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

[Kfox]

When they outlaw immoral acts, yes. Do you have a problem with laws against immoral acts?

I have a problem with laws against what you might consider immoral acts; and you may have a problem against what I might consider immoral acts. Remember all of those anti-sodomy laws? Those laws outlawing interracial relationships, abortion, death with dignity? Those were all laws against immoral acts. Are you sure this is the hill you want to plant your flag on?

It's notable that progressives in American society are better at defending rights than conservatives these days. Conservatives values ideals,

Ideas like outlawing immoral acts

while progressives value human dignity.

The right to engage in immoral acts with dignity.

I suggest racism does not equal maturity and mental stability.

History disagrees with you. Some of the most brilliant minds in history; minds that have moved us forward in science, economics, and technology have been devout racists. Never confuse bigotry with stupidity.

Give us examples of racists being victimized, but be sure the acts against them are while they were minding their own business, and not defense and retribution for their active racist acts. I would not think that a neo-Nazi wearing a shirt with a swastika in public to intimidate people is being victimized if some citizens react harshly to his anti-social choices.

So Nazi’s should not be allowed to wear the clothing of their choosing? What about Tattoos? What about hair cuts? What about rings? What about the language/words they speak, or the songs they sing? What type of restrictions should we impose against people you disapprove of? Should those same restrictions be imposed against people you approve of?

Who is threatening you and your rights for who you are? Describe the natural attributes you have that others target and use against you. If you can't think of any, then not everybody needs protective status. I sure don't need any.

This conversation is not about me, it’s about all of us. No matter who you are; black, white, tall, short, male, female, gay, straight, religious, secular, rich, poor etc. etc. there are places where your attributes will work in your favor and places where they will work against you.

 

[Kfox]

But not everybody needs to be enabled, and we now find ourselves and our society in the grips of a right wing legal strategy that allows a disgusting fraud to fabricate a scenario as an act of cruelty towards a class of people. Sophomoric attempts to rationalize the Court's actions may make for a peppy forum debate, but they do little to mitigate the pain, fear, and demoralization now spreading through the LGBTQ+ community.

Can you give examples of this happening?

 

[Kfox]

You're right about those who own websites, but I thought the case referred to designing web sites that would belong to whoever paid to have the site created. It's a bit like a painter refusing to use a color of paint you have selected based on his personal likes and dislikes.

Painters are not legally required to use paint colors they do not like.

 

[PureX]

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?

We have stacked the highest court in the land with idiots, now. So looking for logic and reason in their decisions will avail us nothing.

The real issue here has nothing whatever to do with free speech or freedom of religion. It's about the rules of internet commerce, and the fact that there aren't any. If this were a walk-in business, open to the public, the business would be obliged to serve the public. If it were a walk-in business set up as a co-op that does not purport to serve the public, but only it's members, then it would not be obliged to serve anyone but it's members. But it's an on-line business that has no predetermined intent regarding who it serves.

My suggestion is to forget appealing to the morons on the court and just find some internet hackers to destroy their web site for being bigoted jerks.

Problem solved.

 

[Alien826]

Of course not.
But money is crucial to engaging
in speech, eg, buying ads, air time.

Do you think money is unrelated
to speech?

Money is related to just about everything. But saying that something is "speech" because it involves money is, I hope, obviously silly. As I recall that ruling related to "dark money" in political contributions, and whether it could be regulated.

Progress is always threatened.
When ain't it 2 steps forward, & then 1 back, eh.

Yes. Which is a good reason to check your walls for termites (so to speak).

To have to ask for this in open court
poses problems of potential wrongful
discrimination. We shouldn't have to
make judge & jury aware that we're
likely not Christian.
I've experience in this area.

Hmmm, I hadn't thought of that. Though it's probably true that some people prefer to affirm for religious reasons. How would you handle it though? Make everyone affirm? That would seem to be as bad in the other direction. Having the oath taking hidden from the jury?

 

[Nakosis]

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 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?

 

[Revoltingest]

Money is related to just about everything. But saying that something is "speech" because it involves money is, I hope, obviously silly.

You should argue that point with the one who claimed it.

As I recall that ruling related to "dark money" in political contributions, and whether it could be regulated.

Yes. Which is a good reason to check your walls for termites (so to speak).

