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

[ralliann]

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.

No, it's not like that. It is like what I said. Would you like to rewrite my post too!

 

[ralliann]

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.

This is the problem with this whole Issue. It is all about sex, their sexual actions. Like they don't eat, breath, bleed like the rest of us? Those things are of no concern in the "gay" issue. It's simply about how they like their sex to be. Can't make them a cake without them making it about sex. Can't do anything "gay" without without it.

 

[Bradskii]

This is the problem with this whole Issue. It is all about sex...

I think you nailed it...

 

[ralliann]

Nailed it...

Yep, that's what I said. They have to be all about sex.

 

[stevil]

No, it's not like that. It is like what I said. Would you like to rewrite my post too!

Your analogy doesn't make sense. Doesn't reflect the situation at all.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Gay isn't an idea.

Correct

Marriage isn't merely an idea.

Disagree

Being that we're the only mammals that have developed ornate rituals surrounding the process of "socially approved" sex, it is an idea that someone came up with (and a religious idea at that)

And that's not even mentioning the fact that prior to Judeo-Christian influence, marriage had little to do with romance/love and was largely rooted in family arrangements. (and actually still is in many parts of the world)

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.

Nobody is denying those things...

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.

I don't believe being a gay is a choice either, which is why I referred to it as an immutable characteristic.

Nobody's telling people who their partner has to be. And I'm not suggesting that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married.

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.

You're not picking the "type of person", you're picking the "type of event".

Being gay is protected class, a wedding is an event...not a person.


There's a difference between providing catering services to white people and providing catering services for a white supremacy event, yes?

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

For the same reason that I, as a software developer, gladly built business-related websites for a few members of my parents' church back in the day, but declined the offer to do their actual church website, itself. As an atheist, I didn't feel like spending my free time designing a website for something I don't agree with.

I don't dislike them for being the specific brand of Christians they are, I get along well with them at social events and would be happy to do other types of tech work for them, but I didn't want my name attached to/associated with content that was suggesting that common core was tied to "cultural marxism", so I declined.

And the association aspect is a big part of it as well. If you begrudgingly did a website for something you didn't personally agree with, do you want your name out there in all the Yelp reviews and forums as "The person who made an amazing website for cause XYZ"?

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.

I didn't suggest that people get married to prove a point, I suggested that some people are going out of their way to find someone who will refuse to provide them the specific customized service they're looking for so that they can "kick the hornets nest" so to speak.

If you go into a cake shop (when there's 20 other cake shops in the area that are thrilled to make a gay wedding cake) specifically because you know their viewpoint on it and want to make it into "a thing", that is doing it to prove a point.

It'd be like a person claiming "the ability to eat meat is an extension of my religion because of 1 Timothy 4:3 and Genesis 9:3 of the KJV bible", and then going to the one vegan restaurant in town and demanding they make you a hamburger, and "if you don't do it, that's discriminating against Christianity"

Clearly that'd be an absurd claim.

Should we allow cafateria's to refuse black people just because there is another cafateria somewhere in the city that allows black people?

But that's not an apples to apples comparison. The website designer isn't refusing to do work for gay people, they're refusing to design a gay wedding website. It's a subtle difference, but a difference none the less.

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.

It's not irrelevant, it's the exact same ask.

If you were a hypothetical gay baker and/or website designer (or just someone who's an ally of the gay community)...noting that religion is a protected class, would you want to design and decorate a cake with a bible verse out of Leviticus? Or would you say "hey, sorry, I'll sell you a cake/website, but those specific customizations you're asking for...yeah, you'll have to go somewhere else to get that part done"

Would that make you "bigoted against Christians" for that refusal?

 

[Bradskii]

Yep, that's what I said. They have to be all about sex.

Maybe all businesses should have a questionaire:

Are you married to a person of the opposite sex?
Do you have sexual intercourse with this person?
For what reason do you have sex?
What form of sex do you have (tick all the boxes that are applicable). If none are applicable, please describe the act in as much detail as you can. Diagrams may be added to the reverse of the form. Photos are not allowed.

Do you think that if people have sex in a way that you disaprove of, then you could refuse them service?

 

[ralliann]

Maybe all businesses should have a questionaire:

Are you married to a person of the opposite sex?
Do you have sexual intercourse with this person?
For what reason do you have sex?
What form of sex do you have (tick all the boxes that are applicable). If none are applicable, please describe the act in as much detail as you can. Diagrams may be added to the reverse of the form. Photos are not allowed.

Do you think that if people have sex in a way that you disaprove of, then you could refuse them service?

Well, I certainly admit I don't go on marches to expose myself to proclaim that I like sex with men. Nor do you see men marching down the street exposing themselves to proclaim they like to sex with women.
I don't hang a flag all over my spaces to proclaim I like to have sex with men.
So I suppose those that set their minds on that would like to know heh? Come on tell us how you like to have sex, we want to know all about it.
So why would anyone be surprised about your questions.

 

[XianGoth1334]

I don't think it is simply about "serving" a group of people or not. I think it is about a person's own beliefs being violated by having to participate in what they do not agree with. Two flamboyant gay men go into Chik Fil A and get lunch and yes, they have to be "served" (tho who knows why they would even want to eat there). The issue with cakes and website design is that forces a person to violate their own beliefs. Do you want a gay baker forced to make a cake saying "God hates gays?" No, obviously not. The issue is in the promotion of any kind of message. I cannot imagine an atheist web page designer being legally forced to design a Christian webpage. Freedom goes both ways and I think people forget that whenever they feel they are on the "losing" end. A lot of times the particular wording matters. This is why legalizing "gay marriage" instead of "gay civil unions" has caused such a backlash.

