SCOTUS gay rights case

[Politesse]

There's a word for someone who has never had the experience of being denied goods or services because no one in their state/nation offered it to somone "like them". But we'd best avoid saying it aloud. Nothing triggers the personally aggrieved outrage of a right wing snowflake quite like having the P word applied to them directly.

(They may secretly want the P. They may even be openly manipulating and even subverting the governmental process just so they can get and keep the P. But accusing them of already having it? OOOH, that makes 'em mad...)

 

[Metaphor]

Jim Crow laws ALLOWED businesses to refuse to provide services to black people in addition to establishing segregation of education, etc.

That is not my understanding of what are called 'Jim Crow' laws, which are laws that force businesses (and people) to segregate.

Jim Crow law - Plessy v. Ferguson, Segregation, Discrimination

Jim Crow law - Plessy v. Ferguson, Segregation, Discrimination: How Homer Plessy became central to Plessy v. Ferguson

www.britannica.com

From 1887 to 1892 nine states, including Louisiana, passed laws requiring separation on public conveyances, such as streetcars and railroads. Though they differed in detail, most of those statutes required equal accommodations for Black passengers and imposed fines and even jail terms on railroad employees who did not enforce them. Five of the states also provided criminal fines or imprisonment for passengers who tried to sit in cars from which their race excluded them. The Louisiana Separate Car Act passed in July 1890. In order to “promote the comfort of passengers,” railroads had to provide “equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races” on lines running in the state.
Other laws gave individuals and businesses the right to refuse service, or to sell to black customers, allowed clubs to prohibit black, Jewish, Hispanics, Catholic or Italian members and so on.

And even the Jim Crow laws seemed to mandate that all races must be accommodated for, just separated.

Would you be ok with laws allowing such discrimination against gay people?

Yes. I am against the government forcing people to serve somebody of a sexual orientation they do not care to serve.

This means I want restaurants to be able to discriminate against potential customers by sexual orientation if they want to. That includes a restaurant deciding it is not serving gays, and allowing them to indicate that by posting a 'no gays' sign on their door. It would be a benefit to me to find out which restaurants don't want to serve me based solely on my sexual orientation, versus accidentally giving my money to a restaurant manager who was only serving me because he was forced to by the government.

Of course, although there might be a handful of restaurants with a 'no gays' policy, I expect there would be an avalanche of restaurants who would respond by specifically trying to cater to gays. I doubt I'd want to go there either but if they want to do it, they ought be allowed.

A few years ago there was an openly sexist cafe in Australia called Handsome Her that prioritised women and charged men more for the same product. I don't know the legality of their practises in Victoria (I don't think it was ever legally challenged), but I do know that any man who entered that cafe knew exactly what he was getting--and deserved to get it good and hard.

The cafe closed down in 2019, with the owner's mission to dismantle the patriarchy left sadly incomplete.

 

[Metaphor]

There's a word for someone who has never had the experience of being denied goods or services because no one in their state/nation offered it to somone "like them". But we'd best avoid saying it aloud. Nothing triggers the personally aggrieved outrage of a right wing snowflake quite like the P word.

Poofta?

 

[Toni]

Jim Crow laws ALLOWED businesses to refuse to provide services to black people in addition to establishing segregation of education, etc.

That is not my understanding of what are called 'Jim Crow' laws, which are laws that force businesses (and people) to segregate.

Jim Crow law - Plessy v. Ferguson, Segregation, Discrimination

Jim Crow law - Plessy v. Ferguson, Segregation, Discrimination: How Homer Plessy became central to Plessy v. Ferguson

www.britannica.com

From 1887 to 1892 nine states, including Louisiana, passed laws requiring separation on public conveyances, such as streetcars and railroads. Though they differed in detail, most of those statutes required equal accommodations for Black passengers and imposed fines and even jail terms on railroad employees who did not enforce them. Five of the states also provided criminal fines or imprisonment for passengers who tried to sit in cars from which their race excluded them. The Louisiana Separate Car Act passed in July 1890. In order to “promote the comfort of passengers,” railroads had to provide “equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races” on lines running in the state.
Other laws gave individuals and businesses the right to refuse service, or to sell to black customers, allowed clubs to prohibit black, Jewish, Hispanics, Catholic or Italian members and so on.

And even the Jim Crow laws seemed to mandate that all races must be accommodated for, just separated.

Would you be ok with laws allowing such discrimination against gay people?

Yes. I am against the government forcing people to serve somebody of a sexual orientation they do not care to serve.

