SCOTUS rules website designer does not have to design for a gay couple.

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Supreme Court rules for website designer in case involving free speech, LGBTQ+ protections​

They did this by deciding that designing a website constitutes "speech." But I wonder, if the site is for somebody else, how can it be your speech? Are you not merely performing a technical activity to present someone else's speech on a technology that they may not have the skills to use?

 

[Revoltingest]

I side with denying government the
authority to impose compelled speech.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I side with denying government the
authority to imposed compelled speech.

I ask again, is such speech (building a website talking about a couple's journey towards love and marriage) actually speaking your own thoughts (and therefore values) or the thoughts and values of others?

 

[Revoltingest]

I ask again, is such speech (building a website talking about a couple's journey towards love and marriage) actually speaking your own thoughts (and therefore values) or the thoughts and values of others?

It would depend on who loves whom.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I side with denying government the
authority to imposed compelled speech.

It is an interesting problem. I get what you are saying, but it can also be apllied you or me as a minority, since we also hold wrong views.
In effect you can get "ghettos" of speech, because you are only allow speech if you are a member of the correct in-group.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I side with denying government the
authority to imposed compelled speech.

Would you apply this to Muslims wishing to put up a website for their Mosque? Or an interracial couple wishing for a wedding website?

 

[Revoltingest]

It is an interesting problem. I get what you are saying, but it can also be apllied you or me as a minority, since we also hold wrong views.
In effect you can get "ghettos" of speech, because you are only allow speech if you are a member of the correct in-group.

No solution is perfect.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Supreme Court rules for website designer in case involving free speech, LGBTQ+ protections​

They did this by deciding that designing a website constitutes "speech." But I wonder, if the site is for somebody else, how can it be your speech? Are you not merely performing a technical activity to present someone else's speech on a technology that they may not have the skills to use?

Does this ruling affect rendering of services in businesses such as restaurants and supermarkets, or is it only about websites?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No solution is perfect.

Yeah, it is about 2 different ideas of a civil society.

 

[Revoltingest]

Would you apply this to Muslims wishing to put up a website for their Mosque? Or an interracial couple wishing for a wedding website?

Yes & yes.
Practically speaking, each will find someone to
do the work. So the extreme measure of having
government compel speech is more onerous
than having to find an alternate service provider.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Would you apply this to Muslims wishing to put up a website for their Mosque? Or an interracial couple wishing for a wedding website?

A question I'm asking myself is whether it would also apply to a website designer refusing to make a website promulgating fundamentalist dogma and anti-LGBT speech. If it does, I can see a benefit to this ruling: it means tolerant people also have the right to refuse to enable harmful prejudice.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, it is about 2 different ideas of a civil society.

Also about having the same ideas,
but balancing competing interests
differently. I'm fine with gays marrying,
but I lean towards less governmental
power over us.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Also about having the same ideas,
but balancing competing interests
differently. I'm fine with gays marrying,
but I lean towards less governmental
power over us.

Well, it ends in 2 different ways of considering what is a public service as much as a private choice.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes & yes.
Practically speaking, each will find someone to
do the work. So the extreme measure of having
government compel speech is more onerous
than having to find an alternate service provider.

Is the ruling about the content of the website or the identity of the client?

In other words, if the evangelical web developer refused to make a website about, say, baseball news just because the client was gay, would this ruling protect the designer?

 

[F1fan]

I ask again, is such speech (building a website talking about a couple's journey towards love and marriage) actually speaking your own thoughts (and therefore values) or the thoughts and values of others?

Right. Just because it involves media and information that doesn't mean it is the ideas and intention of the designer. Is designing a dress also speech? Is designing a building speech? The designer is being hired for a job they would not do otherwise, and using data the designer does not create themselves. I think this decision is weak.

What about the speech of the client that is being infringed due to bias? Is that not prejudical harm?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is the ruling about the content of the website or the identity of the client?

That seems the wrong question.

In other words, if the evangelical web developer refused to make a website about, say, baseball news just because the client was gay, would this ruling protect the designer?

I don't know.
At the moment, I'm speaking only more generally.

 

[F1fan]

A question I'm asking myself is whether it would also apply to a website designer refusing to make a website promulgating fundamentalist dogma and anti-LGBT speech. If it does, I can see a benefit to this ruling: it means tolerant people also have the right to refuse to enable harmful prejudice.

If a designer hates cyclists and hates gays, and refuses to do work for these categories then that suggests bigotry. Why? Because cyclists and gays do not exist as groups that aim to target and harm others. If the KKK wants a website I can see refusal being justified since that group exists to harm others for who they are. Being complicit in harming others can be distressing, whereas hating cyclists is a personal bias.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That seems the wrong question.

I think it's a crucial question. If professionals are allowed to deny services to clients based on the latter's identity, this ruling may have just opened a can of worms of discrimination and division.

I don't know.
At the moment, I'm speaking only more generally.

Well, I sure hope the ruling only affects the content of websites and doesn't allow identity-based discrimination against clients.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If a designer hates cyclists and hates gays, and refuses to do work for these categories then that suggests bigotry. Why? Because cyclists and gays do not exist as groups that aim to target and harm others. If the KKK wants a website I can see refusal being justified since that group exists to harm others for who they are. Being complicit in harming others can be distressing, whereas hating cyclists is a personal bias.

I agree with you, but in a highly diverse and polarized society, I can see how agreeing on what constitutes harm, from a legal perspective, can be quite challenging in itself.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Can an evangelical doctor also refuse to perform a life-saving abortion based on personal beliefs? Per this ruling, would it be "compelled speech" for them to perform it?