Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Gospel]

I didn’t realize until now that “ segregation” and “ heterosexual only water fountains” referred exclusively to race.

Ah, the poor reasoning defense.
Tom

Ahh the ole non-contributory post.

Do you realize that I was quoting LD?
Tom

Do you realize that the truths I cherish should not be suppress nor can I be compelled to misrepresent them as something they're not?

 

[jab]

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.

There's a reason it comes up though. It highlights the implicit bias in this discussion. Let's temporarily remove the content, and boil this down to bare bones. The situation is one in which a supplier of a good holds a belief-based opposition to a group of people. What I see happening here - and which has been noted by Toni and Tom as well - is that the sentiment involved is entirely based on the bias toward that specific group of people. You can dress it up as "protected class", but in truth both the supplier and the customer are members of protected classes. So what we have is the elevation of one protected class above another protected class. At the end of the day, whether or not there is a protected class involved does not matter at all. What matters is that you and several others have an emotional response to one group of people, and you are letting that emotional response cloud your thinking. You are perceiving a deep injustice toward one party, while simultaneously ignoring the injustice done to the other party - because you do not like the other party. Because your beliefs conflict with those of the other party.

If we were to alter the relationship, and to present you with a customer that you do not like, a customer whose beliefs are in conflict with your own, you come to a different outcome. This is because your premise is flawed - your reasoning is based on special pleading. Your reasoning is based on the fundamental premise that gay people should not be subjected to treatment they dislike... but that it's acceptable to subject religious patrons to treatment that they dislike.

By introducing a party that every single one of us without reservation despise, it serves to highlight the special pleading involved.

By the way - this is also why I continue to get zero responses to the direct parallel of Yaniv trying to force muslim women to wax his balls. Almost all of us have some degree of sympathy with women of any sort being forced to handle a man's genitals against their will, and the religious beliefs of the women in question only amplifies that. But the actual situation is a direct parallel.

Another reason nazis come up is because it stresses both the creative nature of the work (and the resulting reputational effect of the supplier) and also the sheer non-necessity of the good itself.

Should it be legal for a hospital to deny cancer treatment to a known nazi on the basis of their irrationally hateful beliefs? I would say no, and I think that most of us would. A person's beliefs, no matter how odious we find them, should not be justification for a denial of necessary medical care. Should it be legal for an apartment landlord to deny residence to a known nazi? No, I don't think it should be legal, and I would hope that none of you think it should. Regardless of how much I might despise someone else's beliefs, that should not justify making them homeless.

Should a nightclub be allowed to refuse entry to a person in nazi regalia? Yes, I think they should be allowed to. Becaue nightclubs are not public necessities - they are niceties and are not a basic requirement. Refusing someone entry to a nightclub, for any reason at all, does not produce a materially negative outcome for their lives. Should a baker be allowed to refuse to make a custom cake for a nazi celebration? Yes they should. Not because nazis aren't protected classes, but because nobody actually needs to have a custom cake, and the baker should have the right to refuse custom work for something they have a strong belief-based opposition to.

Should Costco be allowed to refuse to sell an off-the-shelf cake to a nazi? No. It's right there, it's already made, and no specific effort is being put forth on behalf of the nazi, and no implied support can reasonably be inferred.

Talkin' about bias in the discussion. I am so tired of straight people het-splaining to me and other gay people that we're getting too emotional.
Also, specifically, you're specifically answering a black person's post by suggesting they're not being rational, but too emotional. That's more insulting, ya'll know, that telling him, a la Bomb, that he's being poetic rather than rational.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't know how to fit your view into something I can digest.

ok

This is a case where I will agree with your okay and just move on. Your position doesn't make sense to me personally, I disagree with your position... but you're consistent and I really can't ask for much more than that.

 

[jab]

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.

How many times does it have to be said? Nazis are NOT a protected class.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

 

[jab]

But that’s not typically how such websites work. People want their own unique story told. They lack the skills ( and often the taste and the contacts) to complete their vision, so they hire someone to create to for them.

You just agreed with me.

