The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn’t want to make wedding websites for gay couples

[stevil]

I would think so. Is that an issue?


I would think so. Is that an issue?

And if someone thinks it is an issue, then they should be advocating the First Amendment be repealed--or at least the free speech part of it--in order to allow the government to compel speech.

LOL, you don't have any problems with racism and discrimination.

People have the right to say rubbish.
But in most free and developed nations, we put protections on so that people aren't discriminated against, this is done to help society coexist and gel rather than to pick a team and fight over everything.

 

[stevil]

Frankly, that's the way it's always been.

Black clients don't expect high quality artistic expression in personal services from white people.

WOW!

 

[Bradskii]

No, there isn't.

How can there not be?

If you simply simply think or imply or suggest something which might well be illegal if blatantly stated and acted upon, that is, obviously I would suggest, completely different to the SC saying it's no problem for you to state it and entirely legal for you to act on it.

 

[Bradskii]

There is a difference between refusing to do business with someone because of who that person is, and refusing to do business with someone based on the product they want. This case is about the latter.

Then someone could serve a black person and a white person both wanting a run of the mill product, but refuse to do business with them because they wanted to get married.

If you don't think that's a very serious problem indeed then I'm at a loss as to what to say.

 

[RDKirk]

Then someone could serve a black person and a white person both wanting a run of the mill product, but refuse to do business with them because they wanted to get married.

If you don't think that's a very serious problem indeed then I'm at a loss as to what to say.

Nope, I don't think that's a very serious problem. I haven't thought it was a problem for the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act. We have not found it a problem going to people who want to do business with us for artistic personal services.

To some extent, it hampers my market as a photographer because white people do the same thing. It's very hard to get people to cross ethnic boundaries marketing photographic services.

 

[RDKirk]

How can there not be?

If you simply simply think or imply or suggest something which might well be illegal if blatantly stated and acted upon, that is, obviously I would suggest, completely different to the SC saying it's no problem for you to state it and entirely legal for you to act on it.

Okay, you said that it's okay for me to think or whisper something, as long as I don't say it out loud and, God forbid, ever act on it. That is senseless. That's not liberty. That's how the Roman Catholic Church treats doctrinal dissent within its congregation....which proves your outlook is essentially on the same ground as Catholic doctrinal control.

 

[Bradskii]

Okay, you said that it's okay for me to think or whisper something, as long as I don't say it out loud and, God forbid, ever act on it. That is senseless. That's not liberty. That's how the Roman Catholic Church treats doctrinal dissent within its congregation....which proves your outlook is essentially on the same ground as Catholic doctrinal control.

Heck, I'm not agreeing with it. I don't think it's OK. But there is a train of thought that says having racist and other discriminatory attitudes out in the open is a good thing. I tend towards that. If someone in this forum says something that is, as far as I am concerned, outright and unjustified prejudice, I tend to encourage them. Here's the rope. Go hang yourself. And we can all watch as you do it.

So legal or not, I'd want businesses to state clear and unequivocally who they will and won't work for.

Nope, I don't think that's a very serious problem. I haven't thought it was a problem for the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act. We have not found it a problem going to people who want to do business with us for artistic personal services.

To some extent, it hampers my market as a photographer because white people do the same thing. It's very hard to get people to cross ethnic boundaries marketing photographic services.

That surprises me, but you know your business better than I do.

But we're not talking about someone who decides not to use a service on some kind of racial preference. We're talking about the service refusing to accept the business on racial lines (or gay).

 

[RDKirk]

But we're not talking about someone who decides not to use a service on some kind of racial preference. We're talking about the service refusing to accept the business on racial lines (or gay).

We're talking about refusing to accept speech business on free speech lines.

A professional speech writer should not be coerced by government to write a speech for a client supporting a position he detests.

 

[Bradskii]

We're talking about refusing to accept speech business on free speech lines.

A professional speech writer should not be coerced by government to write a speech for a client supporting a position he detests.

I was talking about your position that there may be racial reasons why people don't go to specific businesses. You used yourself as an example. As opposed to businesses refusing people on racial grounds.

And your earlier position was that legally refusing to 'write a speech' (or it's equivalent) would apply to a racist refusing for example, web page production to a mixed marriage couple (which, incidentally, is a term that I thought was confined, or at least should be confined to the history books. Even the term might be considered borderline racist in these parts).

If what you say is true (and I repeat I am no legal expert, especially as it refers to US law) then I am pretty depressed about that.

 

[stevil]

We're talking about refusing to accept speech business on free speech lines.

A professional speech writer should not be coerced by government to write a speech for a client supporting a position he detests.

Exactly, but a cake isn't speech and a website is just html code. The words(copy) might have been provided by the customer.

 

[BPPLEE]

Exactly, but a cake isn't speech and a website is just html code. The words(copy) might have been provided by the customer.