This means I want restaurants to be able to discriminate against potential customers by sexual orientation if they want to. That includes a restaurant deciding it is not serving gays, and allowing them to indicate that by posting a 'no gays' sign on their door. It would be a benefit to me to find out which restaurants don't want to serve me based solely on my sexual orientation, versus accidentally giving my money to a restaurant manager who was only serving me because he was forced to by the government.

Of course, although there might be a handful of restaurants with a 'no gays' policy, I expect there would be an avalanche of restaurants who would respond by specifically trying to cater to gays. I doubt I'd want to go there either but if they want to do it, they ought be allowed.

A few years ago there was an openly sexist cafe in Australia called Handsome Her that prioritised women and charged men more for the same product. I don't know the legality of their practises in Victoria (I don't think it was ever legally challenged), but I do know that any man who entered that cafe knew exactly what he was getting--and deserved to get it good and hard.

The cafe closed down in 2019, with the owner's mission to dismantle the patriarchy left sadly incomplete.

Easy to be so sanguine given that you have not and will not experience such mass discrimination. Somehow, millions of black people in the US did not find such signs to be of any benefit to them at all. Quite the opposite.

 

[Metaphor]

Jim Crow laws ALLOWED businesses to refuse to provide services to black people in addition to establishing segregation of education, etc.

That is not my understanding of what are called 'Jim Crow' laws, which are laws that force businesses (and people) to segregate.

Jim Crow law - Plessy v. Ferguson, Segregation, Discrimination

Jim Crow law - Plessy v. Ferguson, Segregation, Discrimination: How Homer Plessy became central to Plessy v. Ferguson

www.britannica.com

From 1887 to 1892 nine states, including Louisiana, passed laws requiring separation on public conveyances, such as streetcars and railroads. Though they differed in detail, most of those statutes required equal accommodations for Black passengers and imposed fines and even jail terms on railroad employees who did not enforce them. Five of the states also provided criminal fines or imprisonment for passengers who tried to sit in cars from which their race excluded them. The Louisiana Separate Car Act passed in July 1890. In order to “promote the comfort of passengers,” railroads had to provide “equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races” on lines running in the state.
Other laws gave individuals and businesses the right to refuse service, or to sell to black customers, allowed clubs to prohibit black, Jewish, Hispanics, Catholic or Italian members and so on.

And even the Jim Crow laws seemed to mandate that all races must be accommodated for, just separated.

Would you be ok with laws allowing such discrimination against gay people?

Yes. I am against the government forcing people to serve somebody of a sexual orientation they do not care to serve.

This means I want restaurants to be able to discriminate against potential customers by sexual orientation if they want to. That includes a restaurant deciding it is not serving gays, and allowing them to indicate that by posting a 'no gays' sign on their door. It would be a benefit to me to find out which restaurants don't want to serve me based solely on my sexual orientation, versus accidentally giving my money to a restaurant manager who was only serving me because he was forced to by the government.

Of course, although there might be a handful of restaurants with a 'no gays' policy, I expect there would be an avalanche of restaurants who would respond by specifically trying to cater to gays. I doubt I'd want to go there either but if they want to do it, they ought be allowed.

A few years ago there was an openly sexist cafe in Australia called Handsome Her that prioritised women and charged men more for the same product. I don't know the legality of their practises in Victoria (I don't think it was ever legally challenged), but I do know that any man who entered that cafe knew exactly what he was getting--and deserved to get it good and hard.

The cafe closed down in 2019, with the owner's mission to dismantle the patriarchy left sadly incomplete.

Easy to be so sanguine given that you have not and will not experience such mass discrimination. Somehow, millions of black people in the US did not find such signs to be of any benefit to them at all. Quite the opposite.

You asked me what I thought about laws that force businesses to serve gays. I don't agree with such laws and I would get rid of those laws if I could.*

*Some 'businesses', such as a hospital emergency department, should not get to discriminate.

 

[Toni]

Jim Crow laws ALLOWED businesses to refuse to provide services to black people in addition to establishing segregation of education, etc.

That is not my understanding of what are called 'Jim Crow' laws, which are laws that force businesses (and people) to segregate.

