• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

SCOTUS hears arguments on "free speech" against providing a web-site for same-sex couple.

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Supreme Court leans toward web designer over refusal to work on same-sex weddings

So let's talk about that. During oral arguments, Justices in the conservative majority seemed generally supportive of the notion that Smith should not be forced to express sentiments to which she disagrees.

But the question that bugs me most about this, is that she is not being asked to "express sentiments to which she disagrees." She is being asked to express the sentiments and words of other people, where she is nothing more than the medium -- a loudspeaker, if her customers were addressing a crowd, a technical platform which knows nothing whatever about the sentiments being spoken.

I mean, think about it. If I'm a typesetter on an old linotype machine (@Revoltingest I've run those, just so you know), laying out a page for a newspaper, amd I expressing sentiments that have anything at all to do with me? Well what the heck's the difference when it's a website?

Here's the real question: when a newspaper reports somebody else's words, is the newspaper expressing the paper's own sentiments, or those of the person they are reporting? If a bake makes a cake with two grooms, are they expressing somehow involved in the ceremony, or are they just baking a cake (same as for the company that rented them the chairs everybody sat on)?

Or are they -- really and truly -- merely being just as bigotted as they can possibly be and hoping for approval?
 
Last edited:

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
So from the conservative perspective, if a business (bakery) refuses to offer service to a customer (gay), it's okay.
But if a business (twitter) refuses to offer service to a customer (bigot), it's not okay.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Supreme Court leans toward web designer over refusal to work on same-sex weddings

So let's talk about that. During oral arguments, Justices in the conservative majority seemed generally supportive of the notion that Smith should not be forced to express sentiments to which she disagrees.

But the question that bugs me most about this, is that she is not being asked to "express sentiments to which she disagrees." She is being asked to express the sentiments and words of other people, where she is nothing more than the medium -- a loudspeaker, if her customers were addressing a crowd, a technical platform which knows nothing whatever about the sentiments being spoken.

Here's the real question: when a newspaper reports somebody else's words, is the newspaper expressing the paper's own sentiments, or those of the person they are reporting? If a bake makes a cake with two grooms, are they expressing somehow involved in the ceremony, or are they just baking a cake (same as for the company that rented them the chairs everybody sat on)?

Or are they -- really and truly -- merely being just as bigotted as they can possibly be and hoping for approval?

I genuinely see it as fair to refuse the order if the customly designed product contains a message that you personally disapprove. In other words, it is alright to refuse to create a certain product, but it is not alright if you are merely refusing to sell it to someone, or a group, in specific.
 

Aštra’el

Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
“Smith sued the state in 2016 because she said she would like to accept customers planning opposite-sex weddings but reject requests made by same-sex couples wanting the same service. She argues that, as a creative professional, she has a free speech right under the Constitution’s First Amendment to refuse to undertake work that conflicts with her own views.”


I completely approve.

Artists come in many forms. In America, I would not wish to see someone forced by law to create art which conflicts with- or opposes- their Weltanschauung.

Besides. If someone is not passionate about what they are working on, they are not the right artist for the job anyway.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
If someone is not passionate about what they are working on, they are not the right artist for the job anyway.
True. If someone is making something begrudgingly, it would negatively impact the quality, and if they're malicious, spit in it. Personally, I would rather not give my money to someone who hates me, anyway.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This is a simple misunderstanding. This suave coder knows that computers operate on 1's and 0's. It would not work right with 1's and 1's.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
So from the conservative perspective, if a business (bakery) refuses to offer service to a customer (gay), it's okay.
But if a business (twitter) refuses to offer service to a customer (bigot), it's not okay.
Yup. They sure have some serious explaining, especially with DeSantis' government mingling of business.
And the, words I can't say here, she doesn't even do web design. It's crap they even took her case.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
So from the conservative perspective, if a business (bakery) refuses to offer service to a customer (gay), it's okay.
But if a business (twitter) refuses to offer service to a customer (bigot), it's not okay.
Bad analogy. Twitter doesn't refuse to offer service to bigots. They refuse to continue the service when the bigot brakes the TOS.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Bad analogy. Twitter doesn't refuse to offer service to bigots. They refuse to continue the service when the bigot brakes the TOS.
And Conservatives have been complaining about that last part, insisting free speech must reign.
But with people who serve the public claim to have some Christian thing going on, suddenly the only rights that matter are the Christians. Just as their rights matter more than business owner's rights to their own business in the Twitter example.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
“Smith sued the state in 2016 because she said she would like to accept customers planning opposite-sex weddings but reject requests made by same-sex couples wanting the same service. She argues that, as a creative professional, she has a free speech right under the Constitution’s First Amendment to refuse to undertake work that conflicts with her own views.”


I completely approve.

Artists come in many forms. In America, I would not wish to see someone forced by law to create art which conflicts with- or opposes- their Weltanschauung.

Besides. If someone is not passionate about what they are working on, they are not the right artist for the job anyway.
A business that is open to the general public has to serve the general public, fairly. Free speech has nothing to do with anything. If the business wants to discriminate against factions of the general public, it can become a private co-op. As a private co-op it can discriminate against who it will accept as members so long as it makes it's policy clear when offering membership applications to the public.

