Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[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 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.

That would imply that a seller can never refuse to serve anybody ever, for any reason.

Wouldn't that mean that you would now have the power to compel Jasper Johns to make a painting for you, and he has no right to say "Nah, I don't want to"? You could compel Margot Robbie to play the role of Ophelia in your way-way-off-broadway backyard performance of your modernized restyling of Hamlet!

 

[TomC]

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.

Ahh the ole non-contributory post.

Tom

 

[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.

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.

Medical situations. Do you think nurses and doctors can just willy nilly not treat gay people and keep their jobs?

 

[ZiprHead]

That would imply that a seller can never refuse to serve anybody ever, for any reason.

No, it wouldn't.

 

[TomC]

Medical situations. Do you think nurses and doctors can just willy nilly not treat gay people and keep their jobs?

I certainly don't.
I make a distinction between government agencies, private operations providing essential services like health care or emergency responders, and stuff like cakes and hairdos.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So if it is trite. Like buying a stock wedding cake.

 

[laughing dog]

Medical situations. Do you think nurses and doctors can just willy nilly not treat gay people and keep their jobs?

I certainly don't.
I make a distinction between government agencies, private operations providing essential services like health care or emergency responders, and stuff like cakes and hairdos.
Tom

So providers of “non- essential”services and goods are free to indulge in their bigotry. Who decides what is essential and what is non-essential?

 

[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.

That would imply that a seller can never refuse to serve anybody ever, for any reason.

No it does not.

Wouldn't that mean that you would now have the power to compel Jasper Johns to make a painting for you, and he has no right to say "Nah, I don't want to"? You could compel Margot Robbie to play the role of Ophelia in your way-way-off-broadway backyard performance of your modernized restyling of Hamlet!

Mr John’s could set a price no one would pay or that he is busy. Ms Robbie could say she doesn’t do backyard performances.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

While I don't like this court one bit I think they got this one right: Creative effort can't be compelled. Note that this is different from merely custom--there are plenty of cases of quasi-custom products that are in no way creative.

 

[Toni]

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.

That would imply that a seller can never refuse to serve anybody ever, for any reason.

No it does not.

Wouldn't that mean that you would now have the power to compel Jasper Johns to make a painting for you, and he has no right to say "Nah, I don't want to"? You could compel Margot Robbie to play the role of Ophelia in your way-way-off-broadway backyard performance of your modernized restyling of Hamlet!

Mr John’s could set a price no one would pay or that he is busy. Ms Robbie could say she doesn’t do backyard performances.

Actually Mr. Johns and Ms. Robbie both have agents who handle such matters for them. Many trades people, artists, artisans, creators, etc. avoid working for or creating something for or accepting commissions for those they don't wish to work for. Their schedules are too full or have conflicts. Some simply do not respond to phone calls, emails, texts, letters, etc. A friend/former co-worker is also a wedding planner and was thrilled when she was able to do her first wedding for a gay couple, just as she was thrilled with the first couple from (not midwestern white people) backgrounds who entrusted her with their weddings. I know how much time, effort and work she put into each wedding and that she took extra time and effort to make sure she got everything right for those 'firsts.' She learned from doing something for any couple but especially from those firsts. It was a point of pride for her, and also a chance for her to show her support to those who are not always well respected or supported in the world. AND it was a very canny business decision. People talk and share information about who is good to work with and who is not. Her business has greatly expanded.

 

[Gospel]

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.

Indeed, it seems we've looped back to the very beginning, effectively disregarding the historical record of discrimination and the subsequent laws enacted to counter it. A long history steeped in sacrifice and struggle seems to have been glossed over to address a perceived, rather than a concrete, injury*. Considering these dynamics, it's hardly surprising if we, as Black individuals, feel less than welcome in America. Or is this realization something that still eludes comprehension?

Edit: * A make-believe injury

 

[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.

That would imply that a seller can never refuse to serve anybody ever, for any reason.

No it does not.

Wouldn't that mean that you would now have the power to compel Jasper Johns to make a painting for you, and he has no right to say "Nah, I don't want to"? You could compel Margot Robbie to play the role of Ophelia in your way-way-off-broadway backyard performance of your modernized restyling of Hamlet!

Mr John’s could set a price no one would pay or that he is busy. Ms Robbie could say she doesn’t do backyard performances.

Actually Mr. Johns and Ms. Robbie both have agents who handle such matters for them. Many trades people, artists, artisans, creators, etc. avoid working for or creating something for or accepting commissions for those they don't wish to work for. Their schedules are too full or have conflicts. Some simply do not respond to phone calls, emails, texts, letters, etc. A friend/former co-worker is also a wedding planner and was thrilled when she was able to do her first wedding for a gay couple, just as she was thrilled with the first couple from (not midwestern white people) backgrounds who entrusted her with their weddings. I know how much time, effort and work she put into each wedding and that she took extra time and effort to make sure she got everything right for those 'firsts.' She learned from doing something for any couple but especially from those firsts. It was a point of pride for her, and also a chance for her to show her support to those who are not always well respected or supported in the world. AND it was a very canny business decision. People talk and share information about who is good to work with and who is not. Her business has greatly expanded.

