The Church supports website developers LGBQT discrimination

[Res Ipsa]

When discussing an important constitutional case, it’s important to pay attention the constitutional issues. The case has ramifications far beyond the simple pro/con LGBT+ dynamic. It’s about the extent to which the government can compel its citizens to speak in contradiction with the citizens deeply held beliefs, opinions and values. That’s why there is no consensus among liberal first amendment advocates on this case.

This is a carefully engineered test case, as most significant test cases are. It’s ingenious in that it’s been constructed in away that avoids the presence of a victim of discrimination as a party. The web designer has never turned down a customer. In fact, she’s never even started her business (and may never start it). So, she’s the only “victim” that is a party to the case.

The constitutional implications of the case can be more clearly illustrated by using a hypothetical example that highlights them. A good place to start is the Tanner’s UTLM bookstore. If the Salt Lake City passed an express ordinance against discrimination on the basis of religion, could the government force the Tanners to sell pro-church books by Mormon authors? Why or why not.

Don’t tell me the two cases are different — I already know that. That’s the point of using a hypothetical. Instead, try to figure out how the Constitution affects the answer to the question and why that is. Then we can talk about whether the distinctions between the two hypotheticals should make any difference.

[Wonhyo]

What would the LDS Church's stance be if the web designer wished to refuse their service to Mormons?

If the outcome of the case is what the church hopes it will be, then it and its members need to be prepared for exactly that possibility.

[dastardly stem]

When discussing an important constitutional case, it’s important to pay attention the constitutional issues. The case has ramifications far beyond the simple pro/con LGBT+ dynamic. It’s about the extent to which the government can compel its citizens to speak in contradiction with the citizens deeply held beliefs, opinions and values. That’s why there is no consensus among liberal first amendment advocates on this case.

Why would the website developer be limited in complaining about LGBTQ if that developer is, as a matter of social order, not allowed to discriminate against customers who are LGBTQ? I can't see how speech has anything to do with it. She can still, one might presume, be able to go to Church, speak out against LGBTQ, complain about President Biden and tell people they need to repent for Jesus' sake. Once one starts a business its about the business and not about you. the business' only desire is to prosper. It is not about your internal message or your preferred religious belief.

I say to her, say what you want. Complain about others if you like. Throw a fit for God all day long. But your business is not you, as much as you think it is you.

This is a carefully engineered test case, as most significant test cases are. It’s ingenious in that it’s been constructed in away that avoids the presence of a victim of discrimination as a party. The web designer has never turned down a customer. In fact, she’s never even started her business (and may never start it). So, she’s the only “victim” that is a party to the case.

The constitutional implications of the case can be more clearly illustrated by using a hypothetical example that highlights them. A good place to start is the Tanner’s UTLM bookstore. If the Salt Lake City passed an express ordinance against discrimination on the basis of religion, could the government force the Tanners to sell pro-church books by Mormon authors? Why or why not.

Don’t tell me the two cases are different — I already know that. That’s the point of using a hypothetical. Instead, try to figure out how the Constitution affects the answer to the question and why that is. Then we can talk about whether the distinctions between the two hypotheticals should make any difference.

I don't know how to make the analogy fit. One must treat the product of a business the same as the customer? I would apply the same thinking to Utah Lighthouse as any. It's not the Tanners. It's their business. The business doesn't care if a Mormon comes in and buys a book. It doesn't care if a Jew does, or LGBTQ. The business doesn't even care what they products are as long as they work.

[Res Ipsa]

When discussing an important constitutional case, it’s important to pay attention the constitutional issues. The case has ramifications far beyond the simple pro/con LGBT+ dynamic. It’s about the extent to which the government can compel its citizens to speak in contradiction with the citizens deeply held beliefs, opinions and values. That’s why there is no consensus among liberal first amendment advocates on this case.

Why would the website developer be limited in complaining about LGBTQ if that developer is, as a matter of social order, not allowed to discriminate against customers who are LGBTQ? I can't see how speech has anything to do with it. She can still, one might presume, be able to go to Church, speak out against LGBTQ, complain about President Biden and tell people they need to repent for Jesus' sake. Once one starts a business its about the business and not about you. the business' only desire is to prosper. It is not about your internal message or your preferred religious belief.

