Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Bomb#20]

(** And the Constitution's so-called "protected class" is actually a countryful of protected individuals, not a protected class. The same 14th Amendment that extended the rule against Congress prohibiting the free exercise of religion to the states also extends the same protection to atheists.)

The issue here is the consideration that corporations are people. That sure the heck isn't in the Constitution.

What makes you think that's the issue here? Corporations aren't people. The SCOTUS hasn't ruled that corporations are people. This decision wasn't based on corporations being people. The Colorado law isn't restricted to corporations. The Colorado government doesn't threaten violators with loss of limited liability protections; it threatens them with loss of a license to do business. "Corporate personhood" is a legal fiction British courts came up with in the 1600s for their own convenience and for the benefit of the public. It's what makes it possible for you to sue a corporation when its employees injure you, instead of having to go track down all the individual shareholders and sue them personally. It does not have any of the nasty implications leftists keep trying to lay at its door for rhetorical purposes. Bringing up corporate personhood is a red herring.

Corporations don't talk. People talk. A corporation is a piece of machinery, no different from a laser printer, which likewise doesn't talk. Claiming people lose their right to free speech because they made use of a particular piece of legal machinery in the process of saying their piece is on a level with claiming a newspaper lost its right to freedom of the press because it used a laser printer instead of an actual literal printing press and laser printers sure as heck aren't in the Constitution. Labeling someone's forced words "corporate speech" doesn't change the reality that you're making a flesh-and-blood person say what you want by threatening to punish a flesh-and-blood person.

That's why you can't use "Corporations aren't people" to scuttle the First Amendment. But you shouldn't even want to. If the First Amendment vanished in a puff of corporationhood, that would have meant Richard Nixon could have banned the Washington Post and the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers. The Washington Post and the New York Times are corporations. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[laughing dog]

So where does homosexuality lie on the continuum between race and shirtless? Is it more like race and thus not a “protected class” or is it a classification like not wearing a shirt? If there is indeed a continuum, which we would all likely agree there is, then we need some kind of way to make legal distinctions. A line has to be drawn. How else other than explicit enumeration should we do this?

How about we lose the focus on a continuum of personal characteristics and focus on a continuum of needfulness of service?

EMT services are critical. Fancy cakes are not. How about instead of protected demographic categories we have protected service categories?

Substitute "privileged" for "protected" if you prefer. It's the same thing, in this context.
Tom

I believe there are fewer categories of personal characteristics than services.

 

[Bomb#20]

So where does homosexuality lie on the continuum between race and shirtless? Is it more like race and thus not a “protected class” or is it a classification like not wearing a shirt? If there is indeed a continuum, which we would all likely agree there is, then we need some kind of way to make legal distinctions. A line has to be drawn. How else other than explicit enumeration should we do this?

One line could be choice. One can choose to wear a shirt or to go shirtless. Typically, one does not choose one’s sexual preferences or eye color or ethnicity.

One can choose one's religion, yet we rightly ban discrimination against people for converting to Islam, or for failing to convert to Christianity. Contrariwise, one cannot choose one's height, yet it's okay to discriminate against tall people when hiring astronauts.

 

[laughing dog]

(** And the Constitution's so-called "protected class" is actually a countryful of protected individuals, not a protected class. The same 14th Amendment that extended the rule against Congress prohibiting the free exercise of religion to the states also extends the same protection to atheists.)

The issue here is the consideration that corporations are people. That sure the heck isn't in the Constitution.

What makes you think that's the issue here? Corporations aren't people. The SCOTUS hasn't ruled that corporations are people. This decision wasn't based on corporations being people. The Colorado law isn't restricted to corporations. The Colorado government doesn't threaten violators with loss of limited liability protections; it threatens them with loss of a license to do business. "Corporate personhood" is a legal fiction British courts came up with in the 1600s for their own convenience and for the benefit of the public. It's what makes it possible for you to sue a corporation when its employees injure you, instead of having to go track down all the individual shareholders and sue them personally. It does not have any of the nasty implications leftists keep trying to lay at its door for rhetorical purposes. Bringing up corporate personhood is a red herring.

Corporations don't talk. People talk. A corporation is a piece of machinery, no different from a laser printer, which likewise doesn't talk. Claiming people lose their right to free speech because they made use of a particular piece of legal machinery in the process of saying their piece is on a level with claiming a newspaper lost its right to freedom of the press because it used a laser printer instead of an actual literal printing press and laser printers sure as heck aren't in the Constitution. Labeling someone's forced words "corporate speech" doesn't change the reality that you're making a flesh-and-blood person say what you want by threatening to punish a flesh-and-blood person.

That's why you can't use "Corporations aren't people" to scuttle the First Amendment. But you shouldn't even want to. If the First Amendment vanished in a puff of corporationhood, that would have meant Richard Nixon could have banned the Washington Post and the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers. The Washington Post and the New York Times are corporations. Be careful what you wish for.

No one is promoting the elimination of the 1st amendment, so one wonders what you are going in about.

