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

[Psychic Missile]

I think a more sincere example would be a black hairstylist refusing to put corn rows into a white lady's hair because she thinks it's cultural appropriation. Or a gay baker refusing to bake a graduation cake for a Christian graduating from Brigham Young University. Or a work anniversary cake for a worker at Focus on the Family or Family Research Council

What school you graduate from and who your employer is are not protected classes. The hairstylist example is similar and also should likewise not be legally allowed.

[CivilDiscourse]

What school you graduate from and who your employer is are not protected classes. The hairstylist example is similar and also should likewise not be legally allowed.

The university is a well known christian/conservative university. As such, denial could be considered discrimination against Christians.
The same is true of Focus on the family and Family Research council. Both are Christian organizations, and as such, denial could be considered discrimination against Christians.

By the same logic you are using, wedding participant is not a protected class. I could refuse to make a Wedding cake for a gay wedding if requested by a participant, or a straight person who is, say, providing the cake for a gay wedding, OR I could choose to make a wedding cake for a regular wedding even if the person requesting and paying is Gay.

[Diogenes]

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.)

it is strange how these things always involve Christians and not, say, Muslims.

[Sparko]

it is strange how these things always involve Christians and not, say, Muslims.

Well they don't want their heads cut off, so...

[Terraceth]

What school you graduate from and who your employer is are not protected classes.

Presently, yes. Any state could make them one, though.

I've noticed you've been continually pushing this "that's not a protected class" argument when people bring up these hypotheticals, and it seems to miss the point. If, logically speaking, a state can compel someone to create a product with a message against their will in this case, why can a state not do so in any other case? Saying "those aren't protected classes!" misses the point; they may not be now, but if a state can compel people, then there is nothing preventing them legally from turning them into protected classes.

That said, from what I understand of it, I feel the First Amendment questions are unnecessary in this case, and it can be decided simply on the fact that the objection is to the product itself, not the customer, as they would (I believe) have the same objection if a completely heterosexual person asked them to make such a website. Therefore, I would say it does not run afoul of the law to begin with.

[Sparko]

That said, from what I understand of it, I feel the First Amendment questions are unnecessary in this case, and it can be decided simply on the fact that the objection is to the product itself, not the customer, as they would (I believe) have the same objection if a completely heterosexual person asked them to make such a website. Therefore, I would say it does not run afoul of the law to begin with.

That's a really good point.

[seanD]

it is strange how these things always involve Christians and not, say, Muslims.

That is a conundrum, especially being that Muslims are far more openly vindictive towards homosexuality. In other countries they execute them. Here in the west. especially America, contrary to what the left tries to claim, LGBTQ is not at all an oppressed class. To the contrary, LGBTQ is given exceptional affirmation. Yet even in America, the Nation of Islam adherents are more openly hostile towards homosexuality, at least verbally. The theological answer to that is that Christianity is the true faith, hence the reason there is a concentrated effort by evil opposing forces to attack it and torment its adherents, in spite of the fact much of the church has become neutral if not outright accepting of LGBTQ.

[Psychic Missile]

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.

You should be able to recognize the difference between serving people of different protected classes in a neutral way, or in other words providing the same service to people regardless of their class, and the specificity you're trying to conflate that with. Someone merely being a Christian and a specific verse conveying a certain social message are different qualitatively. Someone merely being straight and believing that a certain sexuality is superior/inferior to another are different qualitatively. Religion is the only protected class (federally) that is opinion-based, and therefore it's the only class that can intrinsically result in violation of someone else's protected class rights. It should be common sense that protected class status from immutable characteristics (as well as other more fundamental rights) should take precedent over rights granted from a mutable characteristic. It's important to note that this difference between service and message is foundational to the case. As quoted by Colorado's lawyer:

"The company can choose to sell websites that only feature biblical quotes describing a marriage as between a man and a woman, just like a Christmas store can choose to sell only Christmas-related items. The company just cannot refuse to serve gay couples, as it seeks to do here, just as the Christmas store cannot announce no Jews allowed."

[Psychic Missile]

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.)

If we're talking about Colorado specifically creed is irrelevant because the state's position is that it is illegal to discriminate solely through denial of service (in this scenario) and doesn't require compelled speech, it also exempts principally religious businesses. This specific case is based on a company that has never done business and an act that has no criminal penalties and ought to be tossed. Tangentially, creed should not be a protected class as it's ludicrously broad.

[Diogenes]

You should be able to recognize the difference between serving people of different protected classes in a neutral way, or in other words providing the same service to people regardless of their class, and the specificity you're trying to conflate that with.

Again, no person of any protected class is being denied service. What is being denied is the message. If a straight person asked for a website in support of gay marriage, the request would be equally denied. The OP specifically says the designer would have created a site with a different intent to the same individuals.

Someone merely being a Christian and a specific verse conveying a certain social message are different qualitatively. Someone merely being straight and believing that a certain sexuality is superior/inferior to another are different qualitatively. Religion is the only protected class (federally) that is opinion-based, and therefore it's the only class that can intrinsically result in violation of someone else's protected class rights. It should be common sense that protected class status from immutable characteristics (as well as other more fundamental rights) should take precedent over rights granted from a mutable characteristic.

The individuals are not being denied service because they themselves are gay. The issue at hand is forced speech.

It's important to note that this difference between service and message is foundational to the case. As quoted by Colorado's lawyer:

"The company can choose to sell websites that only feature biblical quotes describing a marriage as between a man and a woman, just like a Christmas store can choose to sell only Christmas-related items. The company just cannot refuse to serve gay couples, as it seeks to do here, just as the Christmas store cannot announce no Jews allowed."

SCOTUS found that Colorado harassed the baker, iirc. By the woman's own words, the denial was not because the people were gay.

[Psychic Missile]

The university is a well known christian/conservative university. As such, denial could be considered discrimination against Christians.
The same is true of Focus on the family and Family Research council. Both are Christian organizations, and as such, denial could be considered discrimination against Christians.

By the same logic you are using, wedding participant is not a protected class. I could refuse to make a Wedding cake for a gay wedding if requested by a participant, or a straight person who is, say, providing the cake for a gay wedding, OR I could choose to make a wedding cake for a regular wedding even if the person requesting and paying is Gay.

Do you truly think it's necessary for the practice of the Christian religion to go to a specific university or work for a specific company?

[Psychic Missile]

Again, no person of any protected class is being denied service. What is being denied is the message. If a straight person asked for a website in support of gay marriage, the request would be equally denied. The OP specifically says the designer would have created a site with a different intent to the same individuals.

The individuals are not being denied service because they themselves are gay. The issue at hand is forced speech.

SCOTUS found that Colorado harassed the baker, iirc. By the woman's own words, the denial was not because the people were gay.

You should read more about the case. The state of Colorado is explicitly arguing that its only interest is the denial of service and they do not have any problem with the message, the complete opposite of your understanding.

Here's more info:

https://www.jurist.org/news/2022/12/...imination-law/

[CivilDiscourse]

Do you truly think it's necessary for the practice of the Christian religion to go to a specific university or work for a specific company?

No more than having a specific orientation is required to order a wedding website.

[Diogenes]

You should read more about the case. The state of Colorado is explicitly arguing that its only interest is the denial of service and they do not have any problem with the message, the complete opposite of your understanding.

Here's more info:

https://www.jurist.org/news/2022/12/...imination-law/

They were not denied due to their orientation as per the OP. The designer has prima facie access her mental states, her intentionally, and the reasons for denial.

[seer]

This whole debate is why the 1964 Civil Rights act should have never been applied to private business. The government has no right to tell any free man who he should serve or not serve.