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

[XianGoth1334]

Eh, freedom of speech cuts both ways.

Somewhere in the heart of liberal America there is an overjoyed gay baker who can sleep peacefully now knowing they will never be 'forced' to make a cake saying "God hates gays". Now the folks up north at the Satanic Temple do not have to "allow" charismatic tourists to purchase a tour just so they can do an exorcism in the Baphomet room.

Freedom to choose in business is just that freedom... no one is gonna make you buy your lunch from Chik Fil A or shop at Hobby Lobby. You run your business how you want, you make the stands you want to make and people will decide whether you are rewarded or punished. The sooner we get more openness and clarity about what places stand for and what they believe the sooner people (on all sides of all issues) can shop more consistently and put their hearts at ease.

 

[RDKirk]

As I pointed to earlier, there is a difference between discriminating against a person's circumstance of birth or protected characteristic, and discriminating against an idea.

I think it opens up a serious can of worms if we start operating on the precedent that "everything a person who happens to be in a protected class want to say/do/have made for them, is thereby an extension of that protected class"

In the case of this website designer, they said they would (and have in the past) done work for gay people, they just won't do a gay wedding website.


But all of that aside, much like the cake shop story from a few years back, this doesn't come across as a sincere concern that there's lack of public accommodation due to a person's immutable circumstances of birth, this is one of those stories where the dialog surrounding it suggests that it's more about one sides desire to create an imposition and force someone to do something so that people can "prove a point" and pat themselves on the back.


Why I get that vibe? Colorado is one of the most LGBT-friendly states there is, with ample amounts of business that will happily provide any service a gay couple may be asking for, so the conversation of "what if 100% of people in the city wouldn't do it/public accommodation" is largely a non-starter.


To use an analogy that highlights the tone of this public debate (but looking at it from the other direction):

If there were a conservative Christian area, and 29 of the 30 stores in town all put up signs that said Merry Christmas, and sold Christian-specific holiday decorations. But that 1 store out of 30 said "well, that doesn't really line up with my beliefs, so we're just going to say Happy Holidays, and and we're only going to sell non-religious or religion-neutral holiday decorations at our store"

If, instead of simply going to one of the other stores, a small, but loud & vocal, group of Christian activists descended on that store and started demanding the store owner sell them a "Jesus is the reason for the season" decoration, and when the store owner says "sorry, I can't do that, I'll gladly sell you any other decoration I have out on the shelves, but I'm not going to provide that specific niche one you're looking for, but all of the other stores in town have them so you'll have to get it from one of them"

And they, in turn, replied back with "No, I don't want to get it from them, I specifically want YOU to provide this product and sell it to me", and when the store owner refused, they all claim "See, look!, he's discriminating against Christians, that's a protected class!, we're taking you to court!"


Would that come across to you as a good-faith complaint or any sort of sincere concern about Christians not being able to find public accommodations? Or would that come across more as the a mob ganging up on the one guy in town who's not sufficiently "bending the knee" and participating in the groupthink to the level of their liking?

I think this is somehow appropos to your point:

I remember in the early 60s when my family took a cross-country road trip from Oklahoma to Florida, as we reached the end of the travel for each day or needed to stop to eat during the day, my father mentioned that he was looking for a Howard Johnson's hotel. I thought at the time that it was because HoJo must have been particularly welcoming to black guests. Let me mention that was still a time before the Civil Rights Act. Whenever we stopped to eat or even to use a restroom, my father had first to leave us waiting in the car while he checked to see if we would even be permitted inside.

I later learned that Howard Johnson wasn't necessarily welcoming to black people, it was just that they had recently lost a highly publicized federal lawsuit--because they were an interstate hotel chain and thus fell under the purview of the FTC--and were required to patronize black people.

