Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Bomb#20]

We must become intolerant to intolerance to the point that we tolerate a lawless government?

Please show your work to explain this seemingly reactionary slippery slope argument.

I was taking for granted that JH was advocating overcoming this whole "But it is expression...." hyper technical excuse to invade in the dignity of *insert whatever minority* by the expedient of having the government pretend whether it's expression doesn't matter. But if he was actually advocating having Congress enact a 28th Amendment to limit the First Amendment to cover expression that doesn't invade in the dignity of *insert whatever minority* and persuading 38 states to ratify it, then I'll withdraw the remark.

 

[laughing dog]

We must become intolerant to intolerance to the point that we tolerate a lawless government?

Please show your work to explain this seemingly reactionary slippery slope argument.

I was taking for granted that JH was advocating overcoming this whole "But it is expression...." hyper technical excuse to invade in the dignity of *insert whatever minority* by the expedient of having the government pretend whether it's expression doesn't matter. But if he was actually advocating having Congress enact a 28th Amendment to limit the First Amendment to cover expression that doesn't invade in the dignity of *insert whatever minority* and persuading 38 states to ratify it, then I'll withdraw the remark.

Since freedom of speech is not unlimited nor is anything made for commerce @ expression”, it seems to me the above is confirmation that it was a reactionary slippery slope argument.

 

[ZiprHead]

Where in the constitution does it say corporations have first amendment rights?

Where in the constitution does it say laser printers have first amendment rights? Nowhere. Do you think that means if you run off a hundred copies of "Vote Marjorie Taylor Greene out of office" on your laser printer instead of finding some collector on eBay who'll sell you a literal printing press, then a Republican-run government should get to shut you down and confiscate your pamphlets? A corporation is a tool. Attributing human writing to the tools humans use instead of to the humans themselves is a reality-avoiding rationalization -- you will enforce your censorship laws by punishing humans for speech by humans, not by punishing tools for speech by tools. Tools don't suffer and tools don't talk.

The wrongness of your argument aside, be careful what you wish for. "Where in the constitution does it say corporations have first amendment rights?", the man says. Do you really want Richard Nixon to have the authority to stop the Washington Post and the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers? The Washington Post and the New York Times are corporations.

News journalism is already a protected right specifically mentioned in the first amendment. Seems strange you didn't know that.

Again, where in the constitution does it say corporations have first amendment rights?

Good argument.

It fit the silliness of yours.

 

[Elixir]

Do you think that means if you run off a hundred copies of "Vote Marjorie Taylor Greene out of office" on your laser printer instead of finding some collector on eBay who'll sell you a literal printing press, then a Republican-run government should get to shut you down and confiscate your pamphlets?

Should? Fuck no. Let's not forget what's actually going on though.
The Republican quiet part: "If we get our way this time, we will do that to anyone printing 'vote for the Dem'."
Right now it's only if you print truth about race massacres in Floriduh.

Gotta say, Bomb, I find your version of bothsidesism quite sophistocated and pretty persuasive on a lot of fronts. I'd have found it much more so back in say, 2014.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I.e., this ruling is going to have next to no practical impact. The only activities it exempts from the ever-growing reach of government control of the economy are creative arts that no customer in his right mind would have gone to an unwilling seller for in the first place.

They might have if they didn't realize they were dealing with an unwilling seller.

Effectively, this just lets said unwilling sellers state the true reason they're rejecting someone.

 

[Toni]

I.e., this ruling is going to have next to no practical impact. The only activities it exempts from the ever-growing reach of government control of the economy are creative arts that no customer in his right mind would have gone to an unwilling seller for in the first place.

They might have if they didn't realize they were dealing with an unwilling seller.

Effectively, this just lets said unwilling sellers state the true reason they're rejecting someone.

And that's bad for business. Honestly, I've worked with a lot of trades people and contractors and designers and for certain, if someone doesn't want to take on a particular job, then they find a very good reason to be unavailable at that time. Word gets around though, so they are careful that it is polite, and plausible and not: You're a shrewish harpie who can't make up her mind and always pays late and argues about the charges and has terrible taste. Because that would get around and then some people might be less inclined to hire that contractor/tradesperson/designer even if they were not a shrewish harpie with bad taste who paid late and couldn't make up her mind.

 

[Toni]

We must become intolerant to intolerance to the point that we tolerate a lawless government?