Banning or limiting corporate political contributions does not prevent individuals from speaking - it limits one mode of delivering speech.

 

[TomC]

I believe there are fewer categories of personal characteristics than services.

And that's why you're OK with giving the government the power to enforce involuntary servitude?

I don't.
But you do you.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

I believe there are fewer categories of personal characteristics than services.

And that's why you're OK with giving the government the power to enforce involuntary servitude?

I don't.
But you do you.
Tom

What "involuntary servitude" is being enforced by gov't or are you simply babbling?

 

[Toni]

My point was “freedom of speech” has limits and that no limit is sacred. I am sorry I was not more explicit because it would have saved you some time and effort.

This is a case about freedom not to speak. You are equivocating. Your argument encourages readers to incorrectly jump from the uncontroversial premise that freedom to speak has limits to the illogical conclusion that freedom not to speak has limits.

No, this is a case about refusing to make and a sell a commercial product to some while selling to others. Your argument encourages readers to focus on the irrelevant.

It's the make part that is the problem. Selling something already made? Any buyer.
Creating something specific for a specific client? Creator's choice of whether or not to accept the commission.

A fundamentalist Christian jewelry maker could not refuse to sell wedding bands to a gay couple. A fundamentalist Christian jewelry maker COULD refuse to inscribe those bands with Michael and Tony forever on religious grounds.

 

[laughing dog]

So where does homosexuality lie on the continuum between race and shirtless? Is it more like race and thus not a “protected class” or is it a classification like not wearing a shirt? If there is indeed a continuum, which we would all likely agree there is, then we need some kind of way to make legal distinctions. A line has to be drawn. How else other than explicit enumeration should we do this?

One line could be choice. One can choose to wear a shirt or to go shirtless. Typically, one does not choose one’s sexual preferences or eye color or ethnicity.

One can choose one's religion, yet we rightly ban discrimination against people for converting to Islam, or for failing to convert to Christianity. Contrariwise, one cannot choose one's height, yet it's okay to discriminate against tall people when hiring astronauts.

Good points. But I think "choice" is a good standard from which to deviate.

 

[laughing dog]

A fundamentalist Christian jewelry maker COULD refuse to inscribe those bands with Michael and Tony forever on religious grounds.

I agree that under current interpretation of the law, that is legal. But I think it should not be.

 

[TomC]

I believe there are fewer categories of personal characteristics than services.

And that's why you're OK with giving the government the power to enforce involuntary servitude?

I don't.
But you do you.
Tom

What "involuntary servitude" is being enforced by gov't or are you simply babbling?

I don't want to have anything to do with lawyers like Scardina. But she successfully sued Phillips for not wanting to bake her "birthday" cake.

Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

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

And? One so-called "protected class"* is protected by a run-of-the-mill act of the Colorado legislature. The other is protected by the U.S. Constitution. Why on earth shouldn't one agitate for enforcing the Constitution and overturning unconstitutional state laws? To agitate for the state-"protected class" over the Constitution-"protected class"** other than by agitating for amending the Constitution is to throw rule-of-law out the window and agitate for a government of unlimited powers.

(* The whole concept of a "protected class" is a slap in the 14th Amendment's face. People are supposed to be protected equally regardless of classifications.)

(** And the Constitution's so-called "protected class" is actually a countryful of protected individuals, not a protected class. The same 14th Amendment that extended the rule against Congress prohibiting the free exercise of religion to the states also extends the same protection to atheists.)

The creation of a "protected class" does not inherently conflict with the 14th Amendment's tenets.

I'm not saying it does. A rule that you can't use race as a criterion can be thought of as just another way to express a rule making black people, white people, Asian people and so forth all "protected classes". What's in a name; a rose by any other name will smell as sweet; yada yada. As I hope my other post clarified, my point is not that it inherently conflicts with the 14th Amendment's tenets, but that thinking of it this way puts one at high risk of conflicting with the 14th Amendment's tenets. It creates a tension with the 14th Amendment; it encourages careless thought while making you need to think very carefully about exactly what classes to protect if you want to remain consistent with the 14th Amendment; it inclines people to reject sound arguments and be persuaded by poor ones. As Sapir and Whorf said, a language affects a speaker's perception and categorization of experience.

 

[Bomb#20]

The issue here is the consideration that corporations are people. That sure the heck isn't in the Constitution.

...
That's why you can't use "Corporations aren't people" to scuttle the First Amendment. But you shouldn't even want to. If the First Amendment vanished in a puff of corporationhood, that would have meant Richard Nixon could have banned the Washington Post and the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers. The Washington Post and the New York Times are corporations. Be careful what you wish for.

No one is promoting the elimination of the 1st amendment, so one wonders what you are going in about.

Banning or limiting corporate political contributions does not prevent individuals from speaking - it limits one mode of delivering speech.

The heck are you on about? Nobody was making an issue of corporate personhood to justify limits on political contributions. JH's clear implication was that 303 Creative is a corporation so it isn't a person so the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to it so it isn't illegal for Colorado to punish Smith for refusing to design websites for same-sex weddings. Yes, of course that promotes scuttling the 1st Amendment -- if it were sound legal reasoning then it would equally undermine the New York Times' 1st Amendment protection.