At that, the HoJo restaurants still carried an offensive "Little Black Sambo" design motif. It was annoying...but they still had to serve us.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think this is somehow appropos to your point:

I remember in the early 60s when my family took a cross-country road trip from Oklahoma to Florida, as we reached the end of the travel for each day or needed to stop to eat during the day, my father mentioned that he was looking for a Howard Johnson's hotel. I thought at the time that it was because HoJo must have been particularly welcoming to black guests. Let me mention that was still a time before the Civil Rights Act. Whenever we stopped to eat or even to use a restroom, my father had first to leave us waiting in the car while he checked to see if we would even be permitted inside.

I later learned that Howard Johnson wasn't necessarily welcoming to black people, it was just that they had recently lost a highly publicized federal lawsuit--because they were an interstate hotel chain and thus fell under the purview of the FTC--and were required to patronize black people.

At that, the HoJo restaurants still carried an offensive "Little Black Sambo" design motif. It was annoying...but they still had to serve us.

For the situation you're describing in the 60's, there was definitely a compelling reason for the government making the laws they did.

Widespread, flat out refusal of service based on the people themselves is different than refusal to provide a specific service (while still being willing to gladly provide the people themselves with any of the services they do offer)


The modern day dynamic for LGBT couples in Colorado isn't anywhere near as compelling in that regard.

It's almost the inverse ratio. While you mentioned having to drive around to find a place that would sell you the service, and LGBT couple in Colorado would be basically have to drive around for an hour to find a place that wouldn't. (and even then, they're still offering the baseline services to the people themselves, just not customized ones for a very specific kind of event)

 

[Say it aint so]

And it is your right of faith to think me a bigot if you wish too.

I don't know you. However, yes, we in the US provide protections for bigotry and discrimination usually towards a minority group, as long as someone claims it's based on texts filled with bigotry and discrimination.

 

[ralliann]

I don't know you.

Don't need to..

However, yes, we in the US provide protections for bigotry and discrimination usually towards a minority group, as long as someone claims it's based on texts filled with bigotry and discrimination.

As long as my rights are not taken away I'm good. What others choose let em choose.

 

[RDKirk]

For the situation you're describing in the 60's, there was definitely a compelling reason for the government making the laws they did.

Widespread, flat out refusal of service based on the people themselves is different than refusal to provide a specific service (while still being willing to gladly provide the people themselves with any of the services they do offer)


The modern day dynamic for LGBT couples in Colorado isn't anywhere near as compelling in that regard.

It's almost the inverse ratio. While you mentioned having to drive around to find a place that would sell you the service, and LGBT couple in Colorado would be basically have to drive around for an hour to find a place that wouldn't. (and even then, they're still offering the baseline services to the people themselves, just not customized ones for a very specific kind of event)

Sometimes a restaurant would take our business...if we were willing to enter through the rear and eat in the kitchen.

They were still willing to serve us "soul food," however. 'Cause in the South, that's actually...just... "food."

The thing was that they didn't want to appear to their white customers that they did. It was like many movie theaters in which we could enter the theater but had to sit in the balcony (the last time I had to sit in segregated balcony theater seating was July 20, 1969).

 

[RDKirk]

I don't know you. However, yes, we in the US provide protections for bigotry and discrimination usually towards a minority group, as long as someone claims it's based on texts filled with bigotry and discrimination.

The US is far more accommodating of bigotry and discrimination than that. To a great degree, that's okay.

We can see that when we see the Left turning on its own, as they turn upon Radical Feminists. It's like the feedback noise you get from an audio system when the negative source comes into contact with an even more negative source and looks like it's positive.

 

[Say it aint so]

As long as my rights are not taken away I'm good. What others choose let em choose.

Yes, my text written by men in fine purple robes from a time where reading entrails was all the rage, says rights for me but not for thee.

 

[Say it aint so]

The US is far more accommodating of bigotry and discrimination than that. To a great degree, that's okay.

We can see that when we see the Left turning on its own, as they turn upon Radical Feminists. It's like the feedback noise you get from an audio system when the negative source comes into contact with an even more negative source and looks like it's positive.

I have not clue what you're saying.

