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

[Debater Slayer]

They're just conservative. Fundamentalism has no meaning in a Catholic context. It's not like Protestantism. Protestant fundamentalism has more in common with movements like Salafism, than anything you find in Catholicism. Just trying to clarify.

Ah, I see. I looked up "Catholic fundamentalism" just now and found this on Encyclopedia Brittanica:

The term Catholic fundamentalism is sometimes used to describe conservative Catholicism, but most scholars would reject this term because Christian fundamentalism traditionally involved strict conformity to the “inerrant text” of the Bible. This is not a distinctive feature of Catholic conservatism.

Catholic fundamentalism | religion | Britannica

Other articles where Catholic fundamentalism is discussed: fundamentalism: Christian fundamentalism in the United States: The term Catholic fundamentalism is sometimes used to describe conservative Catholicism, but most scholars would reject this term because Christian fundamentalism...

www.britannica.com

Interesting. Thanks for the info. I suppose "conservative Catholics" would be the more accurate term here.

It's more that the liberalism of the coastal states doesn't represent the entire country, but a lot of them like to think it does. The process to amend the Constitution is a democratic one that most of the states must support and they simply will never get the red states to enshrine such things in the Constitution.

I'm not sure it would be possible to get most states to agree on any major amendment at the moment, really. I doubt most reasonable people would believe that either blue or red states represented the entire country, especially amid the currently visible polarization. I just see Constitutional amendments of certain rights as the best way to protect them, although that will clearly remain out of reach for the foreseeable future.

 

[Debater Slayer]

No, they are not. Not for those who hold them. I cannot just suddenly stop being a Druid, F1fan. That's not how it works.

I was about to comment that I think religious values are not inherent (like eye color or sex) but also not optional. I don't believe we can choose what convinces us.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Elections have consequences.

 

[F1fan]

No, they are not. Not for those who hold them. I cannot just suddenly stop being a Druid, F1fan. That's not how it works.

I'm sure you see it this way. But it is a fact that being a Druid is an option that the vast majority of people don't accept. You are committed, and perhaps your commitment is such that you won;t consider abandoning it, at least today. It could be some day you opt for some other religious framework.

I say religious values are optional because they are not natural features of our being, like skin color. Being a Druid isn't a natural affliction or property, at some point in your life you opted for it. Maybe your parenets were and you were indoctrinated. But we humans have our agency and authority to reject beliefs and change.

To my mind it is a problem when people have, or adopt, discriminatory views and hide their moral judgment behind religion, as if religion is an absolute and we mere mortals have no option to reject immoral views. The history of religion is rampant with protests and rebels who went their own way, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse, like the KKK being a Christian organization.

The woman who brought the case against doing web design didn't actually have any such client and the case was hypothetical. So the ruling gives releif for a person who was not harmed, but consequently harmed marginalized groups who not have heightened anxiety about access to services. Her hypothetical was based on a religious conflict, and it's notable there are religions that do not promote anti-gay feelings and attitudes. For some reason this woman was attracted to this religious option and not one that was tolerant for gays, and that is on her, unless someone put a gun to her head and forced her to adopt her religious preference.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Elections have consequences.

Definitely. Every time a harmful ruling is announced, I also can't help feeling a measure of disdain for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's stubborn decision not to step down when Obama was in office. Her arguably selfish and ill-advised decision has partially contributed to a situation that has negatively affected millions of people.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Definitely. Every time a harmful ruling is announced, I also can't help feeling a measure of disdain for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's stubborn decision not to step down when Obama was in office. Her arguably selfish and ill-advised decision has partially contributed to a situation that has negatively affected millions of people.

While I was not at all happy with RBG's decision, it should be noted that we're dealing with a six-to-three court.

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree. Some people abuse asylum laws by lying about belonging to a persecuted minority, but this doesn't mean asylum laws are a problem.

Context matters a lot there.



I see it as a problem because it denies free choice of how one spends a portion of their life. Even if every single person in a country agreed with the draft, I would still oppose it as a matter of principle.

Once again, we're not communicating with each other.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

One thing I'd love us all to pay attention to is that at present, the ACLU is tracking 491 pieces of legislation against LGBTQ+ people in 46 states and territories -- a record number for all time.

I don't see any action on the books against label makers and packagers who deal in animal products, for example, by even the most committed vegan companies. Why not? And what would the courts make of that? And I think we could find all sorts of things that many people don't like, but which they would not be granted the right to discriminate against at will in doing business with the public.

