You don't even have to go the made up route. See how accommodating the Supreme Court is to non-Judeo Christian religions.
Spoiler alert- not very
-
23
-
huhuh wrote:
samcallan wrote:
I am thinking that there are cases where a person does not want to work with a person for whatever reason and just says "I don't have the time right now". There is no legal way to say "no drop everything and work".
This case is not about enforcement though, which is a related but different question. The case is about whether a proprietor of a public accommodation can lawfully refuse service to a protected class solely on the basis of their membership in that class because not being allowed to do so would be considered “compelled speech”, that is disallowed by the First, in this particular case of website design.
You are incorrect. And I suspect you are purposely incorrect. It is not a "public accommodation." It is her art. It is asking her to produce something she doesn't agree with. If she was selling cans of soup, or selling movie tickets, or driving a taxi, that would be a public accommodation. Asking someone one to complete a craft that requires artistic work is not a "public accommodation."
Like the baker, he could not and did not say he would serve gays or sell a cake to a gay. He would not allow himself to be forced to create art for something he did not agree with. I see it as both a freedom of religion (...prevent the free exercise thereof) and freedom of assembly.
02 -
religion is made up wrote:
huhuh wrote:
This case is not about enforcement though, which is a related but different question. The case is about whether a proprietor of a public accommodation can lawfully refuse service to a protected class solely on the basis of their membership in that class because not being allowed to do so would be considered “compelled speech”, that is disallowed by the First, in this particular case of website design.
Your off. Nobody in the government is compelling speech. Absence of speech is not compelled speech. Not allowing someone to say something, isn't compelling them to say something else.
What?????? Forcing someone to say something is compelled speech.
01 -
Wejobot wrote:
huhuh wrote:
Wrong. Old Testament, Leviticus decries it clearly enough.
Leviticus 18:22-23 "you shall not lie with a male, as you do a female, it is an abomination."
Leviticus verses before 22-23 per the dated New American Standard Bible. Leviticus is all about who (male) owns a women's or man's nakedness, particularly incest. Doing so is an abomination. Uncover nakedness means you can't even see them naked. Cousins and brothers showering together is a no-no. And seeing another man's nakedness is just as bad.
6. None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness ...
12 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister ...
13 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister ...
14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother ... you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt.
15 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law ...
16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife ...
17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter ...
18 You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife ...
19 you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity.
20 thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife ...
20 -
C. C. Writer wrote:
It is her art.
She is not an "artist." She is an html jockey.
30 -
Wejobot wrote:
huhuh wrote:
Wrong. Old Testament, Leviticus decries it clearly enough.
Leviticus 18:22-23 "you shall not lie with a male, as you do a female, it is an abomination."
This is translated text and there's debate as to what it means. Read literally in Hebrew: "And-with a male not you-will-lie lyings of a woman"
'Lyings' means bed so it can be read as a condemnation of having sex with a male in the bed of a woman (a marriage bed), so it's opposing a same-sex adulterous relationship, rather than in a consensual one.
01 -
religion is made up wrote:
huhuh wrote:
This case is not about enforcement though, which is a related but different question. The case is about whether a proprietor of a public accommodation can lawfully refuse service to a protected class solely on the basis of their membership in that class because not being allowed to do so would be considered “compelled speech”, that is disallowed by the First, in this particular case of website design.
Your off. Nobody in the government is compelling speech. Absence of speech is not compelled speech. Not allowing someone to say something, isn't compelling them to say something else.
Read again. What you wrote is irrelevant to what I wrote, which is a very precise description of what the case is about fundamentally.
00 -
Brolito wrote:
You don't even have to go the made up route. See how accommodating the Supreme Court is to non-Judeo Christian religions.
Spoiler alert- not very
Examples?
32 -
C. C. Writer wrote:
huhuh wrote:
This case is not about enforcement though, which is a related but different question. The case is about whether a proprietor of a public accommodation can lawfully refuse service to a protected class solely on the basis of their membership in that class because not being allowed to do so would be considered “compelled speech”, that is disallowed by the First, in this particular case of website design.
You are incorrect. And I suspect you are purposely incorrect. It is not a "public accommodation." It is her art. It is asking her to produce something she doesn't agree with. If she was selling cans of soup, or selling movie tickets, or driving a taxi, that would be a public accommodation. Asking someone one to complete a craft that requires artistic work is not a "public accommodation."
Like the baker, he could not and did not say he would serve gays or sell a cake to a gay. He would not allow himself to be forced to create art for something he did not agree with. I see it as both a freedom of religion (...prevent the free exercise thereof) and freedom of assembly.
Listen to the actual supreme court hearings if you’re genuinely interested in this case. The website designer team is on record claiming that they are unwilling even to produce the exact same website they produce for somebody else for a gay couple. There is no artistic creativity involved in duplicating a website and replacing images or template text or text given to them and owned by the customer.
40 -
huhuh wrote:
C. C. Writer wrote:
You are incorrect. And I suspect you are purposely incorrect. It is not a "public accommodation." It is her art. It is asking her to produce something she doesn't agree with. If she was selling cans of soup, or selling movie tickets, or driving a taxi, that would be a public accommodation. Asking someone one to complete a craft that requires artistic work is not a "public accommodation."