 

[ralliann]

Yes, my text written by men in fine purple robes from a time where reading entrails was all the rage, says rights for me but not for thee.

Both have rights maintained. I cannot force you to do what you do not want to do, or say. and you cannot force me too. I guess if you decide to call that freedom bigotry, that also is your choice.

 

[Aldebaran]

And if you live in a town FULL of racists?

Move?

 

[Say it aint so]

Both have rights maintained. I cannot force you to do what you do not want to do, or say. and you cannot force me too. I guess if you decide to call that freedom bigotry, that also is your choice.

Look over there, the drinking fountain says "whites only.'
The drinking fountain that says "colored only" is where you drink.
See, both rights maintained.

 

[Aldebaran]

Look over there, the drinking fountain says "whites only.'
The drinking fountain that says "colored only" is where you drink.
See, both rights maintained.

That's actually better (believe it or not) than a university that discriminates against whites and Asians who have good grades in order to bring in more people who are black, even though their grades aren't as good. At least in the drinking fountain scenario, everyone has equal access to water.

 

[ralliann]

Look over there, the drinking fountain says "whites only.'
The drinking fountain that says "colored only" is where you drink.
See, both rights maintained.

No, it is more like you want to force me to make the sign, so you can post it. Sorry, I do not want to provide that for you. I am willing to make you a sign to direct people to the water fountains, but that is all. So you go somewhere where they will make you the sign you desire. See the difference? You are always trying to slink into a different discussion.

 

[RDKirk]

Look over there, the drinking fountain says "whites only.'
The drinking fountain that says "colored only" is where you drink.
See, both rights maintained.

I've been there, experienced that...no, it's not the same thing.

No, it is more like you want to force me to make the sign, so you can post it. Sorry, I do not want to provide that for you. I am willing to make you a sign to direct people to the water fountains, but that is all. So you go somewhere where they will make you the sign you desire. See the difference? You are always trying to slink into a different discussion.

Good analogy.

 

[stevil]

As I pointed to earlier, there is a difference between discriminating against a person's circumstance of birth or protected characteristic, and discriminating against an idea.

Gay isn't an idea. Marriage isn't merely an idea.

Humans as a species value certain things very strongly
1. The right to have concentual sexual relations with a partner of choice.
2. The right to form a loving family with a partner of choice.

These are pretty fundamental stuff.
It's not like the right to buy a pepsi cola.

The argument of whether someone is born gay or whether gay is a choice is totally irrelevant.
Neither you, nor I, nor government, nor church gets to pick other people's partners for them, or gets to say "No" to other people's relationships.
Certainly, I can't just come up with a claim that interracial relationships are bad, or that people with blue eyes aren;t to marry people with green eyes. Or people that are into astrology aren't to marry people into astronomy.

For marriage the govt gets to intervene a little with rules that the people getting married must be above a certain age (because we don't deem children as being capable fully of giving consent) and must not be immediately related (presumably due to the danger of grooming). Churches can decide not to marry gays in their church, and this is OK, because Churches are not important to marriage. It's a private club with their private rituals which are tacked onto marriage.

I think it opens up a serious can of worms if we start operating on the precedent that "everything a person who happens to be in a protected class want to say/do/have made for them, is thereby an extension of that protected class"

If you sell wedding cakes or make wedding websites and sell to the general public then you shouldn't be able pick and choose the type of person you will sell to. Sure if someone is rude or threatening then you should be able to choose not to do business with them. But you shouldn't be able to deny them simply because YOU don't approve of who their partner is.

In the case of this website designer, they said they would (and have in the past) done work for gay people, they just won't do a gay wedding website.

Cool, But why not a wedding website?
They will produce wedding websites, but just not for gay couples. Sounds like discrimination to me.

But all of that aside, much like the cake shop story from a few years back, this doesn't come across as a sincere concern that there's lack of public accommodation due to a person's immutable circumstances of birth, this is one of those stories where the dialog surrounding it suggests that it's more about one sides desire to create an imposition and force someone to do something so that people can "prove a point" and pat themselves on the back.

