Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Toni]

Except as you note, the content would be whatever info they want (about them and their wedding) on the site. They are just paying someone to translate their content into HTML / *insert other acronyms and languages*.

Nope. They are paying someone to create the vision for their wedding website for them. It isn't THEIR content. It's about THEIR WEDDING.

What you are talking about is a cut and paste template. This is NOT THAT. No matter how many times you insist that it is. A template is generic and must be offered to all buyers. CREATING content for the buyer is different.

I'm not talking a generic template, though, it'd be some sort of template regardless. I doubt anyone is creating websites from scratch. It'd be some sort of web developing software with tools.

You are classifying the content as the website (or that is how I'm interpreting your claim). I'm classifying content based on the subject of the website.

Let's get to the tacks here. There is a portion of the website with pics. What exactly is the content the designer "created" or "expressed"? To me, the content the designer created is the coding to load up the pics and any manner of transitions between them. They didn't create the pictures (or the people in them). There is a link you can click and it sends you to the wedding registry. The designer created the link, not the registry. Another link takes you elsewhere on the website that shows the wedding location with a fancy transition. The transition is the designers doing, not the building the wedding held or the date it is held.

Pretty often, the webdesigner or anyone involved in planning a wedding will work specifically with certain vendors/photographers, etc. Even if the couple provides ALL their own photos independent of the web designer, there's still work to ensure that it's properly cropped to fit the space, has whatever filters it needs to present the look that the couple wants, etc. Same thing with whatever words the couple wants--and they may/may not be as articulate as they'd like. All those fancy things that the various links take you to? The web designer likely had a lot of input about how those were linked and what was linked, etc.

Sure, I'm certain that there are a lot of wedding website templates where the couple creates most of the content. My impression was that this was not one of those.

 

[Toni]

Does freedom of speech to you mean one can
1) lie on the stand about the gov't,
2) promote terrorism,
3) incite riots.
4) incite insurrection, or
5) yell fire in a theater or the DMV, or
6) refuse to write a report for one's company which has the legal right to fire you for not doing your job?

My point is that there is no absolute freedom of speech. Almost every sane person accepts there are legitimate limits to the extent of free speech.

There are limits to free speech, yes. Mostly to do with public safety.How about #6 - someone is fired because they refuse to write a report for their company that violates their ethics or religious views? I don't see how that is substantially different that the web designer case.

Such a person could very well bring suit or at least have discussions with HR. Upthread, I posted a link that included a case of a postal worker who successfully took his case with regards to being forced to work on Sundays, against his religious beliefs. SCOTUS sided with him.

 

[Emily Lake]

Religion is a protected class - regardless of whether you believe in their religion or not

And what exactly did I write that gave you the idea I believed or claimed otherwise?

Just reinforcing that this situation represents a conflict between two different protections. It's not as straightforward as it gets portrayed sometimes.

It also doesn't make a parallel with black civil rights and segregation either.

Another claim I never made. Are you doing that reinforcing thing again? Perhaps we could focus on direct responses to the points I've raised? That way, our conversation would be more constructive and meaningful. Kna mean?

Not all responses that include your post alongside others are intended exclusively for you personally.

But let's go ahead and circle back to the post that I included, and your response:

Yeah, and one also doesn't need to invoke a fabricated deity to harbor prejudice against individuals who identify as gay. The argument for the freedom to discriminate, extending even to mere whims , seems to elude the understanding of those advocating for it.

Religion is a protected class - regardless of whether you believe in their religion or not

And what exactly did I write that gave you the idea I believed or claimed otherwise?

See that bit I colored red? That's the bit that gives me the idea that you believe that religion is not a protected class. Your statement in red ignores the position of religion in this conflict, and it frames it as nothing more than "freedom to discriminate". And it does it in a clearly biased fashion, as your approach directly results in the freedom not only to discriminate against people's religions, but to go a step further and directly violate their first amendment rights.

 

[Emily Lake]

Let's apply your logic to a different question of belief. Would you argue that the same designer should be required to design a wedding website for nazis, on the basis that there is no implicit message about the designer included in the work?

Is it really necessary to refute this bullshit.

Yes. I wish you to state that a designer consenting to build a custom website for a couple who are out as Nazis has exactly zero impact on the reputation of the designer.

 

[laughing dog]

Let's apply your logic to a different question of belief. Would you argue that the same designer should be required to design a wedding website for nazis, on the basis that there is no implicit message about the designer included in the work?