Jim Crow law - Plessy v. Ferguson, Segregation, Discrimination

Jim Crow law - Plessy v. Ferguson, Segregation, Discrimination: How Homer Plessy became central to Plessy v. Ferguson

www.britannica.com

From 1887 to 1892 nine states, including Louisiana, passed laws requiring separation on public conveyances, such as streetcars and railroads. Though they differed in detail, most of those statutes required equal accommodations for Black passengers and imposed fines and even jail terms on railroad employees who did not enforce them. Five of the states also provided criminal fines or imprisonment for passengers who tried to sit in cars from which their race excluded them. The Louisiana Separate Car Act passed in July 1890. In order to “promote the comfort of passengers,” railroads had to provide “equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races” on lines running in the state.
Other laws gave individuals and businesses the right to refuse service, or to sell to black customers, allowed clubs to prohibit black, Jewish, Hispanics, Catholic or Italian members and so on.

And even the Jim Crow laws seemed to mandate that all races must be accommodated for, just separated.

Would you be ok with laws allowing such discrimination against gay people?

Yes. I am against the government forcing people to serve somebody of a sexual orientation they do not care to serve.

This means I want restaurants to be able to discriminate against potential customers by sexual orientation if they want to. That includes a restaurant deciding it is not serving gays, and allowing them to indicate that by posting a 'no gays' sign on their door. It would be a benefit to me to find out which restaurants don't want to serve me based solely on my sexual orientation, versus accidentally giving my money to a restaurant manager who was only serving me because he was forced to by the government.

Of course, although there might be a handful of restaurants with a 'no gays' policy, I expect there would be an avalanche of restaurants who would respond by specifically trying to cater to gays. I doubt I'd want to go there either but if they want to do it, they ought be allowed.

A few years ago there was an openly sexist cafe in Australia called Handsome Her that prioritised women and charged men more for the same product. I don't know the legality of their practises in Victoria (I don't think it was ever legally challenged), but I do know that any man who entered that cafe knew exactly what he was getting--and deserved to get it good and hard.

The cafe closed down in 2019, with the owner's mission to dismantle the patriarchy left sadly incomplete.

Easy to be so sanguine given that you have not and will not experience such mass discrimination. Somehow, millions of black people in the US did not find such signs to be of any benefit to them at all. Quite the opposite.

You asked me what I thought about laws that force businesses to serve gays. I don't agree with such laws and I would get rid of those laws if I could.*

*Some 'businesses', such as a hospital emergency department, should not get to discriminate.

I understood what you wrote. I repeat: Easy to be so sanguine when you will never be denied service and at most, might be made to feel uncomfortable, rather than literally risking your life because you chose to drink from the wrong water fountain or sat at the counter in a diner which didn't serve 'your kind.'

I'm really grateful that you feel so safe and secure--you should! But I know how many people paid terrible prices trying to obtain the right to be treated equally by private businesses, something that is not untied to equal treatment by government agencies and services . It beggers belief that you do not recognize the connection between what a private business is allowed to do and what is and is not allowed the government. It is shameful that you do not recognize the debt those living today owed to those who have long since died or simply become very old or have otherwise faded into obscurity. You think that the suffering of such greats as Alan Turing could never really happen again, or to you. Unfortunately, you are wrong.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm really grateful that you feel so safe and secure--you should! But I know how many people paid terrible prices trying to obtain the right to be treated equally by private businesses, something that is not untied to equal treatment by government agencies and services . It beggers belief that you do not recognize the connection between what a private business is allowed to do and what is and is not allowed the government. It is shameful that you do not recognize the debt those living today owed to those who have long since died or simply become very old or have otherwise faded into obscurity. You think that the suffering of such greats as Alan Turing could never really happen again, or to you. Unfortunately, you are wrong.

I do not believe I am wrong. I do not believe that in 2022 there is any prospect whatsoever of gay men in Australia being kidnapped by the government and forced to undergo chemical castration (unless we get a Muslim-majority government). Nor even if some restaurants were allowed to discriminate against gays. If anything, I think a restaurant that had a 'no gays' policy would probably be firebombed, threatened daily, sabotaged, or merely driven out of business due to lack of patronage by sympathetic heterosexual 'allies'.

In fact, if restaurants were indeed allowed to discriminate by sexual orientation, I'd expect to see even more corporate virtue signalling and chasing of the pink, and pink-sympathetic, dollar.

 

[Toni]

I'm really grateful that you feel so safe and secure--you should! But I know how many people paid terrible prices trying to obtain the right to be treated equally by private businesses, something that is not untied to equal treatment by government agencies and services . It beggers belief that you do not recognize the connection between what a private business is allowed to do and what is and is not allowed the government. It is shameful that you do not recognize the debt those living today owed to those who have long since died or simply become very old or have otherwise faded into obscurity. You think that the suffering of such greats as Alan Turing could never really happen again, or to you. Unfortunately, you are wrong.