People don't get married to prove a point. They do it to celebrate their love for each other and to exercise their natural right to form a family.

Why I get that vibe? Colorado is one of the most LGBT-friendly states there is, with ample amounts of business that will happily provide any service a gay couple may be asking for, so the conversation of "what if 100% of people in the city wouldn't do it/public accommodation" is largely a non-starter.

Irrelevant.
The argument of, "well just go else where" isn't a string argument.
Should we allow cafateria's to refuse black people just because there is another cafateria somewhere in the city that allows black people?

To use an analogy that highlights the tone of this public debate (but looking at it from the other direction):

If there were a conservative Christian area, and 29 of the 30 stores in town all put up signs that said Merry Christmas, and sold Christian-specific holiday decorations. But that 1 store out of 30 said "well, that doesn't really line up with my beliefs, so we're just going to say Happy Holidays, and and we're only going to sell non-religious or religion-neutral holiday decorations at our store"

Do you understand how irrelevant this analogy is?
The Happy Holidays shop doesn't have any Christmas trees in stock, they don't sell Christmas trees to anyone.

However the cake baker has ovens and flour and butter and make cakes and sell them.
The website builder has computers and a language and servers and skills.

 

[Say it aint so]

No, it is more like you want to force me to make the sign, so you can post it. Sorry, I do not want to provide that for you. I am willing to make you a sign to direct people to the water fountains, but that is all. So you go somewhere where they will make you the sign you desire. See the difference? You are always trying to slink into a different discussion.

And no one forces people to open businesses where they must adhere to anti-discrimination laws. Don't like that you have to cater to minority groups you don't like, then don't open a business.

Be it wedding cakes or web design where in the later the person made up the whole web design request up ( aint that a sin?). They claim their Jesus following Christian beliefs on marriage forbid them to provide services. Jesus had a lot to say about about marriage, but you will never hear these folks denying people services based in Jesus's Matthew rules come marriage. That's because the majority of Christians ignore those rules as they break them all the time; while in their hypocrisy yet again target another minority group.

 

[stevil]

No, it is more like you want to force me to make the sign, so you can post it. Sorry, I do not want to provide that for you. I am willing to make you a sign to direct people to the water fountains, but that is all.

It's like if a gay person comes to you and asks you to make a sign to point to a water fountain and you are in the business of making signs and often you do make signs to point to water fountains, but you say to the gay people that you won't make the sign for them.

 

[ralliann]

And no one forces people to open businesses where they must adhere to anti-discrimination laws. Don't like that you have to cater to minority groups you don't like, then don't open a business.

Be it wedding cakes or web design where in the later the person made up the whole web design request up ( aint that a sin?). They claim their Jesus following Christian beliefs on marriage forbid them to provide services. Jesus had a lot to say about about marriage, but you will never hear these folks denying people services based in Jesus's Matthew rules come marriage. That's because the majority of Christians ignore those rules as they break them all the time; while in their hypocrisy yet again target another minority group.

Stop! Threatening people concerning employment is force. People do not want to be forced to express, or proclaim Anything anyone wants. You are bringing issues to this argument that "distort" it. There is no Sin IMO in hetero sexual Marriage period. What sin someone engages in before that is not my business. Nor should I be forced to comply with your religious views.

 

[RDKirk]

No, it is more like you want to force me to make the sign, so you can post it. Sorry, I do not want to provide that for you. I am willing to make you a sign to direct people to the water fountains, but that is all. So you go somewhere where they will make you the sign you desire. See the difference? You are always trying to slink into a different discussion.

It's like if a gay person comes to you and asks you to make a sign to point to a water fountain and you are in the business of making signs and often you do make signs to point to water fountains, but you say to the gay people that you won't make the sign for them.

That's not what they're saying, though. They will make signs for gay people, just not signs pointing to specifically gay events. Presumably, a gay person's life is comprised by more than their specifically gay activities.