New SCOTUS case, web designer refuses gay couple

The current laws protect people from undue discrimination (including protecting religious people of course).

Some religious people think they should have a special exception to any laws they decide are against their religious beliefs. Note that they tend not to argue that anyone else should get exceptions from those laws and they don't support people with different religious beliefs ignoring laws they disagree with.

The concern is how that could build up. That is workable if it is one small business but such discrimination can (and still does) build up in a community or society, leading to certain groups of people being excluded entirely. If the government says "This group of people are equal citizens but it is perfectly acceptable for some people to discriminate against them" is creates a contradictory double standard.

There is no specific customer in this case. The business owner is bringing the case to challenge the law in principle, though obviously with the intention of being able to legally discriminate against a certain subgroup of people (but inadvertently permitting discrimination against any group of people, including their own).

 

Have the courts ever ruled against anti-discrimination laws? I'm aware of cases where they've ruled in favour of religious individuals being granted special exemptions from anti-discrimination laws but that those laws remained in place for anyone else. If any of this was really about anti-discrimination laws being bad, shouldn't the efforts be to have the laws repealed rather than just seeking personal exemptions?

So discrimination is just fine as long as not everyone is doing it? The only problem with discrimination is practical, there is no moral or social aspects? And how would you make this work? If there are five similar businesses in the area, would the first four be free to discriminate but the fifth prohibited?

That is a matter of opinion, and doesn't prevent some people making similar religious exemption arguments in those areas too. Regardless, this still falls back to the point that this would be a general objection to the laws as a whole, suggesting repeal or amendment rather than just seeking exemptions for a limited class of people.

 

Additional commantary: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-to-deny-service-to-same-sex-couples.597254/

 

The bible encourages people to honor God with their actions, and these business owners believe that baking a cake for gay wedding forces then to play a part in a ritual which they believe is sinful, and same goes with designing a gay themed web-page and playing a part would not honor God (in their view). They should have the right to refuse service for that reason. Why would gay people want to do business in such place anyway?

Not all evangelicals agree with it BTW, and vast majority of business owners would never turn away a paying customer unless the customer is a trouble maker.

Only State officials, or anyone (county, city, corporation, individual) within the jurisdiction of the State? Sounds like State as in laws created by State Congress.

 

While the 'perfect' outcome would be that something like this would not be necessary, and IMO the website person is preemptively taking a strike at the law, it still is a matter of 'discriminating' against one party or the other.

I'm sure there are, just as there are some from 'protected' groups who think they should be able to force someone to provide them with something, even if it violates their beliefs (general statement).

Considering a great number of people seem to have fallen into the live and let live area, the idea of preventing something before it becomes public (which doesn't change the thought process of some) enables those who feel as I mentioned above, to push the line. Another poster stated it rather well, IMO. Doing business with someone as a person, rather than specifically for an event that diametric to their religious beliefs. Can an LBGT person refuse to do hetero-specific work for someone based on their beliefs?

I am aware of that. Personally, I feel this web designer is being foolish, but then again, I'm not religious (I'm not anti-religious either, if it works for someone, then have at it) so turning away business on this basis is rather foolish, and trying to make a particular point on the subject is just an attempt to get their 15 minutes of fame, IMO.

 

The law doesn't discriminate though. All businesses are required to follow exactly the same anti-discrimination laws. This is another case of someone wanting an exemption for themselves while the law continues to be applied to everyone else. They actually want some discrimination because they believe their religious beliefs should be treated differently to anyone else's beliefs, preferences or opinions.

Only "forced" to provide the things they've gone in to business to provide anyway, just to anyone without undue discrimination.

No, that would be illegal. And significantly, this kind of case would seek to keep that as illegal. Only religious people (and in practice, only Christians) are deemed important enough to have their beliefs considered. Even if a secular person had an equally strong personal objection to same-sex marriage, this campaign would not support their right to refuse to make a website for same-sex couples.

