Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Toni]

Yes, I am completely aware and have seen up close and personal that many people have not been treated as equal to white people. I understand privilege as being relative to everybody else but those are rights: being treated equally under the law, in all respects outlined above (and including any I did not mention in my current sleep deprived state). Privilege is something that can be taken away. Rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away, although some rights might be lost under certain circumstances such as being convicted of some crimes.

The Constitution doesn't draw a line between Privileges and Rights. Privileges are not meant to be arbitrarily withheld.

I accept the word privilege as it is used in this context but I think that it is a misnomer and part of me thinks that it was chosen specifically because it will cause conflict and resistance from people who struggle and whose families have always struggled and for whom the word privilege tastes like sawdust. Yes, I am extremely aware that my white forebears who struggled mightily for a few generations, if not longer, struggled less than they would have if their skins had not been pretty darn white and their 'old country' had not been located in Europe.

My problem with the alt-righters is their complete and utter indifference (at best) to the extraordinary struggle put forth on minorities in the US, intentionally by white people. As my handle would indicate, I'm quite knowledgeable regarding the white struggle in labor. Which kind of makes this whole alt-right position so absurd, because the alt-right is also anti-union, which is what helped make working conditions survivable for white people back in the day. Alt-right'ers are under this adolescent delusion of their problems are the only problems. They lack knowledge or care for knowledge of any large world perspective.

Yeah, a bunch of the right is anti-union and a handful of my lefty friends as well, based in their personal experience of working under an ineffective and poorly run union in their youth.

It’s crazy because without unions, we would have no 40 he work week, no weekends, holidays, worker’s comp, workplace safety, and lots of other rights we all take for granted.

 

[Gospel]

The right is not universally opposed to unions; rather, their objections seem to primarily focus on unions that are not law enforcement unions.

 

[Toni]

The right is not universally opposed to unions; rather, their objections seem to primarily focus on unions that are not law enforcement unions.

True. And most unions are not particularly liberal.

 

[Toni]

What time in history do you think Trump is referring to when he says Make America Great Again?

1950.

 

[Bomb#20]

The only thing you've offered remotely resembling an explanation for why they're dissimilar is "the government has legitimate interest in non-discriminatory business practices". That's immaterial to the dispute at hand. It has no magical power to make "Disobey your religion or be punished" not be an infringement on religious exercise.

Please show me where in her religion is says she must open a business of public accommodation. No one is forcing her to make a gay wedding website. She can make all the websites she wants for whoever she wants and not for anybody she doesn’t want to. But if she wants to open a business then she has to follow the government’s non-discriminatory policies.

How do you get from "her religion doesn't say she must X" to "prohibiting her from doing X if she won't disobey her religion is not an infringement on religious exercise"? Show your work.

Suppose the Clearwater city council enacts an ordinance requiring beachgoers to say "Jesus is Lord" to get a parking permit. A Jew claims this infringes her religious excercise. Do you think "Please show me where in Judaism it says she must go to the beach. No one is forcing her to recite polytheistic blasphemy. She can make all the sandcastles she wants in her own sandbox. But if she wants to use the city's parking lot then she has to follow the government’s speech policies." refutes her?

Suppose the next Republican-controlled Congress pushes through a law expanding "protected groups" to include pig farmers. If you eat beef or lamb then failing to eat pork as well will now be defined as discrimination against pig farmers. A Muslim claims forcing her to eat haram food infringes her religious excercise. Do you think "Please show me where in Islam it says she must eat meat. No one is forcing her to eat pork. She can eat all the vegetables she wants and not any pork she doesn’t want to. But if she wants to eat meat then she has to follow the government’s non-discriminatory meat policies." refutes her?

It is true that Christianity does not require Christians to open businesses. But it is also true that Judaism does not require Jews to go to the beach and it is also true that Islam does not require Muslims to eat meat. If you accept an argument from a true premise when you choose the content words but you reject an argument of the exact same form from a true premise when different content words are substituted in, then you are reasoning illogically.

 

[Bomb#20]

The only thing you've offered remotely resembling an explanation for why they're dissimilar is "the government has legitimate interest in non-discriminatory business practices". That's immaterial to the dispute at hand. It has no magical power to make "Disobey your religion or be punished" not be an infringement on religious exercise.

Please show me where in her religion is says she must open a business of public accommodation. No one is forcing her to make a gay wedding website. She can make all the websites she wants for whoever she wants and not for anybody she doesn’t want to. But if she wants to open a business then she has to follow the government’s non-discriminatory policies.

Sadly, not anymore.

"If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

 

[Bomb#20]

You know courts in Common-Law countries aren't in the business of chaining up civil lawsuit defendants and having them flogged until they fulfill their contracts, don't you?

They used to do worse. For example:

In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), ...

They used to do even worse than that: they used to hang people for witchcraft and burn people at the stake for heresy. What's your point? I wasn't claiming virtuousness for the Anglo-American legal system, just pointing out the difference between injunctions for specific performance versus judgments for monetary damages. I included the qualifier to the effect that what I said might not be true of the civil law system prevailing in continental Europe, because that system is based on the Code Napoleon and god knows what that guy got up to.

