ah, but i think in the designer's mind, he/she is doing (only) wedding websites.
So do wedding related website design, but demand complete artistic license...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ah, but i think in the designer's mind, he/she is doing (only) wedding websites.
It's. Providing. A. Service. There is no speech involved in baking a generic wedding cake for a gay couple, yet the baker refused. Again - he claimed that act of making a wedding cake for a gay couple was a violation of his religious views. This ain't hard.
For discussion purposes, let's change the scenario a little bit. Let's say Ye wanted the web designer to create a site that was plainly anti-Semitic. Should the web designer be able to refuse?
“I didn’t want to use my artistic talents to create something that went against my Christian faith,” he said in an interview with CNN last year, noting that he has also declined to make cakes to celebrate Halloween.You're really off the beam here. He refused to bake ANY wedding cake for them. He had sheet cakes and layer cakes in the cases that he offered them. Ever been to a wedding where the cake was a sheet cake? They wanted a WEDDING CAKE so, yes, he refused to serve them. Period. Your idea of "service" is a bit odd...."No, I won't sell you what you want but you can buy anything in the bargain bin over there".
If the wedding cake has no message on it...no little people on top...no indication of who is getting married...a cake that he would make for a hetero couple with no questions asked, why wouldn't he make that SAME CAKE for these people? That's what he refused to do. He claims the act of making a wedding cake for a gay couple - even one with no message at all - violates his religious beliefs. His claim is that the cake itself is a message.
Because renting isn't creating something unique. If she refused to sell a sign that was already created for general sale it would be unlawful.LOL...basically yes...and if a pattern of behavior is established demonstrating that she refuses to do work for any candidate because that candidate is black, she can be sued and she will lose. How do you think that's different from refusing to rent to black people because they are black?
Which means a private business/person can't be forced to create a message.Huh? That just means the govt can't directly regulate it. A private business has no such restriction.
Do you people not understand how this works?
"You people" ? Racist.Huh? That just means the govt can't directly regulate it. A private business has no such restriction.
Do you people not understand how this works?
Do you think you have a ‘right’ to compel anyone to perform a service for you?Fighting for your rights isn't trolling.
I think you are mistaken.But:
1) this isn’t a good comparison, no one has asked her to design a site that she refused to do for reasons - this was a preemptive lawsuit filed by her
2) you’re offering a free speech scenario, this case is on religious grounds. Separate conditions apply.
This is what should scare Americans. The Federalists went looking for this case. They want to create law from the bench.At a basic level: where’s Ms. Smith’s standing in this suit? She hasn’t begun the business but wants the court’s permission to refuse future hypothetical business from gay couples?
No question which way this court will rule. It’s already been decided.
Stranger things happened to the meaning of words in the modern world.So do wedding related website design, but demand complete artistic license...
Good lord…baking a f’n wedding cake does NOT represent a “message”. And if your business is baking f’n wedding cakes you can NOT refuse to serve a protected class while providing that service to everyone else. If your business is creating wedding web sites, you can NOT refuse to serve a protected class while providing those same services to everyone else. You can’t refuse on racial grounds. You can’t refuse on religious grounds. You can’t refuse on gender grounds. That’s why they are called “protected”.Which means a private business/person can't be forced to create a message.
If their public accommodation business is predicated on providing that service and you are being refused service solely because of your protected class status…yes, you have a right under the law to compel them to provide that service. Do you honestly think otherwise?Do you think you have a ‘right’ to compel anyone to perform a service for you?
I thought the 13th amendment was created to quash that notion.
Didn’t the SCOTUS rule that a baker could refuse to bake a cake to a “protected class”?Good lord…baking a f’n wedding cake does NOT represent a “message”. And if your business is baking f’n wedding cakes you can NOT refuse to serve a protected class while providing that service to everyone else. If your business is creating wedding web sites, you can NOT refuse to serve a protected class while providing those same services to everyone else. You can’t refuse on racial grounds. You can’t refuse on religious grounds. You can’t refuse on gender grounds. That’s why they are called “protected”.
