Gay Wedding Cake Issue Revisited In Denver . . . Only Now It's Websites - Not Cakes

[daeler]

I would like to know what in the religion says it is wrong to make a cake/website for gay people?

 

[Crunchtime]

It is an effort by evangelicals to use the legal system elevate their religious beliefs into law. The SC has said it is OK for Ms Smith refuse service to gay couples because her right to be free from sin is a greater right than their right to freely buy products and services.

Our laws say that people and businesses cannot discriminate based on race, color, country of origin, sex, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, physical disabilities. Presbyterians, Methodists, United Church of Christ and others honor and follow these anti-discrimination laws. Evangelicals do not. And the court has supported their right to ignore the law. How many people understand that this is a very big step toward federal establishment of a protected state religion.

It is not. It is an effort to stand for what they believe without being forced to abet sinful behavior. Those denominations that support “gay rights” are violating scripture. Those that ordain gay people to the ministry, etc., are apostate.

There is no effort by evangelical Christians to establish a theocracy in the US. This country is too far into the toilet for that. Evangelicals are anticipating the rapture of the true Christian church. Those that are left behind can have what remains of this world.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

The opinion issued by the Tenth Circuit has an extensive discussion on the elements of standing (injury in fact, causation, and redressability), and why 303 Creative clears that hurdle. It's ten pages, starting at page eleven.

As it is the element of injury in fact that is the most contentious, the lower court satisfied that element on the basis that, "appellants have sufficiently demonstrated both an intent to provide graphic and web design services to the public in a manner that exposes them to CADA liability, and a credible threat that Colorado will prosecute them under that statute." (This is a summarizing quote from the beginning of the injury in fact analysis; for the full explanation, visit the linked opinion.)

Just in case you ever run into me again when I'm hung up on some semantic detail, this is what I needed:
• "Appellants have also provided clear examples of the types of websites they intend to provide, as well as the intended changes to 303 Creative’s webpage" <-- more than a business plan.

So the problem was actually that SCOTUS summarized the points/case poorly, not that she did not have standing. Objection dropped.

 

[Absentglare]

What, the "Supremes got fooled" bit? Is that seriously what you're resting your hat on?

The facts demonstrate that the right wing justices are either corrupt or incompetent.

 

[weaver2]

It is not. It is an effort to stand for what they believe without being forced to abet sinful behavior. Those denominations that support “gay rights” are violating scripture. Those that ordain gay people to the ministry, etc., are apostate.

There is no effort by evangelical Christians to establish a theocracy in the US. This country is too far into the toilet for that. Evangelicals are anticipating the rapture of the true Christian church. Those that are left behind can have what remains of this world.

LOL one of the funnest things evangelicals do is explain how they are the only ones Christian enough to experience the Rapture.

 

[JasperL]

There is standing if there is a grievance. The hypothetical gay couple wouldn't be involved in the lawsuit at all the lawsuit named the state is the defendant therefore it has to go to the supreme Court.

And yes you absolutely do have standing if the state makes laws regarding who you can and can't do business with.

To think that you have no standing against the state would nullify Lawrence vs texts because that was someone with a grievance against the state.

Sorry there wasn't actually a gay couple involved I don't see why that would be necessary.

The reason for an actual controversy is simple enough, in this case.

Let's say she sells templates - insert names, dates, etc., and you have a website ready to go for your wedding The gay couple does that. The website designer isn't asked to provide ANY speech for that template for a gay wedding at all - the gay couple fills in the blanks. So is that protected speech according to SCOTUS, ALLOWING a gay couple to fill in blanks on a standard wedding template? Just selling a template to a gay couple? We don't have any idea because she didn't have a website or products and therefore could not have ever objected to any actual speech supposedly compelled by the state. The state said they'd never compel her to speak in ways she didn't believe, and in any event cannot have compelled any speech because she had no products, no website, and no gay couple had ever approached her for services.

I mean - read the opinion. It's incredible, actually, that the majority and dissent disagree on the FACTS. I've never seen anything like it, and it's because there was no actual controversy. There were NO FACTS on which to make a decision. So the SCOTUS took a hypothetical case and that allowed the majority and perhaps the dissent to invent their own facts on which to base their opinion. This just never happens, and should not ever happen.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

The reason for an actual controversy is simple enough, in this case.

