Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Toni]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights. It’s not pretty—in fact, it’s quite ugly in cases where someone discriminates on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc.

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

There is nothing to differentiate from. The general public is mandated to have access to both "already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual" equally. If you disagree with the mandate take it up with your local representative or utilize other options available to you, but don't pretend like you're being compelled to not take the liberty to operate privately, jet off to a nation that aligns more with your beliefs, & stopped from privately or publicly practicing your faith considering you have the option to run faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on your own.

WHERE does it specify already created/made/manufactured AND created specifically for an individual equally? Aside from your posts, I mean. It's the 'created specifically for an individual' part that is the issue, apparently with the current SCOTUS who seem to disagree with your interpretation.

Generally, businesses that provide services to the public can't refuse service based on protected characteristics. Anything classified as a service falls under this mandate.

Gosh!

Can you cite federal legislation that agrees with what you posted?

I believed we were discussing the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) and the SCOTUS' examination of its constitutionality. What gave you the impression I was referencing federal law in a conversation centered on state legislation?

I'd recommend being straightforward in our discussion instead of using indirect tactics. Are you trying to say that if it's not a federal law, it doesn't count as a law?

The SCOTUS has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter.

And that's what we are discussing. Your point?

SCOTUS has the legal authority and power to supersede any state law.

What's your point? Are you trying to say I need to shut my uppity negro mouth and not question the authoritah of the SCOTUS? Why state the obvious?

Nope. I'm saying that the US Supreme Court has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court. As it can and has done with many other states, often in ways that you and I would both agree with.

If you want me to say that I am deeply troubled by the current SCOTUS, yes, I am. I thought that was obvious.

Ok yeah. sorry I just don't know what that has to do with my argument.

And I'm not sure why you're still making an argument that the SCOTUS has over-ruled.

I'm sorry. I think we're just posting at cross purposes here.

 

[Gospel]

Let me be concise, given your tendency to be verbose. Businesses aren't a protected class, and Scardina isn't denying service to a protected class.

Suppose she did.
Suppose a very Christian couple wanted a wedding website announcing their very Christian wedding. Complete with Jesus and Holy Family imagery. References to godly ProLifer vows to remain "open to life" no matter how large their brood got. Etc. Etc.
And they wanted a specific wedding website developer to craft the site. One who looked at their plans and said, "Neah. I don't wanna do it."
So, they go to Scardina and want her to file a lawsuit against the website developer. On the grounds that the website developer is discriminating against their religious beliefs.

Regardless of how stupid it would be to pick Scardina out of all the other scumbag lawyers, do you think Scardina should be required to do the lawsuit?

I don't. But that's just me.
Tom

It's essential to differentiate between denying service based on personal beliefs and engaging in outright discrimination. Businesses serving the public are bound by anti-discrimination laws, but they must also strike a balance between individual rights and ensuring equal service access. In my perspective, web designers can select their clients, as long as the decision isn't based on discriminating against a protected class. The same standards apply to religious web designers. I've clearly highlighted the proper avenues for them to operate within the law, but many seem reluctant to acknowledge this.

 

[Gospel]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights. It’s not pretty—in fact, it’s quite ugly in cases where someone discriminates on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc.

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

There is nothing to differentiate from. The general public is mandated to have access to both "already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual" equally. If you disagree with the mandate take it up with your local representative or utilize other options available to you, but don't pretend like you're being compelled to not take the liberty to operate privately, jet off to a nation that aligns more with your beliefs, & stopped from privately or publicly practicing your faith considering you have the option to run faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on your own.

WHERE does it specify already created/made/manufactured AND created specifically for an individual equally? Aside from your posts, I mean. It's the 'created specifically for an individual' part that is the issue, apparently with the current SCOTUS who seem to disagree with your interpretation.

Generally, businesses that provide services to the public can't refuse service based on protected characteristics. Anything classified as a service falls under this mandate.

Gosh!

Can you cite federal legislation that agrees with what you posted?