Slavery was a forced contract

Okay, now you're talking poetic metaphor, not law. Slaves didn't have contracts. (And "forced contract" is a contradiction in terms.)

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed in part to enforce the provisions of Section 2 of the 13th Amendment.

Metaphor again. Discrimination in voting, employment, education, and public accommodation are all evils and that doesn't make them slavery.

During the era of slavery in the United States, a significant number of people held the belief that slavery was a divine right. This perspective was founded on interpretations of the Bible that asserted the inferiority of black people in comparison to white people, suggesting that they were destined to serve as slaves. Today, the courts of this Common-Law country said bibbidi bobbidi boo so that we may move back towards divine right slavery and flogging.

I.e., allowing one last piece of the economy to stay out from under the ever-expanding scope of anti-discrimination law because the Constitution already had an explicit guarantee just for that piece is a slippery slope to bringing back slavery. There's a reason slippery slope arguments tend to be unconvincing.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It is true that Christianity does not require Christians to open businesses.

Therefore running the business is itself not a religious exercise. You agree. Regulations on businesses are not religious restrictions.

The argument for her is best on free speech but not exercise of religion.

 

[ZiprHead]

The only thing you've offered remotely resembling an explanation for why they're dissimilar is "the government has legitimate interest in non-discriminatory business practices". That's immaterial to the dispute at hand. It has no magical power to make "Disobey your religion or be punished" not be an infringement on religious exercise.

Please show me where in her religion is says she must open a business of public accommodation. No one is forcing her to make a gay wedding website. She can make all the websites she wants for whoever she wants and not for anybody she doesn’t want to. But if she wants to open a business then she has to follow the government’s non-discriminatory policies.

Sadly, not anymore.

"If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

Opening a business to create websites for other people is not free expression. It's directed expression.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Suppose the Clearwater city council enacts an ordinance requiring beachgoers to say "Jesus is Lord" to get a parking permit. A Jew claims this infringes her religious excercise. Do you think "Please show me where in Judaism it says she must go to the beach. No one is forcing her to recite polytheistic blasphemy. She can make all the sandcastles she wants in her own sandbox. But if she wants to use the city's parking lot then she has to follow the government’s speech policies." refutes her?

This is not a good analogy as this is the government requiring religious speech.

A better analogy might be something like the government imposes a law that all Businesses be open seven days a week. A Jewish business owner then says this infringes on his right to free exercise of his religion because his religion compels him not to work on the Sabbath. Then you can say: “Shadowy Man, are you saying that because his religion does not compel him to have a business that it is ok for the government to just say to him ‘don’t run a business if you don’t like the regulations’?”

In the case of the hypothetical wedding website woman the parallel would then be that her religion compels her to discriminate against gay people even if it doesn’t compel her to run the business. That’s what is being said, yes?

 

[bilby]

What time in history do you think Trump is referring to when he says Make America Great Again?

1950.

Close. I would say August 28, 1949.

Between September 2nd 1945, and August 28, 1949, America was indisputably the most powerful country in the world. At various times before and since it may have been, but that's disputable.

 

[Toni]

Suppose the Clearwater city council enacts an ordinance requiring beachgoers to say "Jesus is Lord" to get a parking permit. A Jew claims this infringes her religious excercise. Do you think "Please show me where in Judaism it says she must go to the beach. No one is forcing her to recite polytheistic blasphemy. She can make all the sandcastles she wants in her own sandbox. But if she wants to use the city's parking lot then she has to follow the government’s speech policies." refutes her?

This is not a good analogy as this is the government requiring religious speech.

A better analogy might be something like the government imposes a law that all Businesses be open seven days a week. A Jewish business owner then says this infringes on his right to free exercise of his religion because his religion compels him not to work on the Sabbath. Then you can say: “Shadowy Man, are you saying that because his religion does not compel him to have a business that it is ok for the government to just say to him ‘don’t run a business if you don’t like the regulations’?”

In the case of the hypothetical wedding website woman the parallel would then be that her religion compels her to discriminate against gay people even if it doesn’t compel her to run the business. That’s what is being said, yes?

I think a better analogy would be to compel
a restauranteur who is Jewish or Muslim to serve a ham sandwich. We would all respect the right of a Jewish or Muslim establishment to refuse to sell a ham sandwich even if they sold chicken and beef sandwiches.

Of course kosher and halal dietary laws are widely known, of very longstanding tradition and fairly universal for adherents ( although not all Jews keep kosher and I definitely have known Muslims who ate pork on occasion. We should not over-generalize.

Not all Christians or Christian denominations oppose gay marriage. Some have endorsed gay marriage for a number of years. Some have gay pastors.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I think a better analogy would be to compel
a restauranteur who is Jewish or Muslim to serve a ham sandwich. We would all respect the right of a Jewish or Muslim establishment to refuse to sell a ham sandwich even if they sold chicken and beef sandwiches.

So the analogy here is that anti-gay discrimination in Christianity is on par with the Jewish and Islamic dietary restrictions. And that a gay wedding website is substantively a different product than a heterosexual wedding website. Got it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The US are still the indisputable champions in strength. The problem is, being the strongest has a lot less importance these days.