I do not believe I am wrong. I do not believe that in 2022 there is any prospect whatsoever of gay men in Australia being kidnapped by the government and forced to undergo chemical castration (unless we get a Muslim-majority government). Nor even if some restaurants were allowed to discriminate against gays. If anything, I think a restaurant that had a 'no gays' policy would probably be firebombed, threatened daily, sabotaged, or merely driven out of business due to lack of patronage by sympathetic heterosexual 'allies'.

In fact, if restaurants were indeed allowed to discriminate by sexual orientation, I'd expect to see even more corporate virtue signalling and chasing of the pink, and pink-sympathetic, dollar.

I'm really grateful that you feel so safe and secure--you should! But I know how many people paid terrible prices trying to obtain the right to be treated equally by private businesses, something that is not untied to equal treatment by government agencies and services . It beggers belief that you do not recognize the connection between what a private business is allowed to do and what is and is not allowed the government. It is shameful that you do not recognize the debt those living today owed to those who have long since died or simply become very old or have otherwise faded into obscurity. You think that the suffering of such greats as Alan Turing could never really happen again, or to you. Unfortunately, you are wrong.

I do not believe I am wrong. I do not believe that in 2022 there is any prospect whatsoever of gay men in Australia being kidnapped by the government and forced to undergo chemical castration (unless we get a Muslim-majority government). Nor even if some restaurants were allowed to discriminate against gays. If anything, I think a restaurant that had a 'no gays' policy would probably be firebombed, threatened daily, sabotaged, or merely driven out of business due to lack of patronage by sympathetic heterosexual 'allies'.

In fact, if restaurants were indeed allowed to discriminate by sexual orientation, I'd expect to see even more corporate virtue signalling and chasing of the pink, and pink-sympathetic, dollar.

Again, it's a very good thing that you feel so safe. It's pathetic that you are so ignorant and arrogant regarding the history of human rights and how small infringements become far, far worse.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm really grateful that you feel so safe and secure--you should! But I know how many people paid terrible prices trying to obtain the right to be treated equally by private businesses, something that is not untied to equal treatment by government agencies and services . It beggers belief that you do not recognize the connection between what a private business is allowed to do and what is and is not allowed the government. It is shameful that you do not recognize the debt those living today owed to those who have long since died or simply become very old or have otherwise faded into obscurity. You think that the suffering of such greats as Alan Turing could never really happen again, or to you. Unfortunately, you are wrong.

I do not believe I am wrong. I do not believe that in 2022 there is any prospect whatsoever of gay men in Australia being kidnapped by the government and forced to undergo chemical castration (unless we get a Muslim-majority government). Nor even if some restaurants were allowed to discriminate against gays. If anything, I think a restaurant that had a 'no gays' policy would probably be firebombed, threatened daily, sabotaged, or merely driven out of business due to lack of patronage by sympathetic heterosexual 'allies'.

In fact, if restaurants were indeed allowed to discriminate by sexual orientation, I'd expect to see even more corporate virtue signalling and chasing of the pink, and pink-sympathetic, dollar.

I'm really grateful that you feel so safe and secure--you should! But I know how many people paid terrible prices trying to obtain the right to be treated equally by private businesses, something that is not untied to equal treatment by government agencies and services . It beggers belief that you do not recognize the connection between what a private business is allowed to do and what is and is not allowed the government. It is shameful that you do not recognize the debt those living today owed to those who have long since died or simply become very old or have otherwise faded into obscurity. You think that the suffering of such greats as Alan Turing could never really happen again, or to you. Unfortunately, you are wrong.

I do not believe I am wrong. I do not believe that in 2022 there is any prospect whatsoever of gay men in Australia being kidnapped by the government and forced to undergo chemical castration (unless we get a Muslim-majority government). Nor even if some restaurants were allowed to discriminate against gays. If anything, I think a restaurant that had a 'no gays' policy would probably be firebombed, threatened daily, sabotaged, or merely driven out of business due to lack of patronage by sympathetic heterosexual 'allies'.

In fact, if restaurants were indeed allowed to discriminate by sexual orientation, I'd expect to see even more corporate virtue signalling and chasing of the pink, and pink-sympathetic, dollar.

Again, it's a very good thing that you feel so safe. It's pathetic that you are so ignorant and arrogant regarding the history of human rights and how small infringements become far, far worse.

