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

[Revoltingest]

Do you think money is speech?

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

Do you think money is unrelated
to speech?

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.

Yes, government does regulate things.
There is always some disagreement
about right, wrong, & extent.

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?

Aye, Indians are different from other citizens,
based upon their stolen sovereignty.

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?

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

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

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.

<Response suppressed to avoid giving offense>

Wise move.

 

[fantome profane]

Do you think money is unrelated
to speech?

Good question.

I'll give you my answer if you give me a dollar.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good question.

I'll give you my answer if you give me a dollar.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

I have to say it, it does often seem to me that a significant part of the conservative mind set is, "I can't go there, because I haven't been there. "

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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?

Easy to dream up straw-men, isn't it. So, do you include anything that the business doesn't like? If the business is run by vegans, should they be allowed to refuse all meat-eaters (including making them fill out a questionnaire with the question of what they eat on it, so they can find out)?

How about if the firm owner is a pacificist, and wants to exclude everybody who every fought for their country in the military?

Just how many personal preferences should be considered reasonable in a concern wishing to do business with the general public?

Frankly, I'd say allow them anything they want to do -- just so long as they make clear (no fine print) in all of their advertising, what kinds of clients they will refuse to do business with. I'm betting that sort of advertising would cause many of their desired clientelle to give that business a pass -- as well they should.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Easy to dream up straw-men, isn't it. So, do you include anything that the business doesn't like? If the business is run by vegans, should they be allowed to refuse all meat-eaters (including making them fill out a questionnaire with the question of what they eat on it, so they can find out)?

How about if the firm owner is a pacificist, and wants to exclude everybody who every fought for their country in the military?

Just how many personal preferences should be considered reasonable in a concern wishing to do business with the general public?

Frankly, I'd say allow them anything they want to do -- just so long as they make clear (no fine print) in all of their advertising, what kinds of clients they will refuse to do business with. I'm betting that sort of advertising would cause many of their desired clientelle to give that business a pass -- as well they should.

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

 

[fantome profane]

Easy to dream up straw-men, isn't it. So, do you include anything that the business doesn't like? If the business is run by vegans, should they be allowed to refuse all meat-eaters (including making them fill out a questionnaire with the question of what they eat on it, so they can find out)?

How about if the firm owner is a pacificist, and wants to exclude everybody who every fought for their country in the military?

Just how many personal preferences should be considered reasonable in a concern wishing to do business with the general public?

Frankly, I'd say allow them anything they want to do -- just so long as they make clear (no fine print) in all of their advertising, what kinds of clients they will refuse to do business with. I'm betting that sort of advertising would cause many of their desired clientelle to give that business a pass -- as well they should.

The question I always ask is are they refusing based on what they are being asked to do, or based on who is doing the asking.

A vegan restaurant can refuse to serve meat, but they can't refuse to serve people who eat meat. A Jewish delicatesion can refuse to sell pork, but they can't refuse to sell a roast beef sandwich to a German.

This is a starting principle, might not work in every situation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Evangelicalhumanist part of me rebels at laws that try to force people to act like decent human beings. I was going to use the case of eharmony.com of a business that changed without laws but due to economic pressures. They now accept gay members. But luckily before I did so I double checked and they changed because of a lawsuit that they lost. So there went that argument. One could argue that if one is forced to take on work for a group that he does not like that it will affect the quality of that work. Of course the answer is that one better learn to keep one's irrational hatred in check if one cares about one's reputation. There probably are plenty of people with racist feelings that manage to put them aside when working with those of other races. There should be nothing wrong with requiring the same for those of different orientations.

Once again our Supreme Court just 6-3ed itself again.

 

[Kfox]

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.

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.

I think you're missing my point. My point is; whatever laws we apply to issues we agree with, those same laws have to be applied to issues we disagree with as well

 

[Kfox]

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?

Well obviously a company like Gibson that sells speakers has no way to control what is said through their speakers, but if I own a website, I have the right to control what those who choose to join my website say; IMO.

 

[Kfox]

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.

Again; you are speaking as an enemy of the KKK. Those who agree with the KKK don't claim they harm others, so whatever laws that are applied to issues you agree with has to be applied to issues you disagree with as well

 

[Kfox]

Easy to dream up straw-men, isn't it. So, do you include anything that the business doesn't like? If the business is run by vegans, should they be allowed to refuse all meat-eaters (including making them fill out a questionnaire with the question of what they eat on it, so they can find out)?

How about if the firm owner is a pacificist, and wants to exclude everybody who every fought for their country in the military?

I don't think the Government should prevent them from doing this. Actually there were some business in my city that refused to serve police officers due to their hatred of the police. Granted when they got robbed, the first thing they did was call the police.

Just how many personal preferences should be considered reasonable in a concern wishing to do business with the general public?

