Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[jab]

How do you know other people's sexual orientation? On-line gaydar?

It doesn't take gaydar to figure out that the openly, even annoyingly, gay guy is gay.

I've put "faggot" under gender in my profile for pete's sake. I talk about my male partner of ~30 years regularly.
Tom

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about me, and the other people whom the poster assumed to be white( inaccurate) and straight.

 

[jab]

The letters to the Corinthians were written by Paul. Personally, I've always thought Paul was a crazy fundamentalist. Crazy because the things he did before his conversion were evil so he he had to go overboard to try to gain forgiveness.

I always go back to what did Jesus say about homosexuality.

But fundies don't go back there, and even the ones who somewhat eschew the Old Testament, accept the whole New T. as the (celestial) Cat's Meow. Catholics, like those Supremes, tend to be, I think, Pauline.

 

[jab]

Web design is not the same thing as publishing. There is a line somewhere between publishing, hosting content, and pasting in content as requested by a client. Whereever that line is doesn't matter to me in this case because the case we have here is a christofascist camel sticking its nose under the tent under the guise of protecting speech.

But it’s not ‘pasting in content as requested by client.’ Clients who are capable of creating their own content would use a template.

It’s actually creating content for the clients. To me, that is absolutely key.

It can be cut and paste. Some people aren't technically literate enough to do it. I have been paid to paste text into a website before--they had no idea of how to use the editor, it was no big deal for me to figure out.

Right. I've done that as well, although not for a wedding website. But I've published newsletters using an established template/software; I've created programs for performances using (and sometimes slightly modifying) a template and using mostly text provided to me. That particular job it was necessary to be consistent with institution standards--very few degrees of freedom to be creative. That's not what I'm talking about. That's not this.

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

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

What does "curating" photographs mean?

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

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

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

So, a pretentious word for selecting.

 

[Playball40]

They used the morally repugnant bullshit to keep Jim Crowe happy and healthy. If a restaurant owner, who is also the chef, says it goes against his "morals" to "cook for" an interracial couple, you're a-ok with that?

Why does the chef even know that we are an interracial couple? And how are our races reflected in dish produced?

I do not believe the chef gets to refuse.

Cooking adds personal art/infusion and is therefore protected by free speech. Chefs design their meals all the time.

 

[Toni]

The c

They used the morally repugnant bullshit to keep Jim Crowe happy and healthy. If a restaurant owner, who is also the chef, says it goes against his "morals" to "cook for" an interracial couple, you're a-ok with that?

Why does the chef even know that we are an interracial couple? And how are our races reflected in dish produced?

I do not believe the chef gets to refuse.

Cooking adds personal art/infusion and is therefore protected by free speech. Chefs design their meals all the time.

The court has drawn a different line.

 

[TSwizzle]

I feel like many of you might have rose-tinted glasses regarding the scale, magnitude, and viciousness of the bigotry that this country is capable of. Let's remember that the so called progressive, liberal bastion blue state of California voted against gay marriage as recently as 2008. Sexual orientation only became a protected class in 2020, not by popular referendum, but by judicial decree.

TWICE!! Right on brother, fuck that democracy shit.

 

[ZiprHead]

They used the morally repugnant bullshit to keep Jim Crowe happy and healthy. If a restaurant owner, who is also the chef, says it goes against his "morals" to "cook for" an interracial couple, you're a-ok with that?

Why does the chef even know that we are an interracial couple? And how are our races reflected in dish produced?

I do not believe the chef gets to refuse.

Cooking adds personal art/infusion and is therefore protected by free speech. Chefs design their meals all the time.

I have yet to have my steak talk back to me.

 

[Gospel]

The c

They used the morally repugnant bullshit to keep Jim Crowe happy and healthy. If a restaurant owner, who is also the chef, says it goes against his "morals" to "cook for" an interracial couple, you're a-ok with that?

Why does the chef even know that we are an interracial couple? And how are our races reflected in dish produced?

I do not believe the chef gets to refuse.

Cooking adds personal art/infusion and is therefore protected by free speech. Chefs design their meals all the time.

The court has drawn a different line.

• They are innovators. Chefs are constantly pushing the boundaries of cuisine, creating new and exciting dishes that challenge our expectations.

So you mean to tell us that the SCOTUS said only Christian baker's and not a Chef's creative expressions matter?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The c

They used the morally repugnant bullshit to keep Jim Crowe happy and healthy. If a restaurant owner, who is also the chef, says it goes against his "morals" to "cook for" an interracial couple, you're a-ok with that?

Why does the chef even know that we are an interracial couple? And how are our races reflected in dish produced?

I do not believe the chef gets to refuse.

Cooking adds personal art/infusion and is therefore protected by free speech. Chefs design their meals all the time.

The court has drawn a different line.

Have they drawn a line at all? From what I can tell, they erased a line.

 

[Elixir]

I do know is that "No N***** Allowed" signs were normal and commonplace in the US pre-Civil Rights Era.