There is an important distinction to made between essential services and ones involving expression. It is a fine point and the courts will have to be careful in defining the scope of what is / is not acceptable. Clearly you cannot deny basic services because of who a person is... but you can discriminate between essential service and general freedom of business.

 

[ralliann]

Well, I certainly admit I don't go on marches to expose myself to proclaim that I like sex with men. Nor do you see men marching down the street exposing themselves to proclaim they like to sex with women.
I don't hang a flag all over my spaces to proclaim I like to have sex with men.
So I suppose those that set their minds on that would like to know heh? Come on tell us how you like to have sex, we want to know all about it.
So why would anyone be surprised about your questions.

Come to think of it, if I were a prostitute, Male or Female I would do that.

 

[ralliann]

I don't think it is simply about "serving" a group of people or not. I think it is about a person's own beliefs being violated by having to participate in what they do not agree with. Two flamboyant gay men go into Chik Fil A and get lunch and yes, they have to be "served" (tho who knows why they would even want to eat there). The issue with cakes and website design is that forces a person to violate their own beliefs. Do you want a gay baker forced to make a cake saying "God hates gays?" No, obviously not. The issue is in the promotion of any kind of message. I cannot imagine an atheist web page designer being legally forced to design a Christian webpage. Freedom goes both ways and I think people forget that whenever they feel they are on the "losing" end. A lot of times the particular wording matters. This is why legalizing "gay marriage" instead of "gay civil unions" has caused such a backlash.

There is an important distinction to made between essential services and ones involving expression. It is a fine point and the courts will have to be careful in defining the scope of what is / is not acceptable. Clearly you cannot deny basic services because of who a person is... but you can discriminate between essential service and general freedom of business.

It is obvious what the issue is about.

 

[Bradskii]

So why would anyone be surprised about your questions.

They shouldn't. It's a logical result of the line you are taking. So if a straight couple have sinful sex, can you likewise refuse to serve them? You did say it was the act with which you were concerned.

 

[XianGoth1334]

It is obvious what the issue is about.

Right, Christians should not have to participate in business activities which violate their freedom of belief / speech.

 

[ralliann]

Right, Christians should not have to participate in business activities which violate their freedom of belief / speech.

And law should have no right to force us to. There is more than one agenda here. Some just want to be left alone, and others simply cannot tolerate that.

 

[XianGoth1334]

Fine... shift it to straight couples fornicating... A Christian designer should not have to design a webpage / clothing shirt / cake / etc. which proudly proclaims that a couple fornicates. Same with promoting abortion, drugs, etc. People should not have to violate their religion otherwise it isn't freedom of religion, is it?

 

[ralliann]

They shouldn't. It's a logical result of the line you are taking. So if a straight couple have sinful sex, can you likewise refuse to serve them? You did say it was the act with which you were concerned.

No, it is not. That is your issue not mine. It is the act with which they are concerned. Geesh. I don't advertise it or dwell on it. I am not a prostitute, nor a harlot. The questionnaire might work for harlots r us.

 

[XianGoth1334]

And law should have no right to force us to. There is more than one agenda here. Some just want to be left alone, and others simply cannot tolerate that.

Right and can you imagine the tables being turned and if Christians were forcing gays to design websites / cakes / shirts etc saying "Gays go to hell"? No one likes to be forced to violate their basic sense of self, it goes both ways. Live and let live. Treat others as you would want to be treated. I don't go into a Christian bookstore and demand they sell me Metallica... no, if I want that I just go to the main store for that. People have business options. This is a capitalism not a government run socialism where people are chronically violated.

 

[Bradskii]

No, it is not. That is your issue not mine. It is the act with which they are concerned. Geesh. I don't advertise it or dwell on it. I am not a prostitute, nor a harlot. The questionnaire might work for harlots r us.

So you think that simply being gay is a sin? If the person is entirely celibate then they are still sinning? Is that what you really think?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They shouldn't. It's a logical result of the line you are taking. So if a straight couple have sinful sex, can you likewise refuse to serve them? You did say it was the act with which you were concerned.

I would say it depends on the service.

Can a Christian deny to sell them a pre-made Thanksgiving cake with a turkey on it? Likely not....

Can they deny the ask to customize a cake with lettering that says "Premarital sex and/or Adultery is awesome!"?, I would say they should be able to refuse to do that.

Like many IT guys, I'll occasionally pick up some work on the side for some "easy money" (for those in the biz, we know that it's taking a template we've already written for a different client, making a few tweaks and do a bunch of copy & paste, and inflating the number of hours it actually took us to match what it would take for a person to do it from scratch, but that aside...), there have been "opportunities" I've declined.

And for the record, the opportunities I've declined were right-leaning ones. I mentioned earlier that I declined to do the website for my parents' Baptist church, another one was an Ohio-specific website for the NRA. (both for ideological reasons)

 

[ralliann]

Right and can you imagine the tables being turned and if Christians were forcing gays to design websites / cakes / shirts etc saying "Gays go to hell"? No one likes to be forced to violate their basic sense of self, it goes both ways. Live and let live. Treat others as you would want to be treated. I don't go into a Christian bookstore and demand they sell me Metallica... no, if I want that I just go to the main store for that. People have business options. This is a capitalism not a government run socialism where people are chronically violated.

Of course, it goes without even saying.