not "legalize" gay marriage - they ruled that the government has no standing by which to forbid gay marriage. They ruled that the federal government cannot prohibit marriage between two people of the same sex.

There are several federal statutes that prohibit discrimination by the government on the basis of specified characteristics. There are additional statutes that prohibit specific types of public services from discriminating on the basis of those specified characteristics - but it's not universal. There are a whole lot of businesses and services that could technically discriminate in all kinds of dastardly ways. It's rarely in their interests to do so, for what should be obvious reasons.

But it would still be entirely legal of a private dining club that requires membership to allow only white males over the age of 50 to join their club. The cost of the negative publicity were it challenged would probably make that unpalatable, but it's not actually illegal.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

They are protected from discrimination by the government. And they are protected from discrimination by specific types of public services. It's not actually an open ended protection.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

Well, to some extent "bigot" is a protected class, whether you and I like it or not. We all have the right to our own private beliefs, and to the practice of those beliefs to the extent that such practice does not violate the equal rights of others. We all have the right to free speech, provided such speech does not cause direct bodily or reputational harm to another person.

A bigot's right to believe whatever the hell they want is protected by the first amendment - as is their right to spout their belief's to their heart's content.

And the second this discussion is about what they can say...

Remember that what constitutes "bigotry" is entirely in the eyes of the beholder, it is 100% subjective and a reflection of one's beliefs. What constitutes "bigotry" can turn on a dime.

This decision normalized the right to discriminate against a particular group of people... as long as it was a sincerely held belief... *wink wink*.

Difference between this and being allowed to refuse a black marrying couple or a mixed race couple because of a sincerely held belief... has yet to actually be explained.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

With my sincere atheistic lack of beliefs, I have no objection to any of those (except Walmart, which has nothing to do with any religious views, only with their business practices). The fact that the owners of those businesses hold deeply religious views is of no account to me.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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

Well, to some extent "bigot" is a protected class, whether you and I like it or not.

No, it is not a protected class. This wikipedia article has a list of protected classes.

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We all have the right to our own private beliefs, and to the practice of those beliefs to the extent that such practice does not violate the equal rights of others. We all have the right to free speech, provided such speech does not cause direct bodily or reputational harm to another person. A bigot's right to believe whatever the hell they want is protected by the first amendment

I have at no point said otherwise, nor have I argued that it should be otherwise.

- as is their right to spout their belief's to their heart's content.

Well, provided it does not cross the line into harassment...

Remember that what constitutes "bigotry" is entirely in the eyes of the beholder, it is 100% subjective and a reflection of one's beliefs. What constitutes "bigotry" can turn on a dime.

 

[Emily Lake]

If they create anti-gay propaganda websites for one group of people, they need to make it for other groups of people as well. If a web designer makes websites for weddings, they should be compelled to do so for all weddings, presuming they have templates and designs for such weddings (ie Xian, Jewish, Muslim, etc..). This whole, we as a species are incapable of telling profanity or bigotry from common state fare is willfully ignorant.

Also, you have yet to address how this "Principles" issue doesn't apply to race, religion, etc...

Let's maybe try this from a slightly different perspective.

Let's say that Neil Patrick Harris decides to start a niche business that creates wedding websites specifically and exclusively for gay couples. That's his niche, and he believes it's an underserved market.

Should the venerable NPH be required by law to create wedding websites for hetero couples too?

 

[Emily Lake]

No, this case had nothing to do with that. If you think that had the ruling gone the other way, people would be forced to create hate websites, you are confused. This case was about whether bigots have the right to discriminate against gay people. Nothing about this case would have forced people to create hate websites, or cook vegan food, or anything of that nature.

You're completely failing to extrapolate the easily-foreseeable consequence of that precedent.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

The SCOTUS ruling is about whether someone should be allowed to discriminate against gay people (and by extension other protected classes).

Just for clarity... Gay is not a constitutionally protected class at all. There are, to my knowledge, no constitutionally protected classes at all. Technically, SCOTUS of yesteryear did not "legalize" gay marriage - they ruled that the government has no standing by which to forbid gay marriage. They ruled that the federal government cannot prohibit marriage between two people of the same sex.

Sexual orientation is a protected class.

Protected group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are several federal statutes that prohibit discrimination by the government on the basis of specified characteristics. There are additional statutes that prohibit specific types of public services from discriminating on the basis of those specified characteristics - but it's not universal.

No, it's not universal, as it is mostly handled by states. But this ruling has upended that. The Colorado law protecting gay people can no longer be enforced. eta: where "expressive content" is concerned.

There are a whole lot of businesses and services that could technically discriminate in all kinds of dastardly ways. It's rarely in their interests to do so, for what should be obvious reasons.