You seem to be missing the point Toni and I are making.

We see compelling someone to come up with ideas they find repugnant to be wrong.

The percentage of business interactions that are of this sort are tiny. The vast majority are stock or an assembly of stock options. Neither of us feels a company should be able to reject such a customer based on irrelevant beliefs.

Actually you do - religious beliefs are irrelevant to website design.

What about a website designer who is jewish, and who specializes in designing websites for parties... do you think they should be compelled by the government to design a website for a someone who is throwing a "down with israel" party?

Yes, because it is commerce.

no--because anti-semite is not a protected category

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

There are a couple of nuances here, and it gets messy in between them.

First, let's talk about the role of religion in the life of a true believer. Whether you or I or anybody else thinks it makes sense at all, I think we can all agree that an orthodox jewish person truly believes that if they eat pork, their eternal soul is damned to hell. They truly believe that eating pork is a sin, and that knowingly and intentionally committing sins will result in eternal punishment. Whether any of us agree that it is true or not isn't directly relevant. To that orthodox jew, forcing them to eat pork is a fundamental violation of their religious beliefs, and the consequence to them is extreme. We could make this more tangible, and talk about the beliefs of sharia muslims with respect to women not showing their hair. I think that's an absurd belief... but a sharia muslim holds it to be deeply and unquestionably true. If I were to walk up to a devout sharia muslim woman on the sidewalk and yank the scarf off of her head, I would be forcing her to violate her relgious beliefs. But in this case, the consequences to her go beyond mere eternal damnation - it could very feasibly result in her being beaten by her husband.

Regardless of whether you or I ascribe to someone else's beliefs, there remain cases where the consequences (real or believed) are manifest and important to the person who does believe.

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.

Suppressed expression leaves a lot unsaid, and it is a threat to democracy. Coerced expression is even worse, it gives the impression of consensus where none exists.

I appreciate your nuanced approach to this discussion, and your respect for the deeply held beliefs and values of people, regardless of their religious or secular nature. However, I'd like to offer some alternative viewpoints.

Starting with the role of religion, it's crucial to respect the beliefs of all, whether an orthodox Jew, a sharia-following Muslim, or any other belief system. While it's true that imposing actions on them that contravene their beliefs is fundamentally wrong, it's also vital to remember that respect is a two-way street. It's just as important that these belief systems do not impose their rules and values onto others who don't subscribe to the same faith.

Your example of the orthodox Jew's fear of damnation for eating pork or a sharia Muslim woman being forced to uncover her hair underscores this point. However, in a society that values diversity and freedom, it's equally unacceptable for the orthodox Jew to demand that nobody eat pork or for the sharia Muslim woman to require all women to cover their hair. The balance between respecting personal beliefs and upholding societal values of freedom can indeed be messy, but it is a balance we must strive for. A balance anti discrimination legislation was written to strike. When one protected class is permitted to discriminate against another, it undermines the fundamental purpose of anti-discrimination legislation.

On your second point, about the protection from forced expression, I agree that nobody should be coerced into expressing a sentiment that contradicts their beliefs. However, I would argue that it's not always clear what constitutes coercion. For instance, does a public servant who disagrees with gay marriage on religious grounds have the right to refuse to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple? It could be argued that this public servant is being coerced by the government into expressing approval for something they disagree with. However, in a democratic society, it is crucial that public services are provided equally to all, regardless of individual officials' beliefs. In cases like this, it could be argued that there's a difference between personal beliefs and professional duties. The official is not being coerced into expressing personal approval, but rather is being required to perform their professional duty.

Furthermore, you claim that suppressed expression leaves a lot unsaid and is a threat to democracy, and that coerced expression gives the impression of consensus where none exists. I would argue that the real threat to democracy is not so much suppressed or coerced expression, but rather the unwillingness to listen to and understand opposing viewpoints, and the inability to find common ground in the midst of diversity. Segregation would simply exasperate that problem. In fact, division was the source of failure for many empires.

