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

[loverofhumanity]

Then go into a different business where your beliefs will not be put into such a position.

That’s another solution.

 

[exchemist]

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.

That is exactly what came up in the Northern Ireland case of Asher's Bakery: Ashers 'gay cake' row: Bakers win Supreme Court appeal

The bakery won in the UK Supreme Court. But it was the message on the cake they objected to having to write out on it, not to making a cake for a gay customer.

 

[F1fan]

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 they know, unless web designers have shared their bigotry in their promotional materials? It tends to be the case that customers have engaged businesses for their products without knowing of their bigotry, and then lawsuits come from it.

As far as a web designer, I used to do web design many years ago, and we had clients. We only had so much time for work, and we often could not take on new clients. So it would have been easy to reject a bigot by insisting we did not have the staff or time to take them on, they need to look elsewhere.

Suing tends to come out of a business owner or worker making an ideological (typically bigotry) stand against the customer. Business owners can be bigots, but hide their bigotry in ways that do not result in discrimination. Bigots tend to believe their bigotry is justified in some way, and often it is religious. So much for morals coming from God, eh?

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not going to pretend to understand the nuance of the different company types and what that all means, but just speaking as an artist I firmly believe artisans should be free to determine what commissions they do or don't take. Having been forced by school politics to do artwork I didn't want to do in the past, it sucks. Not just on principle, but as a creative it just sucks the inspiration and joy out of what you are doing.

 

[fantome profane]

it just sucks the inspiration and joy out of what you are doing.

Sounds like most jobs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That’s another solution.

People have no right to burden others with their own personal beliefs. This isn't like making accommodations for various handicaps. This is entirely personal and entirely a choice.
It's the only appropriate choice. If you don't want to violate your beliefs then don't put yourself into that position as there is not one valid reason to expect others to cater to your own personal beliefs. And, on top of that, there is absolutely no Biblical defense for it. None. Jesus performed miracles for people no questions asked. And his followers want to ask questions and make demands for special treatment for their line of chosen work? Especially when most of that work is not bringing glory to god anyways?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not going to pretend to understand the nuance of the different company types and what that all means, but just speaking as an artist I firmly believe artisans should be free to determine what commissions they do or don't take. Having been forced by school politics to do artwork I didn't want to do in the past, it sucks. Not just on principle, but as a creative it just sucks the inspiration and joy out of what you are doing.

Sounds like many aspects of life.

 

[Father Heathen]

The question also becomes do LGBTQ people have the right to sabotage creative businesses?

How? By merely existing and by seeking the same goods and services as everyone else?

 

[PureX]

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 .

And what's next? People who don't want to hire gays? Or serve gays in restaurants? Or blacks? Or Muslims? Or fat people? Or employers refusing to offer health insurance to employees that includes abortion, or forms of birth control they don't like?

There's a reason we stopped this nonsense 60 years ago. And it was a legitimate reason then, and is a legitimate reason now. Fairness matters. Equality matters. People's right to be who they are regardless of what you think about it matters. We can hate anyone we want to, for any reason we want to. But we can't mistreat them. We can't decide that we don't have to afford them the same rights as everyone else. And if we do that, we need to be held accountable.

This isn't about what we think, or "believe in". It's about how we behave.

 

[Father Heathen]

If an atheist employee or business owner refused to serve a customer because they were Christian, the same people defending this would screech and squeal in outrage.

 

[loverofhumanity]

How would they know, unless web designers have shared their bigotry in their promotional materials? It tends to be the case that customers have engaged businesses for their products without knowing of their bigotry, and then lawsuits come from it.

As far as a web designer, I used to do web design many years ago, and we had clients. We only had so much time for work, and we often could not take on new clients. So it would have been easy to reject a bigot by insisting we did not have the staff or time to take them on, they need to look elsewhere.

Suing tends to come out of a business owner or worker making an ideological (typically bigotry) stand against the customer. Business owners can be bigots, but hide their bigotry in ways that do not result in discrimination. Bigots tend to believe their bigotry is justified in some way, and often it is religious. So much for morals coming from God, eh?

It’s possible for anyone to be bigoted.

 

[F1fan]

It’s possible for anyone to be bigoted.

But only the wise and mature recognize it, and work to eliminate it in their life. They don't accept a religion's bigotry as an excuse for their own.

 

[loverofhumanity]

And what's next? People who don't want to hire gays? Or serve gays in restaurants? Or blacks? Or Muslims? Or fat people? Or employers refusing to offer health insurance to employees that includes abortion, or forms of birth control they don't like?

There's a reason we stopped this nonsense 60 years ago. And it was a legitimate reason then, and is a legitimate reason now. Fairness matters. Equality matters. People's right to be who they are regardless of what you think about it matters. We can hate anyone we want to, for any reason we want to. But we can't mistreat them. We can't decide that we don't have to afford them the same rights as everyone else. And if we do that, we need to be held accountable.

This isn't about what we think, or "believe in". It's about how we behave.

Very true.

 

[wellwisher]

How would they know, unless web designers have shared their bigotry in their promotional materials? It tends to be the case that customers have engaged businesses for their products without knowing of their bigotry, and then lawsuits come from it.

As far as a web designer, I used to do web design many years ago, and we had clients. We only had so much time for work, and we often could not take on new clients. So it would have been easy to reject a bigot by insisting we did not have the staff or time to take them on, they need to look elsewhere.

