Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Jimmy Higgins]

I see this case as a conflict between two rights guaranteed under the US Constitution: First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the 14th Amendment along with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Let's ponder this for a moment. The First Amendment begins unequivocally with:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The term "no" leaves no room for ambiguity. Thus, any law respecting an establishment of religion would violate the Constitution. This implies that the classification of religion as a protected class could be deemed unconstitutional.

That argument only applies if Christian owned bakeries that would sell custom wedding cakes were not allowed to. Due to SCOTUS's case, it is more a wild west (for at least "custom" things).

 

[Toni]

What's the merit in engaging with your hypothetical situations, only for you to inevitably respond with "I disagree"? It seems rather fruitless.

Anyhow

A lot of people will only take on work that they think they can do very successfully and part of that is working well with the client. Otherwise, they risk not doing as satisfactory a job as they themselves would like, much less the client.

If only the web designer's hypothetical grievance could clarify that the refusal wasn't due to the customer's protected class, but rather because they couldn't guarantee delivering the highest quality service. We wouldn't be having this conversation.

I think my participation in this thread is perhaps fruitless.

Don't be silly. All of our participation in this this thread has been fruitless.

So I will close with this:

I see this case as a conflict between two rights guaranteed under the US Constitution: First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the 14th Amendment along with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I will go further and state that I believe that all rights guaranteed under the Constitution are predicated on the First Amendment. Without the First Amendment, there could be no Civil Rights Act of 1964 nor any other rights guaranteed under the US Constitution.

You are forgetting the 10th Amendment... and the Equal Protection Clause.

What is at question is what works by a corporation can be considered expression and that can not be compelled by the state, regardless the rights of the customer. Well, at least that is the question right now. Whether gays can be fully refused service at a bakery for a "stock" wedding cake or "stock" wedding website... and then refusing gays services at all could be down the road.

Was the website creator's business incorporated? I have no idea. But please can we quit asserting that the website requested was stock. It wasn't. It was particular to the fake gay couple requesting it.

 

[Toni]

I see this case as a conflict between two rights guaranteed under the US Constitution: First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the 14th Amendment along with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Let's ponder this for a moment. The First Amendment begins unequivocally with:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The term "no" leaves no room for ambiguity. Thus, any law respecting an establishment of religion would violate the Constitution. This implies that the classification of religion as a protected class could be deemed unconstitutional.

Not really. It draws a bright line between the state and religion. It does not forbid religion nor does it endorse religion. Founding fathers were of diverse religious beliefs, including none. Jefferson famously clipped out parts of the bible he disagreed with--much like the writers of whatever edition of the bible we're talking about since the Gutenberg press was invented.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What's the merit in engaging with your hypothetical situations, only for you to inevitably respond with "I disagree"? It seems rather fruitless.

Anyhow

A lot of people will only take on work that they think they can do very successfully and part of that is working well with the client. Otherwise, they risk not doing as satisfactory a job as they themselves would like, much less the client.

If only the web designer's hypothetical grievance could clarify that the refusal wasn't due to the customer's protected class, but rather because they couldn't guarantee delivering the highest quality service. We wouldn't be having this conversation.

I think my participation in this thread is perhaps fruitless.

Don't be silly. All of our participation in this this thread has been fruitless.

So I will close with this:

I see this case as a conflict between two rights guaranteed under the US Constitution: First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the 14th Amendment along with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I will go further and state that I believe that all rights guaranteed under the Constitution are predicated on the First Amendment. Without the First Amendment, there could be no Civil Rights Act of 1964 nor any other rights guaranteed under the US Constitution.

You are forgetting the 10th Amendment... and the Equal Protection Clause.

What is at question is what works by a corporation can be considered expression and that can not be compelled by the state, regardless the rights of the customer. Well, at least that is the question right now. Whether gays can be fully refused service at a bakery for a "stock" wedding cake or "stock" wedding website... and then refusing gays services at all could be down the road.

Was the website creator's business incorporated? I have no idea.

The cases name was Creative LLC v Elenis, not Smith v Elenis.

But please can we quit asserting that the website requested was stock. It wasn't. It was particular to the fake gay couple requesting it.

I didn't mean to implay it was. I was extrapolating the future cases that will involve "stock", that this case is a stepping stone to.