Is it really necessary to refute this bullshit.

Yes. I wish you to state that a designer consenting to build a custom website for a couple who are out as Nazis has exactly zero impact on the reputation of the designer.

The impact on the reputation of the designer is totally irrelevant.
But it entirely possible that it would enhance the reputation in the niche market of white supremacists.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

...and how does a wedding website send such a message about the website's designer?

Let's apply your logic to a different question of belief. Would you argue that the same designer should be required to design a wedding website for nazis, on the basis that there is no implicit message about the designer included in the work?

Yeah, I know, nazi isn't a protected class. But at the end of the day, it does represent a set of truly held beliefs. They're beliefs I find just as odious as I find much of islam and a solid dose of judaism and christianity. Naziism is no less absurd and full of hatred and bigotry than any other religion.

So the ultimate question is whether or not consenting to engage in creative work implies at least some degree of acceptance and support of the belief of the customer.

It has nothing to do with the beliefs of the customers. It is about refusing to provide a product to some customers while providing the same products to others.

If that's the case, then it implies that the supplier has no right to refuse to provide custom work to nazis, and you support forcing them to do so.

 

[Gospel]

Religion is a protected class - regardless of whether you believe in their religion or not

And what exactly did I write that gave you the idea I believed or claimed otherwise?

Just reinforcing that this situation represents a conflict between two different protections. It's not as straightforward as it gets portrayed sometimes.

It also doesn't make a parallel with black civil rights and segregation either.

Another claim I never made. Are you doing that reinforcing thing again? Perhaps we could focus on direct responses to the points I've raised? That way, our conversation would be more constructive and meaningful. Kna mean?

Not all responses that include your post alongside others are intended exclusively for you personally.

But let's go ahead and circle back to the post that I included, and your response:

Yeah, and one also doesn't need to invoke a fabricated deity to harbor prejudice against individuals who identify as gay. The argument for the freedom to discriminate, extending even to mere whims , seems to elude the understanding of those advocating for it.

Religion is a protected class - regardless of whether you believe in their religion or not

And what exactly did I write that gave you the idea I believed or claimed otherwise?

See that bit I colored red? That's the bit that gives me the idea that you believe that religion is not a protected class. Your statement in red ignores the position of religion in this conflict, and it frames it as nothing more than "freedom to discriminate". And it does it in a clearly biased fashion, as your approach directly results in the freedom not only to discriminate against people's religions, but to go a step further and directly violate their first amendment rights.

I appreciate your attention to the highlighted section. However, my main point was to draw attention to the explicit constitutional decree that prohibits the government from enacting laws that favor any particular religion.

By referring to 'whims', I intended to imply that if a person can leverage their religious beliefs to avoid expressing something contrary to their faith, it should be just as permissible for non-believers to exercise a similar right. Anything less would imply a governmental bias towards religious beliefs, which stands in contradiction to the constitutional mandate.

 

[Toni]

Let's apply your logic to a different question of belief. Would you argue that the same designer should be required to design a wedding website for nazis, on the basis that there is no implicit message about the designer included in the work?

Is it really necessary to refute this bullshit.

Yes. I wish you to state that a designer consenting to build a custom website for a couple who are out as Nazis has exactly zero impact on the reputation of the designer.

The impact on the reputation of the designer is totally irrelevant.
But it entirely possible that it would enhance the reputation in the niche market of white supremacists.

The impact on the reputation for the designer is entirely relevant. It would dramatically affect their ability to conduct any sort of business or have any sort of employment, ever, anywhere. Outside of Nazilandonia, anyway.

 

[TomC]

But it entirely possible that it would enhance the reputation in the niche market of white supremacists.

Maybe.
Back around 25 years ago, Westboro Baptist Church picketing gay people was a thing.

I wondered how I could get them to come picket my store. I was a custom picture framer suffering hugely from the Bush II recession, I'd have loved getting the publicity.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Fox News report from our new future:

Following significant strides towards inclusivity by major corporations like Walmart, Amazon, and Disney, America stands on the brink of a potential societal shift. We may soon see a heightened acceptance of the Nation of Islam. This evolution in societal attitudes is expected to trigger considerable changes, particularly in the development of selective service policies. Fox reports suggests this could extend to a complete denial of services to Wypipo.

Tune in for more at 8:00!

