6 ms·

Supreme Court allows web designer to refuse service for same-sex weddings

23 points by isaacfrond 3y ago

iamleppert 3y ago
[flagged]
lapcat 3y ago
The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court: In filings in the 303 Creative v. Elenis case is a supposed request for a gay wedding website—but the man named in the request says he never filed it. https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-...
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  It doesn't matter, the law itself is real. Either it doesn't affect anyone in which case why even have it, or it does affect people in which case it's good that it was struck down as violating freedom of expression.
cogman10 3y ago
The supreme court isn't supposed to issue advisory rulings, but that's what they've done here. More legislating from the bench.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  Did CO ever claim that there was no standing? I don't see a reference to "standing" or "controversy" (from the phrase "case or controversy") in in the opinions. I assume that if standing were an issue (as it was in the student loan forgiveness case), it would have been briefed, argued, and discussed by at least one of the justices.
- rs999gti 3y ago
  > More legislating from the bench. This is why the USA needs term limits for the house and senate. Those politicians are too lazy to make any laws or not willing to hurt their re-election potential that they are passing legislation to the judicial branch. This makes the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter on matters, which causes the president and Senate to pack the court with biased judges.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nerdjon 3y ago
I know there are a lot of people that are going to disagree with me here, but as a gay man I strongly despise all of this crap around cakes, websites, or whatever. We are not talking about someone serving us at a restaurant or other things that have nothing to do with our sexuality. Making a thing for a wedding is tied specifically to being LGBTQ. You can't ignore it while working on the service. I just don't understand why we decided that we need to try to force people to make things for us when there are plenty of people (including those within our own community) which will happily do it. Do you really want someone to make something they don't want to make? The quality is not going to be as good. I would much rather someone just say they don't want to do it. Now tact is also an important part of this and how they say no. But if someone just says no we shouldn't be pressing for "Why" since that just leads to the confrontation. This just bothers me so much especially given the current political issue that something as small as a cake is the hill that we decided to die on instead of making sure trans people can get medical care or the crap going on in Florida. I just can't shake the feeling that we focused so much on the wrong things and got our little "victories" that we celebrated and well... here we are now going backwards on things that actually matter.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  As a Christian I appreciate the bulk of this perspective. We can disagree (and probably do) about a lot of things all day long, but the second either of us attempts to coerce the other into doing something under threat of law (force) the line has been crossed.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    I'm also a christian and this whole thing is very clearly intended to enable oppression and harm to already marginalized groups. Supporting this decision is to spit in the face of christ.
    - brodouevencode 3y ago
      > Supporting this decision is to spit in the face of christ Please justify this claim
h2odragon 3y ago
I suspect many objecting to this decision have also advocated "de-platforming" those they disagree with. What makes things different between personal choice and "participation in the public square" or however a difference in treatment gets justified? When a business license is issued? Corporation formed?
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  The law doesn't restrict itself to perfectly generalizable rules to be applied strictly algorithmically. It may and does consider intent and consequence.
alsaaro 3y ago
[flagged]
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  It's different because the relevant law yesterday was about colleges that are funded by the government. If the website designer was funded by the government they could also have imposed significantly more restrictions. And if you have a fully private college then you are free to discriminate as much as you want.
- cuteboy19 3y ago
  Yes that's seems incredibly hypocritical
norwalkbear 3y ago
The uniparty is trying to deescalate the likelihood of a civil war.
recursivedoubts 3y ago
It's a big debt jubilee, and you ain't in it.
rektide 3y ago
The ruling is explicitly about individuals but I don't see how this can do anything but precedent for corporations at large. What if Wix had a Christian owner, or, to makeup an outlandish bogus scenario what if religious extremists took control of say CloudFlare or aws? Is the freedom of those entities really the only thing that deserves protection? > Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance - Gorsuch
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  This is about freedom of expression in a very narrow job. It doesn't apply to any business but only creative work. Hosting a website (like AWS) is not creative so this ruling has nothing to do with that type of work.
bluecalm 3y ago
The opposition to this decision worry me. Do you really want to live in a world where you're forced to create stuff even if you don't want to? Like literally spend a month of your life painting something you don't want to paint? Signing lyrics you don't want to sign? Creating art that is disturbing to you? It's such an authoritarian position. It's not like refusing selling already made cakes to selected customers. It's about being forced to create something against your will. Three liberal justices on the court right now are just blinded by the ideology. I have quite liberal views on social issues and disagree with conservatives on most issues but it's hard to see how one side is a reasonable one here and the other just pushes an agenda and that's not the agenda anyone valuing creative freedom should get behind.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  If you read the dissent they actually don't say that. They say that the website designer should have to serve gay customers, but she could still maintain control over the work. For example, she could require them to have a giant banner on the website that says "Gay Marriage is a Sin". So she is forced to serve those customers but she can choose the way in which she does so. So in practical consequences it kinda doesn't matter which side won. It's not like anyone would want to get such a website made anyway.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    Where does the dissent say this? I searched for "banner", "control", and "sin" in the PDF but I couldn't find the bit you're referencing.
- systemvoltage 3y ago
  American individualism is being eroded by progressives with a very strong, swift authoritarian whip. The same progressives that lobbied for individualism pre-2010. What the fuck happened?