 

[Toni]

What's the merit in engaging with your hypothetical situations, only for you to inevitably respond with "I disagree"? It seems rather fruitless.

Anyhow

A lot of people will only take on work that they think they can do very successfully and part of that is working well with the client. Otherwise, they risk not doing as satisfactory a job as they themselves would like, much less the client.

If only the web designer's hypothetical grievance could clarify that the refusal wasn't due to the customer's protected class, but rather because they couldn't guarantee delivering the highest quality service. We wouldn't be having this conversation.

I think my participation in this thread is perhaps fruitless.

Don't be silly. All of our participation in this this thread has been fruitless.

So I will close with this:

I see this case as a conflict between two rights guaranteed under the US Constitution: First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the 14th Amendment along with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I will go further and state that I believe that all rights guaranteed under the Constitution are predicated on the First Amendment. Without the First Amendment, there could be no Civil Rights Act of 1964 nor any other rights guaranteed under the US Constitution.

You are forgetting the 10th Amendment... and the Equal Protection Clause.

What is at question is what works by a corporation can be considered expression and that can not be compelled by the state, regardless the rights of the customer. Well, at least that is the question right now. Whether gays can be fully refused service at a bakery for a "stock" wedding cake or "stock" wedding website... and then refusing gays services at all could be down the road.

Was the website creator's business incorporated? I have no idea.

The cases name was Creative LLC v Elenis, not Smith v Elenis.

But please can we quit asserting that the website requested was stock. It wasn't. It was particular to the fake gay couple requesting it.

I didn't mean to implay it was. I was extrapolating the future cases that will involve "stock", that this case is a stepping stone to.

I think that’s the bright line: custom vs stock.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But please can we quit asserting that the website requested was stock. It wasn't. It was particular to the fake gay couple requesting it.

I didn't mean to implay it was. I was extrapolating the future cases that will involve "stock", that this case is a stepping stone to.

I think that’s the bright line: custom vs stock.

I think it is the camel's nose. TBD.

This SCOTUS is extremely radicalized, with not O'Connor or Kennedy to temper rights cases.

 

[bilby]

But I'd have thought the heart of judicial review is to have limited government rather than a British-style unrestrained Parliament

Britain doesn't have an unrestrained parliament.

They just (until the formation of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in 2009) rolled their unelected supreme court into their upper legislative chamber, as the so called "Law Lords", officially the "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary".

That the judges who restrained parliament were sharing the same buildings as the parliament that they restrained, and that they were also directly involved in restraining government legislation even before it had been passed into law, is not an absence of restraint.

 

[Gospel]

I see this case as a conflict between two rights guaranteed under the US Constitution: First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the 14th Amendment along with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Let's ponder this for a moment. The First Amendment begins unequivocally with:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The term "no" leaves no room for ambiguity. Thus, any law respecting an establishment of religion would violate the Constitution. This implies that the classification of religion as a protected class could be deemed unconstitutional.

Not really. It draws a bright line between the state and religion. It does not forbid religion nor does it endorse religion. Founding fathers were of diverse religious beliefs, including none. Jefferson famously clipped out parts of the bible he disagreed with--much like the writers of whatever edition of the bible we're talking about since the Gutenberg press was invented.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution unambiguously declares, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This clause underscores the paramount importance of safeguarding religion as a separate class, and it explicitly prohibits Congress from legislating laws that either advocate for or discriminate against any particular religion. This directive serves to preserve religious neutrality on the part of the government, as outlined in our Constitution.

Furthermore, the First Amendment explicitly affirms that "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This provision illustrates that Congress's role extends beyond refraining from legislating in favor or against specific religions. It is also incumbent on Congress to ensure that no legislative measures hinder the right of individuals to freely practice their religion of choice.

In essence, by refraining from legislating in a way that directly impacts religious establishments, either positively or negatively, Congress adheres to the United States Constitution's stipulations. However, if a law exists that seems to promote religion, it would, indeed, appear to contravene the Constitution's explicit directive. Right now we have a law on the books that supports religion which is unconstitutional. No matter how you want to cut it.