But it would still be entirely legal of a private dining club that requires membership to allow only white males over the age of 50 to join their club. The cost of the negative publicity were it challenged would probably make that unpalatable, but it's not actually illegal.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

No, this case had nothing to do with that. If you think that had the ruling gone the other way, people would be forced to create hate websites, you are confused. This case was about whether bigots have the right to discriminate against gay people. Nothing about this case would have forced people to create hate websites, or cook vegan food, or anything of that nature.

You're completely failing to extrapolate the easily-foreseeable consequence of that precedent.

No I'm not. There is zero chance Nazi or vegan are going to become protected classes. The gray areas have always been around religion. This ruling went in favor of religious bigots, but for the most part, since the Civil Rights era, the courts have tended to side with equality.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Bigots aren't a protected class.

 

[Toni]

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.

Bigots aren't a protected class.

What if they’re black?

People keep writing that as if that were the point the USCC was making. The ruling was a protection of free speech. Full stop.

If someone can be forced to create content for someone they despise because of some inborn—or chosen! ( people can convert to Judaism or Islam) then they cannot refuse anyone they disagree with or who expects them to create repugnant ( to the creator) content.

The overriding concept is freedom of speech which is afforded everybody. Including people who create websites or jewelry or whatever.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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.

Bigots aren't a protected class.

What if they’re black?

People keep writing that as if that were the point the USCC was making. The ruling was a protection of free speech. Full stop.

If someone can be forced to create content for someone they despise because of some inborn—or chosen! ( people can convert to Judaism or Islam) then they cannot refuse anyone they disagree with or who expects them to create repugnant ( to the creator) content.

The overriding concept is freedom of speech which is afforded everybody. Including people who create websites or jewelry or whatever.

That's not how protected class works.

Protected class does not mean black people can do whatever they want and make people do whatever they want them to do.

Black isn't a protected class. Race is.

Under the equal protection clause, if someone sells tires to white people, they have to sell tires to black people. And if they don't, they can get fined or sued depending on state laws. This is very simplified explanation, and there are exceptions, and religion has always been given special treatment, but as a general rule of thumb, this is how it works.

And once again, I have to repeat, that free speech =/= the right to have any job one desires. People can be fined and sued for discrimination. Although, because of this SCOTUS ruling, There are no longer protections where "expressive content" is concerned.

And once again, I will repeat that there was no possible outcome of this ruling that would have forced people to make Nazi stuff for Nazi customers because Nazi is not a protected class. This is a relationship that has been made up out of whole cloth.

 

[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.

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.

I did write earlier that if a generic item is offered to one customer—say, a generic wedding website, then it must be offered to ALL who wish to make a purchase. What cannot be forced is to write something about Ken and Steve’s wedding.

A shop that sells wedding attire must accommodate all customers regardless of the customer’s race, ethnicity or religion but they do not have to order a sari for a member of the wedding party if they do not carry saris.

A restaurant cannot refuse to serve someone who is Jewish or Muslim but they are not required to provide meals which are kosher or hilal. A bakery that bakes wedding cakes cannot refuse to create a wedding cake for a gay couple but they can decline to prove a topper with two grooms or that says Congratulations Ken and Steve.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Bigots aren't a protected class.

What if they’re black?

People keep writing that as if that were the point the USCC was making. The ruling was a protection of free speech. Full stop.

If someone can be forced to create content for someone they despise because of some inborn—or chosen! ( people can convert to Judaism or Islam) then they cannot refuse anyone they disagree with or who expects them to create repugnant ( to the creator) content.

The overriding concept is freedom of speech which is afforded everybody. Including people who create websites or jewelry or whatever.

The website designer is essentially selling speech. They just want to discriminate against some buyers.

 

[Toni]

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.

Bigots aren't a protected class.

What if they’re black?

People keep writing that as if that were the point the USCC was making. The ruling was a protection of free speech. Full stop.

If someone can be forced to create content for someone they despise because of some inborn—or chosen! ( people can convert to Judaism or Islam) then they cannot refuse anyone they disagree with or who expects them to create repugnant ( to the creator) content.

The overriding concept is freedom of speech which is afforded everybody. Including people who create websites or jewelry or whatever.

The website designer is essentially selling speech. They just want to discriminate against some buyers.

But it was the website maker’s speech. It is their choice about what to say or not say.


Again: a generic website: must sell to anyone
Custom website with original content by web designer: Web designer's choice of which projects to undertake.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Display != design.

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

No. I believe that someone who strongly objects to a position is inherently compromised in being asked to do creative work for said position and thus it should not be required. However, tasks which are standardized and require no creative activity should not get such protection. A web host should be expected to take all clients, a web designer should not.

Yes, there can be overlap--web design firms might also provide hosting for what they design. If they only host their own work then if they aren't designing for you then they don't need to host for you, either.

If you assign 10 people to do it and get virtually 10 carbon copy results then there's no creative work involved and there should be no protection. Assign 10 people and get 10 substantially different results, they get to veto anything they disagree with.