The Church supports website developers LGBQT discrimination

[dastardly stem]

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.

Something equivalent to "Whites Only" signs? This still seems pretty simple to me. Her business is not her. She starts a business and in so doing she is inherently agreeing to not discriminate based race or orientation. And her business is not her voice, it seems to me. I'm still stuck wondering how anyone's speech would be restricted. She can still say what she wants. She simply can't use her business as the bullhorn.

I'd still like to explore the idea of wedding rings. They are art. They are in the same sense, speech. A jeweler refusing services to a gay couple because they object for their Christianity isn't doing much more than putting up "Whites only" signs it seems to me. I'd fail to see how website design should be any different.

I'm still missing something. I"ll have to ponder it more. I referenced Andrew Seidel's book American Crusade earlier. His arguments are kind of what I'd go with. Have you read his book?

[Marcus]

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?"

Just from a business standpoint, suppose a retailer stocks items from a distributor. They keep popular items in stock, and they also offer a service to special-order less common items. Assume all the common items and also the less common items are offered by the distributor.

If that’s their policy, then choosing not to 1) sell from items commonly stocked or 2) sell from items that are available but require a special-ordered stock seem to be effectively the same thing. I’ll double check this with my SO who runs a wholesale business and special orders stuff all the time, but I guarantee that if I ask him if he can legally refuse to special order a version of an item he regularly sells on the basis that he objects to the sale because the customer is gay he will look at me like I have three heads. Maybe 10.

[Res Ipsa]

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?

Yes. Many high profile Supreme Court cases are test cases in which the party that brings the case creates a factual situation they think is more likely to obtain a favorable result.

Lawyers have saying that "hard cases make bad law." This case involves such specialized facts (the nature of the service being provided tracks almost identically with the sexual orientation of the customer) that I think it will make bad law either way. I expect that within a few years, it won't be cited as precedent because it will be confined to its unique facts.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

And the church leaders continue to wonder why membership continues to decline.

And in related news: https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/Florida ... erica.html

[Res Ipsa]

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?"

Just from a business standpoint, suppose a retailer stocks items from a distributor. They keep popular items in stock, and they also offer a service to special-order less common items. Assume all the common items and also the less common items are offered by the distributor.

If that’s their policy, then choosing not to 1) sell from items commonly stocked or 2) sell from items that are available but require a special-ordered stock seem to be effectively the same thing. I’ll double check this with my SO who runs a wholesale business and special orders stuff all the time, but I guarantee that if I ask him if he can legally refuse to special order a version of an item he regularly sells on the basis that he objects to the sale because the customer is gay he will look at me like I have three heads. Maybe 10.

And well he should. But if you want to make your hypothetical parallel comparable to the actual case, the store owner would have to refuse to order and sell the item regardless of the sexual orientation of the customer. I use the cake toppers only because it gets us closer to the real case. Combine the two examples. The store owner only stocks cake toppers with a man and a woman. But the distributor has a whole line of cake toppers, many of which don't include people at all. The store owner routinely will special order toppers she doesn't stock, but not those that include two men and two women. A customer asks if the store stocks toppers with two women. The owner says no. The customer asks if she will special order one. The owner says no. The customer asks why and she says her religious belief is that marriage is limited to one woman and one man. Can the government force the owner to special order the topper with two women and sell it to the customer?

[Marcus]

[

Just from a business standpoint, suppose a retailer stocks items from a distributor. They keep popular items in stock, and they also offer a service to special-order less common items. Assume all the common items and also the less common items are offered by the distributor.

If that’s their policy, then choosing not to 1) sell from items commonly stocked or 2) sell from items that are available but require a special-ordered stock seem to be effectively the same thing. I’ll double check this with my SO who runs a wholesale business and special orders stuff all the time, but I guarantee that if I ask him if he can legally refuse to special order a version of an item he regularly sells on the basis that he objects to the sale because the customer is gay he will look at me like I have three heads. Maybe 10.

Here's some feedback from a business person. I asked if he has certain items from a distributor on the shelf, and has a policy of special-ordering similar items, would he legally have the right to refuse to special order an item on tje grounds that he objects, on religious grounds, to the cusomer being gay. Here is his exact response:

[Significant pause. The seconds tick by]
...what the hell? GREEN. IS. GREEN.

and there you have it. From the heart of the Bronx.

[IHAQ]

This is going to come down to - should religion hold a position of special protection in a democratic society? The answer might be yes today because America is currently perceived to be a Christian/religious society. But the trajectory of religiosity suggests it will be a no tomorrow. Religion is gradually losing its special place in society. And the laws will follow to reflect that.

[Marcus]

Just from a business standpoint, suppose a retailer stocks items from a distributor. They keep popular items in stock, and they also offer a service to special-order less common items. Assume all the common items and also the less common items are offered by the distributor.

If that’s their policy, then choosing not to 1) sell from items commonly stocked or 2) sell from items that are available but require a special-ordered stock seem to be effectively the same thing. I’ll double check this with my SO who runs a wholesale business and special orders stuff all the time, but I guarantee that if I ask him if he can legally refuse to special order a version of an item he regularly sells on the basis that he objects to the sale because the customer is gay he will look at me like I have three heads. Maybe 10.