 

[Emily Lake]

Clearly we've just witnessed a perfect demonstration of what tardiness to a conversation combined with an impressive lack of knowledge regarding what is a protected class looks like.

I know what protected classes are. I also know that being a member of a protected class is not carte blanche for violating the rights of other people.

Being gay doesn't give the gay person the right to force a religious person to violate their doctrine and tenets.
Being transgender doesn't give Yaniv the right to force muslim women to handle his balls.

 

[Emily Lake]

I know what we used to call it, when privileged folks could use the power of the government to force other people to do things that they didn't want to do.
Tom

This cuts to the heart of the problem.

This is a case where people in a protected class (protected by statute and law, but not by constitutional right) are seeking to have the government violate other people's constitutional rights on their behalf.

 

[Gospel]

Clearly we've just witnessed a perfect demonstration of what tardiness to a conversation combined with an impressive lack of knowledge regarding what is a protected class looks like.

I know what protected classes are. I also know that being a member of a protected class is not carte blanche for violating the rights of other people.

Being gay doesn't give the gay person the right to force a religious person to violate their doctrine and tenets.
Being transgender doesn't give Yaniv the right to force muslim women to handle his balls.

I wish to clarify that my comment was a precise depiction of a post where Nazis were substituted for a protected class in the analogy. This substitution had already been identified and highlighted as such previously in this discussion.

Why not simply acknowledge it's accuracy and move on? Nah, you want to again do that reinforcing thing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Clearly we've just witnessed a perfect demonstration of what tardiness to a conversation combined with an impressive lack of knowledge regarding what is a protected class looks like.

I know what protected classes are. I also know that being a member of a protected class is not carte blanche for violating the rights of other people.

Being gay doesn't give the gay person the right to force a religious person to violate their doctrine and tenets.

Really? Because the Tanakh says to put gays to death. A Muslim, Christian, or Jewish person would be sent to prison for murdering a gay person.

Certainly not making someone a "custom" website or wedding cake is a bit trite compared to murder, however, the command in the Tanakh is clear as day, where as there is nothing in the Tanakh about websites or cakes. Reynolds v US established limits of religious belief and its ability to wiggle someone out of following the law, nearing 150 years ago.

In Iran, they'll kill a person for being gay. And we look at that as backward.
In the US, they'll refuse to make a wedding cake because the couple is gay. And we applaud their "right" to do this?

Is discrimination only okay when it is trite?

 

[Emily Lake]

Allow me to elucidate the distinction between your perspective and mine. I firmly believe that the government presents a compelling argument for safeguarding freedom from discrimination for protected classes in public accommodations. This belief stems not only from the grim history we all share, which provided a strong foundation for legislating anti-discrimination laws, but also from recognizing that this issue is primarily about interactions between citizens rather than a matter solely involving citizens versus the government (which the 1st Amendment is intended for). Indeed, it is a multifaceted concern, and I find myself aligned with the government's compelling stance in this regard. One would have to completely ignore history to draw the conclusion that discrimination is closer to equality or freedom (of speech or not).

I was reading Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) and was really horrified. I was aware that interstate commerce was the wedge used to get the Federal Government into the fight to protect the rights of blacks which were being utterly violated in the South (yes the North too, but to a smaller extents... of sorts). The US Constitution created a massive firewall between Federal and State rights. The 14th Amendment changed that a bit, and by the 1960s, the Federal Government was becoming desperate to stop what was happening in the South.

So they used interstate commerce to justify their intercession into State business. Reading the case and how food crossing state lines, as used at the BBQ in question seems like an egregious overstep of anti-Constitutional authority possible to justify forcing accommodation to all people (I can easily see purists in here arguing against that). From a bare technical legal look, it seems thread thin. But SCOTUS realized what was at stake. From Brown v Board of Education their roll in the Civil Rights movement was massive. These changes weren't coming organically. They needed to be forced. And they were, and we should have been the better for it. Sadly the bitterness is still there.

So when I see a Dobbs or Creative LLC (<--- notice that isn't Lorie Smith) v Elenis picking away at these technicalities, I see the SCOTUS from the 1960/70s as dead. I see this new Bizarro SCOTUS that aims to Plessy v Ferguson the nation back up, caring more for the technicalities of the law instead the heart of it. There is no explicit right to privacy or birth control or marriage or parenting in the Constitution / Bill of Rights. There are a lot of rights not mentioned in the Constitution / Bill of Rights. And despite the 10th Amendment, and the clearly expressed concerns regarding this by the Founding Fathers, I see these cases cutting America back in time, instead of forward.