 

Perhaps a poor word choice on my part. No AA law has been struck down by any court afaik. But exemptions have been made for a certain class of people. Mainly those people in the artistic business. And yes, those generally are religious folks that win such cases.

I never said that "discrimination is fine". Please do not put words in my mouth.

As to the rest of your questions. It is almost impossible in this day and age to not have something available to you. There is almost nothing that you cannot get via the internet. And due to transportation advances the world has become a LOT smaller. You can literally drive across the country in less than a week. Due to all this I find the "your area" argument to be spurious.

No, its not a matter of opinion. Its a matter of historical fact. LINK: What is a Place of "Public" Accommodation? (marquette.edu) English common law protected against discrimination for just public utility type businesses.

 

What's the standard for establishing that a religious belief precludes me from providing a service to someone? What if my belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes me offended by people wearing MAGA hats?

 

Very confusing. Are you trying to blame trump and rittenhouse for homophobia? How long did it take to come up with this half ass way of trying to tie trump to this?
For realz! Stop letting the ex president run your life
This is not healthy!

 

But are those exemptions for "anyone who is an artist" or "anyone who is an artist and has a religious objection"? I don't believe a secular artist with a personal objection to something like same-sex marriage would get the same traction in the US courts.

Regardless, the clear principle around most of these cases is clear; Religious people (though in practice, Christians) should be granted special exemptions to laws they feel contradict their faith. Ironically, I think that is unconstitutional in itself and puts all anti-discriminated laws in the balance, including the ones preventing discrimination against people on the grounds of religion.

It was a question but it is still the conclusion I take from your position. You are making the point that people can get the same services from elsewhere so if they are turned away from one place it isn't a problem. If that doesn't make discrimination OK, it isn't a relevant point to raise.

In practice, I'm not convinced the principle of availability elsewhere is always guaranteed to apply, certainly not if price, effort and quality is considered. And regardless, I don't consider the direct practicality to be the only problem with discrimination, nor the only reason laws against it were brought in. There is also the social principles and perception of equality and fairness, and the avoidance of the divided societies and "separate but equal" fallacies.

A fair point, but I was thinking in the context of current laws. Maybe they're poorly worded (though do the laws in question here even refer to "public accommodation") but the intent today is clearly wider than the limit scope this would imply.

 

Yes, but no one does everything the Bible says to do. People adjust with modern morality.

Today, homosexuality is not a sin.

Would you stone someone for idolatry, blasphemy, prostitution, etc?

It says to do that in the Bible.

Well, today, we do not do that as morals have changed.

 

But people adjust morals for modernity.

No longer do we stone people for idolatry, blasphemy, prostitution, etc.

Therefore, in modernity homosexuality is not a sin.

Therefore, your premise is moot.

 

They are, indeed.

Would you stone a person for idolatry, blasphemy, prostitution?

Would you bake a cake for a fat person who is gluttonous?

Would you provide a service to a billionaire?

That would not stone someone, or that you would serve fat person, a billionaire, etc, then you can't deny a gay couple a cake, either.

Either you stick to the antiquated morals of the Bible in toto, or you don't, but what you do not do is do it selectively.

Why? Because if you apply Biblical morals selectively then you are merely using religion as a ruse to justify bigotry.

 

Photography is an art. If you sell cameras, sell to everyone. If you sell your time, you get to choose where to point and click. As a photographer, would you accept a job for a neo-nazi themed event?

 

Neo-nazi's are analogous to gay people?

 

No, just an example. Should an artist be forced to create a product inconsistent with their values?

 

And they are wrong.

 

Yes.

 

The baker does not make a cake for a 'gay wedding' ,the baker makes a cake for the party that pays him, the gay couple.

The wedding is not the client, the people paying him are, and in this case, are gay and he is refusing their business.

The result is the baker refusing to bake a cake for gay people.

that is the discriminatory result, and if the result is discriminatory, it's discrimination.

That is how I understand it.

 

Bakers are not artists, they are artisans, which is a function, a product and a service.