 

[Toni]

A fundamentalist Christian jewelry maker COULD refuse to inscribe those bands with Michael and Tony forever on religious grounds.

I agree that under current interpretation of the law, that is legal. But I think it should not be.

So you believe that anyone can be compelled to create something against their will?

 

[Toni]

At the risk of starting a….shitstorm—which is NOT my intention: What is the purpose of protected groups?

Can you imagine a time when those protected groups might not be necessary?

Can you imagine a time when someone not in those groups which are now protected would need to be included in these protected groups? Who might those people be?

My personal belief is that, as society progresses, we will have less need and hopefully no need to say that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex/gender/race/ethnicity/gender/gender identity/sexual preferences/religion/whatever else I forgot to mention. In fact, I believe that is the ultimate goal: that everyone will be equally accepted and protected by the law.

 

[ZiprHead]

At the risk of starting a….shitstorm—which is NOT my intention: What is the purpose of protected groups?

Can you imagine a time when those protected groups might not be necessary?

Can you imagine a time when someone not in those groups which are now protected would need to be included in these protected groups? Who might those people be?

Everyone is in one protected group or another.

My personal belief is that, as society progresses, we will have less need and hopefully no need to say that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex/gender/race/ethnicity/gender/gender identity/sexual preferences/religion/whatever else I forgot to mention. In fact, I believe that is the ultimate goal: that everyone will be equally accepted and protected by the law.

That was part of the appeal of Star Trek:TOS.

 

[laughing dog]

A fundamentalist Christian jewelry maker COULD refuse to inscribe those bands with Michael and Tony forever on religious grounds.

I agree that under current interpretation of the law, that is legal. But I think it should not be.

So you believe that anyone can be compelled to create something against their will?

No. I think anyone who engages in commercial/business activity should not be legally allowed to discriminate against others based on their characteristics or beliefs.

 

[Toni]

At the risk of starting a….shitstorm—which is NOT my intention: What is the purpose of protected groups?

Can you imagine a time when those protected groups might not be necessary?

Can you imagine a time when someone not in those groups which are now protected would need to be included in these protected groups? Who might those people be?

Everyone is in one protected group or another.

My personal belief is that, as society progresses, we will have less need and hopefully no need to say that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex/gender/race/ethnicity/gender/gender identity/sexual preferences/religion/whatever else I forgot to mention. In fact, I believe that is the ultimate goal: that everyone will be equally accepted and protected by the law.

That was part of the appeal of Star Trek:TOS.

I obviously meant protected group under civil rights legislation. I am well aware of the status of cis straight white men as the top of the heap and know that as a cis straight white woman I am high up in the food chain.
I’m very aware of how hard my parents and grandparents all worked just to survive and to hope of making a better life for their kids—and that the color of their skin was one thing they did not have against them.

 

[TomC]

My personal belief is that, as society progresses, we will have less need and hopefully no need to say that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex/gender/race/ethnicity/gender/gender identity/sexual preferences/religion/whatever else I forgot to mention.

This!^^^^

I believe that USA society has progressed so far from the ugly days of bigotry(~1960s) that the new problem is the culture of victimhood and entitlement.

Everyone thinks that they are a victim of modern society, from wealthy black college students to straight WASP males, and therefore entitled to special treatment.
It's dumbassery writ large in 2023 U.S., but it's popular with huge numbers of people.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

The issue here is the consideration that corporations are people. That sure the heck isn't in the Constitution.

...
That's why you can't use "Corporations aren't people" to scuttle the First Amendment. But you shouldn't even want to. If the First Amendment vanished in a puff of corporationhood, that would have meant Richard Nixon could have banned the Washington Post and the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers. The Washington Post and the New York Times are corporations. Be careful what you wish for.

No one is promoting the elimination of the 1st amendment, so one wonders what you are going in about.

Banning or limiting corporate political contributions does not prevent individuals from speaking - it limits one mode of delivering speech.

The heck are you on about? Nobody was making an issue of corporate personhood to justify limits on political contributions. JH's clear implication was that 303 Creative is a corporation so it isn't a person so the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to it so it isn't illegal for Colorado to punish Smith for refusing to design websites for same-sex weddings. Yes, of course that promotes scuttling the 1st Amendment -- if it were sound legal reasoning then it would equally undermine the New York Times' 1st Amendment protection.

Perhaps I misunderstood JH's response, and I apologize.

On the otherhand it is possible you misinterpreted his response.

 

[laughing dog]

I believe there are fewer categories of personal characteristics than services.

And that's why you're OK with giving the government the power to enforce involuntary servitude?

I don't.
But you do you.
Tom

What "involuntary servitude" is being enforced by gov't or are you simply babbling?

I don't want to have anything to do with lawyers like Scardina. But she successfully sued Phillips for not wanting to bake her "birthday" cake.

Tom

And what does that have to do with involuntary servitude being enforced by gov't?