I do not share your pessimistic dystopian prognostication nor do I believe that makes me arrogant or ignorant.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes. I am against the government forcing people to serve somebody of a sexual orientation they do not care to serve.

This means I want restaurants to be able to discriminate against potential customers by sexual orientation if they want to. That includes a restaurant deciding it is not serving gays, and allowing them to indicate that by posting a 'no gays' sign on their door. It would be a benefit to me to find out which restaurants don't want to serve me based solely on my sexual orientation, versus accidentally giving my money to a restaurant manager who was only serving me because he was forced to by the government.

Aren't you the guy that just said this in another thread?

They aren't a big deal to you.

You cannot speak for the corporeal sensations that other people feel

Do you expect others to be discriminated against and just say "Oh well. That's the way it is."?

Yes, I know you're going to say that doesn't apply here or that's not my view here or some such other thing. Imagine a world where your libertarian desires were actually fulfilled. That gays could be discriminated against with impunity. It may not be a big deal to you now but it might be a big deal to other gay people.

And then when those other gay people find out you side with the discriminators, what are you going to tell them?

 

[Metaphor]

Yes. I am against the government forcing people to serve somebody of a sexual orientation they do not care to serve.

This means I want restaurants to be able to discriminate against potential customers by sexual orientation if they want to. That includes a restaurant deciding it is not serving gays, and allowing them to indicate that by posting a 'no gays' sign on their door. It would be a benefit to me to find out which restaurants don't want to serve me based solely on my sexual orientation, versus accidentally giving my money to a restaurant manager who was only serving me because he was forced to by the government.

Aren't you the guy that just said this in another thread?

They aren't a big deal to you.

You cannot speak for the corporeal sensations that other people feel

Do you expect others to be discriminated against and just say "Oh well. That's the way it is."?

I don't 'expect' anything from other people. If a gay friend of mine said "I would be extremely upset by a no gays sign on a restaurant door", I would believe they would be upset.

Yes, I know you're going to say that doesn't apply here or that's not my view here or some such other thing. Imagine a world where your libertarian desires were actually fulfilled.

I'm not a libertarian.

That gays could be discriminated against with impunity. It may not be a big deal to you now but it might be a big deal to other gay people.

It might be a big deal to them. I'm not the boss of them.

And then when those other gay people find out you side with the discriminators, what are you going to tell them?

I will tell them the same thing I've told people here: I don't believe in forcing people to serve me. I don't want to patronise a business that is only serving me because they are being forced. And I also believe that there are more than enough businesses who specifically want to cater to me that I will not experience any degradation in my quality of life. And I also believe that the government should not force people to serve others.

 

[Bomb#20]

What's legally relevant is the difference between objecting to the customer and objecting to the message.

No, because there are limits to “free speech”

Premise: There are limits.
Conclusion: Whatever laughing dog wishes to be beyond the limits is beyond the limits.

That straw man makes me wonder if you have a reasoning disability.

Hey, dude, you're the one who claimed the difference between objecting to the customer and objecting to the message isn't legally relevant 'because there are limits to “free speech”'. That's a non-sequitur. There is no valid argument form that takes you from "there are limits" to refusing to express the customer's message being beyond the limits to free speech. If I guessed wrong about which of the myriad invalid argument forms you were relying on to take you from your correct premise to your unsupported conclusion, then by all means, feel free to tell us which alternative invalid argument form you were relying on.

Limits now to be determined by the 6 theocrats on the SCOTUS.

Tragically, yes. But still more trustworthy to determine those limits than the theocrats on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Ah, the tribal defense argument.

Nothing tribal about it. It's a consequence of their respective institutional roles. The CCRC is giving orders to the public, whereas the SCOTUS is giving orders to lower courts. That means the CCRC can rule any way it pleases, while the SCOTUS has to rule in a way it can explain, such that lower courts will be able to apply the SCOTUS's principles to future cases. Therefore the CCRC can easily have one rule for people who don't like pro-gay messages and a completely different rule for people who don't like anti-gay messages; in contrast, whatever the SCOTUS ends up deciding, it's going to be the same rule for everybody.