Artists work in the fine arts, including painting, illustration and sculpture (includes musicians/singers, photographers, scultures, etc). Artisans are craftsmen who work in textiles, pottery, glass and other areas, which could include bakers, music/party bands, DJs, and commercial photography).

Some DJs have risen to 'ARTIST' status, though they started as artisans.

You can't force an artist to make art, but an artisan is in business, he or she has a 'shop' who sells a service, often custom work, for a fee. They perform a craft to serve some function. Therefore, he or she has a 'style' that attracts customers, but he or she is NOT an 'artist', they are artisans, they cannot discriminate. You can't tell an artisan to copy other styles, that much is true, but if you say 'I can't serve you because you are gay' because then you are discriminating. If they can't agree on what the product shall be, style-wise, that's one thing, (you can't expect an artisan to copy other styles than his or her own) but to refuse it on sexual preference grounds, that is discriminatory, in my view.

You say to a maker of chairs, I want a chair to have a cupid on it, make it pretty, artistic.

He is an artisan when he makes it, for a fee, NOT an 'artist'.

Artists are those who attract people to view or hear their art, for ART's SAKE, not to serve some function, like to eat something, to sit on something, to pour coffee into something.

If you make pretty soap bars and wax candles, truly artistic looking, you can't put a label on them which says 'no gays allowed to purchase' just because you, as an artisan, are a Christian.

I've made a living as an artisan, and that is the closest I ever came in the arts, but I never achieved 'artist' status insofar as deriving my livelihood from it, which is to say, a livelihood derived from art for pure art's sake (though my songs have been performed on radio and Spotify, with over a hundred thousand spins, but not enough to sustain myself) I was a wedding photographer and cafe/bistro/restaurant/bar musician, for years. That is 'artisan', not 'artist'.

Am I an 'amateur' artist, yes, that I am. Professional artisan, but amateur artist.

If a guy could, on a street corner, working for tips, playing only original songs, I might call that person an 'artist', on a small scale, but it's art for the sake of art, at it's, perhaps, lowest level.

Do you see the difference?

 

Is it the same cake that everyone orders or do they need 2 grooms/brides and/or a message on the cake?

 

Homosexuality is not a sin.

Get over it.

 

A baker does not make a cake for a 'gay wedding'.

A baker makes a cake for clients. PEOPLE. People who pay for a service.

If he or she turns away making a cake for a gay couple, doesn't matter 'why', the actual real world result is that that baker is discriminating.

Because that is exactly how the gay couple will see it, they are being put to second class citizenship, and the baker's 'rationalization' doesn't mean crap.

 

That's irrelevant to the principle. You open for business, you don't discriminate.
Whether or not you have tons of competition has nothing to do with the principle. You can require dress codes, but you can't turn away business for race, color, religion, sexual orientation. ( I think sexual orientation is now included, and that was the question in the OP, or perhaps SCOTUS has yet to settle that issue, which they didn't in the baker case).

I don't think you can make a distinction between essential and non essential products, on the subject of discrimination.


Homosexuality is not an sin. Maybe in antiquity it was, but it is not now.

There are a lot of things that were done in antiquity that people do not do now, so what, they can select that which they like and do not like out of the bible to conform to their personal biases and bigotry?

That doesn't cut it, in my book.

What you could do, and make it non discriminatory, is say, my only styles of wedding cakes available are topped by man and woman. I have no man and man or woman and woman topped cakes for sale. If they would buy one on that basis, that would not be discriminatory, that would just being a bad business person, which is not illegal.

See, you could be such a ****ing ****** they won't hire you.

However, if they do hire you despite your awfulness, you can't turn them away.

 

If you make beautiful soap bars and wax candles, works of art they are, you can't put them under a banner which says....

No gays allowed to purchase my products.

Just because you are a Christian and don't like gay people.

You can BE a bigot, but you cannot (or should not) TRADE in the market place on it.

That is the salient point. If SCOTUS hasn't decided on that point yet, that is my view that they should take.