Please show your work to explain this seemingly reactionary slippery slope argument.

I was taking for granted that JH was advocating overcoming this whole "But it is expression...." hyper technical excuse to invade in the dignity of *insert whatever minority* by the expedient of having the government pretend whether it's expression doesn't matter. But if he was actually advocating having Congress enact a 28th Amendment to limit the First Amendment to cover expression that doesn't invade in the dignity of *insert whatever minority* and persuading 38 states to ratify it, then I'll withdraw the remark.

Since freedom of speech is not unlimited nor is anything made for commerce @ expression”, it seems to me the above is confirmation that it was a reactionary slippery slope argument.

I'm jumping in here not having read this thread for a few days but it seems to me that this issue is the apex with slippery slopes on either side. It's a slippery slope to allow people to discriminate on the basis of (insert irrational basis here) BUT it's also a slippery slope to compel people to create work that expresses sentiments and beliefs that are absolutely contrary to the ones they personally hold. Either is wrong. It is absolutely 100% wrong to refuse to do work for someone because you don't like their religion or the color of their skin or their gender or their choice of romantic partner or (insert irrational reason here). But it is absolutely 100% wrong for anyone to have the authority or power to compel another person to create something specifically for them which violates the creator's beliefs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Apparently this case is purely an intellectual exercise as nothing actually happened. No one asked her for a gay wedding website so she hasn’t discriminated against anyone yet.

As far as I can tell,
It's an exercise in manufactured outrage.

Some people are outraged over a fake case of discrimination. Other people are outraged over a fake case of discrimination.

Oh wait, everybody is outraged. Over a fake case.

That's the bottom line, to me. Everyone is outraged over something that didn't even happen.

Outrage sells in the modern media. Sells bigly! No wonder there lots of it.
Tom

Something did happen - SCOTUS made a ruling that institutionalized discrimination under the guise of freedom of speech an/or religious freedom.

Yes. The case did indeed happen and so did the ruling. But it was based on a hypothetical intellectual exercise. As others have pointed out it may have real consequences despite that.

Standing used to be a good ole kick the can ain't touching that excuse. See Under God lawsuit with Michael Newdow (think that was his name). All the talk, the trial, and they went with standing.

CJ Roberts doesn't give a fuck about standing. Just a minor inconvenience, which allows as many cases to go to SCOTUS as he pleases.

 

[Bomb#20]

We must become intolerant to intolerance to the point that we tolerate a lawless government?

Please show your work to explain this seemingly reactionary slippery slope argument.

I was taking for granted that JH was advocating overcoming this whole "But it is expression...." hyper technical excuse to invade in the dignity of *insert whatever minority* by the expedient of having the government pretend whether it's expression doesn't matter. But if he was actually advocating having Congress enact a 28th Amendment to limit the First Amendment to cover expression that doesn't invade in the dignity of *insert whatever minority* and persuading 38 states to ratify it, then I'll withdraw the remark.

Since freedom of speech is not unlimited

nor is anything made for commerce @ expression”,

Whereas a lot of posts you make are for word @ salad.

it seems to me the above is confirmation that it was a reactionary slippery slope argument.

What on earth makes you think so*? Where am I supposed to be suggesting it's a slippery slope to anything? We've seen one slippery-slope argument after another from progressives in this thread, mostly of the "303 Creative will take America back to Jim Crow" variety. But from me, where?

If you took me to be saying what JH is advocating is a step on a slippery slope to lawless government, no, you misunderstand. I'm saying what JH is advocating is lawless government.

(* The "reactionary" part I get -- that's just one of the left-wing's content-free go-to slurs for anything less left-wing than itself.)

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We must become intolerant to intolerance to the point that we tolerate a lawless government?

Please show your work to explain this seemingly reactionary slippery slope argument.

I was taking for granted that JH was advocating overcoming this whole "But it is expression...." hyper technical excuse to invade in the dignity of *insert whatever minority* by the expedient of having the government pretend whether it's expression doesn't matter. But if he was actually advocating having Congress enact a 28th Amendment to limit the First Amendment to cover expression that doesn't invade in the dignity of *insert whatever minority* and persuading 38 states to ratify it, then I'll withdraw the remark.

Since freedom of speech is not unlimited

nor is anything made for commerce @ expression”,

Whereas a lot of posts you make are for word @ salad.

