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

[RDKirk]

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.

All sorts of people are getting fanciful dye jobs these days.

 

[stevil]

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."

I would imagine that the customer owns the intellectual property of the words and images that they themselves provided. Not the website developer.

 

[stevil]

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.

No. Your posts don't cover the situation of a Christian baker being asked to create a custom wedding cake that doesn't have any words or figurines and could equally be used at either a hetrosexual or a homosexual wedding.

As we both know, the Christian baker simply doesn't want to sell any wedding cakes to gay people for a gay marriage.

 

[Aldebaran]

No. Your posts don't cover the situation of a Christian baker being asked to create a custom wedding cake that doesn't have any words or figurines and could equally be used at either a hetrosexual or a homosexual wedding.

As we both know, the Christian baker simply doesn't want to sell any wedding cakes to gay people for a gay marriage.

And that's their right to not facilitate the celebration of sexual perversion, nor be forced by the government to do so.
The Supreme Court has ruled, and no one is above (or beneath) the law.

 

[RDKirk]

I would imagine that the customer owns the intellectual property of the words and images that they themselves provided. Not the website developer.

Copyright will likely be shared, depending on their contract.

 

[RDKirk]

No. Your posts don't cover the situation of a Christian baker being asked to create a custom wedding cake that doesn't have any words or figurines and could equally be used at either a hetrosexual or a homosexual wedding.

As we both know, the Christian baker simply doesn't want to sell any wedding cakes to gay people for a gay marriage.

And that specific situation would not be made legal by this Supreme Court decision.

Again, you continue to argue about a previous case, not this one.

 

[stevil]

And that's their right to not facilitate the celebration of sexual perversion, nor be forced by the government to do so.
The Supreme Court has ruled, and no one is above (or beneath) the law.

So does this mean that cake makers can refuse to sell wedding cakes to Christians as they don't want to facilitate the celebration of perversion?

Edit: finally though, we get someone admitting, that it isn't the special form, colour or decorations of the cake, but the sexual orientation of the customers.

 

[stevil]

Copyright will likely be shared, depending on their contract.

No, not likely.

 

[stevil]

And that specific situation would not be made legal by this Supreme Court decision.

Again, you continue to argue about a previous case, not this one.

They are both very similar, You have a hateful and discrinatory Christian supplier refusing to provide a service for gay customers. In both cases the supplier isn't writing or crafting a speach.

 

[Aldebaran]

So does this mean that cake makers can refuse to sell wedding cakes to Christians as they don't want to facilitate the celebration of perversion?

That's their business.

Edit: finally though, we get someone admitting, that it isn't the special form, colour or decorations of the cake, but the sexual orientation of the customers.

Nope. You said "for a gay marriage".
I'd normally tell you to put back the goal posts, but this isn't football.

 

[RDKirk]

No, not likely.

Yes, likely.

A joint work is one in which a work is prepared by two or more creators with the intent that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole. Generally, for a contributor to qualify as a joint author the contributions of each contributor must be independently copyrightable. The authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work. Joint copyright owners share an equal interest in the copyright regardless of how much they contribute to the work. This gives all joint copyright owners the right to register as well as enforce the copyright.

If a joint copyright owner wants to acquire sole ownership of the work, they may do so through a contractual agreement with the other owners.

 

[stevil]

Yes, likely.

A joint work is one in which a work is prepared by two or more creators with the intent that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole. Generally, for a contributor to qualify as a joint author the contributions of each contributor must be independently copyrightable. The authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work. Joint copyright owners share an equal interest in the copyright regardless of how much they contribute to the work. This gives all joint copyright owners the right to register as well as enforce the copyright.

If a joint copyright owner wants to acquire sole ownership of the work, they may do so through a contractual agreement with the other owners.

I have worked with web development companies before. They don't own the messages on the website. They own the intellectual property of their code, not the content of the site.

 

[RDKirk]

They are both very similar, You have a hateful and discrinatory Christian supplier refusing to provide a service for gay customers. In both cases the supplier isn't writing or crafting a speach.

This case is explicitly involving artistic "expression."

You have your opinion about what artistic expression is, but as I've said, your opinion is irrelevant. A federal court's opinion is what counts.

 

[RDKirk]

I have worked with web development companies before. They don't own the messages on the website. They own the intellectual property of their code, not the content of the site.

So have I. Both elements are independently copyrightable. Their contract will dictate how they work it out.

Granted, those companies you speak of might have had incompetent contracts in that regard that happened never to be adjudicated in court.

 

[stevil]

This case is explicitly involving artistic "expression."

You have your opinion about what artistic expression is, but as I've said, your opinion is irrelevant. A federal court's opinion is what counts.

Sure. But I disagree with the courts. This is a case of discrimination rather than free speech.

 

[stevil]

That's their business.

So you are a big supporter of discrimination?

Nope. You said "for a gay marriage".
I'd normally tell you to put back the goal posts, but this isn't football.

Oh boy. Again, it has nothing to do with the form of the cake but everything to do with the sexuality of those getting married. a.k.a. the customer

 

[Aldebaran]

So you are a big supporter of discrimination?


Oh boy. Again, it has nothing to do with the form of the cake but everything to do with the sexuality of those getting married. a.k.a. the customer

The Supreme Court disagrees with your opinion of what it has to do with.

 

[RDKirk]

So you are a big supporter of discrimination?


Oh boy. Again, it has nothing to do with the form of the cake but everything to do with the sexuality of those getting married. a.k.a. the customer

It doesn't have anything to do with cake or the sexuality of the customer.

 

[RDKirk]

Sure. But I disagree with the courts. This is a case of discrimination rather than free speech.

Of the thousands of kinds of discrimination that are possible, most are beneficial, some are not, and a handful are impermissible.

 

[stevil]

It doesn't have anything to do with cake or the sexuality of the customer.

LOL.
It has EVERYTHING to do with the sexuality of the customer