Frankly, I'd say allow them anything they want to do -- just so long as they make clear (no fine print) in all of their advertising, what kinds of clients they will refuse to do business with. I'm betting that sort of advertising would cause many of their desired clientelle to give that business a pass -- as well they should.

Or people of the community can protest the business and inform everyone who they refuse to do business with

 

[Copernicus]

I want to bring up a completely different point about this decision that goes beyond the merits of the act of making free speech the enemy of a civil rights law in Colorado.

1) The Constitution forbids federal judges from making an "advisory opinion" in which it merely strikes down a controversial law that it doesn't like.

See Cornell LII Legal Information Institute on "cases and controversies"

In other words, cases brought to a federal court must show actual harm to a party and involve a dispute between actual people, not a hypothetical case.

My contention is that the Colorado web designer did not have standing and even included false information in her filing to make her case. IOW, this case was concocted specifically to go right to the Supreme Court and allow the ideological wing of the Court to strike down the Colorado law and make a radical change to the interpretation of the First Amendment protection--in effect, weaponizing it as a tool to roll back civil rights.

It turns out that the Colorado "web designer" was starting up a new business and had not yet actually designed any web site for weddings or had any same-sex wedding requests at the time she filed. Literally, the day afterwards, she said she got such a request from a gay couple in San Francisco--a couple named "Stewart and Mike". She gave contact information for Stewart, but nobody bothered to check with Stewart.

2) Now see this very interesting news article from a journalist who called Stewart to get his reaction to the lawsuit before the Court:


SCOTUS PUZZLE

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court​

Long before the Supreme Court took up one of the last remaining cases it will decide this session—the 303 Creative v. Elenis case, concerning a Colorado web designer named Lorie Smith who refuses to make websites for same-sex weddings and seeks an exemption from anti-discrimination laws—there was a couple named Stewart and Mike. According to court filings from the plaintiff, Stewart contacted Smith in September 2016 about his wedding to Mike “early next year.” He wrote that they “would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website.” Stewart included his phone number, email address, and the URL of his own website—he was a designer too, the site showed.

This week, I decided to call Stewart and ask him about his inquiry.

The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its opinion in a case in which Stewart plays a minor role, a case that could be, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated by way of a question at oral argument in December, “the first time in the Court’s history … [that] a commercial business open to the public, serving the public, that it could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.” (Update: On Friday, the court ruled 6-3 in the web designer’s favor.) It took just a few minutes to reach him. I assumed at least some reporters over the years had contacted him about his website inquiry to 303 Creative—his contact information wasn’t redacted in the filing. But my call, he said, was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.”

For more details, see the article. The gist of it is that Stewart is a happily married heterosexual man married to a woman whose name is not "Mike". In fact, he himself is a web designer who would not need to hire a woman in Colorado to design a web site. The Colorado woman had no standing to bring that lawsuit, but the Supreme Court was in a hurry to make its ruling at the very end of its session on a Friday before a long holiday weekend.

Enjoy your Fourth of July. Have a barbecue and watch some fireworks. And take pride in the fact that nobody can force you to design web sites for gay marriages.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't think the Government should prevent them from doing this. Actually there were some business in my city that refused to serve police officers due to their hatred of the police. Granted when they got robbed, the first thing they did was call the police.

And I would say that if they were actually made to advertise their refusal, the police should then have the right to refuse to serve them, too.

Or people of the community can protest the business and inform everyone who they refuse to do business with

So, you would remove the necessity for drug manufacturers to list known side-effects, and just leave it up to local gossip? Sounds a bit dangerous to me.

 

[Kfox]

And I would say that if they were actually made to advertise their refusal, the police should then have the right to refuse to serve them, too.

Unfortunately the police are required to serve all of the community, not just those they approve of

So, you would remove the necessity for drug manufacturers to list known side-effects, and just leave it up to local gossip? Sounds a bit dangerous to me.

There are laws in place requiring labeling of the effects of drugs. I would not get rid of such laws.

 

[fantome profane]

Actually there were some business in my city that refused to serve police officers due to their hatred of the police. Granted when they got robbed, the first thing they did was call the police.

Got a source for that. It sounds like an urban fiction. I don't believe this happened.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There are laws in place requiring labeling of the effects of drugs. I would not get rid of such laws.

And until yesterday the law said that business providing services to the public could not deny such services to any protected sector of society. That has been altered now to say "unless they're gay."

 

[Wandering Monk]

And until yesterday the law said that business providing services to the public could not deny such services to any protected sector of society. That has been altered now to say "unless they're gay."

The Civil Rights Act does not protect sexual orientation. LGBTQ are not a protected class in the good ol' US of A. Guess LGBTQ aren't worthy of protection.

 

[Kfox]

And until yesterday the law said that business providing services to the public could not deny such services to any protected sector of society. That has been altered now to say "unless they're gay."

I guess the question becomes; who decides which group gets protective status.

 

[fantome profane]

I guess the question becomes; who decides which group gets protective status.

The people who need protective status are the people who should get it.