I believed we were discussing the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) and the SCOTUS' examination of its constitutionality. What gave you the impression I was referencing federal law in a conversation centered on state legislation?

I'd recommend being straightforward in our discussion instead of using indirect tactics. Are you trying to say that if it's not a federal law, it doesn't count as a law?

The SCOTUS has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter.

And that's what we are discussing. Your point?

SCOTUS has the legal authority and power to supersede any state law.

What's your point? Are you trying to say I need to shut my uppity negro mouth and not question the authoritah of the SCOTUS? Why state the obvious?

Nope. I'm saying that the US Supreme Court has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court. As it can and has done with many other states, often in ways that you and I would both agree with.

If you want me to say that I am deeply troubled by the current SCOTUS, yes, I am. I thought that was obvious.

Ok yeah. sorry I just don't know what that has to do with my argument.

And I'm not sure why you're still making an argument that the SCOTUS has over-ruled.

I'm sorry. I think we're just posting at cross purposes here.

WTF? This is a discussion board. So you are saying that I need to just shut my mouth and not have an opinion on SCOTUS decisions?

 

[Toni]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights. It’s not pretty—in fact, it’s quite ugly in cases where someone discriminates on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc.

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

There is nothing to differentiate from. The general public is mandated to have access to both "already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual" equally. If you disagree with the mandate take it up with your local representative or utilize other options available to you, but don't pretend like you're being compelled to not take the liberty to operate privately, jet off to a nation that aligns more with your beliefs, & stopped from privately or publicly practicing your faith considering you have the option to run faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on your own.

WHERE does it specify already created/made/manufactured AND created specifically for an individual equally? Aside from your posts, I mean. It's the 'created specifically for an individual' part that is the issue, apparently with the current SCOTUS who seem to disagree with your interpretation.

Generally, businesses that provide services to the public can't refuse service based on protected characteristics. Anything classified as a service falls under this mandate.

Gosh!

Can you cite federal legislation that agrees with what you posted?

I believed we were discussing the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) and the SCOTUS' examination of its constitutionality. What gave you the impression I was referencing federal law in a conversation centered on state legislation?

I'd recommend being straightforward in our discussion instead of using indirect tactics. Are you trying to say that if it's not a federal law, it doesn't count as a law?

The SCOTUS has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter.

And that's what we are discussing. Your point?

SCOTUS has the legal authority and power to supersede any state law.

What's your point? Are you trying to say I need to shut my uppity negro mouth and not question the authoritah of the SCOTUS? Why state the obvious?

Nope. I'm saying that the US Supreme Court has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court. As it can and has done with many other states, often in ways that you and I would both agree with.

If you want me to say that I am deeply troubled by the current SCOTUS, yes, I am. I thought that was obvious.

Ok yeah. sorry I just don't know what that has to do with my argument.

And I'm not sure why you're still making an argument that the SCOTUS has over-ruled.

I'm sorry. I think we're just posting at cross purposes here.

WTF? This is a discussion board. So you are saying that I need to just shut my mouth and not have an opinion on SCOTUS decisions?

Not at all. I'm saying that I think we're talking past each other or misunderstanding one another or talking about different things.

Are you telling me that I should just leave all the real thinking to the men folk?

 

[Gospel]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights. It’s not pretty—in fact, it’s quite ugly in cases where someone discriminates on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc.

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

There is nothing to differentiate from. The general public is mandated to have access to both "already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual" equally. If you disagree with the mandate take it up with your local representative or utilize other options available to you, but don't pretend like you're being compelled to not take the liberty to operate privately, jet off to a nation that aligns more with your beliefs, & stopped from privately or publicly practicing your faith considering you have the option to run faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on your own.

WHERE does it specify already created/made/manufactured AND created specifically for an individual equally? Aside from your posts, I mean. It's the 'created specifically for an individual' part that is the issue, apparently with the current SCOTUS who seem to disagree with your interpretation.

Generally, businesses that provide services to the public can't refuse service based on protected characteristics. Anything classified as a service falls under this mandate.

