Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Bomb#20]

strengthen my suspicion, that the perjurous litigant did this partly as a publicity stunt to attempt to lure like-mined affianced bigots to her on-line site,

That's exactly what I think.

Like Scardina, they wanted publicity. And they got it. Nothing else matters much.

I forget who said, "I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name right." I think that is what's going on here. From the bakery to website designer to the hair place in Michigan to the churches and PACs and politicians.
Just get us out on the internet for free.
Tom

Can't speak to the others, but as for Jack Phillips' bakery, he no longer takes custom wedding cake commissions from anyone. That would probably not be the case if his goal had been to drum up business.

 

[Bomb#20]

Actually, I really don't think anyone has been LEGALLY forced to artistically express a belief contrary to their own in any of those fields. There are certainly cases where they have been ILLEGALLY forced to do so, through threat or coercion.

Michelangelo was forced to paint the Sistine Chapel by his patron--this may not have been against his religious beliefs but it was against his artistic beleif that he was a sculptor first and foremost and would rather spend the long time taken up by this commission in sculpting.

Thank you for reminding us not to expect Cincinnatus-like lessons in limited government from the Papal States. I think Emily meant in the U.S.

Ginger Rogers claimed to having signed a binding contract which she didn't realize forced her to act in Tender Comrade, a film which allegedly violated her political beliefs.

Did she sign the contract under duress? If failure to artistically express a belief contrary to her own had led to a judgment against her by a court, it would have been compensation to the plaintiff for her breaking her promise, not a punishment for not artistically expressing a belief. I don't think there's anything in the concept of a Constitutional right that precludes a person from consenting* not to exercise it in exchange for valuable consideration.

(And no "allegedly" about it -- apparently one of the lines in the movie was switched to a different character because Rogers was so aghast at being told to say it.)

(* Of course if the reason she didn't realize she was consenting to act in such a movie was incomprehensible fine print rather than not reading the contract, this points to a need for plain-English legislation in contract law.)

 

[Elixir]

Neither has any "Company entity". Companies, like computers, are tools.

Should be. Right now in Murka, they’re people and their money is “expression”. .

 

[Shadowy Man]

Hmmm. Is it the individual being compelled or the Company entity? This sounds like it trends toward validating the (proven disastrous) finding that Companies are people.

The police will be coming over* to destroy your computer for saying that, since it has no 1st Amendment right to free speech.

Bull... It hasn’t spoken a word.

Neither has any "Company entity". Companies, like computers, are tools.

If anyone posts anything the government disapproves of on a government website they can compel that it be silenced.

FIFY

Yes, that's what the law is now -- I was pointing out what the law will become if the government were to accept the reasoning in post #1297 and apply it consistently.

Luckily, we have no reason to believe that the government will apply laws consistently.

 

[Gospel]

... Well, unless you count "white men who own land", I guess.

... Regarding your second comment, I must ask: why can't we engage in an open discussion without attempting to deduce someone's underlying intentions behind their arguments? ...

I deduce that your underlying intention was to use "we" to mean "Emily"...

... Could you clarify how this question ties into our main topic before I delve into any tangential discussions?

Sure thing. Toni wrote:

"That said, I do not believe that it furthers justice to compel speech, religion, creativity."​

You replied:

"If that's your stance, then you're essentially opposing the entire US Constitution. Its primary purpose is to ensure that US citizens adhere to its provisions."​

You're wrong. She's upholding the entire US Constitution; you're the one opposing it. ...

That quote was intentionally taken out of its original context. To grasp the reason behind my initial statement, one needs to consider the entire comment. It's evident that you're more focused on scoring points than engaging in a genuine discussion."

... because it is evidently perfectly okay with you for you to deduce other posters' intentions; you object to it only when you think other posters are doing it to you.

What I was focused on was engaging in genuine discussion in an attempt to convince you to stop undervaluing freedom of speech and rule of law, and to stop overvaluing your fantasy utopia of "non-discrimination" (a utopia which would in fact be highly discriminatory). But apparently discussion is futile and you retreat to baseless trumped-up ad hominems when others don't see things your way. So we're done. Sayonara.

You took a slice of my statement and Toni's to create an entirely new narrative. I didn't have to infer your intentions; it was clear, and I addressed it as such. You wont be missed.

 

[Gospel]

hat said, I do not believe that it furthers justice to compel speech, religion, creativity.

If that's your stance, then you're essentially opposing the entire US Constitution. Its primary purpose is to ensure that US citizens adhere to its provisions. Believing that certain mandates don't apply universally reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of equality embedded within the document. In essence, we are all being compelled by the same rules. To single out one group for different treatment is constitutionally counterintuitive.

