SCOTUS gay rights case

[Elixir]

Great opportunity!
Someone should create an ai political bias detector that could be installed on commercial printers. A dial (touchscreen) lets the owner of the machine select what biases to print or refuse to print. An upcharge gets you the religion sniffer module!

 

[Toni]

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?

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? Or that violates my aesthetic sense?

If I’m selling stuff off the shelf, then I should not be able to discriminate against any customer regardless of what they are wearing or who they are married to or what kind of sticker is on their vehicle.

But I should not be forced to create a cake in flavors I don’t like to use ( say, licorice cakes or root beer frosting) or that espouse ideas I find distasteful ir immoral. I should not be required to write on a cake the words Fuck Ted Cruz or Johnny is a Big Fat Sissy or Next Time Traitors Burn The Place Down!

I should not be required to decorate with swastikas or crosses or menorahs. If I decorate with sugar roses, I am not required to decorate with sugar jonquils. Or a dog taking a chocolate dump.

It is not my duty to provide whatever service someone wishes if I feel it would violate my my aesthetics, violate my sensibilities about what is offensive or that would reflect poorly on my brand or it it is outside the scope of my skill set or or services offered.

It is not my duty to offer a requested service in order to save the customer a drive they do not wish to make.

I could and should be required to write Congratulations Chuck and Jake if I would write Congratulations Christine and Jake.

There are limits to what one can or should be able to ask someone to create for them.

The key word is create. Not sell. Create.


After all, we do not require novelists to write books for any and all types of person or an artist to paint any type of painting.

Photographers and bakers and other creators are just that: creators. Not merchants.

 

[Bomb#20]

We can all read his church's scriptures and see how homophobic they are and how seriously they take obedience to their imagined god's rules about religious rites. But there's nothing in those scriptures or in the traditions of Christianity suggesting their god would have a problem with black people getting married. So if some other baker were ever to claim black marriages are prohibited in his faith, the rest of us would have no trouble figuring out he's lying. Such a guy obviously objects to the people themselves, not to the informational content of the event they're holding.

We cannot know whether it is his religion drives his homophobia or if he is using religion to justify his homophobia.

Nobody said which drives which is legally relevant. What's legally relevant is the difference between objecting to the customer and objecting to the message.

 

[Metaphor]

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?

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? Or that violates my aesthetic sense?

If I’m selling stuff off the shelf, then I should not be able to discriminate against any customer regardless of what they are wearing or who they are married to or what kind of sticker is on their vehicle.

But I should not be forced to create a cake in flavors I don’t like to use ( say, licorice cakes or root beer frosting) or that espouse ideas I find distasteful ir immoral. I should not be required to write on a cake the words Fuck Ted Cruz or Johnny is a Big Fat Sissy or Next Time Traitors Burn The Place Down!

I should not be required to decorate with swastikas or crosses or menorahs. If I decorate with sugar roses, I am not required to decorate with sugar jonquils. Or a dog taking a chocolate dump.

It is not my duty to provide whatever service someone wishes if I feel it would violate my my aesthetics, violate my sensibilities about what is offensive or that would reflect poorly on my brand or it it is outside the scope of my skill set or or services offered.

It is not my duty to offer a requested service in order to save the customer a drive they do not wish to make.

I could and should be required to write Congratulations Chuck and Jake if I would write Congratulations Christine and Jake.

There are limits to what one can or should be able to ask someone to create for them.

The key word is create. Not sell. Create.


After all, we do not require novelists to write books for any and all types of person or an artist to paint any type of painting.

Photographers and bakers and other creators are just that: creators. Not merchants.

I double and triple and quadruple checked this post. Written by Toni, and I agree with nearly all of it. Astonishing.

 

[Toni]

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?

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? Or that violates my aesthetic sense?

If I’m selling stuff off the shelf, then I should not be able to discriminate against any customer regardless of what they are wearing or who they are married to or what kind of sticker is on their vehicle.

But I should not be forced to create a cake in flavors I don’t like to use ( say, licorice cakes or root beer frosting) or that espouse ideas I find distasteful ir immoral. I should not be required to write on a cake the words Fuck Ted Cruz or Johnny is a Big Fat Sissy or Next Time Traitors Burn The Place Down!

I should not be required to decorate with swastikas or crosses or menorahs. If I decorate with sugar roses, I am not required to decorate with sugar jonquils. Or a dog taking a chocolate dump.

It is not my duty to provide whatever service someone wishes if I feel it would violate my my aesthetics, violate my sensibilities about what is offensive or that would reflect poorly on my brand or it it is outside the scope of my skill set or or services offered.

It is not my duty to offer a requested service in order to save the customer a drive they do not wish to make.

I could and should be required to write Congratulations Chuck and Jake if I would write Congratulations Christine and Jake.

There are limits to what one can or should be able to ask someone to create for them.

The key word is create. Not sell. Create.


After all, we do not require novelists to write books for any and all types of person or an artist to paint any type of painting.