Gosh!

Can you cite federal legislation that agrees with what you posted?

I believed we were discussing the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) and the SCOTUS' examination of its constitutionality. What gave you the impression I was referencing federal law in a conversation centered on state legislation?

I'd recommend being straightforward in our discussion instead of using indirect tactics. Are you trying to say that if it's not a federal law, it doesn't count as a law?

The SCOTUS has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter.

And that's what we are discussing. Your point?

SCOTUS has the legal authority and power to supersede any state law.

What's your point? Are you trying to say I need to shut my uppity negro mouth and not question the authoritah of the SCOTUS? Why state the obvious?

Nope. I'm saying that the US Supreme Court has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court. As it can and has done with many other states, often in ways that you and I would both agree with.

If you want me to say that I am deeply troubled by the current SCOTUS, yes, I am. I thought that was obvious.

Ok yeah. sorry I just don't know what that has to do with my argument.

And I'm not sure why you're still making an argument that the SCOTUS has over-ruled.

I'm sorry. I think we're just posting at cross purposes here.

WTF? This is a discussion board. So you are saying that I need to just shut my mouth and not have an opinion on SCOTUS decisions?

Not at all. I'm saying that I think we're talking past each other or misunderstanding one another or talking about different things.

Are you telling me that I should just leave all the real thinking to the men folk?

Nope. I think you might be on to something.

 

[bilby]

It seems that the US inspired at least some of Australia’s constitution and bill of rights.

We don't have a "bill of rights", and our constitution almost exclusively concerns the mechanism of government - what the various houses and offices are responsible for, how they are elected (and how often), etc.

Constitutional rights for citizens simply are not a thing in Australian law.

How sad.

I'm not particularly sad about it; It seems very strange to be sad about a completely trivial difference in governmental structure between two countries.

Although it does remind me of the old joke about the jurisprudence fetishist.

Show

He got off on a technicality

 

[bilby]

We haven’t been under a monarchy for more than 250 years. Get back to me when y’all break free.

Why would I wish to "break free" from an institution whose sole impact on my life is to provide me with regular public holidays?

I didn’t think you liked being part of a monarchy?

We get regular public holidays without all the bowing and scraping.

I'm not a supporter of the idea of monarchy, and I support its abolition, but it has very little impact on my life, so it's far from a high priority for me.

I have never bowed or scraped to anyone, and have no plans to start doing so; And we get 14 public holidays this year, (most of them unrelated to monarchy).

 

[jab]

This was never about religious convictions or compelled speech. It was about allowing certain whites to be supreme again and asserting their conservative moral authority on others.

The fake nature of this case makes the above almost certain to be true. I guess they forgot that lying is a sin part.

As well as a crime when it occurs in legal filings. I'm am still waiting for news of the fair and just Amurica of Tom and Bomb and Emily and L. P. charging the perjurous litigant and her lawyers.

 

[jab]

Rather, I can so easily see how, if speech/creative expression/religious expression can be compelled in one instance, it can be compelled in any case.

The term 'creative expression' encompasses a wide array of elements, including, but certainly not limited to, the following examples.

1. Visual Arts: This can include painting, sculpture, photography, graphic design, filmmaking, and other visual media where individuals create to represent their unique perspective or interpretation of the world.
2. Literature: Writing poetry, stories, novels, or plays allows for creative exploration of language, narrative, and character. This also includes creative non-fiction, where factual narratives are conveyed using literary techniques.
3. Performing Arts: In theater, dance, music, or performance art, individuals can express their creativity in a performative manner.
4. Music: Composing melodies, harmonies, rhythms, or lyrics, or even creating new ways to produce sound, is a form of creative expression.
5. Crafts and Design: From fashion design to woodworking, pottery to jewelry making, crafts allow for the expression of creativity in functional or decorative items.
6. Digital Arts: This newer field includes things like digital illustration, animation, video game design, and virtual reality experiences.
7. Culinary Arts: The creation of unique recipes or culinary techniques can also be seen as a form of creative expression.