I say to her, say what you want. Complain about others if you like. Throw a fit for God all day long. But your business is not you, as much as you think it is you.

This is a carefully engineered test case, as most significant test cases are. It’s ingenious in that it’s been constructed in away that avoids the presence of a victim of discrimination as a party. The web designer has never turned down a customer. In fact, she’s never even started her business (and may never start it). So, she’s the only “victim” that is a party to the case.

The constitutional implications of the case can be more clearly illustrated by using a hypothetical example that highlights them. A good place to start is the Tanner’s UTLM bookstore. If the Salt Lake City passed an express ordinance against discrimination on the basis of religion, could the government force the Tanners to sell pro-church books by Mormon authors? Why or why not.

Don’t tell me the two cases are different — I already know that. That’s the point of using a hypothetical. Instead, try to figure out how the Constitution affects the answer to the question and why that is. Then we can talk about whether the distinctions between the two hypotheticals should make any difference.

I don't know how to make the analogy fit. One must treat the product of a business the same as the customer? I would apply the same thinking to Utah Lighthouse as any. It's not the Tanners. It's their business. The business doesn't care if a Mormon comes in and buys a book. It doesn't care if a Jew does, or LGBTQ. The business doesn't even care what they products are as long as they work.

That you can't see that speech has anything to do with it is part of the problem. All parties to the case, including those defending the anti-discrimination statute, agree that website design is speech. That the first amendment protects communicative acts has been long settled. For example, the nude dancers that perform at your friendly neighborhood strip joint are practicing constitutionally protected speech.

You also ignored the actual content of my hypothetical. I didn't ask whether the Tanners could refuse to sell books to Mormons. I asked whether the government could force the Tanners to sell pro-Mormon books at their store. And, by the way, if it's the Tanners who own the store, then we're talking about the Tanners. The law doesn't create a new, independent entity just because a person opens up a business.

[Doctor Steuss]

If they offer to design wedding websites, would refusing to design a wedding website for a black couple still be a protected form of speech, or would the act of offering to design a specific type of website (i.e. weddings, thereby establishing they are willing to advocate for weddings) remove the ability to be discriminatory regarding the race/sex of the wedding participants?

Or am I totally misunderstanding the free speech aspect of this (hypothetical or otherwise)?

[Res Ipsa]

If they offer to design wedding websites, would refusing to design a wedding website for a black couple still be a protected form of speech, or would the act of offering to design a specific type of website (i.e. weddings, thereby establishing they are willing to advocate for weddings) remove the ability to be discriminatory regarding the race/sex of the wedding participants?

Or am I totally misunderstanding the free speech aspect of this (hypothetical or otherwise)?

No, I think you're understanding the free speech issue. But there's a layer of nuance involved. Let's say that I, as a straight friend of the happy other-than-straight couple, wanted to create a website to celebrate their wedding as a surprise or present, the designer who brought the lawsuit would refuse me service. Likewise, if a gay couple decided to do the same thing as a surprise gift for their hetero friends' wedding, the designer would not deny service. In other words, the designer will not design a site for a wedding other than one between one man and one woman, no matter who the client is.

Again, a hypothetical can make the issue more obvious. Suppose the designer instead opened a store that sold wedding decorations. She offered for sale a number of different kinds of cake toppers, but they all showed a man and a woman. Could the government force her to sell cake toppers with two men or two women? What if all the cake toppers showed white folks? Could the government force her to sell cake toppers with black folks?

[dastardly stem]

That you can't see that speech has anything to do with it is part of the problem. All parties to the case, including those defending the anti-discrimination statute, agree that website design is speech. That the first amendment protects communicative acts has been long settled. For example, the nude dancers that perform at your friendly neighborhood strip joint are practicing constitutionally protected speech.

