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

[Nakosis]

I think we have to be careful tossing the word "moral" around. Most laws are based on some kind of morality. What it comes down to is what the majority wants to allow and not allow, decided by the democratic process. How many people do you know that want murder to be legal? The problems we are seeing now are caused by a certain minority gaining enough political power to force their morality on to the majority. And even there it's easy to find examples where the minority has been shown to be right, or at least to have won. Slavery is an example.

Yes, slavery is an example of what can happen by allowing the government to enforce moral ideals.

Myself, I'm a moral relativist. While I might agree with you on morals, I respect the right of folks to think differently from myself. However lets try to limit government enforcement just in case those folks thinking differently get into power.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Back to the good old days of Separate but Equal is a Republican wet dream.

More like Separate and Unequal.

 

[Sand Dancer]

So, if you are a business owner, you are now legally allowed to discriminate against people as long as that discrimination is NOT directed at someone's protected status. Since political affiliation is not a protected class, I think every progressive business owner should now stop serving anyone wearing MAGA paraphernalia or who supports Republican candidates. This might create a situation where MAGAts have to go into 'the closet' in order to get any service. That would be delicious irony.

MAGA needs a doctor? Go try to find a MAGA doctor! Good luck with that.

Why is religion a protected status? It's a choice, not an innate quality.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I rather not let the government get in the business of forcing privately owned business who they have to have to do business with as long as the same service of product is available elsewhere. With some, IMO, necessary exceptions.

Would you want a Gay website designer be force to create a Christian website extolling the virtues of heterosexual marriage?
Or would you whether enslave the LGBTQ+ community into the service of Christian right-wingers?

Most LGBT people don't care if someone is heterosexual. They don't find it immoral, just not their bag of chips.

 

[Nakosis]

Most LGBT people don't care if someone is heterosexual. They don't find it immoral, just not their bag of chips.

But they do seem to care about some Christian values which they find immoral.

 

[Copernicus]

I think we have to be careful tossing the word "moral" around. Most laws are based on some kind of morality. What it comes down to is what the majority wants to allow and not allow, decided by the democratic process. How many people do you know that want murder to be legal? The problems we are seeing now are caused by a certain minority gaining enough political power to force their morality on to the majority. And even there it's easy to find examples where the minority has been shown to be right, or at least to have won. Slavery is an example.

It is true that laws seem to be based on morality, because historically they always were intertwined with religion. Secular government tries to distinguish the two in that laws have to have some identifiable concrete civic purpose and benefit. Murder is immoral, but there is also an argument that deterring people from committing murders has desirable social benefits in general. Eating pork might be considered a sin by some people of religious faith, but that is no reason per se to ban its consumption by others. What would be the benefit to society outside of just those who consider it a sin? Another example: what would be the civic argument for preventing everyone from working on the sabbath? For starters, whose sabbath are we talking about?

So we consider homosexuality in that light. What is the civic harm caused by same sex relationships and marriages? What is the injury to others? The Supreme Court is supposed to look at these matters from the perspective of what the Constitution and statutory laws allow, not the morality of same sex marriages. Those marriages are regulated as civil contracts, and there are laws governing how spouses and their offspring can be treated in the eyes of the law, not the temple or the church. It's just that the supermajority on this Court seems to be trying hard to find excuses to treat morality as the grounds on which laws are based, and not just your sense of morality. It is their sense of morality.

 

[Sand Dancer]

But they do seem to care about some Christian values which they find immoral.

Which?

 

[Nakosis]

Which?

If there is not, then what is the problem with this ruling?
If it is a non-issue than why are we talking about it?

 

[Copernicus]

If there is not, then what is the problem with this ruling?
If it is a non-issue than why are we talking about it?

The ruling has nothing to do with religion. It is a free speech ruling. As a web site designer, you do not have to design web sites for Nazis. That Colorado law required that businesses could not deny services to certain protected minorities, which Nazis are not. Gay people are protected. So the Court ruled that a web provider could treat gay couples like Nazis. That is, they didn't have to design a web site for them, if they considered their service to advertise something the designer disagreed with and thought was wrong--same sex marriage in this case. Of course, they should have waited for an actual case of a same sex couple wanting the service and the state law forcing the designer to provide it, but time was short, and the conservative supermajority really wanted to strike a blow at that Colorado law that they didn't like. So now businesses cannot be forced to provide services for protected minorities, if the business feels it is being forced to advertise things they don't want to be forced to advertise. Freedom of speech, not just religious freedom, is a weapon that can be used to limit antidiscrimination laws.

I do wonder what would happen if a web designer in Colorado who opposes interracial marriage claimed that it would not design wedding sites for mixed-race weddings. I wonder how Clarence Thomas would thread that needle.