Mapping Attacks on LGBTQ Rights in U.S. State Legislatures

In the last few years states have advanced a record number of bills that attack LGBTQ rights, especially transgender youth. The ACLU is tracking these attacks and working with our national network of affiliates to support LGBTQ people everywhere.

www.aclu.org

 

[Jimmy]

Why would a gay couple want their wedding to be designed by someone who doesn’t like gays anyway? Nonsensical

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

One thing I'd love us all to pay attention to is that at present, the ACLU is tracking 491 pieces of legislation against LGBTQ+ people in 46 states and territories -- a record number for all time.

I don't see any action on the books against label makers and packagers who deal in animal products, for example, by even the most committed vegan companies. Why not? And what would the courts make of that? And I think we could find all sorts of things that many people don't like, but which they would not be granted the right to discriminate against at will in doing business with the public.

Mapping Attacks on LGBTQ Rights in U.S. State Legislatures

In the last few years states have advanced a record number of bills that attack LGBTQ rights, especially transgender youth. The ACLU is tracking these attacks and working with our national network of affiliates to support LGBTQ people everywhere.

www.aclu.org

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.

 

[F1fan]

While I was not at all happy with RBG's decision, it should be noted that we're dealing with a six-to-three court.

McConnell was responsible for two of them. We need reform on SC nominees (a bipartisan committee) and confirmation (minimum of 60 votes), and term limits.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

McConnell was responsible for two of them. We need reform on SC nominees (a bipartisan committee) and confirmation (minimum of 60 votes), and term limits.

We need an election that makes such reform possible.

 

[F1fan]

We need an election that makes such reform possible.

I think these unpopular rulings are going to make it harder for republicans to get elected. The republicans are showing who they are and what they are willing to do that harms many more citizens than it protects. Republicans have long been way too idealistic while democrats are practical. Idealism appeals to conservative voters but as these rulings trickle down to more citizens I think attitudes will change.

 

[F1fan]

Why would a gay couple want their wedding to be designed by someone who doesn’t like gays anyway? Nonsensical

Right, these web designers should make sure they are known as "Christian bigots", that way marginalized groups will know not to even ask them. These designers can cater to the most vile of customers. The KKK and neo-Nazis need work done, too.

 

[Father Heathen]

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?

The same people cheering this would squeal with outrage if christians were denied service in the same manner.

 

[We Never Know]

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?

From the link...

"right to refuse to serve members of a protected class"

What all people fall into a "protected class".

 

[Quintessence]

I'm sure you see it this way. But it is a fact that being a Druid is an option that the vast majority of people don't accept. You are committed, and perhaps your commitment is such that you won;t consider abandoning it, at least today. It could be some day you opt for some other religious framework.

I say religious values are optional because they are not natural features of our being, like skin color. Being a Druid isn't a natural affliction or property, at some point in your life you opted for it. Maybe your parenets were and you were indoctrinated. But we humans have our agency and authority to reject beliefs and change.

If someone is actually religious about their religion (and a lot of people aren't, honestly) then one's religion is as natural and inherent to who and what they are as their natural features. I don't expect you to understand.

 

[F1fan]

If someone is actually religious about their religion (and a lot of people aren't, honestly) then one's religion is as natural and inherent to who and what they are as their natural features. I don't expect you to understand.

I notice you made no attempt to explain how your claim is true. So you gave me no chance to understand what you think.

I’m not sure what “religious about their religion” means. At face value, meaning I’m not making any assumptions or guesses, this is an obscure and evasive statement.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

On the plus side, what is now happening is that legal challenges to these are getting this nonsense overturned because they're blatantly unconstitutional. Unfortunately, this is a slow process and the damage done in the mean time is... ugh.

Edited to add an NYT piece about this for those interested:

Opinion | Republicans’ Anti-Woke, Anti-Vote Crusade Has Crashed Into the Constitution

G.O.P. politicians today aren’t constitutional absolutists. They’re constitutional opportunists.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You know, there's something wildly suspicious about this particular case -- the suit was brought by someone who -- while not actually ever having created a wedding website -- claimed that she wanted to start but was afraid she might be compelled to provide services to same-sex couples.

SHE HAS NEVER CREATED SUCH A WEBSITE -- THIS IS A 100% HYPOTHETICAL!

And, as she says, "I've wanted to do this for 7 years, but now I can actually start." Are we being conned here? Let's watch and see if she ever does set up such a site.