Let's say she sells templates - insert names, dates, etc., and you have a website ready to go for your wedding The gay couple does that. The website designer isn't asked to provide ANY speech for that template for a gay wedding at all - the gay couple fills in the blanks. So is that protected speech according to SCOTUS, ALLOWING a gay couple to fill in blanks on a standard wedding template? Just selling a template to a gay couple? We don't have any idea because she didn't have a website or products and therefore could not have ever objected to any actual speech supposedly compelled by the state. The state said they'd never compel her to speak in ways she didn't believe, and in any event cannot have compelled any speech because she had no products, no website, and no gay couple had ever approached her for services.

I mean - read the opinion. It's incredible, actually, that the majority and dissent disagree on the FACTS. I've never seen anything like it, and it's because there was no actual controversy. There were NO FACTS on which to make a decision. So the SCOTUS took a hypothetical case and that allowed the majority and perhaps the dissent to invent their own facts on which to base their opinion. This just never happens, and should not ever happen.

And also people are not spinning it back the other way: as an agnostic, I would not support organized religion. Being forced to promote Catholicism, etc., would be against -my- core set of beliefs. So it actually benefits both sides, depending on who is the client and who is the company.

 

[JasperL]

So I will agree with you partially. The ruling was correct. However, I don't think the standing was there.

I'm fine with the principle of the ruling - that if the designer is religiously opposed to SSM that the state should not compel her to speak in ways that violate her beliefs, but the problem with the ruling is what does that mean?

If her 'speech' is limited to allowing a gay couple to put "John and Bob to be married on June 1, 2024" on a standard template, is that protected? Who knows. Is her 'free speech' implicated if she has to host that website? We have no idea, because she had no products, no website and didn't object to anything that wasn't theoretical.

Down the line a bit, how about if an event center or restaurant hosts rehearsal dinners. Is the owners' 'free speech' infringed on if they oppose SSM and are forced to serve food and drinks at a gay wedding rehearsal dinner? We don't know. The restaurant owner isn't being asked to condone or condemn same sex marriage, just host an event. But is that artistic expression, since no question food has an artistic, creative element to it? How about if the gay couple eats there the week after the wedding? The owner doesn't approve of SSM and here's a 'married' couple, who are gay. Can he refuse them his creatively and artistically cooked and presented food?

Maybe you'd say, well, the ribeye dinner with asparagus and roasted potatoes is the same for everyone, so the restaurant isn't being asked to speak at all with regard to that meal. How is that different than a web design company that sells 20 different templates and the couple (or the designer) simply adds the names and dates?

 

[JasperL]

And also people are not spinning it back the other way: as an agnostic, I would not support organized religion. Being forced to promote Catholicism, etc., would be against -my- core set of beliefs. So it actually benefits both sides, depending on who is the client and who is the company.

The point is I don't know what "it" means. And neither did the court, since the majority and dissent disagreed on the FACTS, the actual controversy, and it's because there was no actual controversy, just a made up set of hypotheticals.

 

[JasperL]

If Colorado's law violates the free speech clause in the first amendment it is hard to see how there isn't standing. constitutional violations seem to be the standing in all supreme court cases. Remember Colorado was the defendant. If colorado imposes a law and subjects it's citizens to penalties for not obeying? seems the standing is absolutely obvious. so, explain how i am mistaken.

OK, read the case and tell me what speech the state compelled.

The state didn't compel any speech, imposed no penalties, because the website didn't exist, the products didn't exist and no gay couple had ever requested the designer to speak in any way pro or con SSM.

 

[JasperL]

Oh well it’s precedent now.

Be sad if you want.

Again, what exactly is precedent? Nobody knows because the case had no facts.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

I'm fine with the principle of the ruling - that if the designer is religiously opposed to SSM that the state should not compel her to speak in ways that violate her beliefs, but the problem with the ruling is what does that mean?