My statement meant that the Constitution of the United States is a document that was designed to ensure the equality of all citizens under the law. The principle of equality is embedded throughout the Constitution, from the Declaration of Independence's assertion that "all men are created equal" to the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
Believing that certain mandates don't apply universally (For instance, religious exemptions, as seen in the case of the fictitious web designer.) is a fundamental misunderstanding of this principle. The Constitution applies to all citizens, regardless of their race, religion, gender, or any other characteristic. To single out one group for different treatment is unconstitutional and unjust.

It's clear that how you quoted my text and generated your response changed the nature of what was said.

 

[Gospel]

What I was focused on was engaging in genuine discussion in an attempt to convince you to stop undervaluing freedom of speech and rule of law, and to stop overvaluing your fantasy utopia of "non-discrimination" (a utopia which would in fact be highly discriminatory).

Striving for non-discrimination doesn't necessarily equate to endorsing discrimination in another form. While I respect your perspective and understand it's indeed possible that anti-discrimination laws have the potential to be discriminatory, resorting to the assertion that I rely on 'baseless ad hominems' detracts from the points I'm attempting to make. I'm consistently open to dialogue, and it would be challenging for you to prove otherwise.

 

[Toni]

hat said, I do not believe that it furthers justice to compel speech, religion, creativity.

If that's your stance, then you're essentially opposing the entire US Constitution. Its primary purpose is to ensure that US citizens adhere to its provisions. Believing that certain mandates don't apply universally reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of equality embedded within the document. In essence, we are all being compelled by the same rules. To single out one group for different treatment is constitutionally counterintuitive.

My statement meant that the Constitution of the United States is a document that was designed to ensure the equality of all citizens under the law. The principle of equality is embedded throughout the Constitution, from the Declaration of Independence's assertion that "all men are created equal" to the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
Believing that certain mandates don't apply universally (For instance, religious exemptions, as seen in the case of the fictitious web designer.) is a fundamental misunderstanding of this principle. The Constitution applies to all citizens, regardless of their race, religion, gender, or any other characteristic. To single out one group for different treatment is unconstitutional and unjust.

It's clear that how you quoted my text and generated your response changed the nature of what was said.

That was unintentional on my part. My apologies.

And yet, we have the First Amendment, protecting speech. My understanding is that the Amendments were meant to expand and clarify rights.

 

[Gospel]

hat said, I do not believe that it furthers justice to compel speech, religion, creativity.

If that's your stance, then you're essentially opposing the entire US Constitution. Its primary purpose is to ensure that US citizens adhere to its provisions. Believing that certain mandates don't apply universally reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of equality embedded within the document. In essence, we are all being compelled by the same rules. To single out one group for different treatment is constitutionally counterintuitive.

My statement meant that the Constitution of the United States is a document that was designed to ensure the equality of all citizens under the law. The principle of equality is embedded throughout the Constitution, from the Declaration of Independence's assertion that "all men are created equal" to the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
Believing that certain mandates don't apply universally (For instance, religious exemptions, as seen in the case of the fictitious web designer.) is a fundamental misunderstanding of this principle. The Constitution applies to all citizens, regardless of their race, religion, gender, or any other characteristic. To single out one group for different treatment is unconstitutional and unjust.

It's clear that how you quoted my text and generated your response changed the nature of what was said.

That was unintentional on my part. My apologies.

And yet, we have the First Amendment, protecting speech. My understanding is that the Amendments were meant to expand and clarify rights.

No worries. I admit I can become passionate about this contentious topic, so I extend my apologies as well.

 

[Bomb#20]

... 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.

True; but that's only been the case since SFFA v. Harvard was decided six weeks ago. Should we presume the people in favor of the "protected group" concept support that decision?

 

[Gospel]

And yet, we have the First Amendment, protecting speech. My understanding is that the Amendments were meant to expand and clarify rights.

I 100% agree. The only addition to this statement I would add is two words at the end. For all. Not everyone else except religious people.

 

[Gospel]

As a protected group supporter. I remember repeatedly expressing my opposition to affirmative action quite some time ago. However, it seems some prefer to rely on misconceptions rather than what was actually stated. Affirmative action was particularly relevant during the peak of the Jim Crow era. Its relevance today is debatable & I'm on the "it needs to end" side of the debate.

 

[Toni]

As a protected group supporter. I remember repeatedly expressing my opposition to affirmative action quite some time ago. However, it seems some prefer to rely on misconceptions rather than what was actually stated. Affirmative action was particularly relevant during the peak of the Jim Crow era. Its relevance today is debatable & I'm on the "it needs to end" side of the debate.

Yeah, me, too, although I’m more than a little nervous about how that might play out short term.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

There have been a lot of posts expressing that theory, one way or another; that one can serve as a canonical example of this prevalent counterfactual notion of what it means to be forced. When someone says what she says in violation of her values or beliefs because she's paid to, she isn't doing it because she's forced to. Duh! "Freedom of speech" means the government doesn't punish you for not saying what it wants, or for saying what it doesn't want. It doesn't mean some other private citizen will pay you for not doing what she wants you to do. If Smith's refusal to design same-sex wedding websites induces the Colorado government not to hire her, nobody here is going to call that a free speech violation or claim this "forces" her to express a sentiment which violates her belief.