 

[Toni]

I think a better analogy would be to compel
a restauranteur who is Jewish or Muslim to serve a ham sandwich. We would all respect the right of a Jewish or Muslim establishment to refuse to sell a ham sandwich even if they sold chicken and beef sandwiches.

So the analogy here is that anti-gay discrimination in Christianity is on par with the Jewish and Islamic dietary restrictions. And that a gay wedding website is substantively a different product than a heterosexual wedding website. Got it.

For some people, yes, it is on par. A gay wedding website is a substantively different product than a straight wedding website in the same way that a ham sandwich is different than a corned beef on rye. For some people.

I would like to remind everyone that I disagree vehemently with the bigoted web designer with the fake problem that she managed to get all the way to SCOTUS.

 

[Elixir]

And that a gay wedding website is substantively a different product than a heterosexual wedding website

You don’t have to be gay to appreciate that the gay wedding website is going to be far more fabulous. At least moreso than a heterosexual wedding website. Personally I’d probably opt for the “all sexual preferences wedding website” even though it might net measure up to the fabulousness of the gay wedding website, but I respect your choice no matter what.

 

[laughing dog]

I think a better analogy would be to compel
a restauranteur who is Jewish or Muslim to serve a ham sandwich. We would all respect the right of a Jewish or Muslim establishment to refuse to sell a ham sandwich even if they sold chicken and beef sandwiches.

So the analogy here is that anti-gay discrimination in Christianity is on par with the Jewish and Islamic dietary restrictions. And that a gay wedding website is substantively a different product than a heterosexual wedding website. Got it.

For some people, yes, it is on par. A gay wedding website is a substantively different product than a straight wedding website in the same way that a ham sandwich is different than a corned beef on rye. For some people.

Your analogy about sandwiches seems misplaced to me. It seems to me that if an establishment sells _____ (fill in the blank), it should sell ____ to anyone who is legally entitled to buy it. If an establishment sells ham sandwiches, it should not be legally able to deny a ham sandwich any legal customer who can pay for it. And even though I think that cooking and creating food is a creative form of expression, I do not think an establishment should be able to say it will create for some customers but not others. I think my argument holds for wedding cakes and wedding websites.

 

[Bomb#20]

How do you get from "her religion doesn't say she must X" to "prohibiting her from doing X if she won't disobey her religion is not an infringement on religious exercise"? Show your work.

<crickets>

It is true that Christianity does not require Christians to open businesses.

Therefore running the business is itself not a religious exercise. You agree. Regulations on businesses are not religious restrictions.

That's a non sequitur. If you disagree, show your work.

The argument for her is best on free speech but not exercise of religion.

True, but not for the reason you say. The trouble with the exercise of religion case for her is not that it isn't an infringement on religious exercise -- of course it is -- but that there's a long series of SCOTUS precedents to the effect that infringements on religious exercise are okay provided various conditions are met.

 

[Bomb#20]

Suppose the Clearwater city council enacts an ordinance requiring beachgoers to say "Jesus is Lord" to get a parking permit. A Jew claims this infringes her religious excercise. Do you think "Please show me where in Judaism it says she must go to the beach. No one is forcing her to recite polytheistic blasphemy. She can make all the sandcastles she wants in her own sandbox. But if she wants to use the city's parking lot then she has to follow the government’s speech policies." refutes her?

This is not a good analogy as...

...it is not an analogy at all. It is a counterexample. It is a proof by construction that "her religion doesn't say she must X" does not imply "prohibiting her from doing X if she won't disobey her religion is not an infringement on religious exercise". If the inference you keep making were logically valid then requiring beachgoers to say "Jesus is Lord" to get a parking permit would not infringe religious exercise.

this is the government requiring religious speech.

How the heck do you figure it's the government requiring religious speech?!? She doesn't have to go to the beach! Just like Smith doesn't have to open a wedding website business.

A better analogy might be something like the government imposes a law that all Businesses be open seven days a week. A Jewish business owner then says this infringes on his right to free exercise of his religion because his religion compels him not to work on the Sabbath. Then you can say: “Shadowy Man, are you saying that because his religion does not compel him to have a business that it is ok for the government to just say to him ‘don’t run a business if you don’t like the regulations’?”

See? You can come up with your own counterexamples too. So why do you assume "Therefore running the business is itself not a religious exercise. You agree. Regulations on businesses are not religious restrictions." is a good argument? Running the business is itself not a religious exercise and yet a regulation that all businesses must be open seven days a week is obviously a religious restriction on Jewish business owners.

In the case of the hypothetical wedding website woman the parallel would then be that her religion compels her to discriminate against gay people even if it doesn’t compel her to run the business. That’s what is being said, yes?

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. 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.

 

[Bomb#20]

...But if she wants to open a business then she has to follow the government’s non-discriminatory policies.

Sadly, not anymore.

"If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

Opening a business to create websites for other people is not free expression. It's directed expression.

What is your criterion for labeling other people's expressions "directed"? And do you think there's something in the Constitution that excludes expressions from First Amendment protection when they satisfy your criterion?