So, are we to understand that in the six-decade span since anti-discrimination laws were established, not a single individual in any of the aforementioned fields was forced to artistically express a belief contrary to their own, until this fictional incident arose? Is it not peculiar that after 60 years, we find ourselves discussing a solitary, hypothetical case? It seems curious, doesn't it? You're voicing apprehensions over an event that hasn't even occurred, yet are prepared to dismantle anti-discrimination laws – laws designed to safeguard everyone – over a damn fabricated scenario?

Six decades of legislation supposedly coercing people into doing things against their will, and we have precisely one, imaginary instance to show for it. Truly remarkable.

No, I'm not proposing dismantling antidiscrimination laws. I'm pointing out a logical next step if we ignore the First Amendment. You think this won't happen? Of course it will. Of course it will. You do not strike me as naive. Please do not be naive here.

So what is your point? Are we to believe that you are asserting that there are no more civil rights violations today? And that there have not been in the past 60 years? Because of those laws? Of course not. Nor is everyone prosecuted or fined or even told not to do it again when they do something that is in violation of civil rights statutes. You know this as well as I do. It happens every single day in schools across the US, to name an easy example. You know that girls' wardrobes and the hair and sometimes the clothing of persons of color and the clothes and hair of LGBTQIA persons are both much more highly scrutinized and much more likely to be punished. You know this as well as I do. We know that policing is different for persons of color than for white folks, and for persons of financial means compared with poor folks. We know that people still get punished by the government for being who they are in ways that are not against any law and that some laws are designed to punish certain people--usually people who are not white and/or not male and/or not hetereo-straight cis.

We know--we ALL know that plenty of performers, to name one group of artists, have been forced into sexual situations as a condition of their employment and have indeed been forced to provide sexual favors, have been raped by those in power over their careers---and others, as well. We know that people are sometimes in a position where they must produce something they profoundly disagree with--or be fired. Some so choose to quit or choose to be fired. Some do not.

Moved on from comparing us to Nazis and pedophiles to comparing up to sexual harassers and rapists.

 

[jab]

Having expressed my concerns, I'd now like to shift the conversation toward finding potential solutions. Specifically, I'm interested in discussing what compromises could look like. I believe it's important to explore practical solutions that both parties involved in these issues can use to minimize harm to all involved. I am genuinely curious and eager to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Any takers? I previously suggested a potential solution for the baker issue. The couple could opt to accept a custom cake without a personalized message. As a compromise, the baker would ensure they do not deny custom services to same-sex couples. This way, both parties make adjustments, fostering a more inclusive environment.

While I don't like this court one bit I think they got this one right: Creative effort can't be compelled. Note that this is different from merely custom--there are plenty of cases of quasi-custom products that are in no way creative.

Loren, I think you got this one wrong, because creative works are such a broad vague category of works that this decision is very easy to get stretched in all different directions to justify discrimination. The fact that they made it about the broad category of "free speech" rather than religion will open the floodgates to new avenues for discrimination against all sorts of minorities, not just citizens who are LGBTQ. Your take on creativity isn't the kind of criterion that courts are going to find easy to interpret, so there will likely be a tendency to interpret it very broadly in ways that the SCOTUS majority did not foresee. You and Toni don't even agree in every case on what it means. And the problem may look a lot easier to resolve when it is just a small segment of the population like the LGBTQ demographic being discriminated against. It may not seem so cut and dried when it comes to larger groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, and religion.

While I do not trust the current court not to interpret it broadly I do not favor that--I believe it should be fairly narrow. I do not want to be compelled to make a website (not that I actually do websites--I know I stink at anything that needs to look nice) for a neo-nazi organization, I think it's just as wrong to compel a fundie to make a website for a gay wedding. I see them as two sides of the same coin--whether one is a protected category or not isn't relevant to me. On the other hand, if it's to recover deleted files (again, a hypothetical--it's not something I've done for others in decades) there's no creativity involved, I'd hold my nose and do the job unless their personal behavior was unacceptable.