"...on at least three other occasions the
Civil Rights Division considered the refusal of bakers to
create cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of
same-sex marriage, along with religious text. Each time,
the Division found that the baker acted lawfully in refusing service.
...
The treatment of the conscience-based objections at
issue in these three cases contrasts with the Commission’s
treatment of Phillips’ objection. The Commission ruled
against Phillips in part on the theory that any message
the requested wedding cake would carry would be attributed
to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did
not address this point in any of the other cases
with respect to the cakes depicting anti-gay marriage
symbolism. Additionally, the Division found no violation
of CADA in the other cases in part because each bakery
was willing to sell other products, including those depicting
Christian themes, to the prospective customers. But
the Commission dismissed Phillips’ willingness to sell
“birthday cakes, shower cakes, [and] cookies and brownies,”
App. 152, to gay and lesbian customers as irrelevant.
...
A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of
these two instances cannot be based on the government’s
own assessment of offensiveness. Just as “no official, high
or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics,
nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,” West
Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943),
it is not, as the Court has repeatedly held, the role of the
State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive. ..."

- Anthony Kennedy​

 

[Bomb#20]

Very sensible of her to seek an injunction in advance, rather than risk running afoul of a law that ends up being upheld. This is what test cases are for. What, should people only be allowed to know what the law is after they've already broken it? Should the government be allowed to get away with overstepping its bounds because of the chilling effect uncertainty has on getting anyone to challenge the law?

I admit to not being an expert on the law but it seems that most of the time the courts make sure that someone has *standing* to sue and that usually seems to require an actual material harm from a law. So I would think that this person would have to wait until the law resulted in harm to her business.

I don’t know what “test case” means here but maybe that is something special that courts do that doesn’t require standing.

I'm not an expert either; but the issue of standing was raised by the lower courts and the 10th Circuit ruled that she had standing.

 

[laughing dog]

What's legally relevant is the difference between objecting to the customer and objecting to the message.

No, because there are limits to “free speech”

Premise: There are limits.
Conclusion: Whatever laughing dog wishes to be beyond the limits is beyond the limits.

That straw man makes me wonder if you have a reasoning disability.

Hey, dude, you're the one who claimed the difference between objecting to the customer and objecting to the message isn't legally relevant 'because there are limits to “free speech”'. That's a non-sequitur.....

Not if you actually think about it. Using your reasoning, "whatever Bomb #20 thinks is within limits is within limits'.
[/QUOTE]

Limits now to be determined by the 6 theocrats on the SCOTUS.

Tragically, yes. But still more trustworthy to determine those limits than the theocrats on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Ah, the tribal defense argument.

Nothing tribal about it. ....

I was refering to your tribe.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes. I am against the government forcing people to serve somebody of a sexual orientation they do not care to serve.

This means I want restaurants to be able to discriminate against potential customers by sexual orientation if they want to. That includes a restaurant deciding it is not serving gays, and allowing them to indicate that by posting a 'no gays' sign on their door. It would be a benefit to me to find out which restaurants don't want to serve me based solely on my sexual orientation, versus accidentally giving my money to a restaurant manager who was only serving me because he was forced to by the government.

Aren't you the guy that just said this in another thread?

They aren't a big deal to you.

You cannot speak for the corporeal sensations that other people feel

Do you expect others to be discriminated against and just say "Oh well. That's the way it is."?

I don't 'expect' anything from other people. If a gay friend of mine said "I would be extremely upset by a no gays sign on a restaurant door", I would believe they would be upset.

Yes, I know you're going to say that doesn't apply here or that's not my view here or some such other thing. Imagine a world where your libertarian desires were actually fulfilled.

I'm not a libertarian.

I didn't say you were.

That gays could be discriminated against with impunity. It may not be a big deal to you now but it might be a big deal to other gay people.

It might be a big deal to them. I'm not the boss of them.

No, but you are more than willing to aid in their discrimination.

And then when those other gay people find out you side with the discriminators, what are you going to tell them?

I will tell them the same thing I've told people here: I don't believe in forcing people to serve me. I don't want to patronise a business that is only serving me because they are being forced. And I also believe that there are more than enough businesses who specifically want to cater to me that I will not experience any degradation in my quality of life. And I also believe that the government should not force people to serve others.

I'm sure that will comfort them.

 

[Bomb#20]

I agree but I’m also wondering why I can be firced to create something that I find repugnant or co treat to my deeply held religious or political beliefs?

So, you don't have to under the description of free speech that I use.

You can be forced to provide something for a USE you find repugnant, but the thing itself you have control over the boundaries of. If someone repugnant manages to stay within those boundaries? Then they must be served.

That's not "in other words"; that's saying something different. Your characterization of the issue in dispute does not match Wikipedia's. "Smith claims it would have been against her Christian faith to make sites for non-heterosexual marriages." So what evidence do you have that she's suing for anything more than the right to exercise freedom over the content of her artwork?