So why do so many progressives believe non-career enhancing statements mean pretty much no one has freedom of speech in the workplace? Why do so many believe getting fired for offending your boss is the same kind of thing as getting jailed or fined for offending the government? Is it perhaps because they're socialists? If the concept of private employment is itself illegitimate exploitation in their minds, and they think in a just society everybody would be employed only by the state, then does that imply a private employer is in effect acting in loco governmentis, and thereby taking on the obligations of a state? So are "Congress shall make no law..." and "No State shall make or enforce any law..." perhaps getting mentally reinterpreted to include "An employer shall adopt no policy..." because in the minds of socialists, companies are little statelets?

 

[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.

There have been a lot of posts expressing that theory, one way or another; that one can serve as a canonical example of this prevalent counterfactual notion of what it means to be forced. When someone says what she says in violation of her values or beliefs because she's paid to, she isn't doing it because she's forced to. Duh! "Freedom of speech" means the government doesn't punish you for not saying what it wants, or for saying what it doesn't want. It doesn't mean some other private citizen will pay you for not doing what she wants you to do. If Smith's refusal to design same-sex wedding websites induces the Colorado government not to hire her, nobody here is going to call that a free speech violation or claim this "forces" her to express a sentiment which violates her belief.

So why do so many progressives believe non-career enhancing statements mean pretty much no one has freedom of speech in the workplace? Why do so many believe getting fired for offending your boss is the same kind of thing as getting jailed or fined for offending the government? Is it perhaps because they're socialists? If the concept of private employment is itself illegitimate exploitation in their minds, and they think in a just society everybody would be employed only by the state, then does that imply a private employer is in effect acting in loco governmentis, and thereby taking on the obligations of a state? So are "Congress shall make no law..." and "No State shall make or enforce any law..." perhaps getting mentally reinterpreted to include "An employer shall adopt no policy..." because in the minds of socialists, companies are little statelets?

The wedding website designer has the same choice as others. Don't be a wedding website designer if you cannot follow the rules and ethics of the business.

 

[Bomb#20]

Neither has any "Company entity". Companies, like computers, are tools.

Should be. Right now in Murka, they’re people and their money is “expression”. .

That's propaganda pro-censorship people keep reciting because they've passed it around their echo chamber so many times they've forgotten it's something they just made up. The SCOTUS has never ruled that companies are people or that money is expression; the anti-censorship decisions progressives hate so much were not based on corporate personhood or on money being speech. "Corporate personhood" is a procedural convenience that means you can sue a corporation without having to find out who all the shareholders are and sue them individually. And since the SCOTUS has ruled both that you can speak in favor of a candidate anonymously and also that you can't donate money to a candidate anonymously, those rulings de facto amount to the SCOTUS having ruled that money is not expression.

 

[jab]

This was never about religious convictions or compelled speech. It was about allowing certain whites to be supreme again and asserting their conservative moral authority on others.

The fake nature of this case makes the above almost certain to be true. I guess they forgot that lying is a sin part.

As well as a crime when it occurs in legal filings. I'm am still waiting for news of the fair and just Amurica of Tom and Bomb and Emily and L. P. charging the perjurous litigant and her lawyers.

If it were in my reasonable domain to file that suit, I would.

Why do you feel a need to take such petty jabs at people? Are you incapable of actually discussing the topic like an adult?

I prefer to think of them as pretty jabs. And I haven't explicitly or implicitly compared anyone on this thread to a Nazi, a child molester, a rapist, a sexual harasser on this thread, Nor was it I who initiated on this thread snarking at people based on their (somewhat incorrectly assumed) race and sexual orientation. No, that last was you.
Bigots often change people who are not like them and who argue against them as being not really adult.

 

[ZiprHead]

Does anyone wonder why Muslims don't open liquor stores and Jews don't open pork processing facilities? But the Christian wants special dispensation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This was never about religious convictions or compelled speech. It was about allowing certain whites to be supreme again and asserting their conservative moral authority on others.

The fake nature of this case makes the above almost certain to be true. I guess they forgot that lying is a sin part.

As well as a crime when it occurs in legal filings. I'm am still waiting for news of the fair and just Amurica of Tom and Bomb and Emily and L. P. charging the perjurous litigant and her lawyers.

If it were in my reasonable domain to file that suit, I would.

The view from that pedestal must be nice... of course it might be the asphyxia.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Does anyone wonder why Muslims don't open liquor stores and Jews don't open pork processing facilities? But the Christian wants special dispensation.

There are businesses which butcher individual customer-provided animals. If a Jew is running such a business is he free to say they will not process pigs?

(These exist primarily to process animals brought in by hunters. Bring them a deer, get a bunch of venison back.)