Wedding cakes are also an expression and an art form.  The primary purpose is to deliver an emotion/message and they act as a symbol and a means of communication.  They aren't there for nourishment and there are plenty of other cakes to be had out there should it simply be a matter of producing a cake.

Her original case was all about what felt about expression based on her religion.  That WAS the case.  If SCOTUS only addressed the comms part and ignored the reason for her apprehension then that helps of course.  That would seem to suggest that no one should ever be compelled to produce any good that might communicate something the supplier did not feel comfortable communicating. At least not if that someone is an artist (not exactly sure how to define that, are T-shirt makers artists?).

I don't have time to read into the details here so hand in the air for that.  My question: Was the SCOTUS ruling narrowed to only deal with artists, public communication, and production or art that expressed an idea/thought?

24 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

She didn’t say she wouldn’t design a website for them because they were gay.  She said she wouldn’t create a website for a gay wedding.  This isn’t a case of refusing service because of WHO the client is.  This is a case of refusing service because of WHAT the client wants her to say.

If a white person came to a black web designer and said "hey I’d like to hire you to make a website for me.  The site is going to be called "whites are superior.com” and for my website I’m going to post a bunch of figures to illustrate my point that I think white people are better than black people”.  Do you think this website designer should be compelled to make this website?

She cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, so she claims she will work with same sex couples.

Would the Colorado law actually have compelled a marketing agency to create a campaign around message they found morally objectionable? 

6 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

She cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, so she claims she will work with same sex couples.

Would the Colorado law actually have compelled a marketing agency to create a campaign around message they found morally objectionable? 

Quote

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person ... directly or indirectly, to publish . . . any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of . . . sexual orientation. (Hereafter, the "Communication Clause")

 

The Colorado law - very narrow directed toward protecting the rights of individuals to have any sexual orientation

 

3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

She cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, so she claims she will work with same sex couples.

Would the Colorado law actually have compelled a marketing agency to create a campaign around message they found morally objectionable? 

What someone finds morally objectionable is subjective though.  What one person is ok with, another person may find morally objectionable. 

31 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Wedding cakes are also an expression and an art form.  The primary purpose is to deliver an emotion/message and they act as a symbol and a means of communication.  They aren't there for nourishment and there are plenty of other cakes to be had out there should it simply be a matter of producing a cake.

Her original case was all about what felt about expression based on her religion.  That WAS the case.  If SCOTUS only addressed the comms part and ignored the reason for her apprehension then that helps of course.  That would seem to suggest that no one should ever be compelled to produce any good that might communicate something the supplier did not feel comfortable communicating. At least not if that someone is an artist (not exactly sure how to define that, are T-shirt makers artists?).

I don't have time to read into the details here so hand in the air for that.  My question: Was the SCOTUS ruling narrowed to only deal with artists, public communication, and production or art that expressed an idea/thought?

I view it all as contract law, ultimately. A contract between two private parties - pay for a good/service.

”art” to me is individual expression, etc

banksy doesnt paint things as a contract. Thats art to me. 

even going back to Obamacare, the question is whether the coercive power of govt can be used to force private parties into a contract, no?

58 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

I view it all as contract law, ultimately. A contract between two private parties - pay for a good/service.

”art” to me is individual expression, etc

banksy doesnt paint things as a contract. Thats art to me. 

even going back to Obamacare, the question is whether the coercive power of govt can be used to force private parties into a contract, no?

I like the govt to stay out of it by default but I do recognize that there are some instances where regulation is required.

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I like the govt to stay out of it by default but I do recognize that there are some instances where regulation is required.

Perhaps but it should be a very high bar.

now public institutions are an entirely different thing

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

What someone finds morally objectionable is subjective though.  What one person is ok with, another person may find morally objectionable. 

I can envision a scenario where a person (say @Dave Moss) would like to have a t-shirt created by the local t-shirt dudes in the public mall with the words "Black Lives Matter" on the front and maybe "I used to be a Nets fan" on the back or something along those lines.  Perhaps the t-shirt guys/ladies/other would find either or both morally objectionable.  I'd like to think that Moss would be in the right to expect them to produce the t-shirt.  I'm no longer so sure.

7 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I can envision a scenario where a person (say @Dave Moss) would like to have a t-shirt created by the local t-shirt dudes in the public mall with the words "Black Lives Matter" on the front and maybe "I used to be a Nets fan" on the back or something along those lines.  Perhaps the t-shirt guys/ladies/other would find either or both morally objectionable.  I'd like to think that Moss would be in the right to expect them to produce the t-shirt.  I'm no longer so sure.

Why would Moss be in the right to force the t-shirt makers to make a t-shirt they don’t agree with? 
I’m certainly glad I don’t live in a country where a black person who is a t-shirt creator would be forced to make a shirt that says "white lives matter”.  Or a pro-choice person be forced to create a shirt that says "abortion is murder”.  Etc etc etc

12 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Why would Moss be in the right to force the t-shirt makers to make a t-shirt they don’t agree with? 
I’m certainly glad I don’t live in a country where a black person who is a t-shirt creator would be forced to make a shirt that says "white lives matter”.  Or a pro-choice person be forced to create a shirt that says "abortion is murder”.  Etc etc etc

Yes, but the question is where to draw the line with this sort of thing.  When is it ok to deny service and when is it not?

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

The question is where to draw the line with this sort of thing.  When is it ok to deny service and when is it not?

I’d say it depends on what the service is and what’s the reason for denying the service.  Are you creating custom, tailor made content?   Or are you creating a product that is the same regardless of who the client is?