Photographers and bakers and other creators are just that: creators. Not merchants.

I double and triple and quadruple checked this post. Written by Toni, and I agree with nearly all of it. Astonishing.

Even stopped clocks are right twice a day.

 

[laughing dog]

Nobody said which drives which is legally relevant.

You brought the religion in your example.

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

 

[laughing dog]

Photographers and bakers and other creators are just that: creators. Not merchants.

Creators who sell their products are also merchants.

 

[Metaphor]

Photographers and bakers and other creators are just that: creators. Not merchants.

Creators who sell their products are also merchants.

The creation and the selling are different acts. Creators have the right to say 'I will not create this for you'. At least, they ought have that right.

 

[Metaphor]

Anyone here think sex workers have no right to refuse clients based on the 'protected characteristics' of the clients?

 

[ZiprHead]

While I can't speak for all bakeries and photographers, bakeries usually have a catalog of their cake designs the customer chooses from. The same with photographers, they have pre-planned packages to choose from. While a small amount of customization is allowed (name on a cake), a full custom job is a rarity and it's easy for the baker/photographer to say no. "If it's not on the menu, we don't offer it."

 

[Toni]

Photographers and bakers and other creators are just that: creators. Not merchants.

Creators who sell their products are also merchants.

Sure. So is Sir Paul McCarthy. That doesn't mean that I can just ring him up and demand he compose an ode to my beauty. Or in praise of Hitler.

Note: Once an item is created for general sale (as opposed to a commissioned piece of whatever, I don't believe a merchant/artist should be able to refuse to sell it to whoever wishes to purchase it. A baker should be not allowed to refuse to sell a cake that says Happy Birthday to whatever customer wishes to purchase it with the exception being for items baked on commission.

 

[Toni]

While I can't speak for all bakeries and photographers, bakeries usually have a catalog of their cake designs the customer chooses from. The same with photographers, they have pre-planned packages to choose from. While a small amount of customization is allowed (name on a cake), a full custom job is a rarity and it's easy for the baker/photographer to say no. "If it's not on the menu, we don't offer it."

EXACTLY my point! Or it should be easy and legal for them to say so. But if it's on the menu, they should be required to sell it even if they don't like the Nazi tattoo or the dreds or the manbun or the color of someone's skin or religious symbol they are wearing, or who their spouse is, etc. They should not be required to write say, Nazi slogans or God is Dead or such.

 

[laughing dog]

Photographers and bakers and other creators are just that: creators. Not merchants.

Creators who sell their products are also merchants.

Sure. So is Sir Paul McCarthy. That doesn't mean that I can just ring him up and demand he compose an ode to my beauty. Or in praise of Hitler.

Sir McCarthy doesn’t sell songs on demand. If he sold odes to beauty on demand in the USA, he ought not be able to refuse to create one for blue eyed people while creating them for green eyed people.

Note: Once an item is created for general sale (as opposed to a commissioned piece of whatever, I don't believe a merchant/artist should be able to refuse to sell it to whoever wishes to purchase it. A baker should be not allowed to refuse to sell a cake that says Happy Birthday to whatever customer wishes to purchase it with the exception being for items baked on commission.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Toni]

Photographers and bakers and other creators are just that: creators. Not merchants.

Creators who sell their products are also merchants.

Sure. So is Sir Paul McCarthy. That doesn't mean that I can just ring him up and demand he compose an ode to my beauty. Or in praise of Hitler.

Sir McCarthy doesn’t sell songs on demand. If he sold odes to beauty on demand in the USA, he ought not be able to refuse to create one for blue eyed people while creating them for green eyed people.

Note: Once an item is created for general sale (as opposed to a commissioned piece of whatever, I don't believe a merchant/artist should be able to refuse to sell it to whoever wishes to purchase it. A baker should be not allowed to refuse to sell a cake that says Happy Birthday to whatever customer wishes to purchase it with the exception being for items baked on commission.

[/QUOTE]
no, Sir Paul doesn’ t sell songs on demand but I suspect he is within his rights to decline to compose a song on demand regardless of the reason. He has the right to creative expression. As do all song writers, novelists, poets, artists, bakers, designers, etc.

 

[laughing dog]

no, Sir Paul doesn’ t sell songs on demand but I suspect he is within his rights to decline to compose a song on demand regardless of the reason.

Since he doesn’t sell songs on demand, of course he can decline to sell one.

If he did sell them on demand, it would be more complicated.

 

[bilby]

Personally, I prefer Paul McCartney's songs to those of Paul McCarthy.

McCartney's sculptures are distinctly inferior to those of McCarthy though, so I guess it's a wash.

As a native of Salt Lake City, and therefore a non-Commonwealth realm citizen, I am fairly sure that Paul McCarthy isn't eligible for the honorific 'Sir'; Should he be knighted, he would instead be permitted to use KBE after his name to indicate that honour.