 

[Alien826]

It is true that laws seem to be based on morality, because historically they always were intertwined with religion. Secular government tries to distinguish the two in that laws have to have some identifiable concrete civic purpose and benefit. Murder is immoral, but there is also an argument that deterring people from committing murders has desirable social benefits in general. Eating pork might be considered a sin by some people of religious faith, but that is no reason per se to ban its consumption by others. What would be the benefit to society outside of just those who consider it a sin? Another example: what would be the civic argument for preventing everyone from working on the sabbath? For starters, whose sabbath are we talking about?

So we consider homosexuality in that light. What is the civic harm caused by same sex relationships and marriages? What is the injury to others? The Supreme Court is supposed to look at these matters from the perspective of what the Constitution and statutory laws allow, not the morality of same sex marriages. Those marriages are regulated as civil contracts, and there are laws governing how spouses and their offspring can be treated in the eyes of the law, not the temple or the church. It's just that the supermajority on this Court seems to be trying hard to find excuses to treat morality as the grounds on which laws are based, and not just your sense of morality. It is their sense of morality.

You seem to be putting morality under the general umbrella of religion, which, though some theists seem to think it is, very much isn't. If you pick some examples, it can be seen that many religious "rules" are common sense things that society would have developed anyway (and probably did, it's hard to see which came first in many cases). My point is that most laws are intended to improve the general benefit, and I'd call that a moral objective. This may just be semantics though.

I agree with what you say about religious based rules though, which should be left to religious people to obey or disobey.

 

[Nakosis]

The ruling has nothing to do with religion. It is a free speech ruling. As a web site designer, you do not have to design web sites for Nazis. That Colorado law required that businesses could not deny services to certain protected minorities, which Nazis are not. Gay people are protected. So the Court ruled that a web provider could treat gay couples like Nazis. That is, they didn't have to design a web site for them, if they considered their service to advertise something the designer disagreed with and thought was wrong--same sex marriage in this case. Of course, they should have waited for an actual case of a same sex couple wanting the service and the state law forcing the designer to provide it, but time was short, and the conservative supermajority really wanted to strike a blow at that Colorado law that they didn't like. So now businesses cannot be forced to provide services for protected minorities, if the business feels it is being forced to advertise things they don't want to be forced to advertise. Freedom of speech, not just religious freedom, is a weapon that can be used to limit antidiscrimination laws.

Yes, limited to not exceed the rights anyone else has, like the NAZIs. IOW, they can't be discriminated against nor can they receive special privileges not afforded equally to every other US citizen.

I do wonder what would happen if a web designer in Colorado who opposes interracial marriage claimed that it would not design wedding sites for mixed-race weddings. I wonder how Clarence Thomas would thread that needle.

There wouldn't be an issue I'd think since inter-racially married couples is not a protected minority. Although California might have some law about non-discrimination against marital status. So it could possibly come up again, state vs Fed.

So yes, everyone is afforded the right to free speech equally. Not even having the status of a protected minority can supersede that right.

 

[F1fan]

I come from the position that all speech needs to be protected (unless causing direct harm) even if I disagree with it.

What do you mean by direct harm? Do you think a truck of racists driving by the home of black people celebrating a graduation and yelling insults and threats is direct harm or indirect harm or not harm?

That you single out "direct harm" suggests there are forms of harm you think are acceptable as a result of speech?

This is why I believe your position is wrong, and mine is right.

Your position is incomplete and has some questionable limits. Mine defers to the rights of citizens to not be harrassed.

 

[Kfox]

What do you mean by direct harm? Do you think a truck of racists driving by the home of black people celebrating a graduation and yelling insults and threats is direct harm or indirect harm or not harm?

No. Direct harm is yelling "Fire"! in a crowded Movie theater causing people to get trampled in the process. Someone insulting you in public is not direct harm.

That you single out "direct harm" suggests there are forms of harm you think are acceptable as a result of speech?

Yes. If I call you a bad name, that might hurt your feelings, but there should not be a law against it.

Your position is incomplete and has some questionable limits. Mine defers to the rights of citizens to not be harrassed.

To what end? Where do you draw the line concerning this idea of outlawing harassment?

 

[F1fan]

No. Direct harm is yelling "Fire"! in a crowded Movie theater causing people to get trampled in the process. Someone insulting you in public is not direct harm.

What if no one is trampled? How is yelling "fire" direct harm, but racists yelling at a black familiy enjoying a family celebration and ruining it, not?

You seem to be limiting "harm" to physical harm only, not emotional or psychological. Is that accurate?

Yes. If I call you a bad name, that might hurt your feelings, but there should not be a law against it.

So you don't think that family members who are verbally abused can't seek legal remedy?

To what end? Where do you draw the line concerning this idea of outlawing harassment?

Are you aware of hate crimes? Do you think families being harassed shouldn't have legal recourse like restraining orders? What about women being harassed at work, is that allowable?

To my mind everyone should have the liberty to live their lives without harassment by anyone, unless they are doing something to provoke others. There is a legal principle called the right to quiet enjoyment, and that means that a person living in their home can expect a reasonable amount to quiet. So if neighbors have parties until late playing load music the police can be called to protect the liberty of quiet enjoyment. Not having to endure harassment is a related right.