Essentially, the government's role should be to exclude religion as a factor in disputes among citizens, consistent with the United States Constitution's stipulation. This mandate ensures the upholding of religious neutrality and the prevention of preferential treatment or discrimination based on religious beliefs. In the case of our imaginative Web designer the government should not recognize religion but only the service denial itself.

If you are a Christian who holds a personal belief opposing same-sex marriage, it's essential to recognize that if you choose to operate within the public sphere, you do so with the knowledge that same-sex marriage is legal. Should your convictions be such that any association with same-sex marriage feels injurious to your faith, you may want to reconsider participating in areas of public service that engage with it. Striking a balance between personal beliefs and public service demands can be challenging, and one must be prepared to navigate this duality without infringing upon the rights of others. It's a matter of understanding that you cannot simultaneously uphold personal beliefs at the expense of public law and expect protections from a Constitution that does not grant you any.

 

[Gospel]

But I'd have thought the heart of judicial review is to have limited government rather than a British-style unrestrained Parliament

Britain doesn't have an unrestrained parliament.

They just (until the formation of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in 2009) rolled their unelected supreme court into their upper legislative chamber, as the so called "Law Lords", officially the "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary".

That the judges who restrained parliament were sharing the same buildings as the parliament that they restrained, and that they were also directly involved in restraining government legislation even before it had been passed into law, is not an absence of restraint.

No wonder the 13 American colonies broke away from Britain, yawl weird.

 

[Toni]

I see this case as a conflict between two rights guaranteed under the US Constitution: First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the 14th Amendment along with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Let's ponder this for a moment. The First Amendment begins unequivocally with:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The term "no" leaves no room for ambiguity. Thus, any law respecting an establishment of religion would violate the Constitution. This implies that the classification of religion as a protected class could be deemed unconstitutional.

Not really. It draws a bright line between the state and religion. It does not forbid religion nor does it endorse religion. Founding fathers were of diverse religious beliefs, including none. Jefferson famously clipped out parts of the bible he disagreed with--much like the writers of whatever edition of the bible we're talking about since the Gutenberg press was invented.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution unambiguously declares, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This clause underscores the paramount importance of safeguarding religion as a separate class, and it explicitly prohibits Congress from legislating laws that either advocate for or discriminate against any particular religion. This directive serves to preserve religious neutrality on the part of the government, as outlined in our Constitution.

Furthermore, the First Amendment explicitly affirms that "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This provision illustrates that Congress's role extends beyond refraining from legislating in favor or against specific religions. It is also incumbent on Congress to ensure that no legislative measures hinder the right of individuals to freely practice their religion of choice.

In essence, by refraining from legislating in a way that directly impacts religious establishments, either positively or negatively, Congress adheres to the United States Constitution's stipulations. However, if a law exists that seems to promote religion, it would, indeed, appear to contravene the Constitution's explicit directive. Right now we have a law on the books that supports religion which is unconstitutional. No matter how you want to cut it.

Essentially, the government's role should be to exclude religion as a factor in disputes among citizens, consistent with the United States Constitution's stipulation. This mandate ensures the upholding of religious neutrality and the prevention of preferential treatment or discrimination based on religious beliefs. In the case of our imaginative Web designer the government should not recognize religion but only the service denial itself.

If you are a Christian who holds a personal belief opposing same-sex marriage, it's essential to recognize that if you choose to operate within the public sphere, you do so with the knowledge that same-sex marriage is legal. Should your convictions be such that any association with same-sex marriage feels injurious to your faith, you may want to reconsider participating in areas of public service that engage with it. Striking a balance between personal beliefs and public service demands can be challenging, and one must be prepared to navigate this duality without infringing upon the rights of others. It's a matter of understanding that you cannot simultaneously uphold personal beliefs at the expense of public law and expect protections from a Constitution that does not grant you any.

Compelling someone to violate their religious beliefs is a violation of the US Constitution as outlined in your first paragraph.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

How do you figure that a nurse or doctor treating a patient qualifies as them expressing a view in support of homosexuality?

If one thinks homosexuality is a mortal sin, then helping a homosexual stay healthy is promoting sin.

There's a nuance in here that I'm having trouble expressing. It seems clear to me that treating an illness has no connection to one's views on sexual orientation... but that creating a product for a wedding does have a connection to one's views on sexual orientation.

