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

[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.

"They could just say they are too busy"

So you would rather them lie than to be honest? Is that the way of the left?

 

[crossfire]

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.

Professionalism is also a two-way street: let the buyer beware. If you force a bigot into doing something, you can probably expect some backlash, at least commensurate to the force you applied, but more likely amplified by any mutual animosity between client and designer. You as a client might not see your force as abuse, but I as an outsider would see it as abuse. The bigoted designer most certainly will see it as abuse, which will probably reinforce their prejudice even more and give them reason to justify their bigotry. Forcing a bigot will only increase their bigotry. Hatred doesn't overcome hatred. Hatred is only overcome by non-hatred.

 

[Copernicus]

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 think that morality refers to a conventional set of behavioral rules that allow people to interact with each other safely and comfortably, and those rules are often codified in religious communities in ways that may differ from the culture the religious group is embedded in. In a secular society such as ours in the US, those arbitrary conventional rules cannot be the basis for laws. The government represents a kind of referee or arbiter between people and groups that interact with each other, but the government recognizes no particular religious set of guidelines. It guarantees freedom, but that does not mean that everyone is free to do whatever they please.

There will always be cases where one person's freedom restricts another person's freedom. So the government must decide which freedoms are more important. For example, if a shopkeeper's freedom to restrict its goods and services to just people of a certain racial or ethnic demographic, that limits the freedom of people in other demographics to get the same services as others. If the discriminatory business depends on government services--e.g. uses public roads, fire and police services, publicly regulated banks and utilities, etc.--then the government restricts the freedom of the business owners to exercise their freedom to withhold goods and services. Equal treatment for everyone necessarily denies the freedom to discriminate against certain classes of citizens.

The Colorado constitutional law against discrimination goes all the way back to the 19th century, as Colorado was one of the first states to put such a law in as its second amendment. This SCOTUS is overturning decades of precedent by ruling that freedom of speech should be able to empower discrimination against classes of citizens that are supposed to enjoy equal treatment by businesses serving the general public. Free speech has never been an absolute right in the US, and it has never before AFAIK had the power to be used as a weapon against antidiscrimination laws.

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

Up to a point. Not if they bring harm to others. Even the right of religious freedom can impinge on the rights of others, and governments exist primarily to resolve such conflicts.

 

[crossfire]

Professionalism is also a two-way street: let the buyer beware. If you force a bigot into doing something, you can probably expect some backlash, at least commensurate to the force you applied, but more likely amplified by any mutual animosity between client and designer. You as a client might not see your force as abuse, but I as an outsider would see it as abuse. The bigoted designer most certainly will see it as abuse, which will probably reinforce their prejudice even more and give them reason to justify their bigotry. Forcing a bigot will only increase their bigotry. Hatred doesn't overcome hatred. Hatred is only overcome by non-hatred.

Here is a case in point: the required or compelled {read: forced} use of preferred pronouns. Look at the huge backlash this has caused. If it had been left as considered as just being rude, most people would be tripping over themselves awkwardly for a while trying to be polite, but would eventually become more skilled at it, and with some tolerance and patience, would eventually adapt to it.

 

[PureX]

Unfortunately they are not idiots. They are intelligent people with an agenda that consider the authority of the Catholic church to be higher than that of the Constitution.

Clever idiots are still idiots. Capitalism abounds with 'em. Look at Trump.

 

[SomeRandom]

"They could just say they are too busy"

So you would rather them lie than to be honest? Is that the way of the left?

I mean, to be fair, people lie all the time.
Polite lies are a customary practice of basic business, arguably.

Hell, anyone who’s worked in retail or with the broader public can probably attest to this “white lie” portrayed for the sake of professionalism and keeping their job. I worked in a deli for years, do you honestly think that I was completely honest with every single client? When I was doing like 100 jobs at once, whilst trying to maintain legal food safety standards?
That’s what adult jobs are. You suck it up for your client. If you’re your own boss then, you have your own issues to worry about. Fair enough.

Also, ngl, outside of the US these kinds of lawsuits just serve to make US business owners look like a bunch of whining little babies throwing temper tantrums. It’s embarrassing to witness.
(Not to say these cases are unique to the US, of course they aren’t. Just as embarrassing when they happen elsewhere. Just saying, that’s the message that the PR puts out when this kind of thing happens.)

 

[We Never Know]

I mean, to be fair, people lie all the time.
Polite lies are a customary practice of basic business, arguably.

Hell, anyone who’s worked in retail or with the broader public can probably attest to this “white lie” portrayed for the sake of professionalism and keeping their job. I worked in a deli for years, do you honestly think that I was completely honest with every single client? When I was doing like 100 jobs at once, whilst trying to maintain legal food safety standards?
That’s what adult jobs are. You suck it up for your client. If you’re your own boss then, you have your own issues to worry about. Fair enough.

Also, ngl, outside of the US these kinds of lawsuits just serve to make US business owners look like a bunch of whining little babies throwing temper tantrums. It’s embarrassing to witness.
(Not to say these cases are unique to the US, of course they aren’t. Just as embarrassing when they happen elsewhere. Just saying, that’s the message that the PR puts out when this kind of thing happens.)

Don't you know they US is the king of law suits.
You name it, someone will sue/try to sue for it.
50% of commercials I see on TV are lawyers looking for law suits(mainly wrecks and medicine),

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't you know they US is the king of law suits.