As complex as these nuances are, it's crucial that we continue to grapple with them. Our ability to navigate these tensions reflects our commitment to uphold the values of diversity, tolerance, and freedom that lie at the heart of a democratic society.

Perhaps our perspectives diverge significantly; it seems we may represent distinct interpretations of the American identity and hold different views regarding the purpose of the U.S. Constitution. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well written

I agree that that the orthodox jew has no right to demand that nobody eat pork. Tying that in to this case, I would say that the baker has no right to insist that nobody be allowed to make a same-sex wedding cake. I would categorically oppose that. And as I mentioned previously, if the situation were such that cakes were absolutely necessary elements of being gay, I'd have a very different position, because the balance of rights would work out differently. Similarly, if ALL cake bakers refused to make same-sex wedding cakes, I'd probably find myself taking a different view - again because the balance would shift.

With respect to the public servant issuing marriage licenses... that falls into a different formula altogether. The government as an entity is explicitly prohibited from engaging in discrimination either for or against. As a public servant, the license issuer is expressly required to issue licenses to any legally allowable couple seeking to marry.

On the other hand, a non-governmental official performing the ceremony can refuse or accept marriage gigs at their own discretion, based on their own beliefs and views. I might end up thinking they're a douche, but I still think it's their right. I don't think a rabbi should be expected to marry a catholic couple, or that a hindu priest (?) should be expected to marry an atheist couple.

 

[Emily Lake]

To begin with, we must differentiate between denying a service based on a customer's identity or beliefs and refusing a service that compels a provider to support something they fundamentally oppose. If a baker, for instance, refuses to sell a standard cake to someone from the LGBTQ+ community, it's unequivocally discrimination. However, refusing to customize a cake that endorses a message or event they deeply disagree with presents a more layered issue. It's not about the customer's identity, but rather the message being promoted. The baker may even compromise and make a custom cake that lacks the controversial message, but refusing to do so reverts the issue back to discrimination.

This captures the heart of my position. If it were a standard cake, it would be clear cut discrimination to me, and I would oppose the baker's position of denying the sale. But since it's a custom cake, and because there are a multitude of other cake options available, I end up falling on the side of the baker in this situation.

 

[Emily Lake]

Is this a First Amendment issue? A detailed examination of the Constitution suggests that the First Amendment's protection extends primarily against governmental intrusion rather than private disputes. So my answer is arguably no.

It becomes a 1st Am issue when the government is invoking its power in order to force the baker to violate his religious tenets. It's at that point that it becomes the government prohibiting the free exercise of the baker's religion.

 

[TomC]

no--because anti-semite is not a protected(privileged) category

HTH
Tom

 

[TomC]

Is this a First Amendment issue? A detailed examination of the Constitution suggests that the First Amendment's protection extends primarily against governmental intrusion rather than private disputes. So my answer is arguably no.

It becomes a 1st Am issue when the government is invoking its power in order to force the baker to violate his religious tenets. It's at that point that it becomes the government prohibiting the free exercise of the baker's religion.

I don't even care if it's his religious tenets.

I don't care why people are dumbasses. We are, happens a lot.

The question, to me, is "Does anybody have the right to force obedience over a dang cake"?
I don't think so.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

I didn’t realize until now that “ segregation” and “ heterosexual only water fountains” referred exclusively to race.

Ah, the poor reasoning defense.
Tom

LOL - I am sure the irony of your remark is lost on you even though your observation is valid for many of my responses (just not that one).

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

To begin with, we must differentiate between denying a service based on a customer's identity or beliefs and refusing a service that compels a provider to support something they fundamentally oppose. If a baker, for instance, refuses to sell a standard cake to someone from the LGBTQ+ community, it's unequivocally discrimination. However, refusing to customize a cake that endorses a message or event they deeply disagree with presents a more layered issue. It's not about the customer's identity, but rather the message being promoted. The baker may even compromise and make a custom cake that lacks the controversial message, but refusing to do so reverts the issue back to discrimination.

This captures the heart of my position. If it were a standard case, it would be clear cut discrimination to me, and I would oppose the baker's position of denying the sale. But since it's a custom cake, and because there are a multitude of other cake options available, I end up falling on the side of the baker in this situation.