If her 'speech' is limited to allowing a gay couple to put "John and Bob to be married on June 1, 2024" on a standard template, is that protected? Who knows. Is her 'free speech' implicated if she has to host that website? We have no idea, because she had no products, no website and didn't object to anything that wasn't theoretical.

Down the line a bit, how about if an event center or restaurant hosts rehearsal dinners. Is the owners' 'free speech' infringed on if they oppose SSM and are forced to serve food and drinks at a gay wedding rehearsal dinner? We don't know. The restaurant owner isn't being asked to condone or condemn same sex marriage, just host an event. But is that artistic expression, since no question food has an artistic, creative element to it? How about if the gay couple eats there the week after the wedding? The owner doesn't approve of SSM and here's a 'married' couple, who are gay. Can he refuse them his creatively and artistically cooked and presented food?

Maybe you'd say, well, the ribeye dinner with asparagus and roasted potatoes is the same for everyone, so the restaurant isn't being asked to speak at all with regard to that meal. How is that different than a web design company that sells 20 different templates and the couple (or the designer) simply adds the names and dates?

The ruling was narrow in scope, which is specifically why I approve of the ruling. So to answer your bolded questions, that would take another court case to determine. And on that case, yes, I would agree you, a broader scope like that would not be to the benefit of the nation or its people.

The problem is also the Colorado authority. If they stripped that language out of its authority that caused all these cases to begin with, the problem goes away.

EDIT: Removed what turned out to be inaccurate information.

 

[eman623]

its always gonna be so simply to me

i fall on the side of freedom and rights and respecting my fellow americans who are decent people and to stand against vile dishonest, illogical, hypocritical hate and bigotry

You are for freedom except when you aren't.

I'm for freedom for everyone. Even for those who I disagree with.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

This is the language that gets the Colorado authority in trouble, especially because the language is very vague:
• "Appellants are not injured because CADA might “compel” them to create a website announcing a birthday party for a gay man; that is something Appellants would do willingly. Nor are Appellants injured because CADA might “compel” them to create a website announcing “God is Dead”; Colorado concedes CADA would not apply if Appellants would not produce such a website for any customers."
• "Setting aside other hypotheticals, we focus on what is to us the most obvious scenario: Appellants refuse a same-sex couple’s request for a website celebrating their wedding but accept an opposite-sex couple’s identical request for a website celebrating their wedding. Considering this scenario, Appellants’ injury becomes clear. Although Appellants might comply with CADA in other circumstances, at least some of Appellants’ intended course of conduct arguably would “deny to an individual . . . because of . . . sexual orientation . . . the full and equal enjoyment of [goods and services].”"
• "A couple’s request for a wedding website is, at least arguably, “inextricably bound up with” the couple’s sexual orientation. Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., Ga., 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1742 (2020). As the Supreme Court explained in Bostock, “[an] employer’s ultimate goal might be to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
But to achieve that purpose the employer must, along the way, intentionally treat an employee worse based in part on that individual’s sex.” Id. So too here—although Appellants’ “ultimate goal” might be to only discriminate against same-sex marriage, to do so Appellants might also discriminate against same-sex couples. As a result, Appellants’ refusal may be “because of” the customers’ sexual orientation, and thereby expose them to liability under CADA"
• According to Colorado, Appellants’ fear of prosecution is not credible because it requires the court to speculate about the actions of Appellants’ would-be customers.
We disagree. Appellants have a credible fear of prosecution because Appellants’ liability under CADA and Colorado’s enforcement of CADA are both “sufficiently imminent.”

EDIT: And remember, the purpose of the lawsuit is for "clarity," really, she's suing to find out if she should commit to founding the business because of CADA. If CADA was upheld, the implication being she would not start her business. It's ready to go and just has a specific, limited-in-scope, legal question.

 

[eman623]

I would like to know what in the religion says it is wrong to make a cake/website for gay people?

People seem to be getting way too hung up over the religion angle. This is a free speech case, not a religious freedom one.

The artist cannot be compelled to create a website with any message he or she disagrees with. Not just religious, but political, cultural, whatever.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

People seem to be getting way too hung up over the religion angle. This is a free speech case, not a religious freedom one.