Burning a flag is free speech so then so is baking a cake or creating a website

 

[stevil]

Burning a flag is free speech so then so is baking a cake or creating a website

You can burn a cake if you want to, you can also delete a website.

But if you are selling products and services to the public, you shouldn't be able to deny customers of certain demographics, that is discrimination and it is disgusting and dangerous.

 

[BPPLEE]

You can burn a cake if you want to, you can also delete a website.

But if you are selling products and services to the public, you shouldn't be able to deny customers of certain demographics, that is discrimination and it is disgusting and dangerous.

Burn the rainbow flag and you’ll likely be arrested for a hate crime

 

[stevil]

Burn the rainbow flag and you’ll likely be arrested for a hate crime

Burn whatever flag you like. I don't care.

 

[RDKirk]

Exactly, but a cake isn't speech and a website is just html code. The words(copy) might have been provided by the customer.

Your opinion is irrelevant. What a US court might decree is what counts.

Using US copyright law as a guide to what is "creative expression" and what is not, you might be proven right about the cake, because at this point US federal courts have tended to rule food design as "utilitarian," but you're already dead wrong about a website, which US federal courts have already ruled to be "creative expression."

 

[essentialsaltes]

Next up on "Is it expressive?": haircuts.

Owner bans some LGBTQ customers from Michigan hair salon over pronouns. ‘Not welcome’

“This stance was taken to insure that clients have the best experience, and I am admitting that since I am not willing to play the pronoun game or cater to requests outside of what I perceive as normal,” Geiger said.

---

Michigan recently (March 2023) added gender identity and expression to its existing non-discrimination laws. Ostensibly discriminating against 'pronouns' would be illegal. Unless (presumably) the salon is providing expressive services of a type protected as free speech, as in the SCOTUS ruling.

 

[Aldebaran]

Which very different from a cake maker that makes cakes, but refuses to make a cake because their customer is gay.

The court case is not about the form of the cake, not about the ingredients, not about the colour, not about the texture, not about the decorations.
It is only about the sexuality of the couple getting married a.k.a. nothing to do with the cake or its design.

You're still putting out that misinformation and pushing that false narrative?
I direct you once again to posts #533 and #538 for the truth, assuming you're into that sort of thing.

 

[Aldebaran]

Next up on "Is it expressive?": haircuts.

Owner bans some LGBTQ customers from Michigan hair salon over pronouns. ‘Not welcome’

“This stance was taken to insure that clients have the best experience, and I am admitting that since I am not willing to play the pronoun game or cater to requests outside of what I perceive as normal,” Geiger said.

---

Michigan recently (March 2023) added gender identity and expression to its existing non-discrimination laws. Ostensibly discriminating against 'pronouns' would be illegal. Unless (presumably) the salon is providing expressive services of a type protected as free speech, as in the SCOTUS ruling.

An "expressive" haircut could involve getting their hair dyed blue or purple, which seems to be a going thing among the "pride" people these days.

 

[RDKirk]

Next up on "Is it expressive?": haircuts.

Owner bans some LGBTQ customers from Michigan hair salon over pronouns. ‘Not welcome’

“This stance was taken to insure that clients have the best experience, and I am admitting that since I am not willing to play the pronoun game or cater to requests outside of what I perceive as normal,” Geiger said.

---

Michigan recently (March 2023) added gender identity and expression to its existing non-discrimination laws. Ostensibly discriminating against 'pronouns' would be illegal. Unless (presumably) the salon is providing expressive services of a type protected as free speech, as in the SCOTUS ruling.

“If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer,” the hair salon owner said. “You are not welcome at this salon. Period.”

Read more at: https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article277196783.html#storylink=cpy

That would include LGBT (as long as the transperson is actually "declaring" either male or female). In those cases, special pronoun uses don't really apply: Call 'em as they present themselves, which I consider reasonable.

I'm generally opposed to the law coercing speech. And at a certain point, I'm going to push back on claims of a "hostile environment" as well; I'm generally disdainful of the concept of "microaggressions."

 

[Aldebaran]

The site refuses to believe I've turned off my adblocker, so I can't read it.

Is that actually a "ban" or is the proprietor simply saying that he's not going to be coerced into state-mandated language?

Here's the first part of the story:

The owner of a Michigan hair salon said she is refusing service to some members of the LGBTQ+ community. Christine Geiger, who owns Studio 8 Hair Lab in Traverse City, said in a Facebook post she is exercising her free speech by only allowing certain customers. “If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer,” the hair salon owner said. “You are not welcome at this salon. Period.”

The Facebook page was later deleted, and the salon’s Instagram was set to private. In the biography for the business on Instagram, the owner says it “does not cater to woke ideologies.” The post came days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that, under the First Amendment, a web designer could refuse to make a website for same-sex marriages based on her religious beliefs. In March, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Geiger doubled down in a post Sunday, July 9, on the Overheard in Traverse City Facebook group. She said she has no issue with lesbian, gay or bisexual customers, but said she will not support the “TQ+” community.