Neo-Nazis are not a protected group.

 

[jab]

I believe you are

Second, I agree that non-believers should also be protected from being forced to express something in violation of their values or beliefs. I don't think this should be limited to religion. You say it with rolling eyes, but this is something I hold to be extremely important. Nobody should EVER be forced to express a sentiment which violates their belief. Whether that belief is religious or secular, whether the belief is based in fact or fiction is irrelevant. To me, coerced expression is as big a violation as suppression of expression - potentially more so. Being forbidden from expressing one's views and beliefs gives no direct indication of what one believes to be true. It is a non-response. Being forced to express something in opposition of one's views and beliefs gives a false indication, it is a lie.

I guess the concept of non-career enhancing statements is unfamiliar to you.

Since I can't figure out what that phrase means, let's go ahead and go with yes - it's unfamiliar to me. Please elaborate.

It means pretty much no one has freedom of speech in the workplace like you decribed above.

Can you give me an example of where a workplace has the right to force their employees to express a view that the employee is morally opposed to?

I'm not aware of this happening, I'm not aware of employers having this degree of power over their employees.

Medical situations. Do you think nurses and doctors can just willy nilly not treat gay people and keep their jobs?

How do you figure that a nurse or doctor treating a patient qualifies as them expressing a view in support of homosexuality?

I believe you are of an age to remember the AIDS epidemic. . . .
And recently refusal of in vitro services for lesbians couples. what about potential refusal to handle medical complications in a pregnancy or difficult delivery where the end result would be "newborn has two mommies"?

 

[jab]

No, that's not what's being said. Her religion doesn't compel her to discriminate against gay people. In the first place she was challenging a state requirement not to discriminate against pro-gay messages, not gay people.

Wait, the designer was required to create an arbitrary whatever to promote a pro-gay message?

No. I take it you think you were paraphrasing me.

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

Like, for instance, what "Adam and Steve are pretending to get married and hosting a party for hellbound blasphemers to celebrate their mockery of God's holy sacrament" isn't.

And in the second place, the circumstances that would lead to her coming up against a pro-gay message to discriminate against may well never arise, in which case her religion would not compel any such discrimination. She might not open a web design business, for instance.

What is being said is that "Therefore running the business is itself not a religious exercise. You agree. Regulations on businesses are not religious restrictions." is an illogical argument.

Perhaps if one lights and shadows the subject in a certain way, but these exact same arguments were made (no hypotheticals) regarding blacks.

Which exact same arguments? The ones about whether it infringes religious exercise? So what? Infringing religious exercise is perfectly legal provided the government jumps through the SCOTUS's scrutiny hoops. Banning Baalists from practicing human sacrifice infringes religious exercise and we do it anyway. If you mean the arguments about forced speech, cite a case of someone arguing he shouldn't be forced to compose pro-black messages.

So why does this help create a loophole for person to avoid providing a service to gays, but not blacks?

If somebody claims she believes black people getting married is un-Christian, a court could perfectly well take judicial note of the fact that black Christians have been getting married for two thousand years with the full support of Christian churches, and deduce that she's lying about her reason for refusing service.

And yet, Christian Churches have been marring gay couples for a number of years, yet the SCOTUS fell for that web designer's views.

true, good catch of a really bad argument by Bomb that fails to take into account severe doctrinal differences among Christians.

 

[jab]

Rather, I can so easily see how, if speech/creative expression/religious expression can be compelled in one instance, it can be compelled in any case.

The term 'creative expression' encompasses a wide array of elements, including, but certainly not limited to, the following examples.

