SCOTUS gay rights case

[Oleg]

If you are a gay web site designer and is asked to design an anti gay site for Christian extremists should you be legally compelled to do so?

If you are a black sculptor should you be legally required to create a statue of Robert E Lee for a white supremacist?

Yes no questions.

I say no.

It's about compelled speech. The whole point of the the 1st Amendment and free speech is to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech needs no protection. If a baker is forced to make a bespoke cake with a message he disagrees with, then social media platforms can't ban users for political message either.

Bespoke cake? Where the heck do you people come up with this stuff? Cakes aren't speech. Wedding cakes often lack any text at all. No one in the US has ever looked at a Wedding Cake and thought, "Man, the baker must truly approve of this marriage."

Every wedding cake is a bespoke cake unless you get a generic one from the local grocery.

Every cake is "bespoke" if ordered. That isn't relevant as to whether someone is allowed to deny arbitrary customers service.

Oh, Motte and Bailey, you. This isn't about a burger place saying that Scientologists can't come in for lunch. This is about forcing a person to make a product with a political message that the person disagrees with. You and me probably wouldn't care; we'd just want the sale. But free speech and the 1st Amendment means we can't be forced to do it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Every cake is "bespoke" if ordered. That isn't relevant as to whether someone is allowed to deny arbitrary customers service.

Oh, Motte and Bailey, you. This isn't about a burger place saying that Scientologists can't come in for lunch. This is about forcing a person to make a product with a political message that the person disagrees with.

Marriage isn't political.

You and me probably wouldn't care; we'd just want the sale. But free speech and the 1st Amendment means we can't be forced to do it.

So don't have to sell to a black couple then? Where is the line between expression and violating civil rights?

 

[laughing dog]

So if I am a Jewish sculptor and a Neo Nazi wants to hire me to make a statute of Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler I can not refuse?

If the Jewish sculptor makes statues of Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler, they would be required by law to sell them to Neo Nazis too. Why is this so hard to understand?

Exactly. This is not rocket science.

If you are a gay web site designer and is asked to design an anti gay site for Christian extremists should you be legally compelled to do so?

If you are a black sculptor should you be legally required to create a statue of Robert E Lee for a white supremacist?

Yes no questions.

I say no.

If you are gay web site designer and are asked to design a hetero

If you are a gay web site designer and is asked to design an anti gay site for Christian extremists should you be legally compelled to do so?

If you are a black sculptor should you be legally required to create a statue of Robert E Lee for a white supremacist?

Yes no questions.

I say no.

It's about compelled speech. The whole point of the the 1st Amendment and free speech is to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech needs no protection. If a baker is forced to make a bespoke cake with a message he disagrees with, then social media platforms can't ban users for political message either.

Bespoke cake? Where the heck do you people come up with this stuff? Cakes aren't speech. Wedding cakes often lack any text at all. No one in the US has ever looked at a Wedding Cake and thought, "Man, the baker must truly approve of this marriage."

Every wedding cake is a bespoke cake unless you get a generic one from the local grocery.

Every cake is "bespoke" if ordered. That isn't relevant as to whether someone is allowed to deny arbitrary customers service.

Oh, Motte and Bailey, you. This isn't about a burger place saying that Scientologists can't come in for lunch. This is about forcing a person to make a product with a political message that the person disagrees with. You and me probably wouldn't care; we'd just want the sale. But free speech and the 1st Amendment means we can't be forced to do it.

Someone orders a wedding cake. The baker accepts the order. When the couple comes to pick up the cake, the baker says "No, it is against my religion to bake cakes for _______". You say that is okay. I say the 1st amendment does not protect that.

 

[TomC]

Speaking as a long time small business proprietor,

I never turned down a paying customer. If I was confident that they'd settle the bill, I'd do whatever they wanted. I might charge extra, as an aggravation fee, without bothering to tell them. But I always took care of every customer.

Part of what made that work, for me, was the simple fact that I could do whatever I wanted. I could throw the POTUS right out on his butt if I decided to do it. My store, I pay the rent, I decide what I'll do and won't do, and that's the end of it. My store, my kingdom.

I never threw anyone out. The closest I came was demanding payment before I spent any time "serving" them.

Private businesses are private.
Tom

 

[repoman]

Why does it have to be a religion that is the "reason" to say no to serving any particular customer?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If I can discriminate against someone because they are gay and because I claim it is a religious issue, then why can't I discriminate against someone who is christian, saying it is a religious issue?

Why does it have to be a religion that is the "reason" to say no to serving any particular customer?

Among some hispanics they believe that persons with red hair are witches and we know what the bible says about witches.

---

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why does it have to be a religion that is the "reason" to say no to serving any particular customer?

Because it is convenient for the SCOTUS to use as an excuse. Don't worry, it is still bigotry, but honestly held religious bigotry. I do get it though. The secular bigots are being neglected by SCOTUS here.