23 points by isaacfrond 3y ago

[flagged]

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court: In filings in the 303 Creative v. Elenis case is a supposed request for a gay wedding website—but the man named in the request says he never filed it. https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-...

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
It doesn't matter, the law itself is real. Either it doesn't affect anyone in which case why even have it, or it does affect people in which case it's good that it was struck down as violating freedom of expression.

cogman10 3y ago

The supreme court isn't supposed to issue advisory rulings, but that's what they've done here. More legislating from the bench.

gnicholas 3y ago
Did CO ever claim that there was no standing? I don't see a reference to "standing" or "controversy" (from the phrase "case or controversy") in in the opinions. I assume that if standing were an issue (as it was in the student loan forgiveness case), it would have been briefed, argued, and discussed by at least one of the justices.
rs999gti 3y ago
> More legislating from the bench. This is why the USA needs term limits for the house and senate. Those politicians are too lazy to make any laws or not willing to hurt their re-election potential that they are passing legislation to the judicial branch. This makes the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter on matters, which causes the president and Senate to pack the court with biased judges.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nerdjon 3y ago

I know there are a lot of people that are going to disagree with me here, but as a gay man I strongly despise all of this crap around cakes, websites, or whatever. We are not talking about someone serving us at a restaurant or other things that have nothing to do with our sexuality. Making a thing for a wedding is tied specifically to being LGBTQ. You can't ignore it while working on the service. I just don't understand why we decided that we need to try to force people to make things for us when there are plenty of people (including those within our own community) which will happily do it. Do you really want someone to make something they don't want to make? The quality is not going to be as good. I would much rather someone just say they don't want to do it. Now tact is also an important part of this and how they say no. But if someone just says no we shouldn't be pressing for "Why" since that just leads to the confrontation. This just bothers me so much especially given the current political issue that something as small as a cake is the hill that we decided to die on instead of making sure trans people can get medical care or the crap going on in Florida. I just can't shake the feeling that we focused so much on the wrong things and got our little "victories" that we celebrated and well... here we are now going backwards on things that actually matter.

brodouevencode 3y ago
As a Christian I appreciate the bulk of this perspective. We can disagree (and probably do) about a lot of things all day long, but the second either of us attempts to coerce the other into doing something under threat of law (force) the line has been crossed.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  I'm also a christian and this whole thing is very clearly intended to enable oppression and harm to already marginalized groups. Supporting this decision is to spit in the face of christ.
  - brodouevencode 3y ago
    > Supporting this decision is to spit in the face of christ Please justify this claim

h2odragon 3y ago

I suspect many objecting to this decision have also advocated "de-platforming" those they disagree with. What makes things different between personal choice and "participation in the public square" or however a difference in treatment gets justified? When a business license is issued? Corporation formed?

giraffe_lady 3y ago
The law doesn't restrict itself to perfectly generalizable rules to be applied strictly algorithmically. It may and does consider intent and consequence.

alsaaro 3y ago

[flagged]

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
It's different because the relevant law yesterday was about colleges that are funded by the government. If the website designer was funded by the government they could also have imposed significantly more restrictions. And if you have a fully private college then you are free to discriminate as much as you want.
cuteboy19 3y ago
Yes that's seems incredibly hypocritical

norwalkbear 3y ago

The uniparty is trying to deescalate the likelihood of a civil war.

recursivedoubts 3y ago

It's a big debt jubilee, and you ain't in it.

rektide 3y ago

The ruling is explicitly about individuals but I don't see how this can do anything but precedent for corporations at large. What if Wix had a Christian owner, or, to makeup an outlandish bogus scenario what if religious extremists took control of say CloudFlare or aws? Is the freedom of those entities really the only thing that deserves protection? > Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance - Gorsuch

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
This is about freedom of expression in a very narrow job. It doesn't apply to any business but only creative work. Hosting a website (like AWS) is not creative so this ruling has nothing to do with that type of work.

bluecalm 3y ago

The opposition to this decision worry me. Do you really want to live in a world where you're forced to create stuff even if you don't want to? Like literally spend a month of your life painting something you don't want to paint? Signing lyrics you don't want to sign? Creating art that is disturbing to you? It's such an authoritarian position. It's not like refusing selling already made cakes to selected customers. It's about being forced to create something against your will. Three liberal justices on the court right now are just blinded by the ideology. I have quite liberal views on social issues and disagree with conservatives on most issues but it's hard to see how one side is a reasonable one here and the other just pushes an agenda and that's not the agenda anyone valuing creative freedom should get behind.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
If you read the dissent they actually don't say that. They say that the website designer should have to serve gay customers, but she could still maintain control over the work. For example, she could require them to have a giant banner on the website that says "Gay Marriage is a Sin". So she is forced to serve those customers but she can choose the way in which she does so. So in practical consequences it kinda doesn't matter which side won. It's not like anyone would want to get such a website made anyway.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  Where does the dissent say this? I searched for "banner", "control", and "sin" in the PDF but I couldn't find the bit you're referencing.
systemvoltage 3y ago
American individualism is being eroded by progressives with a very strong, swift authoritarian whip. The same progressives that lobbied for individualism pre-2010. What the fuck happened?