Supreme Court sides with web designer who refuses to do gay wedding sites...

I agree. The 99.99% (2.5 Gay people) who want a web page designed will now be forced to go to one of the 1.7 million on line, independent creative web designers who can literally be found by googling “on line creative web designers”. What ever are the gay couples in rural Colorado going to do?

 

This case established the "she was worried" standard in the law where someone can get something banned they weren't asked to do IRL over their anxiety about it.

 

I mean…that specific example is both extreme and unique. A guy freaking out in a restaurant - citing his offended Christianity? I just found it amusing because it was a damn Chinese restaurant and very recent.

But living in FL I’ve seen plenty of “repent: you’re all going to hell” street protestors. Like… dozens and dozens of different times. This is super common, and I have to assume even more common in the so-called Bible Belt. In fact, I’ve noticed a group that appears to do it every Saturday A.M. It’s like their hobby or something. They don’t seem to be breaking any laws, it’s just weird.

Likewise I’ve seen Trumpers behaving badly IRL, and presumably they see themselves as Christian warriors. Worst was a guy talking casually on the golf course about an impending race war and shooting blacks…. this was 2016 election, so he was one of those types and I guess he wrongly assumed safe company for such comments based on our looks. Needless to say me and my buddy on the next hole were like “we are going to take our time.. you guys go ahead”. The most common thing is probably dudes with Trump stickers driving as an asshole or rolling coal. Christian? One would assume they’d probably call themselves that.

If we extend that to internet freak outs, there’s millions and millions of crazy examples. No one person could likely witness more than a few in real life.

My only other examples would be way back from my time at UF. Seeing some preachers getting a little more “in your face” and actually bothering students in the plaza area, students who were trying to mind their own business or read.

 

Good thread and piece from last year on how the current Court is out of touch with the populace as in 1850 and 1930. I would argue that it’s even more disproportionate given that only 1 of the 6 conservative justices was nominated by a President that won the popular vote

 

Maybe I didn’t ask the right question.

I’m talking about a person walking into a restaurant to order a hamburger or to sit down for a dinner. Other than a prayer just before eating, (rarely) I haven’t seen anyone as they’re waking in make sure the establishment knows their religious beliefs. Or shopping at a regular box store.

 

I can’t recall any freak out at a restaurant period, let alone over a Buddha statue.

But your original ask was “people who announce themselves as Christian”, Buddha guy was just one amusing example of that. As are the corner preachers. I mean… literally this is what evangelical Christian’s do at some level. Spreading the gospel of Christ is a necessary (to them) part of their belief system. Like in anything humans endeavor to do, some are obnoxious even if well meaning, others have more nefarious intent. You might notice, most of these religious stands on gay marriage and abortion are also driven by people wearing religion on their sleeve - or at least performatively championing Christianity for expedience, in the case of certain (probably demonic) politicians.

 

Wish I knew how to add a gif. It would be Swoozie Kurtz telling Jim Carey he’s an “Overactor!” in the movie Liar Liar.

 

Jed and Cindy immediately came to mind for me, to.

 

At this point it's his (any business) right to refuse a commission for a project.

 

LOL yeah, i saw a video posted recently. Apparently Jed’s dead as of 2022.

Can’t really remember them in particular though, so have no idea if that’s who I was picturing at UF. Some of them were locals since they were there frequently, whereas Jed and Cindy toured the country.

 

That baker baked the cake... but refused the commission for his art on top of the cake.

 

So, if we don't go long with your demands to bend the knee to certain groups... against their beliefs... against their principles... against their way of life... they are labeled as bigoted? That coin has 2 sides. Christianity has nothing to do with someone's right to refuse other people's Liberal dictates/demands. And my "live and let" live way of life is not bigoted. IOW, don't force your crap at me and I will do the same. But I will not accept your gay way of life as something that we should all be proud of, nor will I accept that behavior as something that we should teach our children.

 

Or... the right of an artist to refuse a commission... Legal and free market based.

 

No, it does not. The issue in this case and the baker case is the content, not the people being served. In this case, the woman specifically makes websites for weddings. If she would make websites for gays for other reasons, besides weddings, there would be no discrimination.

The baker specifically said he would make a cake for that same couple for any other occasion, just not a same-sex wedding. Presumably he also would have refused a heterosexual couple ordering a cake for same-sex wedding.

 

Much of this is wrong.
1. This woman hasn't made wedding websites (or at least hadn't at the time of the suit). She wants to expand her business into that field. She can bring a preenforcement challenge on that basis.
2. Making wedding websites for straight couples while refusing to make wedding websites for gay couples is discrimination. She's not denying that she wants to discriminate, nor did the baker.
3. You're right that content is the issue here. Since her work is inherently expressive, there are free speech issues that do justify a narrow win. However, this decision isn't written that narrowly and leaves open a very dangerous door that threatens our civil rights laws.

 

I've never bought the third point, that website design should be viewed as inherently protected by the First Amendment, at least in the compelled speech context here.

To me the key is whether most reasonable people would view the content expressed there as the content of the individual who is claiming to be compelled. But it's work for hire here. I appreciate that work for hire is not sufficient. Most of the great artists of the Middle ages were commissioned. You and I sign our names to pleadings. All those in war would be protected because, I maintain, and this is my test, a reasonable person would not view the content of the website as an endorsement/ personal expression of position or artistic interpretation.

I don't think the average person views the website content as a product of the designers views or would associate the views expressed in the website with the website designer. So I don't think it qualifies as compelled speech, sufficient to create a carve out to public accommodations non-discrimination concepts for businesses that ostensibly welcome all.

I acknowledge that existing non-hackers precedent, not created for the sole purpose of justifying the ostracism of a disfavored minority, could be viewed as contradicting my position. But interstitial common law lawmaking recognizes continually looking at new situations and whether old rules of law apply to them.

And in this case, I don't see the website design for hire as protected personal expression/speech.

 

So you are upset about something that might happen -but has not yet - due to this ruling? Am I reading that right?

 

Adding the caveat that I haven't read this entire thread and that this may be redundant apparently the case was based on a hypothetical with the plaintiffs who were allegedly denied services by the web designer being a fictional couple. It seems to me that the conservative majority on the court really wanted to address the issue and that if they were intellectually honest the court would have dismissed the case out of hand based on lack of standing. Alternatively and probably more likely, even if the court took case in good faith, the plaintiff and the religious fanatics that were apparently backing her perpetuated a fraud on the legal system.
Key document may be fake in LGBTQ+ rights case before US supreme court

 

I’ve never understood why people want to force businesses to cater to them. Why not just patronize one that is happy to serve you ? Isn’t that how a free society works ?