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

[JSRG]

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

Now sure how you got that out of my post.

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.

There is a difference between requiring a company to sell products regardless of the race/sex/religion/etc. of the customer versus requiring them to sell products they don't want to. The case concerns the latter.

 

[JSRG]

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.

No, you would still have to sell them the run of the mill product if they were married or not. In such a case, the issue is you refusing to sell a product based on who the buyer is. This, however, is a case where someone is objecting not to the customer, but the product being requested.

 

[Bradskii]

No, you would still have to sell them the run of the mill product if they were married or not. In such a case, the issue is you refusing to sell a product based on who the buyer is. This, however, is a case where someone is objecting not to the customer, but the product being requested.

But...one of the arguments put forward is that if a gay marriage in itself is against one's beliefs, then you are now free to refuse service because anything one does in accepting that marriage as being valid goes against one's conscience. And that therefore it would also apply to a mixed marriage.

Even if we hold that it's the content of the product, such as a video, which dictates whether one can refuse or not, then exactly the same would apply to a mixed marriage. For the life of me I can't see why it wouldn't. But I'd love for someone to explain to me why it wouldn't. Otherwise...we are heading down a very dark path indeed.

 

[stevil]

There is a difference between requiring a company to sell products regardless of the race/sex/religion/etc. of the customer versus requiring them to sell products they don't want to. The case concerns the latter.

That's not true at all.
A cake maker sells cakes
A website developer sells websites.

There is no difference in the wedding cake,, the only difference is the person buying it.

 

[RDKirk]

But...one of the arguments put forward is that if a gay marriage in itself is against one's beliefs, then you are now free to refuse service because anything one does in accepting that marriage as being valid goes against one's conscience. And that therefore it would also apply to a mixed marriage.

Even if we hold that it's the content of the product, such as a video, which dictates whether one can refuse or not, then exactly the same would apply to a mixed marriage. For the life of me I can't see why it wouldn't. But I'd love for someone to explain to me why it wouldn't. Otherwise...we are heading down a very dark path indeed.

Yes, it would apply to a mixed marriage.

BTW, you do realize, don't you, that private organizations have always had that right to discriminate? The Civil Rights Act was never absolute.

 

[RDKirk]

That's not true at all.
A cake maker sells cakes
A website developer sells websites.

There is no difference in the wedding cake,, the only difference is the person buying it.

Fortunately, the federal government sees a difference between a website and a wedding cake, which is why a website can be copyrighted and a wedding cake (generally) cannot.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, it would apply to a mixed marriage.

BTW, you do realize, don't you, that private organizations have always had that right to discriminate? The Civil Rights Act was never absolute.

I think there's a world of difference between not having a law that prevents you from doing something, and one that says you now legally can.

But checking what the situation seems to be, you guys don't seem to have the equivalent to the Australian Racial Discrimination Act: Racial discrimination

'This means that it is against the law for a provider of goods or services to discriminate against a person by:
refusing to provide a person with goods, services and facilities.'

 

[JSRG]

That's not true at all.
A cake maker sells cakes
A website developer sells websites.

There is no difference in the wedding cake,, the only difference is the person buying it.

If the situation is that there is an already made cake in the store available for purchase, or a specific standard model cake available for order (that is, it isn't made yet, but you just point to it on a menu and they make it), then I would agree there is no difference other than the person buying it. However, if the persons asks for a cake customized in any way, and the person selling it has an issue with that customization, then the issue is not with the person purchasing it, but the product being ordered.

 

[JSRG]

But...one of the arguments put forward is that if a gay marriage in itself is against one's beliefs, then you are now free to refuse service because anything one does in accepting that marriage as being valid goes against one's conscience. And that therefore it would also apply to a mixed marriage.

Such was not the argument I was making. Perhaps that was the argument being made and I just barged into it unknowingly. But my position, at least in regards to this case, is that the "conscience" doesn't actually matter--if you have any reason whether it comes from conscience or something else, for not wanting to make a specific customized product, then you are by free speech grounds allowed to refuse.

Even if we hold that it's the content of the product, such as a video, which dictates whether one can refuse or not, then exactly the same would apply to a mixed marriage. For the life of me I can't see why it wouldn't. But I'd love for someone to explain to me why it wouldn't. Otherwise...we are heading down a very dark path indeed.