The artist cannot be compelled to create a website with any message he or she disagrees with. Not just religious, but political, cultural, whatever.

People get hung up the religious angle because that's the outrage on cable news. I should not be forced to create a "Donald Trump is awesome!" webpage. You are reading the decision correctly in my opinion.

 

[bomberfox]

There is standing if there is a grievance. The hypothetical gay couple wouldn't be involved in the lawsuit at all the lawsuit named the state is the defendant therefore it has to go to the supreme Court.

And yes you absolutely do have standing if the state makes laws regarding who you can and can't do business with.

To think that you have no standing against the state would nullify Lawrence vs texts because that was someone with a grievance against the state.

Sorry there wasn't actually a gay couple involved I don't see why that would be necessary.

There needs to be a specific harm done to bring it to SCOTUS. Thats always been the rule as far as i know.

 

[AGENT J]

You are for freedom except when you aren't.

factually false, im always for it within the design of law and rights

I'm for freedom for everyone. Even for those who I disagree with.

me too lol i have no issue with people that "disagree" that has nothing to do with this topic though

 

[weaver2]

There needs to be a specific harm done to bring it to SCOTUS. Thats always been the rule as far as i know.

That evangelicals are now trying to make laws stopping things that might happen is cause for concern. It represents a major increase in their attempt to legally control the religious and sexual behavior of all citizens.

 

[JasperL]

The ruling was narrow in scope, which is specifically why I approve of the ruling.

How can it be 'narrow in scope' when there are no facts on which the decision was based? The scope is ????????

You didn't address this point:

"If her 'speech' is limited to allowing a gay couple to put "John and Bob to be married on June 1, 2024" on a standard template, is that protected? Who knows. Is her 'free speech' implicated if she has to host that website? We have no idea, because she had no products, no website and didn't object to anything that wasn't theoretical."

So to answer your bolded questions, that would take another court case to determine. And on that case, yes, I would agree you, a broader scope like that would not be to the benefit of the nation or its people. But, if you read the ruling, it clearly states that the blogger in question is not against providing web pages, etc., to same-sex couples.

But again, what she objected to doing isn't any different than a restaurant saying, "well, we'll serve meals to the gays, but we won't host rehearsal dinners for 'false' weddings."

The issue is that she does not want to promote ideas that are against her religion. One such example used in the case is being forced to write the statement, "God is dead." She was never objecting to promoting same-sex marriages. Look at the rulings, or if you'd rather, I'll post the quotes.

She was, very explicitly, objecting to 'promoting' SSM. She wanted to post a "No gay weddings" sign on the website. That was part of the dispute - that notice. From the dissent: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

"Indeed, petitioners here concede that if a same-sex couple came across an opposite-sex wedding website created by the company and requested an identical website, with only the names and date of the wedding changed, petitioners would refuse. Id., at 37–38.11 That is status-based discrimination, plain and simple."

The problem is also the Colorado authority. If they stripped that language out of its authority that caused all these cases to begin with, the problem goes away.

What language? I guess if they strip the language providing public accommodations protections to SS couple or people the problem goes away, but that's hardly a solution I'd support.

 

[JasperL]

People get hung up the religious angle because that's the outrage on cable news. I should not be forced to create a "Donald Trump is awesome!" webpage. You are reading the decision correctly in my opinion.

People are 'hung up on the religious angle' because the court cases deal with the 'religious angle.' That's very explicitly the issue, so of course the public reading the cases gets hung up on the facts of the case. No one is suing for the right to include a message on the website - "No colored weddings."

And what message did the state compel her to make? Oh, right, no message because it's all based on hypotheticals. The dissent claims posting a simple message, "John and Bob to be married June 1, 2024" is a bridge too far for the designer - she says she would refuse that announcement. Why not a wedding announcement that has a black man and a white woman, if they really do NOT agree with interracial marriages?

You're also missing the point. If she produces cakes with "DJT is Awesome!!" on them, what she claims the right to do is to produce that website for a straight couple, but not a gay couple. The 'speech' is the same in both cases, but the buyers are not. The only difference is the names on the gay couple's website is John and Bob versus John and Mary.