If the client can request a website "for the promotion of healthy relationships", while using placeholders for any content that would force her to actually produce homosexual content, then they lose their grounds for request.

It strikes me as an available legal avenue of questing such that "if the client requested this instead, would you have refused service, even if the request came from "gaymarriageplanning.com"?

At that point it isn't about content, it is as stated about creating a framework that can be taken the last mile.

As you recall, the wedding cake debacle happened because the clients requested the cake without the topper that would make it explicitly gay, and that's why the case was decided as it was.

Sorry, which wedding cake decision are you talking about? I don't recall any wedding cake debacle where the decision turned on presence or absence of a topper. The wedding cake debacle I'm familiar with was decided in favor of the baker because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was caught red-handed practicing viewpoint non-neutrality: applying one set of rules for views the commissioners agreed with and different rules for views they disagreed with.

Very sensible of her to seek an injunction in advance, rather than risk running afoul of a law that ends up being upheld.

Except that the law does not require her to make a gay website. It at best maintains that she must make a website that may be used for gay purposes.

She lacks standing entirely, as the law already fails to compel her to make gay content, even while it compels her to make content for customers who are gay and will use it that way. Again, it's the cake topper all over again.

You appear to be proposing that the government should get to require a website designer to write html for a website for a wedding of people of unspecified sexes, wherein the affianced persons can later fill in the blanks to make clear who the future spouses are and whether the wedding is gay or straight. And that degree of forced speech is compatible with the description of free speech that you use, because she doesn't have to create something she finds repugnant or contrary to her deeply held religious or political beliefs, because until the blanks in the template are filled in it isn't repugnant and contrary to her beliefs. Is that what you have in mind?

So how would you judge the case if an evidently Jewish guy in a yarmulke met with a Palestinian-American website designer and asked her to design a website proclaiming "The West Bank rightfully belongs to the [blank]s, so all the [blank]s there should either quit fighting about it and submit to [blank] rule, or else clear out.", and the website designer deduced how the blanks were going to get filled in and refused to do the job, so the wannabe customer sued her?

 

[Bomb#20]

Does this woman’s religion *require* her to run a business? If she wants to make websites for her friends she can do that all she wants and refuse whoever she wants. If she wants to run a business of public accommodation under the aegis of the State then that’s a bit different. She would only be *forced* to violate her religious beliefs if her religion requires her business. If she doesn’t want to sell products that may conflict with her values she always has the option to not sell those products on the open market and remain comfortable in her religious beliefs.

How far would you push that style of reasoning? Any other ways of making a living you'd apply it to, or is it only running a business that gets the your-religion-doesn't-require-you-to treatment?

Suppose the government decides to deal with its backlog of cases by keeping the courts open on Saturdays, and to keep things moving, it requires all lawyers to work six days a week. If some lawyer isn't willing to represent her client on a Saturday, well, does this woman’s religion *require* her to practice law? If she wants to give advice to her friends five days a week she can do that all she wants and refuse whenever she wants. But if she wants to take paying clients and represent them in court under the aegis of the State Bar then that's a bit different. She would only be *forced* to violate her religious beliefs if her religion requires her to be a lawyer. If she doesn’t want to sell a service that may conflict with her Sabbath she always has the option to not sell that service on the open market and remain comfortable in her religious beliefs.

If this were government policy, would you defend it that way?

To keep pay up by reducing competition, hairdressers' unions have persuaded some states to make it illegal to hairdress for money unless you go to barber college and take a thousand hours of lessons in cutting hair. These laws are enforced even against professional hair-braiders who don't cut hair. (It's even more absurd -- barber colleges typically don't even offer hair-braiding classes -- but let's not go there.) In Sikhism it's considered a sin to cut hair -- hair is a gift from God or something. So suppose a Sikh wants to make a living braiding other womens' hair for them. She complains to you that the government ordered her boss at the braid salon to fire her unless she goes and practices haircutting for a thousand hours. Would you say to her "Does your religion *require* you to be a hair braider? If you want to braid your friends' hair, you can refuse to perform whatever hair services you want, but if you want to hold down a job at a company that's under the aegis of the State then that’s a bit different. You would only be *forced* to violate your religious beliefs if your religion requires you to have a hair braiding job. If you don’t want to learn skills that may conflict with your values you always have the option to not sell a similar service on the open market and remain comfortable in your religious beliefs."?