No, he's right.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm jumping in here not having read this thread for a few days but it seems to me that this issue is the apex with slippery slopes on either side. It's a slippery slope to allow people to discriminate on the basis of (insert irrational basis here) BUT it's also a slippery slope to compel people to create work that expresses sentiments and beliefs that are absolutely contrary to the ones they personally hold. Either is wrong. It is absolutely 100% wrong to refuse to do work for someone because you don't like their religion or the color of their skin or their gender or their choice of romantic partner or (insert irrational reason here). But it is absolutely 100% wrong for anyone to have the authority or power to compel another person to create something specifically for them which violates the creator's beliefs.

Agreed--there's very definitely slippery slope issues here. That's pretty much inevitable in situations where rights conflict. I do think SCOTUS got it right, though. Now, if they go any farther I will object!

 

[Elixir]

I'm jumping in here not having read this thread for a few days but it seems to me that this issue is the apex with slippery slopes on either side. It's a slippery slope to allow people to discriminate on the basis of (insert irrational basis here) BUT it's also a slippery slope to compel people to create work that expresses sentiments and beliefs that are absolutely contrary to the ones they personally hold. Either is wrong. It is absolutely 100% wrong to refuse to do work for someone because you don't like their religion or the color of their skin or their gender or their choice of romantic partner or (insert irrational reason here). But it is absolutely 100% wrong for anyone to have the authority or power to compel another person to create something specifically for them which violates the creator's beliefs.

Agreed--there's very definitely slippery slope issues here. That's pretty much inevitable in situations where rights conflict. I do think SCOTUS got it right, though. Now, if they go any farther I will object!

Obviously the solution is that everyone needs to GET THE FUCK OVER THEMSELVES.
We are doomed to go off the slippery slope one way or the other, if we don’t all give a little.

 

[laughing dog]

We must become intolerant to intolerance to the point that we tolerate a lawless government?

Please show your work to explain this seemingly reactionary slippery slope argument.

I was taking for granted that JH was advocating overcoming this whole "But it is expression...." hyper technical excuse to invade in the dignity of *insert whatever minority* by the expedient of having the government pretend whether it's expression doesn't matter. But if he was actually advocating having Congress enact a 28th Amendment to limit the First Amendment to cover expression that doesn't invade in the dignity of *insert whatever minority* and persuading 38 states to ratify it, then I'll withdraw the remark.

Since freedom of speech is not unlimited

nor is anything made for commerce @ expression”,

Whereas a lot of posts you make are for word @ salad.

it seems to me the above is confirmation that it was a reactionary slippery slope argument.

What on earth makes you think so*? Where am I supposed to be suggesting it's a slippery slope to anything? We've seen one slippery-slope argument after another from progressives in this thread, mostly of the "303 Creative will take America back to Jim Crow" variety. But from me, where?

If you took me to be saying what JH is advocating is a step on a slippery slope to lawless government, no, you misunderstand. I'm saying what JH is advocating is lawless government.

I'm sorry, I was giving a charitable interpretation. I stand corrected. And I must give your props for injecting Inigo Montoya into the discussion - it is truly masterful.

However, the notion that JH is advocating lawless government is more content-free eactionary hyperbole.

(* The "reactionary" part I get -- that's just one of the left-wing's content-free go-to slurs for anything less left-wing than itself.)

Apparently you don't get "reactionary" if you think it is content free. The definition is available.

Your entire response simply is a perfect example of a reactionary reaction.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you took me to be saying what JH is advocating is a step on a slippery slope to lawless government, no, you misunderstand. I'm saying what JH is advocating is lawless government.

The current SCOTUS and the former Trump Administration exposed how much our system of governance depends on the adherence to tradition and precedence and that coloring outside the lines, while not prohibited, should be kept to only cases of absolute necessity.

"Lawless Government" is a bizarre term for you to use in an assumption made by another that all people should have access to all rights and privileges. The Government's role would only be in as far to ensure said access. Instead, it seems that you appear to be asserting that it is government over-reach to ensure equal protection

You try to smear the entire objection as calling it a slippery slope, but you and others have failed to demonstrate how the very arguments used in the web site or cake cases can't apply to race.

 

[Elixir]

You try to smear the entire objection as calling it a slippery slope

It is. In fact it’s a knife edge, and we’re going off one side or the other. I see a difference in long term outcomes. If we go off to the left (democracy) the excesses that result are going to be at least somewhat correctable. If we go off to the right (autocracy) the excesses will be a feature- the very point for those in charge, and any effort directed at correcting them will be considered criminal.