Like the baker, he could not and did not say he would serve gays or sell a cake to a gay. He would not allow himself to be forced to create art for something he did not agree with. I see it as both a freedom of religion (...prevent the free exercise thereof) and freedom of assembly.
Listen to the actual supreme court hearings if you’re genuinely interested in this case. The website designer team is on record claiming that they are unwilling even to produce the exact same website they produce for somebody else for a gay couple. There is no artistic creativity involved in duplicating a website and replacing images or template text or text given to them and owned by the customer.
And to be fair, you are right about my “purposeful” choice of “public accommodation” that is injecting my opinion into the description of the case, but as a tech expert, I can’t see repurposing template websites as different from a public accommodation, and my understanding is that they would be unwilling to do even that.
A separate point is that there is a difference between the state directly compelling an artist to produce art for pay vs the state compelling them to accept payment for work from a protected class just like they would from any other class.
00 -
2630x wrote:
This is sarcasm wrote:
Twitter is a private organization. What now?
Has Twitter refused service to anyone because they are a member of a protected class? If so, they are breaking the law. Otherwise, they have the right to set their own terms.
In fact Twitter, through counsel, has asserted in court proceedings that they can refuse service to anyone for any reason at all.
00 -
BigTex wrote:
Rick Cheney wrote:
It’s also just really dumb to turn customers away because of your, “views.”
I need you to create me a website advocating for the enslavement of all LGBTQ+ persons.
0/10. Low effort
11 -
Should a restaurant be able to refuse serice to an anti-LGBTQ group?
01 -
Rick Cheney wrote:
samcallan wrote:
The flipside is that there is likely someone within a few blocks or a phone call away who would do the work. Both sides can be using this.
It’s also just really dumb to turn customers away because of your, “views.”
Depends. If she did work for the KKK and word got out that might damage her business. If you owned a dry cleaning business, would you want to be known as someone who does the dry cleaning for the Klan? There would be people who would not care that you were by law required to do so.
10 -
huhuh wrote:
samcallan wrote:
I am thinking that there are cases where a person does not want to work with a person for whatever reason and just says "I don't have the time right now". There is no legal way to say "no drop everything and work".
This case is not about enforcement though, which is a related but different question. The case is about whether a proprietor of a public accommodation can lawfully refuse service to a protected class solely on the basis of their membership in that class because not being allowed to do so would be considered “compelled speech”, that is disallowed by the First, in this particular case of website design.
I think that is not right either. It sounds like she would build a website for gay customers for their businesses and other activities just not this one. Just as with Masterpiece Cake, the owners had sold baked goods to all customers but drew the line at making a specialty cake for the same sex wedding.
10 -
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
Should a restaurant be able to refuse serice to an anti-LGBTQ group?
Depends on the laws in VA...In a quick search VA does not protect ones political views so yes it looks like they could. If they said "We are not renting space to straight people" then it looks like they would be violating the law.
10 -
samcallan wrote:
huhuh wrote:
This case is not about enforcement though, which is a related but different question. The case is about whether a proprietor of a public accommodation can lawfully refuse service to a protected class solely on the basis of their membership in that class because not being allowed to do so would be considered “compelled speech”, that is disallowed by the First, in this particular case of website design.
I think that is not right either. It sounds like she would build a website for gay customers for their businesses and other activities just not this one. Just as with Masterpiece Cake, the owners had sold baked goods to all customers but drew the line at making a specialty cake for the same sex wedding.
I don’t disagree. Colorado chooses to see them as a public accommodation. The 303 Creative team’s position is the state is forcing “compelled speech” upon them because of the nature of their creative work. At the boundary lies the issue of template websites where the product is divorced from the message (that’s easily replaceable). It’s similar to your argument of separating the gayness of the customer from the embedding of a homophilic message in their expressive product.
I suppose the 303 Creative gets around that hurdle by saying that they don’t sell such a template product (unlike say a business model like wordpress.com), and this SC seems pretty sympathetic to them after all.
00 -
huhuh wrote:
samcallan wrote:
I think that is not right either. It sounds like she would build a website for gay customers for their businesses and other activities just not this one. Just as with Masterpiece Cake, the owners had sold baked goods to all customers but drew the line at making a specialty cake for the same sex wedding.
I don’t disagree. Colorado chooses to see them as a public accommodation. The 303 Creative team’s position is the state is forcing “compelled speech” upon them because of the nature of their creative work. At the boundary lies the issue of template websites where the product is divorced from the message (that’s easily replaceable). It’s similar to your argument of separating the gayness of the customer from the embedding of a homophilic message in their expressive product.
I suppose the 303 Creative gets around that hurdle by saying that they don’t sell such a template product (unlike say a business model like wordpress.com), and this SC seems pretty sympathetic to them after all.
One more thing to defend my use of “public accommodation” in defining the case: Colorado is allowing 303 to legally define their wedding website design service as only for straight couples, but they can not present themselves overtly as open to the public at large but silently refuse wedding website design service only to gays.
303 wants to be seen as open to everyone because otherwise they would lose many straight couples a customers; just like a selective club can legally be open only to white people (or men or Christians or whatever) and be content with a narrower clientele, but can not appear to be a public accommodation exercising their discretion to refuse business but use it only to turn away black people.
00 -
This is ridiculous. Why does this matter the job?
00 -
800gal wrote:
Where is the line? What if the web designer refused to do a website for an interracial couple because her religion was against it?
Is there only one web designer in the world?
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.