Yes. I think the notion behind ‘public accommodation’ negates the rights and agency of the person willing to trade a service with whomever they want.If their public accommodation business is predicated on providing that service and you are being refused service solely because of your protected class status…yes, you have a right under the law to compel them to provide that service. Do you honestly think otherwise?
SMH. The business owner gets to decide. Anti-Semitics - in case you didn’t get the memo - aren’t a protected class. Nor are Nazis. Nor are the Klan. Why is this so hard for you people to understand? To recognize to whom I’m referring, look up."You people" ? Racist.
I understand 1A.
Once again, who gets to decide what hate speech is? You used that as the standard for being able to reject doing business with someone.
The government in Colorado is trying to force a private business to promote speech the business disagrees with. That's regulating free speech.
This case is about conflicting constitutional rights.
Uh…no.Didn’t the SCOTUS rule that a baker could refuse to bake a cake to a “protected class”?
What was it then? It was a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The court ruled 7-2 in that case.Uh…no.
I’m struggling to make sense of that opinion. You agree they can’t refuse service to a protected class? But you don’t think YOU’RE entitled to their service?Yes. I think the notion behind ‘public accommodation’ negates the rights and agency of the person willing to trade a service with whomever they want.
I don’t think of any other person as a ‘public good’ to which I’m entitled in any sense.
My opinion, not the law.
The court booted it back to Colorado based on animosity and bias supposedly displayed by the commission toward the baker. They made no determination as to the actual case. That’s why we’re back there now.What was it then? It was a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The court ruled 7-2 in that case.
I think we agree with what the law says, and the court says about the law.I’m struggling to make sense of that opinion. You agree they can’t refuse service to a protected class? But you don’t think YOU’RE entitled to their service?
Of course it does. Otherwise what is the point of a wedding cake vs any other cake? GTFOWTS.Good lord…baking a f’n wedding cake does NOT represent a “message”. And if your business is baking f’n wedding cakes you can NOT refuse to serve a protected class while providing that service to everyone else. If your business is creating wedding web sites, you can NOT refuse to serve a protected class while providing those same services to everyone else. You can’t refuse on racial grounds. You can’t refuse on religious grounds. You can’t refuse on gender grounds. That’s why they are called “protected”.
LOL. Except when they decide not to make a cake or sign.SMH. The business owner gets to decide. Anti-Semitics - in case you didn’t get the memo - aren’t a protected class. Nor are Nazis. Nor are the Klan. Why is this so hard for you people to understand? To recognize to whom I’m referring, look up.
Different rights? What “different rights”? Being part of a protected class means you have exactly the same right to service as everyone else. Why? Because these classes have routinely and egregiously been denied their rights in the past. When “all men are created equal” does become the reality, there won’t be the need. No offense to Silent Cal, but the Declaration isn’t a governing document. It’s aspirational and we’re nowhere close to its stated truths. They aren’t “final” still.I’d further disagree with the notion of “protected classes” having different rights, but that’s a wholly separate discussion.
It’s. A. Cake. Nothing. More.Of course it does. Otherwise what is the point of a wedding cake vs any other cake? GTFOWTS.
Good fvcking lord. Do you seriously not understand what “protected class” means?LOL. Except when they decide not to make a cake or sign.
Do you have the same right to be denied service as anyone else?Different rights? What “different rights”? Being part of a protected class means you have exactly the same right to service as everyone else.
I'd agree the efforts of reactionaries to create and maintain caste systems seems never ending.No offense to Silent Cal, but the Declaration isn’t a governing document. It’s aspirational and we’re nowhere close to its stated truths. They aren’t “final” still.
You’re all over the map here. The govt disallows the creation of privileged classes - which you applaud - by protecting specific classes from discrimination - and you boo. Weird.Do you have the same right to be denied service as anyone else?
