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

[Wandering Monk]

There is the principle of a "public accommodation" though. Briefly, if you are offering a service to the public, it has to be available to all the public.

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

 

[Wandering Monk]

Yes, and that's a lot more likely than constitutional amendments, as the Government has full power to determine how the SC is constituted and elected.

I would like to see some non political body deciding who should on the SC but I'm not sure where that would come from. The makeup of a bipartisan committee would still be determined politically I fear.

I'd favor term limits that gave each President (or Presidential term) one nomination, coupled with automatic confirmation.

Then a non-partisan commission that includes other parties and independents.

 

[Alien826]

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

Sadly that's true.

 

[Alien826]

The Constitution has been & can be amended.
And we should have better quality justices.
But my idea of "quality" is ruling based on
the Constitution, a philosophy that many
people oppose.

Who can argue with "quality"?

But there's different views on that, with originalism being only one. Personally I like the idea of seeing the Constitution as a "living document", as the society of today is very different from that of the founders. I agree that many recent decisions bear little resemblance to "quallty", though we may not agree on which they are.

 

[Alien826]

Such are laws called innto constitutional
question regarding compelled speech.

I do understand your position. It becomes simpler if recent SC decisions hadn't defined all kinds of things as speech that bear little resemblance to it. If you want to stick to the Constitution, I would argue that the intent was to allow the free expression of opinions, regardless of what others think about them. I would get behind that 100%, with the usual exceptions.

When someone refuses to simply follow instructions in creating some representation of someone else's views because they don't like what is said, my feeling is that it comes closer to suppressing free speech than defending it.

And I'll add that the Constitutional protection of religion has gone too far, as it's now getting to be that just about anything that is done in the name of religion is protected.

 

[Revoltingest]

Who can argue with "quality"?

Those who differ on how rulings should be made.
Based upon....
- Original intent of those who wrote the Constitution / amendment?
- Strict construction, ie, exact wording of the Constitution / amendment?
- What progressive justices personally want?
- What conservative justices personally want?

But there's different views on that, with originalism being only one. Personally I like the idea of seeing the Constitution as a "living document", as the society of today is very different from that of the founders. I agree that many recent decisions bear little resemblance to "quallty", though we may not agree on which they are.

The "living document" approach is what we're seeing
& arguing about today. The problem is major disagreement
about the direction it should evolve. We've lost some
explicit rights because of this, eg, jury trial (if facing a
sentence less than the current threshold of 1 year),
4th Amendment protections in border states, eg, MI, ME.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do understand your position. It becomes simpler if recent SC decisions hadn't defined all kinds of things as speech that bear little resemblance to it. If you want to stick to the Constitution, I would argue that the intent was to allow the free expression of opinions, regardless of what others think about them. I would get behind that 100%, with the usual exceptions.

I favor a broad definition of speech, eg,
giving cops the finger. Speech shouldn't
be limited to words spoken or on paper.
This is an originalist approach, rather
than strict constructionist.

When someone refuses to simply follow instructions in creating some representation of someone else's views because they don't like what is said, my feeling is that it comes closer to suppressing free speech than defending it.

Protection against suppression is most important
regarding government authority. Private individuals
are far less of an imposition.
If someone works for me, or comes onto my property,
this is by agreement. I have more rights than government
because of not just necessity, but because the other
person has the option of being elsewhere.

And I'll add that the Constitutional protection of religion has gone too far, as it's now getting to be that just about anything that is done in the name of religion is protected.

It's not that bad. There are many restrictions
on religious practice (eg, noise ordinances,
no virgin sacrifices), & many special exemptions
(eg, Indians being allowed ownership of bird
feathers that are prohibited others).
I've personally enjoyed religion's influence
having been curbed. I attended public school
back when we had Christian propaganda taught.
We've still progress to make, eg, courts asking
us to swear to God we'll tell the truth.
(I see no connection between religion &
honesty.)

 

[fantome profane]

But my idea of "quality" is ruling based on
the Constitution,

I don't disagree with that. My only problem with this case is that what she was complaining about is something that never happened. No one ever forced her to create a website for a same sex wedding. Not the courts, not the government, not the lgbtq mafia, no one.

This case was not "ripe", and it is possible that it would never be "ripe". This case was taken to make a political statement, and that is not what the Supreme Court should be doing.

 

[Kfox]

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?

I think it is based on the idea that a business should not be required to amplify what someone else has to say. Should a website designer be required to design a website for Nazi’s or other hate groups in a way they find offensive?

 

[Kfox]

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.

That’s a matter of subjective opinion. The KKK do not claim they exist to harm others for being who they are, only their enemies make such a claim. The enemies of Cyclists and Gays will claim Gays and Cyclists exist to harm others.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't disagree with that. My only problem with this case is that what she was complaining about is something that never happened. No one ever forced her to create a website for a same sex wedding. Not the courts, not the government, not the lgbtq mafia, no one.