1. Visual Arts: This can include painting, sculpture, photography, graphic design, filmmaking, and other visual media where individuals create to represent their unique perspective or interpretation of the world.
2. Literature: Writing poetry, stories, novels, or plays allows for creative exploration of language, narrative, and character. This also includes creative non-fiction, where factual narratives are conveyed using literary techniques.
3. Performing Arts: In theater, dance, music, or performance art, individuals can express their creativity in a performative manner.
4. Music: Composing melodies, harmonies, rhythms, or lyrics, or even creating new ways to produce sound, is a form of creative expression.
5. Crafts and Design: From fashion design to woodworking, pottery to jewelry making, crafts allow for the expression of creativity in functional or decorative items.
6. Digital Arts: This newer field includes things like digital illustration, animation, video game design, and virtual reality experiences.
7. Culinary Arts: The creation of unique recipes or culinary techniques can also be seen as a form of creative expression.

So, are we to understand that in the six-decade span since anti-discrimination laws were established, not a single individual in any of the aforementioned fields was forced to artistically express a belief contrary to their own, until this fictional incident arose? Is it not peculiar that after 60 years, we find ourselves discussing a solitary, hypothetical case? It seems curious, doesn't it? You're voicing apprehensions over an event that hasn't even occurred, yet are prepared to dismantle anti-discrimination laws – laws designed to safeguard everyone – over a damn fabricated scenario?

Six decades of legislation supposedly coercing people into doing things against their will, and we have precisely one, imaginary instance to show for it. Truly remarkable.

Actually, I really don't think anyone has been LEGALLY forced to artistically express a belief contrary to their own in any of those fields. There are certainly cases where they have been ILLEGALLY forced to do so, through threat or coercion.

Michelangelo was forced to paint the Sistine Chapel by his patron--this may not have been against his religious beliefs but it was against his artistic beleif that he was a sculptor first and foremost and would rather spend the long time taken up by this commission in sculpting.
Ginger Rogers claimed to having signed a binding contract which she didn't realize forced her to act in Tender Comrade, a film which allegedly violated her political beliefs.

 

[jab]

Really? What protected group are white heterosexual cis men in? I mean, they still pretty much rule the world but which protected legal class?

If we are ALL in a protected class, then what is the point of protected classes.

I'm sorry: I'm really tired and maybe I'm missing stuff....

If race is protected then white is protected.
If sexuality is protected then heterosexual is protected.
If gender is protected then cis is protected.

There are some who do not believe that it's possible to discriminate against the majority but obviously they never heard of apartheid South Africa.

also sexism in the many countries where women are the majority,
And class based discrimination based on aristocratic blood lines.

 

[jab]

So why does this help create a loophole for person to avoid providing a service to gays, but not blacks?

If somebody claims she believes black people getting married is un-Christian, a court could perfectly well take judicial note of the fact that black Christians have been getting married for two thousand years with the full support of Christian churches, and deduce that she's lying about her reason for refusing service.

And yet, Christian Churches have been marring gay couples for a number of years, yet the SCOTUS fell for that web designer's views.

You can't seriously imagine that's a sound counterargument. A recent movement to become more accepting among the more liberal wing of the religion, which only happened by plagiarism of non-Christian moral progress, hardly wipes away either two thousand years of general practice or the existence of a conservative wing. So when a Christian claims she got her views against same-sex marriage from her religion's traditional teachings we have every reason to believe her. But if one were to claim she got views against black marriage from her religion's traditional teachings we'd have no reason to believe her -- she'd obviously be lying and just trying to game the system.

question begging epithet, with that "obviously" thrown in.

 

[jab]

A recent movement to become more accepting among the more liberal wing of the religion, which only happened by plagiarism of non-Christian moral progress, hardly wipes away either two thousand years of general practice or the existence of a conservative wing. So when a Christian claims she got her views against same-sex marriage from her religion's traditional teachings we have every reason to believe her. But if one were to claim she got views against black marriage from her religion's traditional teachings we'd have no reason to believe her -- she'd obviously be lying and just trying to game the system.

So 250ish years of "we the people" using religion to justify slavery isn't considered traditional. Ok

How the heck are you deducing anti-marriage from pro-slavery?

"MARRIAGE. -n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two."​

- Ambrose Bierce ​

Christian churches have been marrying slaves and preaching the virtues of marriage and the evils of non-marital sex to slaves for the same two thousand years they've been doing it to free people.