The availability of a multitude of other options is completely irrelevant.

 

[ZiprHead]

Is this a First Amendment issue? A detailed examination of the Constitution suggests that the First Amendment's protection extends primarily against governmental intrusion rather than private disputes. So my answer is arguably no.

It becomes a 1st Am issue when the government is invoking its power in order to force the baker to violate his religious tenets. It's at that point that it becomes the government prohibiting the free exercise of the baker's religion.

No one is required to become a baker or a website designer. If they cannot follow the rules and ethics, find another career.

 

[TomC]

I didn’t realize until now that “ segregation” and “ heterosexual only water fountains” referred exclusively to race.

Ah, the poor reasoning defense.
Tom

LOL - I am sure the irony of your remark is lost on you even though your observation is valid for many of my responses (just not that one).

Ahh the ole non-contributory post.

Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Spoiler: Rant Warning

Analogies can often be more impactful when they encourage introspection rather than focusing solely on the discrimination faced by others. Detachment might prevent people from recognizing the reality of discrimination. This apparent immunity could cause an inadvertent bias, favoring one protected class over another, until they themselves are denied service based on their own attributes or beliefs.

It could be their relationship status, gender, or religious beliefs, including mainstream faiths or even fringe beliefs like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They might not fully grasp the severity of such prejudice until they find themselves denied services, while others unaffected by discrimination pass by with an air of complacency as they coast down the expressway of life unhindered. This personal experience, unfortunately, is often the catalyst for the realization that any form of discrimination is completely unacceptable, reinforcing the importance of empathy in understanding the experiences of others.

As mandated by the U.S. Constitution, we have a social contract, setting forth the rights and responsibilities of citizens in relation to each other and the government. If one lacks enough fundamental respect to accept the implied requirement for compromise we must make to be a part of this republic, it may be worth reconsidering your allegiance, and whether you should continue to pledge the oath or maybe step aside.

The mere notion that baking a cake, or writing a piece of code online could be deemed as an excessive request worthy of discarding your oath is disheartening. If such a small act of service is too much to ask, then I'd like to remind you of the sacrifices made by many people who gave their lives to do just that. Serve.

The absence of personal experience is often deemed inadequate in almost all subjects of discussion, seems discrimination has the notable exception.

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.

I think that is a reasonable compromise.

I liken it to an actuary issuing a qualified opinion. Don't let the name fool you, it's jargony. A qualified opinion occurs when the actuary is issuing a professional opinion, usually a formal opinion, and the actuary disagrees with some element of the opinion being issued. It can happen for a number of reasons. Sometimes it's because the actuary was collaborating with other people, and they disagree with the appropriateness or reasonableness of material assumptions being made in the analysis. Sometimes it's because the quality of data being used is insufficient to allow the actuary to come to a defensible conclusion. And sometimes it's because the principle (client or employer) has made a business decisions that is not in keeping with the actuary's work and which the actuary doesn't support.

Most actuaries really don't like to issue a qualified opinion, and most principles will try to avoid creating a situation that requires one. Qualified opinions end up garnering a lot of scrutiny, and and lot of questions come from them. I suspect that the compromise you propose would do the same, and the baker would face a lot of scrutiny. But it also serves the same role - it allows for an outcome, with explicit reservations.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nonsense.
If there are 20 bakers in town and 1 doesn't want to make you a cake to your specifications, you don't really have a problem.

Wrong. The problem is segregation. There is a bakery that your folk can use and a bakery your folk can't use. I presume you're not ok with "heterosexuals only" water fountains right?

Please provide me with some reference to a religious view that prohibits people of different skin colors from using the same water source.

It's intriguing that race has been brought into the conversation at that junction. It would be understandable if I had raised the topic of race, but as I did not, its introduction seems somewhat misplaced. Could you please clarify the rationale behind this?

The rationale is that the analogy to racial segregation is a poor analogy. Racial segregation didn't involve a conflict between two different codified rights. It was a conflict between tradition and rights, and was part of gaining equality. There isn't a religious doctrine that backed segregation, it was pure dislike and bigotry.