I do not see how this is particularly a "dark path". It seems constitutionally speaking, people should have the right to refuse to make videos if they don't want to. Whether that reason is something reasonable ("it would be too much work to make that kind of video"), something more controversial ("it would be to promote a political cause I don't like"), to something people generally disagree with ("I don't want to do anything to support a mixed-race wedding"), people being able to choose what creative works they want to make without government coercion is a fairly basic constitutional right. If anything it seems the opposite, given that the "dark path" being advanced involves the obvious fact that the government cannot force people to make videos promoting the KKK if some racist guy wants to hire you to make it. The First Amendment doesn't start applying when it comes to forcing people to engage in "good speech" and stop applying when it comes to forcing people to engage in "bad speech". It applies to speech whether it's good or bad.

 

[stevil]

If the situation is that there is an already made cake in the store available for purchase, or a specific standard model cake available for order (that is, it isn't made yet, but you just point to it on a menu and they make it), then I would agree there is no difference other than the person buying it. However, if the persons asks for a cake customized in any way, and the person selling it has an issue with that customization, then the issue is not with the person purchasing it, but the product being ordered.

Sure, but what if the customisation is sexuality neutral. Like, they say, they want a three layered fruit cake for 100 people with white chocolate and some edible flowers flowing around and down the cake?
Nothing inherently gay about that cake. It's just a wedding cake. Why would it matter whether it is for a homosexual wedding or a heterosexual wedding?

I can somewhat understand, if they say to the cake maker that they want a decal/topper on top of the cake with two men in suits getting married, and the cake maker says that he/she doesn't have those in stock and cannot get them in stock.

 

[RDKirk]

I think there's a world of difference between not having a law that prevents you from doing something, and one that says you now legally can.

But checking what the situation seems to be, you guys don't seem to have the equivalent to the Australian Racial Discrimination Act: Racial discrimination

'This means that it is against the law for a provider of goods or services to discriminate against a person by:
refusing to provide a person with goods, services and facilities.'

It's already been pointed out to you that the issue is not the customer, it's the product.

Let's say, for instance, that a heterosexual photographer wants to market wedding photography explicitly to homosexual couples and engages this particular website designer to create a website for that purpose.

Despite the fact that the prospective client is heterosexual, the website designer would still refuse to make that website.

 

[Bradskii]

Such was not the argument I was making. Perhaps that was the argument being made and I just barged into it unknowingly. But my position, at least in regards to this case, is that the "conscience" doesn't actually matter--if you have any reason whether it comes from conscience or something else, for not wanting to make a specific customized product, then you are by free speech grounds allowed to refuse.


I do not see how this is particularly a "dark path". It seems constitutionally speaking, people should have the right to refuse to make videos if they don't want to. Whether that reason is something reasonable ("it would be too much work to make that kind of video"), something more controversial ("it would be to promote a political cause I don't like"), to something people generally disagree with ("I don't want to do anything to support a mixed-race wedding"), people being able to choose what creative works they want to make without government coercion is a fairly basic constitutional right. If anything it seems the opposite, given that the "dark path" being advanced involves the obvious fact that the government cannot force people to make videos promoting the KKK if some racist guy wants to hire you to make it. The First Amendment doesn't start applying when it comes to forcing people to engage in "good speech" and stop applying when it comes to forcing people to engage in "bad speech". It applies to speech whether it's good or bad.

You must appreciate the difference in not wanting to work for a racist (refusing to work for the KKK to promote racist views) and a racist not wanting to do work for you (someone refusing to make invites for a mixed marriage for example).

If someone holds views with which you don't agree, such as a member of the KKK, then I agree that you should be able to refuse to do business with them. But if someone is gay or black or Asian, then that in itself is no grounds for refusal. And it's drawing a very long bow indeed to suggest that a gay couple is promoting gay marriage simply by getting married, something that is entirely legal. And I can't accept that people in a mixed marriage are promoting anything at all.

 

[Bradskii]

It's already been pointed out to you that the issue is not the customer, it's the product.

Let's say, for instance, that a heterosexual photographer wants to market wedding photography explicitly to homosexual couples and engages this particular website designer to create a website for that purpose.

Despite the fact that the prospective client is heterosexual, the website designer would still refuse to make that website.

And I see no reason why he should be allowed to refuse. There's nothing promoting homosexuality in making that website. And presumably nothing offensive. It just says that the photographer will offer his services to gay people.

We cannot promote homosexuality on this forum. But I seriously doubt that I would be banned if I said I do portrait photos for gay people as my job of work and often do gay marriages.

And how far down the line do we go? Can the computer dealer refuse to sell computers to the web designer who is going to make a web page for someone who is going to take photos at a gay wedding?

 

[RDKirk]

And I see no reason why he should be allowed to refuse. There's nothing promoting homosexuality in making that website. And presumably nothing offensive. It just says that the photographer will offer his services to gay people.