Freedom of association has to be a two way street, or it's compulsory.
I'd agree the efforts of reactionaries to create and maintain caste systems seems never ending.
But I tend to find myself in Silent Cal's company.
The government of the United States is a device for maintaining in perpetuity the rights of the people, with the ultimate extinction of all privileged classes.
-Calvin Coolidge
This part I agree wholeheartedly on… Someone doesn’t want to make a cake for someone? Fine whatever, don’t bake a cake. Someone won’t bake a cake for you? Fine, whatever, go somewhere else.It’s. A. Cake. Nothing. More.
FTFYThe govt creates privileged classes by protecting specific classes from discrimination
I’m going with no… unless I’m wrong then I’d like to change my answer to yes.Can you answer this question:
Does freedom of association require mutual consent?
You form an association voluntarily with the public when you open a business. That means you serve THE PUBLIC. You don’t get to discriminate against a protected class. Are you seriously suggesting that businesses should be allowed to refuse to serve black people?FTFY
I think I should be able to tell you I don't want to associate with you, whether the government thinks you're a regular citizen, or whatever privileged/protected classes you want to create.
Can you answer this question:
Does freedom of association require mutual consent?
Someone refuses to serve you food because you’re black? Fine? Whatever? Go somewhere else? You sure that’s what you wanted to say?This part I agree wholeheartedly on… Someone doesn’t want to make a cake for someone? Fine whatever, don’t bake a cake. Someone won’t bake a cake for you? Fine, whatever, go somewhere else.
That’s not what this was. And like you said… It’s. A. Cake. Nothing. More.Someone refuses to serve you food because you’re black? Fine? Whatever? Go somewhere else? You sure that’s what you wanted to say?
Can governments play? You can’t vote here, go somewhere else? smh I suppose we could bring back separate water fountains, too. Let’s just roll back 70 years of progress on civil rights.
A wedding is different than a birthday. C'Mon, you know this. And the baker would not have made a wedding cake for a same sex marriage if a straight person was requesting it either.It’s. A. Cake. Nothing. More.
Explain please. How does providing a wedding cake with fancy icing differ from providing a birthday cake with fancy icing? There was no “message” requested on the cake. There was no Adam & Steve topper requested. Just a specific style of cake.
I do. Do you not understand that a wedding cake is not a protected class? It's a message. And that message was refused, not the buyers.Good fvcking lord. Do you seriously not understand what “protected class” means?
At least Tarheel, unlike most others, is making what is probably the best argument in these cases -ie, that in these contexts it is not reasonable to construe the purchased speech of the customer as speech of the baker-seller. It's a perfectly cromulent argument, and stronger than the "everyone has to serve everyone" broadside.A wedding is different than a birthday. C'Mon, you know this. And the baker would not have made a wedding cake for a same sex marriage if a straight person was requesting it either.
You continue to conflate different things. Refusing to serve someone in a protected class is discrimination and illegal. Refusing to create a message that one disagrees with is not. If the baker refused to make a same sex wedding cake that a black straight couple wanted to buy for their friend/family it is not discrimination because they are black.Someone refuses to serve you food because you’re black? Fine? Whatever? Go somewhere else? You sure that’s what you wanted to say?
Can governments play? You can’t vote here, go somewhere else? smh I suppose we could bring back separate water fountains, too. Let’s just roll back 70 years of progress on civil rights.
Religion was often used to justify Jim Crow Laws and segregation.What religion would she be claiming that is part of their creed? I am not aware of any that would be recognized as a valid constitutional argument.
You are missing the point. The web designer isn't refusing to create a generic website. The web designer is refusing to create a website with a theme she objects to.SMH. The business owner gets to decide. Anti-Semitics - in case you didn’t get the memo - aren’t a protected class. Nor are Nazis. Nor are the Klan. Why is this so hard for you people to understand? To recognize to whom I’m referring, look up.