In any case, 'Sir' never precedes a surname, always a first name (eg "Sir Paul"), or a full name (eg "Sir Paul McCartney"). "Sir McCartney" is simply incorrect protocol.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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? Or that violates my aesthetic sense?

For the most part I agree with what you're saying, but

But I should not be forced to create a cake in flavors I don’t like to use ( say, licorice cakes or root beer frosting) or that espouse ideas I find distasteful ir immoral. I should not be required to write on a cake the words Fuck Ted Cruz or Johnny is a Big Fat Sissy or Next Time Traitors Burn The Place Down!

But I disagree on the last part. Writing on a cake is not a creative thing, I don't believe you should be allowed to censor what someone wants written on a cake.

I could and should be required to write Congratulations Chuck and Jake if I would write Congratulations Christine and Jake.

And note that this is directly contradictory to your other requirement.

There are limits to what one can or should be able to ask someone to create for them.

The key word is create. Not sell. Create.


After all, we do not require novelists to write books for any and all types of person or an artist to paint any type of painting.

Exactly--which is my point about things that require creativity.

Photographers and bakers and other creators are just that: creators. Not merchants.

But note that not everything they do requires creativity even though they are creative professions. I believe the protection should be strong but only when they are actually engaged in creativity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Photographers and bakers and other creators are just that: creators. Not merchants.

Creators who sell their products are also merchants.

But we are talking about whether they can be required to create a specific item to sell.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

It is indicative that the Constitution was primarily interested in assuming priority to the rights provided to the individual (the term individual has expanded since the founding). A company is a piece of paper. It exists in a bureaucratic hemisphere.

Yes! Exactly!

All of these cases are about the constitutional rights of some individual. When I wrote "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?", I was talking about the constitution's protection of an individual, Ms. Smith. But you replied "Corporations are afforded no specific protections under the Constitution.", as if what's at issue were just a piece of paper and not a person. That was you treating that piece of paper as existing more than in a bureaucratic hemisphere. That was you proposing that a Constitution which is interested in the rights provided to Ms. Smith can be just waved away by some bureaucrat pointing at a piece of paper the Constitution isn't remotely interested in.

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.

You are hiding in the obfuscated folds of technicalities (much as we expect SCOTUS to do) instead of answering the question.

I addressed your questions; you ducked mine. Is canceling people's First Amendment rights whenever the government claims what they say is "corporate speech", with all that that entails, really how you think the law should work?

How far does a gay couple have to drive to get a wedding cake before those restrictions being placed upon them by companies is deemed unconstitutional?

Is that the question you mean I'm hiding* from? Easy question. Infinity. The Constitution is a list of restrictions on the federal and state governments, not a list of restrictions on the people. The Constitution never says anything private citizens do to one another is unconstitutional.

(* That's not the question you asked. You asked "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?" Those questions were sufficiently addressed by my pointing out "corporation" was a red herring. Besides which, nobody is claiming businesses should get to do those things. Leftists have the strangest notions about who is forcing whom -- this dispute is about buyers' right to force sellers, not vice versa. And there are laws against collusion.)

We've already addressed this with African American Civil Rights. There is this untrue preconception that these pro-gay discrimination arguments are "different" than the ones used to support pro-black discrimination.

Nobody here is making a pro-gay discrimination argument. You might as well claim the sheriff stopping the posse from hanging the outlaw is "pro-cattle-rustling". It would be good if people didn't discriminate against gay weddings. It would also be good if people didn't advocate treating the Constitution like birdcage paper every time it protects the rights of someone at the bottom of the progressive stack. I don't agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it; should I hold myself to a lower standard in the case of Ms. Smith because you outrank her?

As for whether the arguments are different, I don't recall anyone in the 60s claiming it was okay to exclude black people from lunch counters because a sandwich is an artwork; feel free to produce a quote.

These arguments aren't different, aren't new, aren't correct or Constitutional (in a US without a pro-Dred Scot decision SCOTUS). We've been here, done that.

Show your work. Which SCOTUS case upheld a law requiring an author or artist to write or create on behalf of a cause he opposes?

Why is there this desire to prioritize the withholding of the privilege to commerce to particular individuals, over those individuals' rights to privileges to commerce in America?

If rulers are allowed to simply ignore the law whenever it doesn't authorize whatever they want to do, they will. It's the SCOTUS's job to not let them. When statutory rights trump constitutional rights we no longer have rule-of-law.

 

[Bomb#20]

This whole case is bull... A religious organization sought out a plaintiff. The plaintiff itself has never had a web design business. ...

It's called a "test case". These are a well-established component of our adversarial legal system -- they allow important legal questions to be answered without having to put anyone at risk who didn't volunteer. The Scopes Monkey Trial was a test case. "The trial was deliberately staged in order to attract publicity to the small town of Dayton, Tennessee, where it was held. Scopes was unsure whether he had ever actually taught evolution, but he incriminated himself deliberately so the case could have a defendant."