 

[crossfire]

Gorsuch wrote that "Colorado seeks to enforce an individual to speak in a way that align with its views but defy her conscience and a matter of major significance."

Is design really speech? Is bigotry a matter of conscience?

You can do general design for mass-market or you can do personalized, one-of-a-kind design. If you are doing personalized, one-of-a-kind design, it is probably a good idea to work to have a compatible designer-client relationship. Forcing a personalized designer to pair with an incompatible client is going to lead to bad design, which is not good for the designer, nor is it good for the client. Personalized designers often network with other personalized designers, and will refer incompatible clients out to other designers.

 

[F1fan]

You can do general design for mass-market or you can do personalized, one-of-a-kind design. If you are doing personalized, one-of-a-kind design, it is probably a good idea to work to have a compatible designer-client relationship. Forcing a personalized designer to pair with an incompatible client is going to lead to bad design, which is not good for the designer, nor is it good for the client. Personalized designers often network with other personalized designers, and will refer incompatible clients out to other designers.

This is where professionalism comes into play. Most any service industry is going to serve people who do questionable things, or who aren't nice people, but professionalism means rising about the personal. I did web design back in the 90s and I can't see how a client makes much of a difference to my ability to provide excellent work. Heck if my sister was getting married to a total jerk I hated and they asked me to do their web site I'd not have any trouble providing the work. I hate the ****er, but I'm being asked for a service, and service is something we are obligated to provide to others, not be selfish 'it's all about me, so screw you'.

These people providing public services need to understand they offer a service. Those who prejudice against gays are bigots, and not professional by letting their negative qualities interfere.

And still, the whole conscience thing by Gorsuch is idealistic. Being bigoted against gays is not conscience, it's learned. Toxic Christianity has a lot to do with it. And now many people will be harmed.

 

[We Never Know]

This is where professionalism comes into play. Most any service industry is going to serve people who do questionable things, or who aren't nice people, but professionalism means rising about the personal. I did web design back in the 90s and I can't see how a client makes much of a difference to my ability to provide excellent work. Heck if my sister was getting married to a total jerk I hated and they asked me to do their web site I'd not have any trouble providing the work.

These people providing public services need to understand they offer a service. Those who prejudice against gays are bigots, and not professional by letting their negative qualities interfere.

And still, the whole conscience thing by Gorsuch is idealistic. Being bigoted against gays is not conscience, it's learned. Toxic Christianity has a lot to do with it. And now many people will be harmed.

Should a gay person providing a public service be forced to create a website for a devout christian that wants to blog about how homosexuality is wrong and a abomination?

 

[Kfox]

What if no one is trampled?

The person yelling did not know if anyone would be hurt or not. That’s like asking if its okay to shoot a gun at someone if you missed

How is yelling "fire" direct harm, but racists yelling at a black familiy enjoying a family celebration and ruining it, not?

Where do you draw the line? How about if the person yelling is not racist, he’s just angry at the black person? How about if they are of the same race? How about if he doesn’t yell, but he has an angry tone because he is angry? Should we just outlaw anger?

You seem to be limiting "harm" to physical harm only, not emotional or psychological. Is that accurate?

In public? Yes.

So you don't think that family members who are verbally abused can't seek legal remedy?

That depends on the abuse and how it is done. Family members might be a captured audience so that is different than just some jerk that you have the freedom to walk away from.

Are you aware of hate crimes? Do you think families being harassed shouldn't have legal recourse like restraining orders? What about women being harassed at work, is that allowable?

Employers have a responsibility to provide a safe work environment for employees.

To my mind everyone should have the liberty to live their lives without harassment by anyone, unless they are doing something to provoke others.

Really? So if you are giving a speech to a thousand people, you must deliver that speech in a way that not a single person in the audience is offended? That’s impossible; nobody has a right to live their lives free of offense. The possibility of offense is the price you pay for living around other people.

There is a legal principle called the right to quiet enjoyment, and that means that a person living in their home can expect a reasonable amount to quiet. So if neighbors have parties until late playing load music the police can be called to protect the liberty of quiet enjoyment.

That’s different. In my home, I have a right to not be offended. I was talking about when in public.

 

[F1fan]

Should a gay person providing a public service be forced to create a website for a devout christian that wants to blog about how homosexuality is wrong and a abomination?

I doubt it will be a problem for a mature professional.

Let's note that I deny clients all the time, I don't have time for them. I don't understand how anyone is being forced. What it sounds like to me is that many Christian extremists will openly reject gays as a message to gays. They could just say they are too busy, and refer someone else. Why to tactless need to insult gays? Cruelty is the point.

 

[We Never Know]

I doubt it will be a problem for a mature professional.

Let's note that I deny clients all the time, I don't have time for them. I don't understand how anyone is being forced. What it sounds like to me is that many Christian extremists will openly reject gays as a message to gays. They could just say they are too busy, and refer someone else. Why to tactless need to insult gays? Cruelty is the point.

Nice dance around but you avoided answering my question.