 

[jab]

But make this simpler: Should a Pakistani Muslim American be forced to create a custom wedding ring set inscribed with a Hebrew blessing for an Israeli American Jewish couple?

Yes.

Yeah, I disagree. I also don't think this would really happen anymore than a gay couple would approach a bigoted webdesigner and ask them to design a wedding website for them--unless they were trying to set up a test case. Most people who are going to the trouble of having a wedding website designed specifically for them have already thoroughly vetted ALL the vendors or their wedding planner has done that for them. There is a LOT of word of mouth. Also, most very religious couples are also very traditional and would frequent a jeweler who had done work for family members before. Thoroughly vetted. Plus, one would want someone familiar with the language to be inscribed, and thorough enough to catch any mistakes.

It was just the best example I could come up with at the time.

I realize that some people are hired for companies to do creative work that may lie outside of their own personal aesthetic and do it to put food on the table and often to fund their own creative endeavors. But that's what they signed up to do. Someone who is in the business of creating custom (x) work has a different work situation. Their name/brand is going on the work, for one thing. A lot of people will only take on work that they think they can do very successfully and part of that is working well with the client. Otherwise, they risk not doing as satisfactory a job as they themselves would like, much less the client.

When you are talking about expecting someone to create something that they find morally offensive or that offends their religious principles or personal or cultural ethics, then I think they cannot so be compelled.

Imagine a young graphic designer has been working successfully for an ad company, creating many successful ad campaigns for the corporation. Then they are asked to create an ad campaign for the pork industry. This graphic designer is Jewish. Or Muslim. It is even more repugnant to them than it would be for a vegan designer. They refuse, citing religious grounds. If their company attempted to force them to work on this particular campaign on threat of being fired, they would have grounds to sue for religious discrimination.

This is hypothetical stereotypically assumes that all Muslims are opposed to Jewish marriages.

 

[Toni]

But make this simpler: Should a Pakistani Muslim American be forced to create a custom wedding ring set inscribed with a Hebrew blessing for an Israeli American Jewish couple?

Yes.

Yeah, I disagree. I also don't think this would really happen anymore than a gay couple would approach a bigoted webdesigner and ask them to design a wedding website for them--unless they were trying to set up a test case. Most people who are going to the trouble of having a wedding website designed specifically for them have already thoroughly vetted ALL the vendors or their wedding planner has done that for them. There is a LOT of word of mouth. Also, most very religious couples are also very traditional and would frequent a jeweler who had done work for family members before. Thoroughly vetted. Plus, one would want someone familiar with the language to be inscribed, and thorough enough to catch any mistakes.

It was just the best example I could come up with at the time.

I realize that some people are hired for companies to do creative work that may lie outside of their own personal aesthetic and do it to put food on the table and often to fund their own creative endeavors. But that's what they signed up to do. Someone who is in the business of creating custom (x) work has a different work situation. Their name/brand is going on the work, for one thing. A lot of people will only take on work that they think they can do very successfully and part of that is working well with the client. Otherwise, they risk not doing as satisfactory a job as they themselves would like, much less the client.

When you are talking about expecting someone to create something that they find morally offensive or that offends their religious principles or personal or cultural ethics, then I think they cannot so be compelled.

Imagine a young graphic designer has been working successfully for an ad company, creating many successful ad campaigns for the corporation. Then they are asked to create an ad campaign for the pork industry. This graphic designer is Jewish. Or Muslim. It is even more repugnant to them than it would be for a vegan designer. They refuse, citing religious grounds. If their company attempted to force them to work on this particular campaign on threat of being fired, they would have grounds to sue for religious discrimination.

This is hypothetical stereotypically assumes that all Muslims are opposed to Jewish marriages.

