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

[Bradskii]

A high-end celebrity photographer may refuse to work for an ugly couple.

Maybe a chef would refuse to serve them as well. How nonsensical can this get?

 

[Aldebaran]

Maybe a chef would refuse to serve them as well. How nonsensical can this get?

It's pretty nonsensical to bring up such hypotheticals. When someone finally starts showing examples of people who can't get service anywhere at all from any business because they all decided to stop selling to gays/uglies, then it would make sense to talk about since it's actually a problem to be solved. In the meantime, dealing with so many hypotheticals never come to conclusions since even solutions are hypothetical as well.

 

[Bradskii]

It's pretty nonsensical to bring up such hypotheticals.

The point was that a chef refusing to serve ugly people or less nonsensically, gay people, is itself nonsensical. But hey, a chef is a culinary artiste. He presents food as an art form. And if it's a gay couple celebrating their anniversary then this ruling would, apparently, allow him to refuse to serve them.

When someone finally starts showing examples of people who can't get service anywhere at all from any business because they all decided to stop selling to gays/uglies, then it would make sense to talk about since it's actually a problem to be solved. In the meantime, dealing with so many hypotheticals never come to conclusions since even solutions are hypothetical as well.

When a decision like this is made, it's not by the stretch of anyone's imagination a one-off. There are implications. Quite possibly far reaching. You only have to read the comments by some of the SC judges to realise that.

 

[RDKirk]

Maybe a chef would refuse to serve them as well. How nonsensical can this get?

Maybe Bobby Flay would, if they were requesting him to devise a new dish just for them.

 

[Aldebaran]

The point was that a chef refusing to serve ugly people or less nonsensically, gay people, is itself nonsensical. But hey, a chef is a culinary artiste. He presents food as an art form. And if it's a gay couple celebrating their anniversary then this ruling would, apparently, allow him to refuse to serve them.

When a decision like this is made, it's not by the stretch of anyone's imagination a one-off. There are implications. Quite possibly far reaching. You only have to read the comments by some of the SC judges to realise that.

The part that is nonsensical is the idea that service refusals would be so widespread as to be a denial of any certain type of people of services, especially services that are important.

 

[Bradskii]

The part that is nonsensical is the idea that service refusals would be so widespread as to be a denial of any certain type of people of services, especially services that are important.

Nobody has mentioned 'services that are important'. So we'll skip that bit. But the ruling does actually mean that a 'certain type of person' can be refused service in certain, but far from unusual, conditions. I mean, that was what was asked for and that was the decision of the SC.

Here's Sotomayor's comment from the original link in the op:

Sotomayor, who read a summary of her dissent in court to underscore her disagreement, said the decision’s logic “cannot be limited to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” A website designer could refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, a stationer could refuse to sell a birth announcement for a disabled couple, and a large retail store could limit its portrait services to “traditional” families, she wrote.

Want to bet that there are other designers, stationers and store owners already contacting their legal team, eager to make a name for themselves?

 

[Aldebaran]

Nobody has mentioned 'services that are important'. So we'll skip that bit. But the ruling does actually mean that a 'certain type of person' can be refused service in certain, but far from unusual, conditions. I mean, that was what was asked for and that was the decision of the SC.

Here's Sotomayor's comment from the original link in the op:

Sotomayor, who read a summary of her dissent in court to underscore her disagreement, said the decision’s logic “cannot be limited to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” A website designer could refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, a stationer could refuse to sell a birth announcement for a disabled couple, and a large retail store could limit its portrait services to “traditional” families, she wrote.

Want to bet that there are other designers, stationers and store owners already contacting their legal team, eager to make a name for themselves?

So let them! They're the ones who are turning away business, and maybe even would end up getting death threats, mail with white powder in it, boycotts, and maybe even someone doing a drive-by shooting, or a Molotov Cocktail through the living room window. Those are things we've already seen done by that crowd. If a business owner is willing to take the risk of not doing business with such peaceful people, then they'll take their business elsewhere, assuming they find the time to do so after "peacefully protesting" against those who don't agree with them.

 

[Bradskii]

So let them! They're the ones who are turning away business, and maybe even would end up getting death threats, mail with white powder in it, boycotts, and maybe even someone doing a drive-by shooting, or a Molotov Cocktail through the living room window. Those are things we've already seen done by that crowd. If a business owner is willing to take the risk of not doing business with such peaceful people, then they'll take their business elsewhere, assuming they find the time to do so after "peacefully protesting" against those who don't agree with them.

Which people are you referring to? Blacks? People in a mixed marriage? Asians? Women? Muslims? Gay people? Latinos? Christians? Jews? Divorced people? Single mums?

Who exactly is 'that crowd'? Because maybe, just maybe you don't understand the implications of the ruling. It was about a web designer and gay marriages. But it doesn't just apply to web designers and it doesn't just reference gay marriages.

How are you not following what the discussion is about? We're 45 pages in, for heaven's sake...

 

[Pommer]

When the writer’s strike is over I wanna pitch a drag-queen cooking-competition show.
The climate’s right!

 

[Aldebaran]

Which people are you referring to? Blacks? People in a mixed marriage? Asians? Women? Muslims? Gay people? Latinos? Christians? Jews? Divorced people? Single mums?

Who exactly is 'that crowd'? Because maybe, just maybe you don't understand the implications of the ruling. It was about a web designer and gay marriages. But it doesn't just apply to web designers and it doesn't just reference gay marriages.

How are you not following what the discussion is about? We're 45 pages in, for heaven's sake...

I'm able to follow along just fine. I quoted your post where you mentioned Sotomayor listing various "minorities" that she is supposedly worried about being "discriminated" against. I was following along with what she said, and you quoted, and I even quoted your post.
How are you not following what the discussion is about?

 

[Aldebaran]

When the writer’s strike is over I wanna pitch a drag-queen cooking-competition show.
The climate’s right!

It would fit in with the rest of the trash most people are tuning out.
Thousands of channels, and nothing to watch.

 

[Pommer]

It would fit in with the rest of the trash most people are tuning out.
Thousands of channels, and nothing to watch.

“‘Male’ Parental-Unit Knows Best!”

 

[essentialsaltes]

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

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

Hair Care Company Jack Winn Pro Pulls Products from Transphobic Michigan Salon

“It has come to our attention that disturbing comments have been attributed to one of our product users. We want to make it clear that we disapprove of and reject hate speech in any form. Such actions go against the very values we hold dear and strive to uphold,” the company posted on Instagram. “The stylist who made those comments no longer has authorization to represent our brand or products.”

Michigan’s Attorney General, Dana Nessel, indicated through a spokesperson earlier Wednesdaythat she knows about Geiger’s statements.

[From that link]

“This [SCOTUS] holding has no impact on Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) when it is applied to protect against discrimination in the provision of public accommodations that do not constitute speech,” Nessel said in a press release.

 

[DarylFawcett]

ADVISOR HAT ON!

As it has been decided by consensus that this thread needs to be permanently closed, this thread is permanently closed.

ADVISOR HAT OFF!