I actually take a bit of a different view, largely because I am completely opposed to the ends justifying the means.

Your position here is that the ends justify the means, that it's okay for the government to violate constitutional provisions if it achieves an end that you believe is worthwhile. I disagree - I think the ends is worthwhile, but I don't think that justifies the means. The problem for me is that what one views as a worthwhile end is highly subjective and can be extremely variable. It's subject to populist whims, the rhetoric of ideologues, and the pressures of special interest groups. What is viewed as "worthwhile ends" in the future could very easily end up being something that every one of us finds abhorrent.

If we abuse the means for something we all think is worthwhile now, there is nothing at all to prevent someone else from abusing the means in the exact same way in the future for something we would find horrific.

It gets messy and complicated, but I don't find fault with SCOTUS for overturning Roe v. Wade. The means by which it got put in place have always been sketchy, and the reasoning by which it was overturned is something I find justifiable and rational. I 100% am opposed to the rush from states to make abortion illegal - it hurts to my core. But I still don't think SCOTUS was wrong to overturn it, because the reasoning used to pass it was bad. I'd rather start the process over and seek a fully supported and justifiable law than have it hinge on a sketchy interpretation that can be applied to make other laws that I do not support.

 

[Gospel]

I know what we used to call it, when privileged folks could use the power of the government to force other people to do things that they didn't want to do.
Tom

This cuts to the heart of the problem.

This is a case where people in a protected class (protected by statute and law, but not by constitutional right) are seeking to have the government violate other people's constitutional rights on their behalf.

If TomC's reference pertains to slavery, I'm afraid it doesn't capture the crux of our current issue. Slavery, while reprehensible, was technically lawful during its time. Our ongoing discussion, as both you and Toni have framed it, revolves around two existing laws that are seemingly in conflict with each other. Did yawl take History classes in Florida?

 

[Gospel]

I know what protected classes are. I also know that being a member of a protected class is not carte blanche for violating the rights of other people.

Yet you're demonstrating agitation for one protected class over the other.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It gets messy and complicated, but I don't find fault with SCOTUS for overturning Roe v. Wade. The means by which it got put in place have always been sketchy, and the reasoning by which it was overturned is something I find justifiable and rational. I 100% am opposed to the rush from states to make abortion illegal - it hurts to my core. But I still don't think SCOTUS was wrong to overturn it, because the reasoning used to pass it was bad. I'd rather start the process over and seek a fully supported and justifiable law than have it hinge on a sketchy interpretation that can be applied to make other laws that I do not support.

Curious, where was Roe wrong, but Eisenstadt and Griswold were right? Or do you support those going away too and just hoping shit works out?

I actually take a bit of a different view, largely because I am completely opposed to the ends justifying the means.

Yeah, Brown v Board of Education and subsequent decisions took a different approach. Where as Plessy v Ferguson SCOTUS shoved their head in the sand, Brown v Board of Education recognized things weren't working. I suppose blacks could have gone the women's suffrage movement plan and taken another 100 years to make things right. But I'm glad the courts had ruled as they did.

 

[Emily Lake]

Wedding cakes and websites, hairdos? Not so much. If they can make you do a gay wedding website, they can make you do a Klan rally website.

How many times does the above bullshit need to be refuted?

Yeah, seems I might need to add the list of protected classes to my signature for this discussion. Neither the Nazis nor the KKK made the list. Yet.

In the instance of the bigoted web site designer, and the pretend gay couple, there is a conflict between two rights: freedom of expression vs freedom from discrimination.

To clarify, the conversation at hand does not revolve around a virtuous individual exercising their right to free expression privately, either domestically or overseas, or within their religious community, who is then unjustly punished by the government.

By examining the historical context of freedom from discrimination, which has its roots in a deeply disturbing past where religion served as a tool for slavery and subsequently inspired Jim Crow laws, one could argue that the government has a persuasive case for preserving the freedom from discrimination.

Nonetheless, when it comes to this particular web designer, the government's case for infringing upon an individual's freedom from discrimination appears weaker. Their argument is especially unconvincing when it tries to respond to an imagined offense so that a web designer can justify his own discriminatory actions. This web designer is the Jussie Smollett of the 1st Amendment, for faking it.

It is rather enlightening to see this incident unfold, as it reveals the number of individuals willing to attempt to characterize discrimination as an embodiment of fairness.