Suing tends to come out of a business owner or worker making an ideological (typically bigotry) stand against the customer. Business owners can be bigots, but hide their bigotry in ways that do not result in discrimination. Bigots tend to believe their bigotry is justified in some way, and often it is religious. So much for morals coming from God, eh?

Free speech is often restricted in social ways, based on the sensitivities of some groups of people. There are things we cannot say, without risk of censor or worse. Religious people have sensitivities, but many are not allowed to add words to the list of censored words. To be fair, either we all can add words to the sensitivity censor list, or nobody gets to add special words.

This lopsidedness is a systemic part of the problem. For example, you need to very careful when expressing an opinion about Jews, since there are a wide range of buzz words and comments that can explode on you like dynamite. If you are a Christian, the list is very small or nonexistence. You can get away with far more negativity against Christians, since they do not have a list of taboo words for emotional protection and censorship

If we had a free speech debate between two people; all type of taboo words verses none, one side is at a disadvantage, right out of the gate. The political Left has far more taboo words that it can and will use as shields and weapons against its less armed opponents. These can be used to censor and end conversations. As an exercise, make a list of the words that will cause you to be called a hater and be censored and see how many the Left has? It is very lopsided.

Maybe we need to allow the religions to stockpile their list of words that can be used to punish others as hater or be used as censorship conversation stoppers. This entire free speech case, would not ever have gotten this far without the systemic word cheat of the Left. LBGBT has a far bigger list than the religious shop keeper. With equal access to weapon words, the shop keeper could now claim harassment for being religious. Then the LBGTQ people would be the haters, all based on the words on file.

I would much prefer no cheat words and more free speech so we can learn from each other as adults. Picture in you have a friend who is very sensitive. You do not wish to hurt their feelings, but you have some bad news that needs to be said. Their sensitivity makes it very difficult to figure out how to say the right thing and not make them freak. This will steals truth from both of you.

Now picture a well adjusted friend with a good sense of humor. We have the same situation of having to tell bad news. Now you can be more direct, then help him forward to solutions. The systemic word sensitivity by the Left, makes it harder to be honest with some left wing group and ideas, since so many will melt at nothing and you will be called a hater and censored. This is too much work and leads to injustice.

 

[F1fan]

Free speech is often restricted in social ways, based on the sensitivities of some groups of people. There are things we cannot say, without risk of censor or worse.

That's right, liberties come with responsibilities. So be careful.

Religious people have sensitivities, but many are not allowed to add words to the list of censored words. To be fair, either we all can add words to the sensitivity censor list, or nobody gets to add special words.

This lopsidedness is a systemic part of the problem. For example, you need to very careful when expressing an opinion about Jews, since there are a wide range of buzz words and comments that can explode on you like dynamite. If you are a Christian, the list is very small or nonexistence. You can get away with far more negativity against Christians, since they do not have a list of taboo words for emotional protection and censorship

Jaws have faced more persecution and bigotry that Christians, and that fact guides our thinking and speech. You are free to march with your Nazi friends at Charlottesvill and yell "Jews will not repace us!" and not face any criminal consequences. But your boss might see you marching and find that unacceptable and fire you. This actually happened to some of these Nazis. Try suing, and good luck finding any sympathy. This isn't a free speech violation, as one free citizens can fire their racist employees for various reasons. The government can't prohibit you from marching with Nazi freinds and yelling racist things due to freedom of speech, but society can use legal forms of their speech and condemn you. So you have freedom, you'd just better think about how you use freedoms and not **** off and offend your fellow citizens.

If we had a free speech debate between two people; all type of taboo words verses none, one side is at a disadvantage, right out of the gate. The political Left has far more taboo words that it can and will use as shields and weapons against its less armed opponents.

If the right is more vile, and has fewer manners, well they will be more socially offensive. They will offend well educated conservatives, too. I see many right wingers more interested in acting like brats and trying to get attention than having reasoned statements to present. There is no virtue in being offensive, that is the circus that Trump has helped create.

These can be used to censor and end conversations. As an exercise, make a list of the words that will cause you to be called a hater and be censored and see how many the Left has? It is very lopsided.

Conversations do well when all parties have manners, use facts not disinformation, and present valid arguments.

Maybe we need to allow the religions to stockpile their list of words that can be used to punish others as hater or be used as censorship conversation stoppers. This entire free speech case, would not ever have gotten this far without the systemic word cheat of the Left. LBGBT has a far bigger list than the religious shop keeper. With equal access to weapon words, the shop keeper could now claim harassment for being religious. Then the LBGTQ people would be the haters, all based on the words on file.

Well, if the religious are using their presumption of morals via a God as a weapon against LGTBQ people then the religious look like fools. And ironic.

I would much prefer no cheat words and more free speech so we can learn from each other as adults. Picture in you have a friend who is very sensitive. You do not wish to hurt their feelings, but you have some bad news that needs to be said. Their sensitivity makes it very difficult to figure out how to say the right thing and not make them freak. This will steals truth from both of you.

Now picture a well adjusted friend with a good sense of humor. We have the same situation of having to tell bad news. Now you can be more direct, then help him forward to solutions. The systemic word sensitivity by the Left, makes it harder to be honest with some left wing group and ideas, since so many will melt at nothing and you will be called a hater and censored. This is too much work and leads to injustice.

Just use facts, credible sources, and present coherent and rational arguments and you will have a good experience in debate.