3 ms·

It’s a case of “don’t work for gays on wedding websites”. A distinction without a difference.

dahfizz 5y ago
I think the difference in a legal sense is huge. It is about compelling service vs compelling speech. If the gay couple wanted a website to showcase pictures of their dog and the web designer didn't take the job because the clients were gay - the supreme court never would have taken that case. It's just discrimination. If a straight couple wanted to build a pro-lgbt website and the web designer refused, the case would fundamentally be the same. It's an issue about compelling speech.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  I mentioned this in another comment, but I don’t think the designer should be compelled to make a website. I think she should be disallowed from making wedding websites if her policy for that category is “don’t work for gays”. Discrimination prevented, no speech compelled.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    > I think she should be disallowed from making wedding websites if her policy for that category is “don’t work for gays”. The issue is that she (reportedly) will happily work for gays, just not in order to produce pro-gay content. So it's not a question of "are you willing to work for <protected class>", it's "are you willing to create whatever content someone might want?"
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      This isn’t “whatever content someone might want”, though. It’s a specific service she provides (to some people). From the petition: > Artist Lorie Smith is a website designer who creates original, online content consistent with her faith. She plans to (1) design wedding websites promoting her understanding of marriage, and (2) post a statement explaining that she can only speak messages consistent with her faith.
rayiner 5y ago
It’s a pretty critical difference to, for example, the billion+ Muslims in the world whose religion has very specific things to say about what “marriage” is, means, and is for: https://www.alislam.org/book/pathway-to-paradise/islamic-marriage-system/ https://www.alislam.org/book/pathway-to-paradise/islamic-mar...
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  If I am gay and I’m in the market for a wedding website, there is zero difference to me whether your policy is “don’t make wedding websites for gay people” or “don’t make websites for gay people”. You might be willing to make a website for my business or my portfolio, but that doesn’t matter because I don’t need that. Whatever your reasoning, the impact is exactly the same: your policy, as designed, excludes me as a customer. The article also says that the issue will be limited to the “Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment”, so in a legal sense I think the fact that someone might make such a policy because of their religion is irrelevant in this case.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    The customer’s viewpoint isn’t the only one that matters. If you’re a Muslim who believes what the Prophet—the one who exemplifies the perfect man—said to be true, then what you’re being asked to create makes a big difference. While the Supreme Court will address this on First Amendment grounds, that doesn’t mean religion is irrelevant. Speech is deeply intertwined with religion. There is a long history of forcing people to engage in speech contrary to their religious beliefs as a way to attack and destroy the religion.
    - sofixa 5y ago
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      There is also a history way of using religion as a pretext to discriminate against people. I know plenty of Muslims who don’t harbor any negative views of homosexuality, for instance; it’s certainly not a required tenet. And if we’re discussing this in moral rather than legal terms, I actually do think the customer’s viewpoint is the only one that matters.

I think the difference in a legal sense is huge. It is about compelling service vs compelling speech. If the gay couple wanted a website to showcase pictures of their dog and the web designer didn't take the job because the clients were gay - the supreme court never would have taken that case. It's just discrimination. If a straight couple wanted to build a pro-lgbt website and the web designer refused, the case would fundamentally be the same. It's an issue about compelling speech.

jakelazaroff 5y ago
I mentioned this in another comment, but I don’t think the designer should be compelled to make a website. I think she should be disallowed from making wedding websites if her policy for that category is “don’t work for gays”. Discrimination prevented, no speech compelled.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  > I think she should be disallowed from making wedding websites if her policy for that category is “don’t work for gays”. The issue is that she (reportedly) will happily work for gays, just not in order to produce pro-gay content. So it's not a question of "are you willing to work for <protected class>", it's "are you willing to create whatever content someone might want?"
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    This isn’t “whatever content someone might want”, though. It’s a specific service she provides (to some people). From the petition: > Artist Lorie Smith is a website designer who creates original, online content consistent with her faith. She plans to (1) design wedding websites promoting her understanding of marriage, and (2) post a statement explaining that she can only speak messages consistent with her faith.

rayiner 5y ago

It’s a pretty critical difference to, for example, the billion+ Muslims in the world whose religion has very specific things to say about what “marriage” is, means, and is for: https://www.alislam.org/book/pathway-to-paradise/islamic-marriage-system/ https://www.alislam.org/book/pathway-to-paradise/islamic-mar...

jakelazaroff 5y ago
If I am gay and I’m in the market for a wedding website, there is zero difference to me whether your policy is “don’t make wedding websites for gay people” or “don’t make websites for gay people”. You might be willing to make a website for my business or my portfolio, but that doesn’t matter because I don’t need that. Whatever your reasoning, the impact is exactly the same: your policy, as designed, excludes me as a customer. The article also says that the issue will be limited to the “Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment”, so in a legal sense I think the fact that someone might make such a policy because of their religion is irrelevant in this case.
- rayiner 5y ago
  The customer’s viewpoint isn’t the only one that matters. If you’re a Muslim who believes what the Prophet—the one who exemplifies the perfect man—said to be true, then what you’re being asked to create makes a big difference. While the Supreme Court will address this on First Amendment grounds, that doesn’t mean religion is irrelevant. Speech is deeply intertwined with religion. There is a long history of forcing people to engage in speech contrary to their religious beliefs as a way to attack and destroy the religion.
  - sofixa 5y ago
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    There is also a history way of using religion as a pretext to discriminate against people. I know plenty of Muslims who don’t harbor any negative views of homosexuality, for instance; it’s certainly not a required tenet. And if we’re discussing this in moral rather than legal terms, I actually do think the customer’s viewpoint is the only one that matters.