New SCOTUS case, web designer refuses gay couple

That case does NOT involve a gay wedding, rather it is a "commitment ceremony" which does not result in a legally binding marriage. It is the "marriage" part that goes against their religion, not their simple commitment to each other. For this reason, this was not a freedom of religion case, it was a free speech case, which is an entirely different set of legal principles.

The relevant case involving a gay wedding and freedom of religion was in Colorado, and the baker won in a 7-2 decision. We are in agreement, it is in fact the courts that decide and they have decided in favor of freedom of religion.

 

The gay couple's business was not refused -- the design was. The people ordering the cake were not denied a cake -- they were denied a design or a message that the cake baker wished not to create. If you are suggesting the state should be empowered to compel a person to create, design, express, a meassage they wish not to make, I would suggest back to you that you are advocating a very very slippery slope.

 

The baker is not baking a cake for a ceremony.

Bakers bake cakes for clients. Ceremonies are not clients. Doesn't matter what the baker 'claims'.

Clients are hetero, gay, and intersex/trans.

You can't bake cake for one, and not the other, it's a violation of civil rights.

Religion cannot be used as rationale to violate civil rights, per the first amendment and the establishment clause.

 

It is against the law, a NM court ruled against a Christian wedding photographer, which SCOTUS upheld ( by refusing the case).

 

Illustrating your lack of understanding. A denial of certiorari is only a denial of certiorari.

 

A vendor refuses clients.

Ceremonies are not clients.

A NM court ruled against a Christian wedding photographer which SCOTUS upheld (by refusing the case).

You can't use religion to justify violating civil rights.

 

I repeat:

A vendor refuses clients.

Ceremonies are not clients.

A NM court ruled against a Christian wedding photographer which SCOTUS upheld (by refusing the case).

You can't use religion to justify violating civil rights.

 

They are refusing to bake for a ceremony that goes against their religious beliefs. The sexuality of the "client" is irrelevant. A heterosexual wedding planner does not change the calculus even slightly. It is the CEREMONY that is in question.

This is why it is NOT a violation of civil rights, because a ceremony is not endowed with civil rights.

 

In my view, what a client dictates is the client's speech, not the 'designer'.

You can't force a designer to do a certain style of which is beyond the talent and scope of the designer, or is a template not in the designer's inventory, but content is dictated by the client, and those words are that of the client, not the designer, so that is how I would rule on it, if I were the justice.

 

Violation of civil rights.

yes.

Some will take it all the way.

What I would do, personally, is anecdotal, and not relevant to the argument.

 

Ceremonies are NOT clients, on that we agree. It is the ceremony however that is being rejected. The sexuality of the person placing the order has not one thing to do with this calculation

As I stated above, the NM case was a commitment ceremony which is NOT a wedding, hence it was not a freedom of religion case. It was a freedom of speech case, which is an entirely different set of principles involved. The court refused to hear a freedom of speech case. This was not about freedom of religion which you are trying to pretend it was.

 

Tell that to the Christian Judge who put the 10 commandments on the court room wall ( who was forced to take them down, but the fact was he put them there).

 

That is correct. It also says we are free to associate (or not) with whom we please.

Objectively, this issue has nothing to do with religion.

Also irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Please tell me where it is stated hat you have a "civil right" to compel the speech of your fellow citizen.

 

I know this is an extreme example, but should a web designer be forced to design a neo-Nazi site if they don't want to? It seems to me that this would be a violation of the 1st Amendment rights of the designer.

And just to make sure I'm being clear: I've officiated same-sex weddings. Homophobia is superstitious nonsense. I'd never deny any kind of business to someone based on their gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. But it is difficult for me to square the idea that anyone should be forced to engage in any kind of speech they disagree with.

 

More recently a NM court ruled against a Christian wedding photographer for not wanting to shoot a gay wedding because it was against his religion. SCOTUS refused the case so the lower court's standing was upheld.

 

I repeat...

Ceremonies are NOT clients, on that we agree. It is the ceremony however that is being rejected. The sexuality of the person placing the order has not one thing to do with this calculation

As I stated above, the NM case was a commitment ceremony which is NOT a wedding, hence it was not a freedom of religion case. It was a freedom of speech case, which is an entirely different set of principles involved. The court refused to hear a freedom of speech case. This was not about freedom of religion which you are trying to pretend it was.

 

It was NOT a gay wedding. It was a commitment ceremony which does not legally involve a marriage. This is why it was appealed to the USSC as a freedom of speech case rather than a freedom of religion case.

The freedom of religion USSC case on this was in Colorado, and the baker won by a 7-2 decision.

 

Well, this is how conservatives think.

They are not the majority in the land, and the court does not reflect the will of the people.

The day will come when that will change.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that “when a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding – not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings – and that is the service (the couple) were denied.” --CNN

I concur. The service should be blind to race, color, creed, or sexual orientation, and in the above case, it is not, and thus the court erred.

 

As you said, "it is not the reader who decides, it is the courts".

They have decided by a 7-2 margin that the baker has the right to refuse a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs based on the grounds of freedom of religion.

Your New Mexico case did not involve a wedding and it was a freedom of speech rather than freedom of religion case. It is not the victory for compelling people to service a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs that you have been claiming it to be. Undoubtedly, this case was a plant that specifically used a commitment ceremony because it DOES skirt the freedom of religion issue while on the surface APPEARING to be a victory against freedom of religion. It looks like you were one of the people fooled into thinking this was a victory for compulsory gay marriage participation for those that it offends their religion.

 

Non-answer. You are arguing that members of federally-protected minority classes have the "civil right" to compel speech of another person. They do not. This is neither expressed or implied.

TITLE II OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS)
42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

42 U.S.C. §2000a(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence; (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station; (3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.
​

Please show me where it states a member of a protected class can compel speech. Again, if it is your position that a person -- or the state -- can compel the speech of another, your position dangles on the precipice of a very slippery slope.

 

So you quoted and agree with one of the two dissenters in the 7-2 decision.

Duly noted.

 

What are the specific damages? You have to prove that you were harmed because a bakery refused to create a certain design or put a message on a cake. Now, you might want to think very carefully about this one before answering. And perhaps take a quick look at another brilliant part of our Constitution: the 14th Amendment and specifically the Equal Protection clause.

 

Insane that is was a 5-4 decision. Should have been 9-0. But this is what happens when you trade the rule of law for the rule of men.

 

Stop making assumptions.

My position is very simple. You are asking a man to either violate his religion or close his store. All because someone is unwilling to go somewhere else to get a cake. It is simply wrong.

 

No, it's not, it's the sexual orientation of the people participating.