Hmmm, I hadn't thought of that. Though it's probably true that some people prefer to affirm for religious reasons. How would you handle it though? Make everyone affirm? That would seem to be as bad in the other direction. Having the oath taking hidden from the jury?

If courts want testifiers to swear to tell the truth,
they need do only that.
There's no reason to bring God, Allah, Cthulhu
into it, thereby raising the possibility of religious
prejudice affecting the outcome.

 

[F1fan]

I have a problem with laws against what you might consider immoral acts; and you may have a problem against what I might consider immoral acts. Remember all of those anti-sodomy laws? Those laws outlawing interracial relationships, abortion, death with dignity? Those were all laws against immoral acts. Are you sure this is the hill you want to plant your flag on?

I mentioned slavery, how did you ever get the impression I meant anything you listed here? Why not ask instead of guessing my positions?

Ideas like outlawing immoral acts

That isn't what progressives want outlawed, it's Christian conservatives. Who do you think is behind banning abortion access? Christian conservatives. And it is causing many women to not get the healthcare they need. There are lawsuits against Texas for banning abortion access.

The right to engage in immoral acts with dignity.

Immoral by Christian conservative standards, not by progressives.

History disagrees with you. Some of the most brilliant minds in history; minds that have moved us forward in science, economics, and technology have been devout racists. Never confuse bigotry with stupidity.

Most any name from history will be a product of their time, which often included racism. Antisemitism was quite common in 1930's Europe and USA, and that insensitivity towards Jews allowed Hitler to attain power until it was too late.

Of course I'm talking about racist today, people who should use history to learn, and that is why I mentioned racists ignoring history lack maturity and mental stability. Do you think racism is justified in 2023?

So Nazi’s should not be allowed to wear the clothing of their choosing? What about Tattoos? What about hair cuts? What about rings? What about the language/words they speak, or the songs they sing? What type of restrictions should we impose against people you disapprove of? Should those same restrictions be imposed against people you approve of?

They can do whatever they want. My point is that if they are going to hold racist views that are offensive to society they can't claim to be victims if anyone expresses their dislike for Nazis. It's called karma.

The questions are: 1. why would any sane and stable person want to be a Nazi, and 2. why would they advertise it in a public that has learned from history that Nazis are disgusting?

Nazis have become more bold since Trump was elected via the electoral college, and what they have learned is that society doesn't like them. I wonder how long before they decide to go back into hiding.

This conversation is not about me, it’s about all of us. No matter who you are; black, white, tall, short, male, female, gay, straight, religious, secular, rich, poor etc. etc. there are places where your attributes will work in your favor and places where they will work against you.

And progressives work towards inclusion while conservatives are sabotaging it, even in the Supreme Court. Conservatism has become toxic with Trump's rise, and fall. It may take many decades for society to recover from the setbacks caused by MAGA's influence. DeSantis is running his campaign as a deliberate culture war. He said "The fight for the soul of the party isn't about tax cuts or trade deals, it is this cultural combat that we have as a country." This is a party of division and intolerance, and there is no soul in it.

 

[F1fan]

Money is related to just about everything. But saying that something is "speech" because it involves money is, I hope, obviously silly. As I recall that ruling related to "dark money" in political contributions, and whether it could be regulated.

As we know there are limits to rights, they are not absolute. Any right established by a society still has to be regulated and balanced so that it doesn't harm the society. Rights exist to allow versonal responsibility, not abuse it. It is the abuse that law limits. Even the 2nd Amendment cites "a well regulated militia" in regards to gun ownership, but this point has been ignored by the courts in recent decades, allowing more access to guns in a way that has resulted in many murders.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can you give examples of this happening?

Yes.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Why would gays be prejudiced against, but not black people? When gay marriage is a legal status for the USA, and it is something a person opposes due to their learned religious attitude, what makes mixed race marriage any different? What makes a couple married in a Mormon church something that isn't recognized by a Christain business? All this is open to interpretation by courts, and we have to ask how far religious exceptions are allowed to go before they are toxic. Anti-gay attitudes are NOT prevalent in all of Christianity, it is a fringe thing among conservatives, so why is this fringe attitude being given credibility? How many more fringe atiitudes against others will be given credibility over time?

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?

These could be a new Yellow pages, two sections, the bigot section of services, and the open-minded section. I think a lot of these righteous bigots will suffer in the long run from bad faith.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, actually, you do -- and you have lots of them. They are enshrined in the Constitution. Consider Habeas Corpus, for example, or your First and Second Amendment rights. You are protected in what you write in these forums, whereas in China or Russia, your words may well get you arrested.