Moreover, I seriously doubt that Mr. Johns advertises that he will paint anything on commission. I strongly suspect that at this stage in his career. he creates a painting and then sells it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

So which is it? It is a "religious doctrine" or is it "pure dislike and bigotry"? Just to be clear, you indicated "pure" there, not me.

 

[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.

Indeed, it seems we've looped back to the very beginning, effectively disregarding the historical record of discrimination and the subsequent laws enacted to counter it. A long history steeped in sacrifice and struggle seems to have been glossed over to address a perceived, rather than a concrete, injury*. Considering these dynamics, it's hardly surprising if we, as Black individuals, feel less than welcome in America. Or is this realization something that still eludes comprehension?

Edit: * A make-believe injury

Yup. Religion was used to enslave black people. Now it's being used to discriminate again.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

You seem to not have a very firm grasp on actual history and religious doctrine.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

While I don't like this court one bit I think they got this one right: Creative effort can't be compelled. Note that this is different from merely custom--there are plenty of cases of quasi-custom products that are in no way creative.

Of course it can be compelled. Do you know there's a writer's strike going on right now?

 

[Gospel]

I'm intrigued by the implications of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which disallows discrimination based on religion for employers with a workforce exceeding 15 employees. In the light of recent developments, could the landscape be shifting? For instance, could a secular company cite a clash with their core values as a reason not to hire Christians? Or perhaps a Christian-owned company could argue that it's against their faith to employ non-Christians? I'm not asserting that such scenarios will necessarily occur, but they seem plausible given the current interpretational flexibility of this ruling resulting from its 1st Amendment application.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

While I don't like this court one bit I think they got this one right: Creative effort can't be compelled. Note that this is different from merely custom--there are plenty of cases of quasi-custom products that are in no way creative.

Loren, I think you got this one wrong, because creative works are such a broad vague category of works that this decision is very easy to get stretched in all different directions to justify discrimination. The fact that they made it about the broad category of "free speech" rather than religion will open the floodgates to new avenues for discrimination against all sorts of minorities, not just citizens who are LGBTQ. Your take on creativity isn't the kind of criterion that courts are going to find easy to interpret, so there will likely be a tendency to interpret it very broadly in ways that the SCOTUS majority did not foresee. You and Toni don't even agree in every case on what it means. And the problem may look a lot easier to resolve when it is just a small segment of the population like the LGBTQ demographic being discriminated against. It may not seem so cut and dried when it comes to larger groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, and religion.

 

[Toni]

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.

While I don't like this court one bit I think they got this one right: Creative effort can't be compelled. Note that this is different from merely custom--there are plenty of cases of quasi-custom products that are in no way creative.

Of course it can be compelled. Do you know there's a writer's strike going on right now?

Actually, the strike proves that it can’t be compelled.

 

[Toni]

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.

While I don't like this court one bit I think they got this one right: Creative effort can't be compelled. Note that this is different from merely custom--there are plenty of cases of quasi-custom products that are in no way creative.

Loren, I think you got this one wrong, because creative works are such a broad vague category of works that this decision is very easy to get stretched in all different directions to justify discrimination. The fact that they made it about the broad category of "free speech" rather than religion will open the floodgates to new avenues for discrimination against all sorts of minorities, not just citizens who are LGBTQ. Your take on creativity isn't the kind of criterion that courts are going to find easy to interpret, so there will likely be a tendency to interpret it very broadly in ways that the SCOTUS majority did not foresee. You and Toni don't even agree in every case on what it means. And the problem may look a lot easier to resolve when it is just a small segment of the population like the LGBTQ demographic being discriminated against. It may not seem so cut and dried when it comes to larger groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, and religion.

Please please do not mistake my seeing the supremacy of the First Amendment as being more ‘convenient’ or easier because in this particular case, it is being applied against a relatively small segment of society or because I see the issue of having a wedding website created specifically for any couple to be trivial. I oppose all bigotry and strongly support equal rights for all people.

Rather, I can so easily see how, if speech/creative expression/religious expression can be compelled in one instance, it can be compelled in any case.

Think it won’t happen? Most women thought their reproductive rights were somewhat secure before Roe v Wade was overturned. And who imagined an atrocity like Trump could ever be elected? I’m too young to remember the McCarthy era but old enough that I feel a horrible chill whenever I think of that dark, dark time and then look at how some want to see the First Amendment interpreted.