We cannot promote homosexuality on this forum. But I seriously doubt that I would be banned if I said I do portrait photos for gay people as my job of work and often do gay marriages.

The photographer must still offer other services to gay people, as we've said continuously. Just not that particular artistic expression.

And how far down the line do we go? Can the computer dealer refuse to sell computers to the web designer who is going to make a web page for someone who is going to take photos at a gay wedding?

Where is the artistic expression in selling a computer? See, you keep taking it farther that the ruling allows.

 

[Michie]

Catholic Bookstore Owner Hopes Recent Supreme Court Ruling Will Aid Her Challenge

Doesn’t Want to Use Gender-Identity Pronouns, Thinks Website-Designer Decision May Help JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — A Catholic bookstore owner in Florida that wants to avoid using pronouns that don’t correspond with a person’s sex may have gotten a boost from a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Bradskii]

The photographer must still offer other services to gay people, as we've said continuously. Just not that particular artistic expression.

What possible artistic expression could be claimed in refusing to work for a mixed marriage that wouldn't apply to any other marriage? There is none. The only difference is the couple being married.

 

[JSRG]

Sure, but what if the customisation is sexuality neutral. Like, they say, they want a three layered fruit cake for 100 people with white chocolate and some edible flowers flowing around and down the cake?
Nothing inherently gay about that cake. It's just a wedding cake. Why would it matter whether it is for a homosexual wedding or a heterosexual wedding?

I can somewhat understand, if they say to the cake maker that they want a decal/topper on top of the cake with two men in suits getting married, and the cake maker says that he/she doesn't have those in stock and cannot get them in stock.

In the case of the cake you mention, I would say that the basic question is whether they would be willing to sell that exact cake to a heterosexual customer as well. If they would, then whatever their object to it is based on the cake, not the customer. If they would sell the exact same cake to a heterosexual but not a homosexual, then it is a case of discriminating based on the customer, not the product.

 

[JSRG]

You must appreciate the difference in not wanting to work for a racist (refusing to work for the KKK to promote racist views) and a racist not wanting to do work for you (someone refusing to make invites for a mixed marriage for example).

Is there a legal--or perhaps more specifically, constitutional--difference between the two?

If someone holds views with which you don't agree, such as a member of the KKK, then I agree that you should be able to refuse to do business with them. But if someone is gay or black or Asian, then that in itself is no grounds for refusal.

Anyone can refuse to provide a service to anyone, so long as the law does not require them to. In some cases, laws have been passed to require it in certain cases, such as various civil rights legislation. The difference between "gay or black or Asian" and "a member of the KKK" is that the former groups are (at least in Colorado) clearly protected, whereas the latter is not.

Though perhaps being a KKK member is a protected class. I do notice that in the big list of protected classes in the Colorado law ("disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, or ancestry") it lists "creed". I am not sure exactly how this is defined legally. The most "official" thing I can find is Creed (Covered Under State Law Only) - Division of Human and Civil Rights - State of Delaware which appears to define it rather broadly, although its specific examples are all religion-based and this is Delaware rather than Colorado.

If it does count as a "creed", then one would not be able to turn away a KKK member as a customer for being a member of the KKK--though you could turn them away due to not wanting to create whatever product they ask you to. So a KKK member would be entitled to be able to come in and buy a standard product (say, a hamburger) but wouldn't be able to make people print something that's endorsing KKK beliefs.

And it's drawing a very long bow indeed to suggest that a gay couple is promoting gay marriage simply by getting married, something that is entirely legal. And I can't accept that people in a mixed marriage are promoting anything at all.

Two people of the same gender are inherently promoting gay marriage by getting married--if you are doing something publicly, you are inherently promoting it. That said, whether it is "promoting" it or not is not the important issue to begin with.

 

[Bradskii]

Is there a legal--or perhaps more specifically, constitutional--difference between the two?

Well, there's a moral difference. The first is me not wanting to involve myself in promoting someone else's racist views. The other would be a decision not to work for someone on a prejudicial basis in the first instance. Nothing other than 'I won't work for her because she is black/gay/Asian/female.' I tend to support the first. Obviously not the second. To do so would be to accept that such views have some validity.

The problem is where we draw that legal line.

Two people of the same gender are inherently promoting gay marriage by getting married--if you are doing something publicly, you are inherently promoting it. That said, whether it is "promoting" it or not is not the important issue to begin with.

It's doubtful whether it's applicable in this case, but I've mentioned it because it's an argument that is constantly being put forward. I don't agree with it.

 

[RDKirk]

What possible artistic expression could be claimed in refusing to work for a mixed marriage that wouldn't apply to any other marriage? There is none. The only difference is the couple being married.

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