The Church supports website developers LGBQT discrimination

[IHAQ]

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 party is (I think) 303 Creative, which is trading and has references from clients according to their own website.

[Res Ipsa]

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?

Yes, but it's the owner who has decided which toppers to make available. Change the hypothetical just a smidge. Suppose that the designer opened a store that sold comprehensive do it yourself wedding kits. All of the kits are specifically designed and themed for heterosexual weddings. The decorations even include Bible verses that talk about marriage. The same manufacturer makes comparable kits designed and themed for homosexual weddings. The designer knows this, but chooses only to sell the heterosexual kits because her religious beliefs state that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Can the government force the designer to order and sell the homosexual wedding kits?

[Res Ipsa]

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 party is (I think) 303 Creative, which is trading and has references from clients according to their own website.

Yes, I should have been more specific when I said "the business." The business that the owner claims she is planning to start is designing websites for weddings.

[dastardly stem]

Yes, but it's the owner who has decided which toppers to make available.

I feel like I'm just being a pest now...but I don't want to be. Trying to understand. So in the case of website design the designer decides which, say, templates can be used. If the patron requests something the website designer doesn't offer, then sure...too bad for the customer. But that feels like a far cry from say a same sex couple coming in and choosing a few templates before the website company realizes, "oh wait...you're gay. This is for you two? Nevermind...we can't accommodate you."

[Doctor Steuss]

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.

Thank you Toon. With these thoughts, and Res' further thoughts, I can kind of feel the (very uncomfortable) wall in my mind opening up to understanding this a bit better... in some ways, at least (in others I keep confusing myself further).

I can see a website business denying a creative service they don’t provide and find objectionable (like animated dildos) being a justifiable aspect of free speech as a business. But I am having difficulty in seeing how denying a creative service you do provide (i.e. wedding webpages) because the wedding participants are gay, or black, or amputees, would be a similar exercise. If I’ve designed a type of widget, and someone in a wheelchair wants to buy the type of widget I designed, can I justifiably refuse them because I don’t believe people in wheelchairs should have widgets?

The biggest difficulty I am having is: What exactly is changing in the product/service being offered, other than the people paying for, and being featured in it? (That's not a question directed to you... that's the main question that I am getting hung up on.)

My noggin goes back to the wedding cake fiasco, and it commonly being classified by some as a "gay cake," when by all accounts there were no elements of the cake which would have been denied a heterosexual couple... it was merely the fact that the customers themselves were gay.

(I'm sorry if it seems I'm talking in circles... the more I think about this, the more confused I seem to be.)

[IHAQ]

The party is (I think) 303 Creative, which is trading and has references from clients according to their own website.

Yes, I should have been more specific when I said "the business." The business that the owner claims she is planning to start is designing websites for weddings.

Ah, got it. Seems a bit of a fudge on their part given the service being sold is the exactly same. But I guess that’s deliberate so as to make it a test case?

[Res Ipsa]

Yes, but it's the owner who has decided which toppers to make available.

I feel like I'm just being a pest now...but I don't want to be. Trying to understand. So in the case of website design the designer decides which, say, templates can be used. If the patron requests something the website designer doesn't offer, then sure...too bad for the customer. But that feels like a far cry from say a same sex couple coming in and choosing a few templates before the website company realizes, "oh wait...you're gay. This is for you two? Nevermind...we can't accommodate you."

No, by all means, be a pest. This is a difficult case because it presents a clear conflict between speech that the Court generally protects under the first amendment and anti-discrimination legislation that states and municipalities have clear authority to enact.

Responding to that example, go back and look at the hypothetical where what is being sold isn't services but do-it-yourself packages. Could the government force the store to sell both kinds of package? If not, what is the meaningful difference between the designer choosing not to stock one of the packages and the designer choosing to restrict her services to weddings between one man and one woman?

As an aside, the scenario you lay out is very unlikely to happen because part of what the designer proposes to do is include a disclaimer in her advertising explaining that the business will only provides wedding services to weddings between one man and one woman.

[IHAQ]

…part of what the designer proposes to do is include a disclaimer in her advertising explaining that the business will only provides wedding services to weddings between one man and one woman.

“Straights Only”

Is that under a different protection to a web designer saying that they won’t design a wedding website for an interracial couple, or a non-white Couple? (Which I assume is now illegal in America)

It seems a lot like Klan behaviour, but this time the determining factor is sexuality rather than skin colour.

[Res Ipsa]

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.

Thank you Toon. With these thoughts, and Res' further thoughts, I can kind of feel the (very uncomfortable) wall in my mind opening up to understanding this a bit better... in some ways, at least (in others I keep confusing myself further).

I can see a website business denying a creative service they don’t provide and find objectionable (like animated dildos) being a justifiable aspect of free speech as a business. But I am having difficulty in seeing how denying a creative service you do provide (i.e. wedding webpages) because the wedding participants are gay, or black, or amputees, would be a similar exercise. If I’ve designed a type of widget, and someone in a wheelchair wants to buy the type of widget I designed, can I justifiably refuse them because I don’t believe people in wheelchairs should have widgets?

The biggest difficulty I am having is: What exactly is changing in the product/service being offered, other than the people paying for, and being featured in it? (That's not a question directed to you... that's the main question that I am getting hung up on.)

My noggin goes back to the wedding cake fiasco, and it commonly being classified by some as a "gay cake," when by all accounts there were no elements of the cake which would have been denied a heterosexual couple... it was merely the fact that the customers themselves were gay.

(I'm sorry if it seems I'm talking in circles... the more I think about this, the more confused I seem to be.)

in my opinion, talking in circles and feeling a little uncomfortable is 100% appropriate for this particular case. For more discomfort, go back to the cake toppers. The retailer orders only toppers with a man and woman, even though the same distributor offers similar toppers with two men and two women. The retailer's only reason for doing so is that God says that marriage is between one man and one woman. Can the government force the retailer to sell the "gay cake toppers?"

[Res Ipsa]

…part of what the designer proposes to do is include a disclaimer in her advertising explaining that the business will only provides wedding services to weddings between one man and one woman.

“Straights Only”

Is that under a different protection to a web designer saying that they won’t design a wedding website for an interracial couple, or a non-white Couple? (Which I assume is now illegal in America)

It seems a lot like Klan behaviour, but this time the determining factor is sexuality rather than skin colour.

The analysis is a little different because racial discrimination is specifically prohibited in the Constitution, which puts that protection on an equal footing with the right of free speech. In this case, it's the constitutional right of free speech colliding with a statutory right of non-discrimination.

Even so, that's the form of argument I would use. But I might use religion rather than race. Could the designer restrict her services to Christian weddings? But that's not obvious either. Suppose a jewish web designer wanted to restrict her services to sites for jewish weddings? Can the state force her to do sites for all denominations? For atheists?

ETA: The designer in the case provides web design services to LGTB+ folks. There is no record of her lynching gay folks, tar and feathering gay folks, or burning down churches where gay folks worship.