Why? Both situations involve providing a service or a good.

As to the rest of your response, disallowing people to use religion to discriminate against others in commerce is not discrimination against religion or the religious. No one is forced to believe anything against their will.

Not all services or goods are available to all people, and I don't think they need to be. Some goods are, for lack of a better term, necessary goods and services. Failure to have access to them places an undue burden on people, materially affects their overall quality of life, and in many cases increases their direct risk of death or injury. Things like access to basic food materials, shelter, necessary medical care. On the other hand... yachts are also a good, and personal masseuses are a service. But they're not necessary, and failure to have access to them isn't going to actually injure anyone.

 

[Emily Lake]

If the product being created were for a birthday, then there would be no argument that I would respect. The sexual orientation of a person - or their race or sex or country of origin or anything else - is completely irrelevant to birthdays. The two things are disconnected. But marriage does have an intersection with sexual orientation.

Not in law, it doesn't.

If two people are legally married, the law demands that their marriage be treated equally with all other marriages.

If a hospital has a policy of only discussing a patient's condition with their immediate family, and they include "spouse" as a qualification for these discussions, the doctor can't refuse to deal with a patient's spouse on the grounds that he doesn't believe that a marriage between a white woman and a black man is a real marriage; And that remains true regardless of that doctor having a religious basis for his belief.

Equally if he doesn't believe that a marriage is "real" when it's between two women, or two men, or two Jews, or whatever - there's no such thing as a "gay marriage" or a "mixed marriage" or a "Jewish marriage" in law; There's just marriage.

People are free to believe that certain marriages aren't "real". They have a first amendment right to say that that's what they believe. But the law requires that if they deal with marriages, they treat all legal marriages equally.

Yet, bizarrely, SCOTUS has ruled that this established legal status for marriages, doesn't apply to weddings.

That's insane.

You're conflating the legal status of two people being married in the eyes of the state and the social celebration of marriage that is part of a wedding.

The law is rather obviously silent on cakes as it pertains to marriage.

 

[Gospel]

I see this case as a conflict between two rights guaranteed under the US Constitution: First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the 14th Amendment along with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Let's ponder this for a moment. The First Amendment begins unequivocally with:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The term "no" leaves no room for ambiguity. Thus, any law respecting an establishment of religion would violate the Constitution. This implies that the classification of religion as a protected class could be deemed unconstitutional.

Not really. It draws a bright line between the state and religion. It does not forbid religion nor does it endorse religion. Founding fathers were of diverse religious beliefs, including none. Jefferson famously clipped out parts of the bible he disagreed with--much like the writers of whatever edition of the bible we're talking about since the Gutenberg press was invented.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution unambiguously declares, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This clause underscores the paramount importance of safeguarding religion as a separate class, and it explicitly prohibits Congress from legislating laws that either advocate for or discriminate against any particular religion. This directive serves to preserve religious neutrality on the part of the government, as outlined in our Constitution.

Furthermore, the First Amendment explicitly affirms that "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This provision illustrates that Congress's role extends beyond refraining from legislating in favor or against specific religions. It is also incumbent on Congress to ensure that no legislative measures hinder the right of individuals to freely practice their religion of choice.

In essence, by refraining from legislating in a way that directly impacts religious establishments, either positively or negatively, Congress adheres to the United States Constitution's stipulations. However, if a law exists that seems to promote religion, it would, indeed, appear to contravene the Constitution's explicit directive. Right now we have a law on the books that supports religion which is unconstitutional. No matter how you want to cut it.

Essentially, the government's role should be to exclude religion as a factor in disputes among citizens, consistent with the United States Constitution's stipulation. This mandate ensures the upholding of religious neutrality and the prevention of preferential treatment or discrimination based on religious beliefs. In the case of our imaginative Web designer the government should not recognize religion but only the service denial itself.

If you are a Christian who holds a personal belief opposing same-sex marriage, it's essential to recognize that if you choose to operate within the public sphere, you do so with the knowledge that same-sex marriage is legal. Should your convictions be such that any association with same-sex marriage feels injurious to your faith, you may want to reconsider participating in areas of public service that engage with it. Striking a balance between personal beliefs and public service demands can be challenging, and one must be prepared to navigate this duality without infringing upon the rights of others. It's a matter of understanding that you cannot simultaneously uphold personal beliefs at the expense of public law and expect protections from a Constitution that does not grant you any.