 

[Gospel]

The current SCOTUS and the former Trump Administration exposed how much our system of governance depends on the adherence to tradition and precedence and that coloring outside the lines, while not prohibited, should be kept to only cases of absolute necessity.

I agree. I'd like to add that traditions and precedents are not always right. They come from a specific time and place, and they can become outdated as society changes. That's why it's important to be open to questioning them, even if they've been around for a long time.

Challenging traditions isn't exclusive to "the left" or "the right"; it's a universal practice. However, some individuals struggle with accepting challenges that diverge from their own beliefs, becoming overly sensitive to even the slightest dissent from opposing views. Having an abundance of these people in leadership positions is the actual problem.

 

[bilby]

Challenging traditions isn't exclusive to "the left" or "the right"

Not exclusive, perhaps, but as it's one of the differences that defines them, it's certainly massively biased towards "the left".

"The right" is in part defined by its conservatism, which actually means the defence of tradition. Challenging traditions us, by definition, the exact opposite of conservatism, and therefore is one of the the aims of "the left", and is one of the things "the right" are typically fighting against.

If what you're saying is that even people on "the left" occasionally take a conservative stance on things that traditionally benefit them, then you're right, but by doing so they are no longer acting in the ways that normally define them as "the left".

If a Broncos fan is cheering for the Titans to win, because a Titans victory over the Panthers would put the Broncos into first place in the league, that doesn't make him a Titans fan.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Challenging traditions isn't exclusive to "the left" or "the right"

Not exclusive, perhaps, but as it's one of the differences that defines them, it's certainly massively biased towards "the left".

"The right" is in part defined by its conservatism, which actually means the defence of tradition. Challenging traditions us, by definition, the exact opposite of conservatism, and therefore is one of the the aims of "the left", and is one of the things "the right" are typically fighting against.

There's an interesting point by Chomsky in an obscure counterargument he made that conservatives could theoretically make traditions out of the Age of Enlightment (or Reason) and so to conserve that tradition could be to promote open, rational inquiry. While Chomsky mentioned this in a particular context and went onto further analysis, I thought that small portion was interesting enough to remember. And to go on with my own take...which traditions conservatives have chosen to defend are ones related to traditional institutions of power.

 

[Gospel]

Challenging traditions isn't exclusive to "the left" or "the right"

Not exclusive, perhaps, but as it's one of the differences that defines them, it's certainly massively biased towards "the left".

"The right" is in part defined by its conservatism, which actually means the defence of tradition. Challenging traditions us, by definition, the exact opposite of conservatism, and therefore is one of the the aims of "the left", and is one of the things "the right" are typically fighting against.

If what you're saying is that even people on "the left" occasionally take a conservative stance on things that traditionally benefit them, then you're right, but by doing so they are no longer acting in the ways that normally define them as "the left".

If a Broncos fan is cheering for the Titans to win, because a Titans victory over the Panthers would put the Broncos into first place in the league, that doesn't make him a Titans fan.

Challenging traditions has been a constant in human history, It's a tradition in its own right.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Challenging traditions isn't exclusive to "the left" or "the right"

Not exclusive, perhaps, but as it's one of the differences that defines them, it's certainly massively biased towards "the left".

"The right" is in part defined by its conservatism, which actually means the defence of tradition. Challenging traditions us, by definition, the exact opposite of conservatism, and therefore is one of the the aims of "the left", and is one of the things "the right" are typically fighting against.

If what you're saying is that even people on "the left" occasionally take a conservative stance on things that traditionally benefit them, then you're right, but by doing so they are no longer acting in the ways that normally define them as "the left".

If a Broncos fan is cheering for the Titans to win, because a Titans victory over the Panthers would put the Broncos into first place in the league, that doesn't make him a Titans fan.

Challenging traditions has been a constant in human history, It's a tradition in its own right.

Generally conservatives stick with the past, it is why they are called conservatives, which is based on the Latin word "conservus" which roughly translates to "stick in the mud".

Liberals/progressives are much more likely to challenge tradition, see the 0th to 21st centuries as an example. Conservatives today are only challenging recent traditions from the last two to six decades and want to turn back the clock further and return to when things were better and we have public pools that blacks couldn't swim in, before we had to privatize that shit up.