 

[Jarhyn]

So how would you judge the case if an evidently Jewish guy in a yarmulke met with a Palestinian-American website designer and asked her to design a website proclaiming "The West Bank rightfully belongs to the [blank]s, so all the [blank]s there should either quit fighting about it and submit to [blank] rule, or else clear out.", and the website designer deduced how the blanks were going to get filled in and refused to do the job, so the wannabe customer sued her?

Yes. Quite. Which is why nobody, Jew or Palestinian, ought be making cakes going anywhere near the topic of ownership of the west bank, or getting into any politically sticky waters.

If they would make a cake stating "The West Bank rightfully belongs to the [blank]s, so all the [blank]s there should either quit fighting about it and submit to [blank] rule, or else clear out." for a Jew, they must make "The West Bank rightfully belongs to the [blank]s, so all the [blank]s there should either quit fighting about it and submit to [blank] rule, or else clear out." for anyone.

Making a statement for someone is a liability, which is why most people wouldn't do it for  anyone, because it opens a door to exactly this kind of demand for universal access.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Does this woman’s religion *require* her to run a business? If she wants to make websites for her friends she can do that all she wants and refuse whoever she wants. If she wants to run a business of public accommodation under the aegis of the State then that’s a bit different. She would only be *forced* to violate her religious beliefs if her religion requires her business. If she doesn’t want to sell products that may conflict with her values she always has the option to not sell those products on the open market and remain comfortable in her religious beliefs.

How far would you push that style of reasoning? Any other ways of making a living you'd apply it to, or is it only running a business that gets the your-religion-doesn't-require-you-to treatment?

Suppose the government decides to deal with its backlog of cases by keeping the courts open on Saturdays, and to keep things moving, it requires all lawyers to work six days a week. If some lawyer isn't willing to represent her client on a Saturday, well, does this woman’s religion *require* her to practice law? If she wants to give advice to her friends five days a week she can do that all she wants and refuse whenever she wants. But if she wants to take paying clients and represent them in court under the aegis of the State Bar then that's a bit different. She would only be *forced* to violate her religious beliefs if her religion requires her to be a lawyer. If she doesn’t want to sell a service that may conflict with her Sabbath she always has the option to not sell that service on the open market and remain comfortable in her religious beliefs.

If this were government policy, would you defend it that way?

To keep pay up by reducing competition, hairdressers' unions have persuaded some states to make it illegal to hairdress for money unless you go to barber college and take a thousand hours of lessons in cutting hair. These laws are enforced even against professional hair-braiders who don't cut hair. (It's even more absurd -- barber colleges typically don't even offer hair-braiding classes -- but let's not go there.) In Sikhism it's considered a sin to cut hair -- hair is a gift from God or something. So suppose a Sikh wants to make a living braiding other womens' hair for them. She complains to you that the government ordered her boss at the braid salon to fire her unless she goes and practices haircutting for a thousand hours. Would you say to her "Does your religion *require* you to be a hair braider? If you want to braid your friends' hair, you can refuse to perform whatever hair services you want, but if you want to hold down a job at a company that's under the aegis of the State then that’s a bit different. You would only be *forced* to violate your religious beliefs if your religion requires you to have a hair braiding job. If you don’t want to learn skills that may conflict with your values you always have the option to not sell a similar service on the open market and remain comfortable in your religious beliefs."?

I don't find your comparisons compelling, for two reasons:

1) it puts discriminating against gay people on par with Jews celebrating the Sabbath and Sikhs not cutting hair as a legitimate *exercise* of religion. If Christians want to admit that bigotry against gays is a tenet of their religion then maybe we're getting somewhere with their honesty and I'd be more open to that argument. I still think the better comparison is to my billboard company not wanting to serve a Christian customer requiring "Jesus is Lord" on their billboard because it happens to be something I don't agree with, rather than it being a direct interference with the *exercise* of my religion.


2) the laws you are proposing are a) not likely to happen, and b) would not serve the same legislative purpose as an anti-discrimination law. So, I think the arguments against compliance with the law in the face of potential violations of religious freedom are not compatible with the current case.

I'm sure there's lots of case law about the "exercise" clause of the First Amendment that I'm unfamiliar with, so perhaps the courts have already worked through these arguments and come to some conclusion about what constitutes infringement on the exercise of religion, but I have my personal opinion on the matter, which could certainly differ from that of the courts. This woman can still pray the way she wants, go to church all she wants, celebrate any holiday she wants, exercise her religion all she wants.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This woman can still pray the way she wants, go to church all she wants, celebrate any holiday she wants, exercise her religion all she wants.

Just so the black people give her a seat if she needs one and remember to sit in the back of the bus, among other things.