You also ignored the actual content of my hypothetical. I didn't ask whether the Tanners could refuse to sell books to Mormons. I asked whether the government could force the Tanners to sell pro-Mormon books at their store. And, by the way, if it's the Tanners who own the store, then we're talking about the Tanners. The law doesn't create a new, independent entity just because a person opens up a business.

yeah...I'm sure I'm missing plenty here. I don't know how to turn my own business into a personal studio for my thoughts and beliefs. I realize the business is not me, so I act accordingly. I can't follow this along very well, I guess. Sure, website design is speech as far as that goes, but it's not her speech that would be violated. She'd still be able to head off to Church and speak her religious ideas to her hearts content as far as I'd be concerned. Her religious practice, thought and belief wouldn't be affected in the least (other than she might meet some people grow to know and love them and realize how silly she was being). But as a rule of order, she can't discriminate against her customers for reasons of sex orientation or race...or that only seems reasonable to me. Her designing of websites is simply her work to get paid, in the scenario. it's not a message board for her to promote that which she believes. if she set up her business to be a website for only things she believes, then sure...she'd have a point to argue, I'd think. But no, she'd be offering to create websites for paying customers. Her business is taking their requests and stipulations and creating a site for them. It has little to do with her and her opinions. Even if she set up a Christian website making company, it's not about her. it'd be about her paying customers. Add "Christian" to her webiste goals and her chances of running into a same sex couple goes down, I guess (but might still come into play).

I don't understand your point regarding the Tanners. She operated a business designed to expose Mormonism. The website lady isn't planning to operate a business to expose the lies of LGBTQ (whatever the hell that would be). If the Tanners business was simply a receptacle for selling anyone's books, then, sure. i can see why they couldn't stop a Mormon from selling pro-Mormon books. But that's not the business, which apparently has come to an end (maybe she should consider changing her model).

[Doctor Steuss]

Thank you Res for always being generous with your knowledge.

No, I think you're understanding the free speech issue. But there's a layer of nuance involved. Let's say that I, as a straight friend of the happy other-than-straight couple, wanted to create a website to celebrate their wedding as a surprise or present, the designer who brought the lawsuit would refuse me service. Likewise, if a gay couple decided to do the same thing as a surprise gift for their hetero friends' wedding, the designer would not deny service. In other words, the designer will not design a site for a wedding other than one between one man and one woman, no matter who the client is.

Again, a hypothetical can make the issue more obvious. Suppose the designer instead opened a store that sold wedding decorations. She offered for sale a number of different kinds of cake toppers, but they all showed a man and a woman. Could the government force her to sell cake toppers with two men or two women? What if all the cake toppers showed white folks? Could the government force her to sell cake toppers with black folks?

Using the hypothetical, wouldn't this specific case be the equivalent to refusing to sell a person one of the available toppers, because of their race/sex, rather than being forced to carry a specific type of topper?

[toon]

If Apple were to suddenly refuse to sell any of their products to Mormons, or refuse to carry any religious apps, or apps made by Mormons, I for some reason doubt that the LDS Church and would openly support Tim Cook's decision.

Maybe I'm wrong though.


ETA: Sorry, I should have ready the responses past the opening post, as I now see I'm being redundant.

Couldn't there be a difference in a business discriminating against who they will accept and won't accept as customers and deciding what products they want to sell?

I think the distinction here is between (1) a web designer who won't design a web page for a locksmith owned by someone who happens to be gay solely because the prospective customer is gay and not because the web designer objects to locksmith web pages and (2) a web designer who design a LGBT advocacy web page, regardless of the customer's orientation.

I don't think it's that far out there to argue that a business owner should by forced by the government through anti-discrimination laws to produce a product, especially a creative one, that the business owner finds objectionable. I see this more as a free speech issue than a religious liberties one.

[dastardly stem]

Thank you Res for always being generous with your knowledge.

Using the hypothetical, wouldn't this specific case be the equivalent to refusing to sell a person one of the available toppers, because of their race/sex, rather than being forced to carry a specific type of topper?

Not to continue to rile up Res Ipsa, but I'd think so. Let's say someone owns a store to sale wedding rings. If a same sex couple comes in to see the inventory is it ok for a business to refuse to sell a ring due to orientation? What if the store designs rings? "We'd like to see a ring like that with a few changes..."

"no. You are gay. I can't do it. My religious beliefs prohibit me from creating art for same sex couples".

Seems like a total mix-up of whose speech we're dealing with here. the business or the people who work there? It seems to me once a business comes under the umbrella of our rules, they have given up the people's personal interests in order to follow the rules.