Prior to slavery practiced in the US, people left Europe because they were persecuted for their religion.

SCOTUS has drawn a very bright line protecting religion in many, many different ways, including affirming Hobby Lobby's right to refuse to allow their insurance coverage to include routine gynecological care to female employees. We're all good here boycotting Hobby Lobby, right? We all think that's as far as we can take that particular issue, right?

Some more recent SCOTUS rulings affirming religious freedom:

Supreme Court broadens religious protections for workers - Roll Call

The ruling says employers must accommodate a worker's religious needs unless it would lead to “substantial increased costs” for the business.

rollcall.com

No one here is suggesting the postal worker just find a different job.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/religion/ Bunch of recent cases

This recent case of the fake issue with the Colorado webdesigner is consistent with other rulings.

The Hobby Lobby case wasn't about First Amendment protections. Thus, categorizing it as a 'consistent ruling' might be a misinterpretation. The postal case? That was a situation involving a citizen versus the government, which aligns with the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment: safeguarding citizens from governmental interference. Neither case supports your claim that

This recent case of the fake issue with the Colorado webdesigner is consistent with other rulings.

It’s still consistent and if you follow the link, there are multiple cases. That was one quick search.

Hobby Lobby IS about freedom of religion, although the proximal law is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[5] therefore, the Act states that the "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."[6]

Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...s-supreme-court-decision-lgbtq-rights/Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said that because Lorie Smith’s designs are recognized as speech, the state cannot compel her to create a message she does not believe in, even if she offers her talents for hire.Story continues below advertisement

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said that because Lorie Smith’s designs are recognized as speech, the state cannot compel her to create a message she does not believe in, even if she offers her talents for hire.

Were the rule otherwise, the better the artist, the finer the writer, the more unique his talent, the more easily his voice could be conscripted to disseminate the government’s preferred messages,” Gorsuch wrote. “That would not respect the First Amendment; more nearly, it would spell its demise.”

Let's dive into the web designer's case once again, shall we? It stands apart from others, as it ventures to employ the First Amendment, which traditionally shields Citizens from government intervention, in a bold endeavor to safeguard a citizen from the actions of another fellow citizen. Now, I recall us discussing this very point previously, but it seems you may have overlooked my central argument. Instead, you appear keen on suggesting that I'm asserting this case has nothing to do with religion. Fascinating!

This thread has been extremely contentious and from time to time, I take breaks from it, intending to simply quit contributing. So sure, I've missed some, perhaps a lot of posts. I don't think at this point I'm contributing productively.

We see this issue differently: I see it as the fundamental conflict between two rights: the right to be treated equally under the law (although the ERA amendment has yet to pass so it obviously does not apply to women. See recent laws enacted to prevent women from obtaining appropriate and sometimes lifesaving healthcare) VS the right of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

For me, freedom of speech is primary and essential to all other rights we hold. We can hold people equal, without freedom of speech, with all equally subjugated under the rule of law that coerces speech, dictates religion and political speech--something that neither of us wants. Or we can uphold freedom of speech/religion and allow everyone the right to protest, to worship or not, in the matter they choose, to write, to speak freely in support of or in protest against government at all levels. This must include accepting abhorrent speech and refusal to speak or write or create something that the creator does not wish to create.

That's how I see it. I realize that no one's mind is being changed on this.

Does freedom of speech to you mean one can
1) lie on the stand about the gov't,
2) promote terrorism,
3) incite riots.
4) incite insurrection, or
5) yell fire in a theater or the DMV, or
6) refuse to write a report for one's company which has the legal right to fire you for not doing your job?

My point is that there is no absolute freedom of speech. Almost every sane person accepts there are legitimate limits to the extent of free speech.




lie

Not a single one of the specific limitations that you have listed is in any way applicable to this situation.

Is it your contention that "use the power of the government to force a person to express something that they devoutly believe to be untrue or which violates their religious beliefs" is a legitimate limit to free speech?

 

[Emily Lake]

Except as you note, the content would be whatever info they want (about them and their wedding) on the site. They are just paying someone to translate their content into HTML / *insert other acronyms and languages*.

Let's ask a fundamental clarifying question.

Is it your perspective that a person who is creating a custom (in this case meaning bespoke, not off the shelf) product for a customer is always obligated to to provide the custom content that the purchases wants? Are there any limits that you think are reasonable, where the creator has a right to refuse to provide the customer what they want?