None of this has anything to do with free speech or free expression of religion. It's all about fair business practices. Bigots WANT to reject and insult and inconvenience people they feel they are superior to, to show those people how superior they think they are. And some of them want to use commerce to do that. Just as they did back in the days of Jim Crow. This is all just a return to Jim Crow and the blatant commercial bigotry that went with it.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Were I a highly skilled web designer, there is simply no way in hell that I would lend my services to Trump's re-election campaign.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Were I a highly skilled web designer, there is simply no way in hell that I would lend my services to Trump's re-election campaign.
Pecunia non olet.
I wouldn't send away any potential customer. That's bad for business and for your reputation and possibly illegal. Though in Trumps case I'd insist on payment before I start to work.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Supreme Court leans toward web designer over refusal to work on same-sex weddings

So let's talk about that. During oral arguments, Justices in the conservative majority seemed generally supportive of the notion that Smith should not be forced to express sentiments to which she disagrees.

But the question that bugs me most about this, is that she is not being asked to "express sentiments to which she disagrees." She is being asked to express the sentiments and words of other people, where she is nothing more than the medium -- a loudspeaker, if her customers were addressing a crowd, a technical platform which knows nothing whatever about the sentiments being spoken.

I mean, think about it. If I'm a typesetter on an old linotype machine (@Revoltingest I've run those, just so you know), laying out a page for a newspaper, amd I expressing sentiments that have anything at all to do with me? Well what the heck's the difference when it's a website?

Here's the real question: when a newspaper reports somebody else's words, is the newspaper expressing the paper's own sentiments, or those of the person they are reporting? If a bake makes a cake with two grooms, are they expressing somehow involved in the ceremony, or are they just baking a cake (same as for the company that rented them the chairs everybody sat on)?

Or are they -- really and truly -- merely being just as bigotted as they can possibly be and hoping for approval?

It’s a difficult situation. But why would a group supporting same sex marriage want a person who opposes their cause to design their webpage? As a Baha’i I would certainly not want a person who was anti-Baha’i to design a Baha’i website for me.

In ‘non-essential’ matters I believe conscience should be respected but with essential services such as a doctor or ambulance this stance can in no way be taken.

As stated. Why would I even think of hiring someone dead against my cause to promote it however indirectly? Look at it another way. Smith will lose business.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
It’s a difficult situation. But why would a group supporting same sex marriage want a person who opposes their cause to design their webpage? As a Baha’i I would certainly not want a person who was anti-Baha’i to design a Baha’i website for me.

In ‘non-essential’ matters I believe conscience should be respected but with essential services such as a doctor or ambulance this stance can in no way be taken.

As stated. Why would I even think of hiring someone dead against my cause to promote it however indirectly? Look at it another way. Smith will lose business.

The question also becomes do LGBTQ people have the right to sabotage creative businesses? One would naturally assume that if someone is forced to do something, they do not wish to do, that goes against their principles, they will not be able to do their best work; angry and depressed. Their subpar work will then give the customer an excuse to bad mouth them on the net, where now the crook will look like the victim. The crook knew better, but it did not matter, since they were really out for blood.

Maybe Trump can ask Biden's speech writers to write his speeches. If the speeches, from these die hard Democrats, come out bad, he can get his money back and bad mouth them? They can work for nothing and lose their reputation by being poor speech writers for Trump. Could the speech writer sue or does the business have to bend over and take it? Or will the dual standard apply in this case?
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
The question also becomes do LGBTQ people have the right to sabotage creative businesses? One would naturally assume that if someone is forced to do something, they do not wish to do, that goes against their principles, they will not be able to do their best work; angry and depressed. Their subpar work will then give the customer an excuse to bad mouth them on the net, where now the crook will look like the victim. The crook knew better, but it did not matter, since they were really out for blood.

Maybe Trump can ask Biden's speech writers to write his speeches. If the speeches, from these die hard Democrats, come out bad, he can get his money back and bad mouth them? They can work for nothing and lose their reputation by being poor speech writers for Trump. Could the speech writer sue or does the business have to bend over and take it? Or will the dual standard apply in this case?

My understanding is that when it comes to promoting a cause we cannot force others to directly or indirectly help promote it if they are against it. And they would likely not do a good job.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
It’s a difficult situation. But why would a group supporting same sex marriage want a person who opposes their cause to design their webpage? As a Baha’i I would certainly not want a person who was anti-Baha’i to design a Baha’i website for me.

In ‘non-essential’ matters I believe conscience should be respected but with essential services such as a doctor or ambulance this stance can in no way be taken.

As stated. Why would I even think of hiring someone dead against my cause to promote it however indirectly? Look at it another way. Smith will lose business.
How would you even know what the cake-maker believes, and you are assuming there are other convenient options. Why can't we just keep our beliefs to ourselves and make cakes for whomever wants them? No religion I know of says it's a sin to make a cake and sell it. No religion I know of says that we are guilty of other people's homosexuality because we sold them a cake celebrating it.

This is all about feeling morally superior and wanting all those 'sinners' to know it. Which, incidentally, Jesus DID preach against.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
My understanding is that when it comes to promoting a cause we cannot force others to directly or indirectly help promote it if they are against it. And they would likely not do a good job.
Then go into a different business where your beliefs will not be put into such a position.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
How would you even know what the cake-maker believes, and you are assuming there are other convenient options. Why can't we just keep our beliefs to ourselves and make cakes for whomever wants them? No religion I know of says it's a sin to make a cake and sell it. No religion I know of says that we are guilty of other people's homosexuality because we sold them a cake celebrating it.

This is all about feeling morally superior and wanting all those 'sinners' to know it. Which, incidentally, Jesus DID preach against.

Everyone has different standards causing conflicts of interest to appear. Neither party should force their standard upon the other. If it’s just a cake no problem. As long as it isn’t taken further trying to gain an endorsement then no problem.
 
Top