Yes, absolutely it DOES make that assumption, although I know as a fact that this is untrue. It is also untrue that ALL Christians oppose gay marriage. I picked something that would include recognized protected groups in conflict with one another over a similar issue. It's all fake hypotheticals. Absolutely. 100%. And once again, I am not only not opposed to gay marriage but I think it's wonderful if two people who love each other (or simply wish to be legally tied to one another) decide to get married. I'm thrilled that this now includes gay couples. I DO, however, think the law in all states should preclude marriage of people under 16 in all cases and under 18 in virtually all cases. The only reason I'm heading about the 16-17 year olds is that I'm sure that there is an exception that I just cannot think of that would be a perfectly valid and not creepy reason for a 16 or 17 year old to get married instead of waiting until they are 18. I'm pro marriage. I'm pro accepting everyone and being friends with as many people as possible, no matter their race, religion, sexuality, gender, country of origin, socioeconomic class, etc. Matters of character ( dishonesty, abuse, substance abuse, verbal abuse, etc.) are valid reasons to not be friends with someone, although substance abuse has a strong genetic component and is not just a behavior--as well as simply not caring much for the person. I'm all for equal protection under the law! What I am not for is compelling anyone to create any work they believe is in violation of their religious or moral views.


A long, long time ago, my first grade art teacher told us we were NOT ALLOWED to draw suns as circles with lines representing rays because that's not how the sun looked. Also grass was green and the sky was blue and other anal retentive crap. I forgot and executed a well done (for a first grader) drawing that....included a sun with drawn rays around it. My picture was chosen for display BUT with the offending sun covered up by a square of paper. It outraged me at the time and really stuck with me, as did my adamant refusal (11 years later) to create art work for the senior high school year book that represented the sponsor's very pedestrian vision instead of my beautiful and vaguely intellectual (albeit in a stereoytypical way) vision which would have been poetic, somewhat original and in keeping with the color scheme the sponsor imposed upon us against our will. So I didn't design that year's cover. Someone else did, creating exactly what the teacher ordered. It's still ugly and stupid whereas mine would have been beautiful. Yes, it's childish I suppose to hold on to these ancient grudges but I take freedom of expression extremely seriously. Even if it's expression that I find offensive.

 

[TomC]

As well as a crime when it occurs in legal filings. I'm am still waiting for news of the fair and just Amurica of Tom and Bomb and Emily and L. P. charging the perjurous litigant and her lawyers.

Say wut?

I'm sure I was part of that discussion, early in this thread.
Appallingly bad judicial process to rule on a case where one of the parties is, not just fictional, but a lie. One named party isn't gay, has been married for years, and didn't know he was involved. How SCOTUS "overlooked" that is definitely worth an investigation, IMHO.
Tom

ETA ~I barely noticed that you'd mentioned me. This thread has become a huge mess of long nested quotes it's nearly unreadable. One would think that the staff at least would refrain.~

 

[jab]

There's a nuance in here that I'm having trouble expressing. It seems clear to me that treating an illness has no connection to one's views on sexual orientation...

You weren't around during the AIDS panic, were you?

Were people with AIDS denied medical care because of their presumed sexuality? I am well aware of the social stigma around AIDS, but I don't recall doctors and nurses refusing to provide medical care because the people with that condition were assumed to be homosexuals. Nor do I remember any doctors or nurses saying they'd only treat people who got AIDS from sharing needles during drug use, but would not treat people who got it from sex.

Umm
Yeah, actually they were. It was complex.
But the cheap hospitals were run by Christians, and people really were turned away because they were An Abomination Before The Lord. Aids was often seen as God's Vengeance upon evildoers.

Things have changed hugely since the Reagan Administration. But yeah, that was the reality of the day.
Tom

That sucks.

It was also decades ago.

USA society has moved on since then. Become vastly better.

What's most aggravating about this conversation is the conservatives who think we still live in the days of old. We don't. But they refuse to see it and insist that their ideological bent should still rule.

Rather like the old timey folks who knew that "A woman's place is in the home", "Black people are dirty and too dumb to vote", and "Men turn gay so that they can molest children."

T'was ever thus. All decent folks assume that their opinions are based on the obvious, no matter what it is.
Tom

Er, your view point seems naive, blinkered, short-sighted to me.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana, who was also probably a very closeted gay man.