But they’re not now, are they?
I don’t think you can legislate bigotry out of existence, but you definitely CAN shame racists into suppressing their racism until they can get over it.

 

[Copernicus]

I do know is that "No N***** Allowed" signs were normal and commonplace in the US pre-Civil Rights Era.

But they’re not now, are they?
I don’t think you can legislate bigotry out of existence, but you definitely CAN shame racists into suppressing their racism until they can get over it.

Such a sign in the past would have been evidence of illegal discrimination, especially in Colorado. Not so much anymore.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't remember having freedom of speech at any job I've ever worked at.

 

[Toni]

The c

They used the morally repugnant bullshit to keep Jim Crowe happy and healthy. If a restaurant owner, who is also the chef, says it goes against his "morals" to "cook for" an interracial couple, you're a-ok with that?

Why does the chef even know that we are an interracial couple? And how are our races reflected in dish produced?

I do not believe the chef gets to refuse.

Cooking adds personal art/infusion and is therefore protected by free speech. Chefs design their meals all the time.

The court has drawn a different line.

• They are innovators. Chefs are constantly pushing the boundaries of cuisine, creating new and exciting dishes that challenge our expectations.

So you mean to tell us that the SCOTUS said only Christian baker's and not a Chef's creative expressions matter?

I think that the line the court draws has to do with words, not flavors. Again, I’m no lawyer, but this ruling is consistent with other rulings re: separation of church and state.

 

[Gospel]

Hello? It's not like there isn't precedent.

• A chef has created dishes that are inspired by their cultural heritage.
• A chef has created dishes that are designed to evoke a particular emotion or feeling.
• A chef has created dishes that are intended to make a political or social statement.

Auguste Escoffier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Copernicus]

I think that the line the court draws has to do with words, not flavors. Again, I’m no lawyer, but this ruling is consistent with other rulings re: separation of church and state.

I'll take that with freedom fries and a grain of salt.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

I do know is that "No N***** Allowed" signs were normal and commonplace in the US pre-Civil Rights Era.

But they’re not now, are they?

Thanks to Civil Rights laws.

I don’t think you can legislate bigotry out of existence,

Not entirely, but you can certainly put a dent in it. When racist business owners were given the choice between serving black patrons or getting sued and fined out of existence, most of them chose to serve black people. Then patrons of those businesses got used to having black people around, and when people spend time around people from different ethnic backgrounds, their prejudices tend to fade away over time, particularly with newer generations. But you have to force the issue, or that intermingling never takes place.

but you definitely CAN shame racists into suppressing their racism until they can get over it.

No you can't. If businesses remain segregated, how are people going to change? It is the intermingling of different groups that lowers prejudices. If a racist restaurant owner isn't forced to serve black people, then he, his kids, his employees, his patrons, will never be forced to reckon with the fact that black people are in fact normal human beings like they are. Same applies to gay people, and every other minority.

We've already done this experiment. Civil Rights laws work. Segregation allows prejudices to thrive. Segregation is incompatible with civil society. We need to learn the lessons of the past and apply that knowledge to the present. Please let's not doom ourselves to repeating history over and over and over again with every minority that right-wing bigots want to relegate to second class citizenship. I mean honestly, the fact that we're having this conversation in 2023 is a bit mindblowing.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

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

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

www.advocate.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Gun Nut]

They used the morally repugnant bullshit to keep Jim Crowe happy and healthy. If a restaurant owner, who is also the chef, says it goes against his "morals" to "cook for" an interracial couple, you're a-ok with that?

Why does the chef even know that we are an interracial couple? And how are our races reflected in dish produced?

I do not believe the chef gets to refuse.

Cooking adds personal art/infusion and is therefore protected by free speech. Chefs design their meals all the time.

IF there is routine customization of their output, tailored by and to the customer, then yes, it is art in this sense.... if their menu is their menu and customer requests for unique customization beyond replacement or removal of an ingredient is not made, then no, it is not. I have yet to find a restaurant that lets me write in an "other" category for my order... and "build your own burger" does not count, as it is just a multiple choice of pre-existing options. Can I add "extra big dick" to my Subways order and expect them to go find it for me, or am I limited to the choices on display?

 

[Elixir]

when people spend time around people from different ethnic backgrounds, their prejudices tend to fade away over time, particularly with newer generations.

Yeah, that.

But you have to force the issue, or that intermingling never takes place.

Do you have to force it, really?
Peer pressure is the only force that actually works IME.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

when people spend time around people from different ethnic backgrounds, their prejudices tend to fade away over time, particularly with newer generations.

Yeah, that.

How does that happen if segregation persists?

But you have to force the issue, or that intermingling never takes place.

Do you have to force it, really?
Peer pressure is the only force that actually works IME.

Are you the ghost of Barry Goldwater? Are you under the impression that the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s did not accomplish anything? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is widely considered to be one of the most important and impactful pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress. It rapidly accelerated the pace of desegregation, and improved the lives of black Americans in just about every metric.

So, like, are you opposed to civil rights laws?