This case was not "ripe", and it is possible that it would never be "ripe". This case was taken to make a political statement, and that is not what the Supreme Court should be doing.

Is it inherently wrong for SCOTUS to
change its usual procedures when
something motivates them?

 

[F1fan]

That’s a matter of subjective opinion. The KKK do not claim they exist to harm others for being who they are, only their enemies make such a claim.

And their "enemies" are enemies because they were born with brown skin. And as a result these brown skinned people are harmed due to this bigotry. What evidence does the KKK have that whites are superior? Well, that these whites are bigots is a huge strike against them have any superior mental abilities, like tolerance and empathy. I suggest those wanting to be part of the KKK are inferior to more open minded and decent people of any skin color, age, height, eye color, education, etc.

The enemies of Cyclists and Gays will claim Gays and Cyclists exist to harm others.

And why would they claim that? Not only is there no evidence, it is absurd that others minding their own business have intent to harm bigots.

The harm bigots suffer is self-caused.

 

[Alien826]

I think it is based on the idea that a business should not be required to amplify what someone else has to say. Should a website designer be required to design a website for Nazi’s or other hate groups in a way they find offensive?

I know this is not what you mean, but how does it apply to the makers of loudspeakers? They amplify the speech of others. So should the manufacturers be allowed to control what people say when using the loud speakers? It's not as silly as it seems at first, because what I'm talking about is a medium used to convey "speech". Should the people supplying the medium be allowed to control the users of the medium, if the supplier has no input as far as the content (not the format) of the speech goes?

 

[F1fan]

I think it is based on the idea that a business should not be required to amplify what someone else has to say. Should a website designer be required to design a website for Nazi’s or other hate groups in a way they find offensive?

Nazis and the KKK are groups that exist to prejudice and harm others, unlike any gay or black person who exist with natural properties. I can see how someone might be opposed to gay marriage, but that is still a personal fault, not a fault of a progressive society that seeks to extend equality to as many as possible.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The black and white thinkers will have their comeuppance someday. The laws will swing around to affect them. They are a minority and are becoming moreso. They know it, which is why they are trying so hard to reform the country to their way.

 

[Alien826]

Is it inherently wrong for SCOTUS to
change its usual procedures when
something motivates them?

I'd say it is a matter if sticking to (or not) a procedure that has a good reason supporting it. I suppose the SC has the right to rule on cases like this if it wants to, but if it doesn't rule on all such cases it's going to be accused of bias. And if they do rule on all such cases they will be flooded by cases that refer to things that haven't happened and may never do so.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd say it is a matter if sticking to (or not) a procedure that has a good reason supporting it. I suppose the SC has the right to rule on cases like this if it wants to, but if it doesn't rule on all such cases it's going to be accused of bias. And if they do rule on all such cases they will be flooded by cases that refer to things that haven't happened and may never do so.

SCOTUS itself would limit the flooding.

 

[fantome profane]

Is it inherently wrong for SCOTUS to
change its usual procedures when
something motivates them?

What motivates them?

 

[Alien826]

I favor a broad definition of speech, eg,
giving cops the finger. Speech shouldn't
be limited to words spoken or on paper.
This is an originalist approach, rather
than strict constructionist.

Do you think money is speech?

Protection against suppression is most important
regarding government authority. Private individuals
are far less of an imposition.
If someone works for me, or comes onto my property,
this is by agreement. I have more rights than government
because of not just necessity, but because the other
person has the option of being elsewhere.

But it's Government that makes the rules that you and this person have to abide by. There are lots of examples where the law regulates transactions between individuals, though I agree that what constrains Government does not necessarily constrain individuals and vice versa.

It's not that bad. There are many restrictions
on religious practice (eg, noise ordinances,
no virgin sacrifices), & many special exemptions
(eg, Indians being allowed ownership of bird
feathers that are prohibited others).
I've personally enjoyed religion's influence
having been curbed. I attended public school
back when we had Christian propaganda taught.

Noise ordinances and virgin sacrifices apply to everyone. I'll cut the Indians some slack given how much has been taken from them. But how about tax exempt status? What do religious institutions do that merits that, if we exclude charity that could be reasonably allowed?

What I see is a history that got better and is now being threatened. Would you like to bet that a case concerning school prayer won't come up and be decided by this Court in favor of prayer?

We've still progress to make, eg, courts asking
us to swear to God we'll tell the truth.

That's optional. You have the right to "affirm" if you want to.

(I see no connection between religion &
honesty.)

<Response suppressed to avoid giving offense>

 

[Revoltingest]

What motivates them?

That depends on the fervent desires of the majority.
Currently, it's you know who.