 

[bilby]

Marriage isn't political.

Tell that to Henry VIII

 

[Elixir]

If I can discriminate against someone because they are gay and because I claim it is a religious issue, then why can't I discriminate against someone who is christian, saying it is a religious issue?

Because no case law exists?
Give it a go ...

 

[Patooka]

Marriage isn't political.

Tell that to Henry VIII

The head of his church said it wasn't political so...

 

[Shadowy Man]

If I can discriminate against someone because they are gay and because I claim it is a religious issue, then why can't I discriminate against someone who is christian, saying it is a religious issue?

Because no case law exists?
Give it a go ...

I thought case law didn’t matter anymore.

 

[Bomb#20]

Today, SCOTUS will be deciding whether to say gays are unconstitutional. Roberts will merely want to rule that people can discriminate against other people as long as the discrimination comes from a very old dusty book. The other five justices will rule gays don't actually exist. It'll be 6-3 and our country will be a little more "free" to discriminate against people.

I get that you're playing Onion here, good clean fun. But the deeper issue here is, the constitution says the government can't discriminate; rules against private parties discriminating are just vanilla laws. But the right not to say things you don't want to say is in the constitution. So, never mind that the current makeup of the SCOTUS is appalling and it makes awful rulings. For this particular case, why do you think it would be at all reasonable for a constitutional court to rule that a vanilla law trumps the constitution? What's the point of even having a constitution if its toothless?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today, SCOTUS will be deciding whether to say gays are unconstitutional. Roberts will merely want to rule that people can discriminate against other people as long as the discrimination comes from a very old dusty book. The other five justices will rule gays don't actually exist. It'll be 6-3 and our country will be a little more "free" to discriminate against people.

I get that you're playing Onion here, good clean fun.

Not really. What I typed was barely hyperbole.

For this particular case, why do you think it would be at all reasonable for a constitutional court to rule that a vanilla law trumps the constitution? What's the point of even having a constitution if its toothless?

Corporations are afforded no specific protections under the Constitution. In fact, corporations benefit greatly in limiting liability to those who own or work for the company... to the fact that an owner can go under and still not lose all their own money. These privileges come with a price. And that includes needing to provide access to the products they sell to all comers. This is not an unreasonable requirement. We saw what happened when this wasn't a requirement. And we see what is being tried if it is allowed again.

The question is, why should a corporation be allowed to force customers to go further and further to have access to products and services? Why should corporations be allowed to work in unison and restrict access to certain services in certain counties or regions to a perceived underclass? Why should a gay couple have to drive 100 miles to get to a city to buy a wedding cake? And if restrictions are okay for gay couples, why not mixed race, mixed religion, Muslims, African Americans... etc...?

Where is line drawn between a piece paper's right to infringe on the privileges of American Citizens?

 

[laughing dog]

Today, SCOTUS will be deciding whether to say gays are unconstitutional. Roberts will merely want to rule that people can discriminate against other people as long as the discrimination comes from a very old dusty book. The other five justices will rule gays don't actually exist. It'll be 6-3 and our country will be a little more "free" to discriminate against people.

I get that you're playing Onion here, good clean fun. But the deeper issue here is, the constitution says the government can't discriminate; rules against private parties discriminating are just vanilla laws. But the right not to say things you don't want to say is in the constitution. So, never mind that the current makeup of the SCOTUS is appalling and it makes awful rulings. For this particular case, why do you think it would be at all reasonable for a constitutional court to rule that a vanilla law trumps the constitution? What's the point of even having a constitution if its toothless?

Your question assumes the issue that the vanilla law is trumping the constitution. Of course it is reasonable to uphold a law that is not violating the constitution. Those who take that view do not think the Colorado law does trump the constitution.

 

[Politesse]

If someone has a business where anybody can walk and buy something no one can be denied service. If you have a restaurant you can not deny service.

The question isn't whether what these businesses did was illegal or not (it was), but whether the Colorado law that makes it illegal is Constitutional. Do you believe that our right to free exercise of religion outweighs our right to be treated equally under the law, or not?

 

[bilby]

For this particular case, why do you think it would be at all reasonable for a constitutional court to rule that a vanilla law trumps the constitution?

It wouldn't. But they should, reasonably, rule that refusing service to a specific class of customers, is not the same as having the right not to say things you don't want to say.

Selling stuff to customers isn't saying anything about those customers. Or about anything else, for that matter.

Serving customers as part of one's business isn't a case of "speech", and to suggest that there's a constitutional issue here at all is therefore to make a category error.

 

[Bomb#20]

Corporations are afforded no specific protections under the Constitution. In fact, corporations benefit greatly in limiting liability to those who own or work for the company... to the fact that an owner can go under and still not lose all their own money. These privileges come with a price. And that includes needing to provide access to the products they sell to all comers. This is not an unreasonable requirement. We saw what happened when this wasn't a requirement. And we see what is being tried if it is allowed again.