And I'm not fooling myself here, nor anybody else of course - prejudice and bigotry is very likely part of the baker's position. But the baker also has religious doctrine as an element of his position. So even though I strongly dislike his apparent prejudice, I still defend his right to religious freedom.

 

[Emily Lake]

Let's make that argument for blacks now (or Jews?). Or is it just okay just to limit options for gays or maybe just gays getting married?

What are your limits for allowed discrimination?

Help me out here. Can you provide me with a scenario in which a person's first amendment right to practice their religious beliefs is in conflict with statutes around non-discrimination on the basis of skin color or ethnicity?

This is what seems to be consistently glossed over in this discussion. This isn't just a blanket "to discriminate or not" situation. We're taking about a conflict of rights here. On the one hand is the right of people to not be discriminated against on the basis of their innate characteristics. On the other hand is the right of people to practice their religion and to express their beliefs without interference.

In this (fictional) case, the conflict is explicit, and is the entire basis of the case itself. If this were a baker who made custom birthday cakes, and they refused to make a birthday cake for a gay guy, that would be an entirely different situation, and I would 100% object to the baker being allowed to do so, even for a custom cake. I would object, because birthdays have nothing at all to do with sexual orientation, and there is no religious guideline against birthdays for gay people. Similarly, if the baker made custom wedding cakes, and refused to make a birthday cake for a black couple, I would object - there is no religious guideline prohibiting the marriage of people on the basis of melanin content.

In this specific case, however, there IS a conflict - even if it's one that I think is dumb. There IS a religious guideline against same-sex marriage. So we have a direct conflict between the baker's right to practice their religion free from interference, and the right of the (fictional) gay couple to get married.

At the end of the day, the gay couple does not need a cake in order to get married. They certainly don't need a custom cake. And they definitely don't need a custom cake from this particular baker. The baker's refusal to create a custom cake that violates his religious views does NOT create a barrier to the gay guys getting married, nor does it even create a reasonable barrier to the gay guys getting a wedding cake.

On the other hand, forcing this baker to create a cake for the gay couple's wedding directly forces him to violate his religious beliefs.

The closest parallel I have is the case years ago where Yaniv* sued a bunch of middle-eastern small business women who refused to wax his balls. He argued that because he identifies as transgender, and these businesses performed pubic waxing for women, they should be forced to wax his balls because transgender is a protected characteristic in Canada. On the other hand, the women were almost exclusively muslim women, whose religion prohibits them from handling the genitals of men other than their husbands in any way. In that situation I sided with the aestheticians. Forcing them to wax Yaniv's balls would be a direct violation of their right to religious observance; having waxed balls or not is not a fundamental requirement for Yaniv to be transgender; there are many other businesses that either specialize in the waxing of male genitals or which were willing to wax his balls. In that situation, Yaniv's desire to force females to handle his junk against their will and in violation of their beliefs was something I did not support - and neither did the Canadian court ultimately.

I have the same core position with this case. Off-the-Shelf wedding cakes are ubiquitously available; other custom wedding cakes that are happy to make same-sex cakes are easily available. Forcing this baker to make a gay wedding cake does not have any affect on gay rights as a whole, but it does violate the baker's rights.

Some people even/ especially in the USA and still believe on religious grounds that miscegenation is a sin. You would hold that if such a person were a web designer, they should legally free to refuse wedding websites to interracial couples, anniversary websites to interracial couples, birth announcements to interracial couples.
Web designers who hold a belief that God ordained Amurca as a majority white country should, according to you be legally allowed to refuse to work on a website commemorating the achievement of American citizenship by an immigrant from one of Trump's "shitthole" countries, and also refuse to work on birth-announcements for non-white babies.
Have I represented your position fairly and accurately?

Provided that other website developers are available that do not hold that view, then yes, I take that position.

I have confidence that such designers won't have enough customers to keep them in business, but it's still their right. I don't have to like or agree with people to defend their rights.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.