 

[weaver2]

And yes you absolutely do have standing if the state makes laws regarding who you can and can't do business with.

Colorado is not the one picking and choosing who to sell to. Colorado law say that if you are open for business you serve everyone. It's Ms that wants to say who she will sell to and whom she won't.

 

[CLAX1911]

I see you are only responding to me instead of reading the document, or you would have had specifics from the document to debate me on instead of the summary I gave. The first rule is that you can't sue on the basis of hypothetically, someday, this law might apply to me. You must sue on the basis of, right now in my situation, the law could be applied to me.

if there was something important in the document relevant to this you would post an excerpt and not expect me to go to a website or a different document and read your argument I won't do that.

Consider the following (and please read this to understand where I'm coming from):

First, the enforcement of the law applied specifically to businesses. If she was unemployed, she fails the standing test. She passes this check, even though she's a freelancer (if she even has a LLC, which I believe she did, she would pass this). Since the law affects businesses, you are required to have a business or be an employee to be affected by the law. Not everyone is affected by the clause. Let's consider who is genuinely affected by said law. You must -currently- either be affect or subject to being affected by a law. Nowhere in the law does it require her, as a private, American citizen, to support gay marriage. It requires her, in line with her business, to hypothetically support gay marriage should she be commissioned to do so. If you're not in a situation where you're an employee or can be commissioned to specifically support gay marriage, this law does not apply to you. You are not required to, say, make a personal video supporting gay marriage. So, she fails this test on an individual level, but passes it since she could be commissioned to write such an article.

this was in regards to a state law in the state she was wanting to start a business in she has standing. Whether she served customers or not.

Second, I'm an agnostic and -I- would not have standing even if I had a wedding business because the law would not be applicable to me as the law is not making me say something against my beliefs. She passes this check. A religious business passes this check, too.

BS. Being an agnostic doesn't mean you don't have beliefs and if you have beliefs against two people of the same sex getting married you'd have the same right to decline that anyone else does.

Third, she would have to have a business in which the law would be applied. This is where I think she fails this test. For example, her specific complaint is that the law would require her to accept any freelance work, regardless of her religious beliefs. As discussed in the second check, she passes this check on religious ground, but not where the law would be applied. But consider if her business was about reporting the outcome of insurance claims. There's no violation of the law there. You're reporting on cases in a neutral manner, and not being asked to support anything. So, the question of "does she have a dog in the fight" hinges on what her current business is. If she doesn't have a business that could be affected by the ruling, then she has no standing.

she did have a business in which the law would be applied.

Put another way, if the government passes a law that forces all black people to quit their jobs, do individual white people have standing? No, because the law doesn't apply to them, but any corporation could sue if it has black people on their payroll.

that's not relevant the law stated a business cannot discriminate against a couple because they're gay and if this business was making wedding websites and absolutely does affect them so. You are 100% wrong in this regard.

What I'm saying is if she doesn't have a situation where her free speech -could- be abrogated (undetermined), she doesn't have standing.

except she very clearly absolutely does have that exact situation. If Colorado law says You must be put in that situation every citizen that runs this type of business in the state of Colorado has that standing.

Which means one of two things: a) The court made a mistake in their ruling (Which can happen -- human beings are fallible, regardless if you're a district court or the Supreme Court -- the conservative SCOTUS right now is saying the prior, liberal SCOTUS has made mistakes), or b) the situation she currently is in actually does apply and the Court's decision does not adequately explain it.

I think you made a mistake and analyzing particularly with regard to what standing is. A citizen who subject to fines and penalties due to a law that they are bound by has absolute standing in a lawsuit against the state.

Sorry.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Can you show me where "scripture" says that a cake may not be baked for a gay person?

 

[CLAX1911]

Incorrect.

Why?

Incorrect again. Re-read what I wrote.

what you wrote was facile why was I incorrect?

Ah, so you deny the existence

No.

You are making my point that you do not appreciate that the law should be based on reality by immediately responding with this bizarre fantasy.

so because you failed to argue mean completely in this entire post you're blaming me for having a bizarre fantasy because you suck at this?