We don't have a loser-pays system.
So meritless suits abound.
Professional "suers" make money using the
cost of defending suits to extort settlements.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I've been out of town but has anyone mentioned yet that this ruling is based on Christian fanfiction? There was no gay couple, the people named on the suit aren't even gay let alone requested a website (and Stuart, one of the not gay, married to a woman with a kid people is himself a web designer who never requested her services.) This was a hypothetical a Christian gave as reason to uphold legal bigotry. In a case that will absolutely be torn down the moment the same logic is used for denial of service to political or religious people like her, e.g. "Christians and MAGAs not welcome" pop up across every blue city and they suddenly find themselves unable to broadly access services.

 

[metis]

IMO, the SCOTUS ruling on this is a step backwards to the 1950's and before whereas an owner could deny service to African Americans but now call it "free speech".

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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?

Yes. Literally refusal of service to Christians for being Christian is illegal and wrongful discrimation if proven to be the motive. Ditto gay people. Which is why I doubt this ruling will see much daylight.
But even funnier is this case was submitted by someone who knew nothing about the website design industry, and had never even created a website when she sued (spef 2016 Lorie Smith. The 'gay couple' are a made up hypothetical.) Because this isn't how web design works anymore. Nobody populates content on websites as designers, they just create the design. People buy templates and cms. Gone are the days of plugging in html code for Dylan and Jane's life story and accompanying pictures.

This suits premises are so fake it's plastic.

 

[icehorse]

To add to what I said, in the context of this thread, fully 43 states are enacting or have enacted bills limiting or restricting how and when LGBTQ people can be themselves, limiting access to books about them and trying to ban or censor performances like drag shows. Don't tell me those politicians give the contents of a baby's diaper for the Second Amendment rights of at least that group.

There is, and the community better brace themselves, a very real and sustained war against LGBTQ+ culture.

Late to the thread, sorry.

I think that the idea of LGBTQ+ as a cohesive group, having a cohesive culture is worthy of its own thread...

 

[icehorse]

People who are serious about their religious views, have religious leanings, and actually observe their religion are "religious about religion".

ie a person is not religious by choice but because they are religious. Just like atheism isn't really a choice but typically a person's default position.

I don't buy that.

But I would say that if a person is brought up in a religious home, they're likely to have been exposed to extremely strong streams of religious propaganda that can be very, very difficult to break free of.

 

[icehorse]

Sadly, Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act does not define sexual orientation as a protected class. That needs to change.

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.​

​

Title II Of The Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)

www.justice.gov

I bristle when religion is put in the same list as aspects of identity that a person is born with and are basically immutable. I know it's done all the time, but I think we should undo it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've been out of town but has anyone mentioned yet that this ruling is based on Christian fanfiction? There was no gay couple, the people named on the suit aren't even gay let alone requested a website (and Stuart, one of the not gay, married to a woman with a kid people is himself a web designer who never requested her services.) This was a hypothetical a Christian gave as reason to uphold legal bigotry. In a case that will absolutely be torn down the moment the same logic is used for denial of service to political or religious people like her, e.g. "Christians and MAGAs not welcome" pop up across every blue city and they suddenly find themselves unable to broadly access services.

My understanding of the ruling differs greatly from yours.
It doesn't justify discrimination based upon who the
customer is, but rather on what the "speech" is that the
business would be compelled to express.
Ref...

What the Supreme Court's gay wedding website ruling means for LGBTQ rights

Can a florist refuse service to a same-sex couple? Can a photographer decline to photograph lesbians? Experts parse the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis decision.

www.nbcnews.com

I'm no Christian. I loathe Christianity (although not
all individual Christians). But I see merit in denying
government the authority over us to compel speech
we oppose.
If I made custom cakes, I'd want to discriminate by
refusing to make one with the message "My God
Hates Gays". It could have the effect of discriminating
against someone who's Christian, but not because
they're Christian.
The cost, ie, customers having to seek alternative
service vendors, is a small burden relatively (IMO).

 

[SomeRandom]

Don't you know they US is the king of law suits.
You name it, someone will sue/try to sue for it.
50% of commercials I see on TV are lawyers looking for law suits(mainly wrecks and medicine),

This is unfortunately true.

I remember when visiting my family in California, I saw like a 100 ads about that in like a day lol
Here you might see an ad like that every once in a while. It’s here but not to the extent of the US (apparently.)
Like do you guys have nothing better to do or something? Geez!





No but seriously, are you guys okay?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

IMO, the SCOTUS ruling on this is a step backwards to the 1950's and before whereas an owner could deny service to African Americans but now call it "free speech".

Yep. 'Free speech' is being pushed as a get out free pass for discrimination. Like a skinhead trying to frame building looks as free speech to not have to comply with disabled accessibility law.

 

[We Never Know]

This is unfortunately true.

I remember when visiting my family in California, I saw like a 100 ads about that in like a day lol
Here you might see an ad like that every once in a while. It’s here but not to the extent of the US (apparently.)
Like do you guys have nothing better to do or something? Geez!





No but seriously, are you guys okay?

People want that get rich quit scheme while doing nothing.

 

[fantome profane]

People want that get rich quit

That is when you get rich and quit your job.

 

[Revoltingest]

No but seriously, are you guys okay?

We have a severe problem with meritless
suits being filed for the purpose of extorting
payment. Also out of maliciousness.
It's rare that a plaintiff with a meritless
suit is forced to pay the winning side's
legal costs.
Our civil court system is also set up to
encourage fighting over settling.
Every judge was once a lawyer profiting
from this, & will become one again
after leaving the court.