And well he should. But if you want to make your hypothetical parallel comparable to the actual case, the store owner would have to refuse to order and sell the item regardless of the sexual orientation of the customer.

Good point. According to my SO, he would never do that, because while it is common sense to stock certain items, he would never refuse to special order-- it is simply no different to him from selling what he has. To argue "special ordering" is too difficult is to say that you have the space and the inventory time to let stuff sit while you hold virtually 100% of each of your distributor's list. That is financially not viable. It's not a legitimate argument, because businesses simply don't do that.
[/quote]

I use the cake toppers only because it gets us closer to the real case. Combine the two examples. The store owner only stocks cake toppers with a man and a woman. But the distributor has a whole line of cake toppers, many of which don't include people at all. The store owner routinely will special order toppers she doesn't stock, but not those that include two men and two women. A customer asks if the store stocks toppers with two women. The owner says no. The customer asks if she will special order one. The owner says no. The customer asks why and she says her religious belief is that marriage is limited to one woman and one man. Can the government force the owner to special order the topper with two women and sell it to the customer?

No. But in my opinion, they can pull their license for noncompliance with the law they agreed to when applying for the license and the benefits thereof.

[Res Ipsa]

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.

Something equivalent to "Whites Only" signs? This still seems pretty simple to me. Her business is not her. She starts a business and in so doing she is inherently agreeing to not discriminate based race or orientation. And her business is not her voice, it seems to me. I'm still stuck wondering how anyone's speech would be restricted. She can still say what she wants. She simply can't use her business as the bullhorn.

I'd still like to explore the idea of wedding rings. They are art. They are in the same sense, speech. A jeweler refusing services to a gay couple because they object for their Christianity isn't doing much more than putting up "Whites only" signs it seems to me. I'd fail to see how website design should be any different.

I'm still missing something. I"ll have to ponder it more. I referenced Andrew Seidel's book American Crusade earlier. His arguments are kind of what I'd go with. Have you read his book?

The thing you're missing is that your starting point: "her business isn't her" is legally wrong in the U.S. The only way a "business" can talk is by people talking. Businesses don't have vocal cords -- people do. Businesses don't have fingers -- people do. When businesses break the law, the "business" doesn't go to jail. People do. Not only is it wrong, but the notion that a U.S. citizen is stripped of her constitutional rights when operating a business has terrible ramifications that I don't think you've thought through. The government could search your business without a warrant. The government could force to to sell whatever it chose. If you choose to open a business that sells pro-democrat bumper stickers, the government could force you to sell pro-Trump stickers. The government would have 100% control over every aspect of every mom and pop business in the country.

Constitutionally, it doesn't matter that she could express her views on marriage in other ways. The issue is government compelled speech -- which is the antithesis of free speech. Generally, the government cannot compel you to state, imply, or communicate opinions or beliefs that are contrary to your actual beliefs. There are always exceptions, but I'm having trouble even thinking of examples.

What makes this case hard is that, in the normal case, it's easy to separate out the nature of the product or service from the identity of the purchaser. That's why it's ludicrous to think that the government should be able to require Sandra Tanner to sell Nelson's faith-inspiring biography in her bookstore. She doesn't refuse to sell books to Mormons. She simply chooses not to sell pro-Mormon books to anyone. Easy peasy.

It's a little harder with the cake topper retailer who will special order any topper she doesn't stock as long as it doesn't have two men or two women on it. It looks more like discriminating against gay folks, but she still treats all customers the same. She won't special order the cake toppers for anyone -- not just for gay folks.

But with weddings, the product or service is so heavily identified with the purchaser that it's hard to see the distinction that was so easy to see in the Tanner example. Who is going to buy a website for a "gay wedding" other than two "gay people." But the overlap isn't 100%. The designer would design a site for a heterosexual wedding even if the customer paying for the site was gay. And the designer would not design a site for a homosexual wedding even if the customer who purchased the site was straight. So, the situation is not the same as saying "we won't do business with gay folks" especially given that the company will gladly take gay folks money to design other types of web sites.

[Res Ipsa]

[

Just from a business standpoint, suppose a retailer stocks items from a distributor. They keep popular items in stock, and they also offer a service to special-order less common items. Assume all the common items and also the less common items are offered by the distributor.

If that’s their policy, then choosing not to 1) sell from items commonly stocked or 2) sell from items that are available but require a special-ordered stock seem to be effectively the same thing. I’ll double check this with my SO who runs a wholesale business and special orders stuff all the time, but I guarantee that if I ask him if he can legally refuse to special order a version of an item he regularly sells on the basis that he objects to the sale because the customer is gay he will look at me like I have three heads. Maybe 10.

Here's some feedback from a business person. I asked if he has certain items from a distributor on the shelf, and has a policy of special-ordering similar items, would he legally have the right to refuse to special order an item on tje grounds that he objects, on religious grounds, to the cusomer being gay. Here is his exact response:

[Significant pause. The seconds tick by]
...what the hell? GREEN. IS. GREEN.

and there you have it. From the heart of the Bronx.

Like I said. But, if you're trying to draw a valid analogy to the Supreme Court case, you asked the wrong question.