Web designer opposed to gay marriage at center of U.S. Supreme Court clash

[Machinist]

Here's a solution: don't ask don't tell. Just have someone make your cake for you and then you can decorate it after the fact with rainbows or little figurines of dudes smooching, etc. People just seem to crave drama. There is always a million ways to avoid this kind of tension. Choose your battles wisely.

[Cow Poke]

Ah but then they could just claim to be discriminated against for being white.

Because that's essentially what gay couples in the bakery case and people against this designer would do. That's the thing - the designer wouldn't be discriminating against them for being gay, they're discriminating against a message that the person wants pushed. I'm sure the designer would have no problem, say, designing a site that is about say selling cars, no matter what the sexual orientation of her client.

The Colorado DA was trying to make the case that, if this doesn't go the way they want, then you'll be able to discriminate against a Mormon when he comes in to buy a cup of coffee.

It is not based on who the customer is, but what they demand you do. Therefore, the Colorado DA is a moron.

[rogue06]

Here's a solution: don't ask don't tell. Just have someone make your cake for you and then you can decorate it after the fact with rainbows or little figurines of dudes smooching, etc. People just seem to crave drama. There is always a million ways to avoid this kind of tension. Choose your battles wisely.

That's just the point. These folks are seeking out these fights. How many bakeries/florists/photographers... do you think they contacted before they found one they could sue?

[Machinist]

That's just the point. These folks are seeking out these fights. How many bakeries/florists/photographers... do you think they contacted before they found one they could sue?

Yeah, or just go elsewhere. It's like they want to be a victim. It's childish.

[Diogenes]

Yeah, or just go elsewhere. It's like they want to be a victim. It's childish.

More like they want Christians to bend the knee.

[Cow Poke]

That's just the point. These folks are seeking out these fights. How many bakeries/florists/photographers... do you think they contacted before they found one they could sue?

Like the gay guy at the State House in Austin told me - his buddies were making lists of churches they could target for lawsuits.

[CivilDiscourse]

Ah but then they could just claim to be discriminated against for being white.

Because that's essentially what gay couples in the bakery case and people against this designer would do. That's the thing - the designer wouldn't be discriminating against them for being gay, they're discriminating against a message that the person wants pushed. I'm sure the designer would have no problem, say, designing a site that is about say selling cars, no matter what the sexual orientation of her client.

Possibly. Kanye couldn't make that claim though. To me, both sides are throwing away alot of the nuance of the other side's position. There's more to it than JUST an offensive message. There is an intrinsic mingling with protected class in the case and the message. And the tension between the two is what the case actually hinges on. The two really can't be separated in this situation, which the web designer's case itself makes clear. She'd happily make a gay person a website about a puppy adoption center. That website can be cleanly separated from protected class without an issue. On the flip side, a wedding is inherently about protected class (Though not necessarily directly tied to the protected class of the person requesting the website, as a straight sibling might make the request for the wedding of a gay sibling).

Again, I'm not issuing judgement on the case, in this situation, I am just explaining the nuance that's there. Like I said, that nuance is being lost by both sides when it comes to what the other side is saying.

[CivilDiscourse]

In those cases, the parties would have to be in close proximity to one another - same town, same shop or whatever and involves tangible property or "hands on" labor. (Not an option to obtain that service in another state or location)



That one's better.

:) All 3 have that tension though between violating a belief, and some level of protected class discrimination.

[Cow Poke]

:) All 3 have that tension though between violating a belief, and some level of protected class discrimination.

Yes.

Yes, they do.

[Gondwanaland]

Yeah, or just go elsewhere. It's like they want to be a victim. It's childish.

Especially with website design- if someone doesn't accommodate you it's not like there isn't an entire planet connected by the internet where you can get services even from someone on the other side of the world from you.

[CivilDiscourse]

Yes.

Yes, they do.

The thing is though, I don't think a liberal would blink twice at a stylist refusing to do a "culturally appropriated" hairstyle.

[Psychic Missile]

The issue at hat is not discrimination of service per se but rather "discrimination" as it relates to the compulsion of speech. Much like baking a cake, web design is inherently a creative and artistic act. Should a Jew be forced to create a wedding web site for a Neo-Nazi wedding on Hitler's birthdays with Nazi images? Are there not other individuals or companies that could create a website for a gay marriage? Should Jewish bakers be compelled to bake birthday cakes for Hitler? Should a gay baker be forced to bake a cake with verses from Leviticus? Should a gay baker be forced to bake a cake celebrating straight pride? If you compel one speech, you must compel all speech. Of course, when would the left play by the same rules?

Neo-Nazi is not a protected class. Hitler is not a protected class. Verses from Leviticus is not a protected class. Straight pride is not a protected class. None of this is relevant. This is a desperate smokescreen to justify baseless discrimination. The only compulsion is to treat members of differing protected classes in a neutral way.

[Diogenes]

Neo-Nazi is not a protected class. Hitler is not a protected class. Verses from Leviticus is not a protected class. Straight pride is not a protected class. None of this is relevant. This is a desperate smokescreen to justify baseless discrimination. The only compulsion is to treat members of differing protected classes in a neutral way.

Verses from Leviticus would be religion, which is a protected class. Straight is an orientation, which is likely a protected class under CL law. Again, the denial was not based on the class of the persons but rather the speech of the website itself. If a straight person who was an "ally" wanted a website designed that supported gay marriage, it's reasonable to assume the designer would have rejected that design as well.

[Sparko]

I would have just told them "Sure. My rate for gay wedding websites is $1,000 an hour, minimum 10 hours deposit up front" -- and nobody said I had to do a good job. Or that I couldn't stick in some bible verses here and there.

[Sparko]

Neo-Nazi is not a protected class. Hitler is not a protected class. Verses from Leviticus is not a protected class. Straight pride is not a protected class. None of this is relevant. This is a desperate smokescreen to justify baseless discrimination. The only compulsion is to treat members of differing protected classes in a neutral way.

In colorado, protected classes are: race, color, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, pregnancy, age, sexual orientation.

Nazism is a creed. Verses from Leviticus would fall under "religion" - Straight Pride would be sexual orientation.

(Creed: a set of beliefs or aims which guide someone's actions.)