I don't think these basic and braod rights are what he was talking about. My take was that he was referring to specific rights like the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. These apply to all citizens, but were created due to marginalized groups being refused rights. Whites didn't need these protections, but were covered anyway. The protective rights are for minorities and marginalized groups, as we see these groups being protected less due to a conservative supreme court.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't think these basic and braod rights are what he was talking about. My take was that he was referring to specific rights like the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. These apply to all citizens, but were created due to marginalized groups being refused rights. Whites didn't need these protections, but were covered anyway. The protective rights are for minorities and marginalized groups, as we see these groups being protected less due to a conservative supreme court.

Well, that's fine, but that just means that white, male, heterosexual Christians are priviliged above all others in the U.S., and you need special laws for anybody else. The easiest way to manage that is to simply declare any right belonging to anyone belongs to all. If you want a right, you agree that it applies to everybody else, too.

 

[Nakosis]

Why would gays be prejudiced against, but not black people? When gay marriage is a legal status for the USA, and it is something a person opposes due to their learned religious attitude, what makes mixed race marriage any different? What makes a couple married in a Mormon church something that isn't recognized by a Christain business? All this is open to interpretation by courts, and we have to ask how far religious exceptions are allowed to go before they are toxic. Anti-gay attitudes are NOT prevalent in all of Christianity, it is a fringe thing among conservatives, so why is this fringe attitude being given credibility? How many more fringe atiitudes against others will be given credibility over time?

Because it is not just about a LGBTQ+ movement. What about a NAZI or White supremacist group. What about a NAMBLA movement?
Should boycotting a company because you disagree with their moral values also be criminalized?
Or do you feel it is perfectly ok to use the government to enforce your personal moral values onto the rest of humanity.

If so, lets just hope the Christian fundamentalist don't come into power.

These could be a new Yellow pages, two sections, the bigot section of services, and the open-minded section. I think a lot of these righteous bigots will suffer in the long run from bad faith.

I agree. I think these folks are hog-tying their own ventures. Just I'd rather let the market sort it out than let the government start enforcing moral ideologies.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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?

Let me just point out that the creators of this website called "Religious Forums" are perfectly comfortable allowing non-religious people to join and post here. And that the site is supported by technical people who have no say at all in what content is permitted.

 

[Nakosis]

Let me just point out that the creators of this website called "Religious Forums" are perfectly comfortable allowing non-religious people to join and post here.

Good for them, yay!
No doubt a partial reason for their continued success.

And that the site is supported by technical people who have no say at all in what content is permitted.

Why couldn't they choose to go work someplace else?
If it bothered them I certainly wouldn't what to make slaves out of them.

 

[Kfox]

I mentioned slavery, how did you ever get the impression I meant anything you listed here? Why not ask instead of guessing my positions?

First of all, this conversation is not just about you and me, its about what should be applied to everybody. You seem to take the position that specific views and beliefs should be outlawed, or that it is perfectly acceptable to physically accost someone if you personally disagree with them; sorta like those hypocrite types who virtue signal their tolerance, but when pressed it becomes obvious they only tolerate those views they already agree with, and are completely intolerant of views they disagree with.
I come from the position that all speech needs to be protected (unless causing direct harm) even if I disagree with it. This is why I believe your position is wrong, and mine is right.

 

[We Never Know]

True. I actually looked for any thread title that looked like it might mention the story, and that particular title did not attract my attention for some reason. This thread seemed the only one devoted to the subject, and that's why I didn't search further. That thread should probably be merged with this one.

I've done the same a few times. Sometimes people put up different titles than the links to some threads. I eventually learned to search key words from links I read to see if they were already posted here.

 

[Alien826]

We have stacked the highest court in the land with idiots, now. So looking for logic and reason in their decisions will avail us nothing.

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.

 

[Alien826]

Because it is not just about a LGBTQ+ movement. What about a NAZI or White supremacist group. What about a NAMBLA movement?
Should boycotting a company because you disagree with their moral values also be criminalized?
Or do you feel it is perfectly ok to use the government to enforce your personal moral values onto the rest of humanity.

If so, lets just hope the Christian fundamentalist don't come into power.

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.