Compelling someone to violate their religious beliefs is a violation of the US Constitution as outlined in your first paragraph.

The constitution wants absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Source: The US Constitution

 

[TomC]

One of the more aggravating aspects of modern American society is treating The Constitution like Holy Writ. People decide what they want to happen then find a verse(I mean clause) that supports their opinions and insist that's what The Constitution says. Like the Founding Fathers are a divine pantheon.

Or, if the opinions of some wealthy WASP males doesn't get them what they want, The Constitution becomes a Living Document in need of reinterpretation to suit modern circumstances and moral beliefs.

Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

There's a nuance in here that I'm having trouble expressing. It seems clear to me that treating an illness has no connection to one's views on sexual orientation...

You weren't around during the AIDS panic, were you?

Were people with AIDS denied medical care because of their presumed sexuality? I am well aware of the social stigma around AIDS, but I don't recall doctors and nurses refusing to provide medical care because the people with that condition were assumed to be homosexuals. Nor do I remember any doctors or nurses saying they'd only treat people who got AIDS from sharing needles during drug use, but would not treat people who got it from sex.

 

[Emily Lake]

The press already has a special place in the constitution that gives it its rights.

Interestingly, that "special place" is the exact same place in the constitution that gives us rights for both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

 

[laughing dog]

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

How do you figure that a nurse or doctor treating a patient qualifies as them expressing a view in support of homosexuality?

If one thinks homosexuality is a mortal sin, then helping a homosexual stay healthy is promoting sin.

There's a nuance in here that I'm having trouble expressing. It seems clear to me that treating an illness has no connection to one's views on sexual orientation... but that creating a product for a wedding does have a connection to one's views on sexual orientation.

Why? Both situations involve providing a service or a good.

As to the rest of your response, disallowing people to use religion to discriminate against others in commerce is not discrimination against religion or the religious. No one is forced to believe anything against their will.

Not all services or goods are available to all people, and I don't think they need to be. Some goods are, for lack of a better term, necessary goods and services. Failure to have access to them places an undue burden on people, materially affects their overall quality of life, and in many cases increases their direct risk of death or injury. Things like access to basic food materials, shelter, necessary medical care. On the other hand... yachts are also a good, and personal masseuses are a service. But they're not necessary, and failure to have access to them isn't going to actually injure anyone.

Fascinating - that would justify refusing service in a restaurant to blacks in the 1960s. I wonder why all that civil rights legislation did not focus on solely on “ necessary” items and services.

Whether the item is “necessary ” or not is a red herring. Being discriminated against because of who you are is at least as injurious as having one’s deeply held bigoted beliefs violated.

 

[Emily Lake]

Medical treatment is no less a creative activity than web design, so your response is off point.

If medicine involves even half the creativity needed for web design, we're all fucked.

Pretty sure my neurologist didn't get all creative and designy about diagnosing and treating my epilepsy. Pretty sure I'd have a very good law suit lined up if she had.

 

[Emily Lake]

If you want your counterexamples to "absolute freedom of speech" to be even vaguely relevant to the discussion at hand, you're going to need examples where it's legitimate for the government to punish people for not saying what it wants them to say.

This ^

 

[TomC]

There's a nuance in here that I'm having trouble expressing. It seems clear to me that treating an illness has no connection to one's views on sexual orientation...

You weren't around during the AIDS panic, were you?

Were people with AIDS denied medical care because of their presumed sexuality? I am well aware of the social stigma around AIDS, but I don't recall doctors and nurses refusing to provide medical care because the people with that condition were assumed to be homosexuals. Nor do I remember any doctors or nurses saying they'd only treat people who got AIDS from sharing needles during drug use, but would not treat people who got it from sex.

Umm
Yeah, actually they were. It was complex.
But the cheap hospitals were run by Christians, and people really were turned away because they were An Abomination Before The Lord. Aids was often seen as God's Vengeance upon evildoers.

Things have changed hugely since the Reagan Administration. But yeah, that was the reality of the day.
Tom