The question is, why should a corporation be allowed to force customers to go further and further to have access to products and services? Why should corporations be allowed to work in unison and restrict access to certain services in certain counties or regions to a perceived underclass? Why should a gay couple have to drive 100 miles to get to a city to buy a wedding cake? And if restrictions are okay for gay couples, why not mixed race, mixed religion, Muslims, African Americans... etc...?

Where is line drawn between a piece paper's right to infringe on the privileges of American Citizens?

This again. Corporations are subjected to no specific penalties under the Constitution either. If you're arguing that the owners of corporations are making a bargain with the government to the effect that in exchange for limited liability they agree to forfeit their First Amendment rights, then your theory implies that while Katharine Graham may have been free to go and stand on a soapbox and read the Pentagon Papers aloud to passersby, Richard Nixon was entitled to impose prior restraint because Graham had no right to use her corporation to print 500,000 copies and sell them to the Washington Post's readership. Is that really how you think the law should work? You'd give up a free press, just for the sake of shutting down a few dickish small businesses that no rational gay customers would go to anyway unless they want a cruddy artwork the artist didn't put his heart into?

Your argument appears to be a red herring anyway -- it doesn't seem to address your issues. You say "Corporations are afforded no specific protections under the Constitution"; but would it actually make the slightest difference to your opinion on the case if Ms. Smith's business weren't incorporated? Is it okay with you for a website designer who's a sole proprietorship to decline gay wedding jobs? "Why should a gay couple have to drive 100 miles to get to a city to buy a wedding cake?", you say. Well, the cake guy wasn't incorporated, and yet you evidently want the same restrictions on him as you'd put on the incorporated web designer.

 

[Bomb#20]

For this particular case, why do you think it would be at all reasonable for a constitutional court to rule that a vanilla law trumps the constitution?

It wouldn't. But they should, reasonably, rule that refusing service to a specific class of customers, is not the same as having the right not to say things you don't want to say.

And if a gay couple came to Smith and asked her to design a website for their daughter's marriage to her boyfriend, she'd be up for it. So it's not a class of customers she's turning away; it's a type of job.

Selling stuff to customers isn't saying anything about those customers. Or about anything else, for that matter.

Serving customers as part of one's business isn't a case of "speech", and to suggest that there's a constitutional issue here at all is therefore to make a category error.

What's "speech" and what's "stuff" is a continuous spectrum. There will always be disagreement among reasonable people about where to draw that line, and of course no court's caselaw is going to satisfy everyone. I can sympathize with someone arguing that a fancy cake doesn't qualify as "speech", even though it's hard to see how that doesn't clear a bar so low that setting a flag on fire counts as "speech".

But to argue that designing a website doesn't count as speech?

 

[laughing dog]

For this particular case, why do you think it would be at all reasonable for a constitutional court to rule that a vanilla law trumps the constitution?

It wouldn't. But they should, reasonably, rule that refusing service to a specific class of customers, is not the same as having the right not to say things you don't want to say.

And if a gay couple came to Smith and asked her to design a website for their daughter's marriage to her boyfriend, she'd be up for it. So it's not a class of customers she's turning away; it's a type of job.

Selling stuff to customers isn't saying anything about those customers. Or about anything else, for that matter.

Serving customers as part of one's business isn't a case of "speech", and to suggest that there's a constitutional issue here at all is therefore to make a category error.

What's "speech" and what's "stuff" is a continuous spectrum. There will always be disagreement among reasonable people about where to draw that line, and of course no court's caselaw is going to satisfy everyone. I can sympathize with someone arguing that a fancy cake doesn't qualify as "speech", even though it's hard to see how that doesn't clear a bar so low that setting a flag on fire counts as "speech".

It isn't hard if you try. Setting a flag on fire is a protest - clearly political speech. Making ______ (fill in the blank) for money is not speech, it is commerce.

 

[ZiprHead]

This again. Corporations are subjected to no specific penalties under the Constitution either. If you're arguing that the owners of corporations are making a bargain with the government to the effect that in exchange for limited liability they agree to forfeit their First Amendment rights, then your theory implies that while Katharine Graham may have been free to go and stand on a soapbox and read the Pentagon Papers aloud to passersby, Richard Nixon was entitled to impose prior restraint because Graham had no right to use her corporation to print 500,000 copies and sell them to the Washington Post's readership. Is that really how you think the law should work? You'd give up a free press, just for the sake of shutting down a few dickish small businesses that no rational gay customers would go to anyway unless they want a cruddy artwork the artist didn't put his heart into?

Why do you keep bringing up the press in these cases? The press holds a special place in the constitution. It is not an apt analogy to someone selling goods and services.