If you make widgets, you couldn’t go "I’m only selling my widgets to black people. If a white person wants to buy my widget, I won’t sell it to him because he’s white”  that would be discrimination that violates the civil rights act.

And I will say there is complexity to this, and there are infinite hypotheticals one could think of.  Some of which could really make you think.  I’d err on the side of caution of limiting the government’s power.

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

And I will say there is complexity to this, and there are infinite hypotheticals one could think of.  Some of which could really make you think.  I’d err on the side of caution of limiting the government’s power.

100% agree with this.  I think we will be hearing about a lot of these hypotheticals over the coming years.

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

I can envision a scenario where a person (say @Dave Moss) would like to have a t-shirt created by the local t-shirt dudes in the public mall with the words "Black Lives Matter" on the front and maybe "I used to be a Nets fan" on the back or something along those lines.  Perhaps the t-shirt guys/ladies/other would find either or both morally objectionable.  I'd like to think that Moss would be in the right to expect them to produce the t-shirt.  I'm no longer so sure.

Why would they be under obligation to enter said contract?

6 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Why would they be under obligation to enter said contract?

I didn't suggest that they were.  It was an attempt to create an example that could illustrate the uncertainty of where to draw the line as to when it is ok to deny service and when it is not.

2 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

What someone finds morally objectionable is subjective though.  What one person is ok with, another person may find morally objectionable. 

Right I understand that. 

My question was whether the Colorado law was actually coercive enough to compel an individual artist to produce art they find objectionable on moral grounds? Would Colorado have actually tried to shut down this woman's theoretical business in designing wedding sites if she declined to design a site for a gay couple? Or would a gay party have had to cite injury to bring them to court?

Logically it seems like these things ought to matter.

38 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Right I understand that. 

My question was whether the Colorado law was actually coercive enough to compel an individual artist to produce art they find objectionable on moral grounds? Would Colorado have actually tried to shut down this woman's theoretical business in designing wedding sites if she declined to design a site for a gay couple? Or would a gay party have had to cite injury to bring them to court?

Logically it seems like these things ought to matter.

The Tenth circuit ruled that if she were to make wedding websites for some, then she must make them for all.  And that the state could compel her to make websites for gay weddings if she were to enter that market space. 
I believe someone would have to take her to court in order for the state to take action.  But I don’t believe the person would have had to be injured by her.  Would just have to report to the state that she is engaging in a pol city that violates Colorado law.  

AOC never disappoints.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-proposes-subpoenas-impeachment-limit-scotus-justices-power-following-landmark-decisions

36 minutes ago, Talkingbirds said:

AOC never disappoints.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-proposes-subpoenas-impeachment-limit-scotus-justices-power-following-landmark-decisions

LOL!

‘The Supreme Court overstepped their authority by acting as a check on the power of the legislative and executive branches!’
anyone have a civics book she can borrow?

For my [redacted] birthday later this year in [redacted] (which is a milestone birthday in the decimal system only two years after a milestone birthday in the dozenal system! noice! ) I would like you all to chip in to buy me a giant piñata shaped like a beautiful biological female prostitute which is filled - trojan-horse-style - with a number of beautiful biological female prostitutes.

Don't be cheap. I don't want some three-metre piñata with couple of midgets thrown in there (even though that actually sounds pretty cool). No, I want it to be like a couple of stories tall and hanging from a gantry in a big warehouse and one of those big mats under it they use for stuntmen jumping off buildings so the girls have a safe place to land when they fall out - and the mat can double as a place for me to have intercourse with all of them.

And I don't want to beat the piñata with a giant stick because I don't want to risk bruising the girls... just attach a giant rope to a seam in the crotch so when I pull it, all the girls tumble out of the minge like it's giving birth.

Also, please make sure all the prostitutes are named Candy - since they will briefly be inside a piñata.

There's a small-scale example below - but I don't know why there's a banana.

Thanks in advance.

No mat, that’s cheating 

23 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Forced labor is damages, captain cut n paste

What forced labor? The Plaintiff never had a gay client. Not only that, the Plaintiff never appeared before the Court. It's obvious there was no Standing. Super Genius. 

Buttigieg says Supreme Court gay wedding website case shows ‘a solution looking for a problem’

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Sunday said the Supreme Court’s recent decision to side with a Christian web designer who rejected the creation of same-sex wedding websites as an example of "a solution looking for a problem.”

A person cited by the designer as making the request later told news media outlets he had not in fact done so and was a straight man who was a web designer himself. The request wasn’t the basis of the lawsuit, but was used as a reference by the designer’s attorneys as the case made its way all the way up to the high court.

Buttigieg, who is openly gay, cited the fact that the designer wasn’t even approached for such a request to speak out against the majority opinion.

"I think it’s very revealing that there’s no evidence that this web designer was ever even approached by anyone asking for a website for a same-sex wedding. Matter of fact, it appears this web designer only went into the wedding business for the purpose of provoking a case like this,” Buttigieg said on CNN’s "State of the Union.”

In that senes, I think there’s something in common between this Supreme Court ruling and what we’re seeing happening in state legislatures across the country, which is kind of a solution looking for a problem,” he added.

"In other words, sending these kinds of things to the courts and sending these kinds of things to state legislatures for the clear purpose of chipping away at the equality and the rights that have so recently been won in the LGBTQ+ community,” Buttigieg said.

1 hour ago, jsdarkstar said:

Buttigieg says Supreme Court gay wedding website case shows ‘a solution looking for a problem’

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Sunday said the Supreme Court’s recent decision to side with a Christian web designer who rejected the creation of same-sex wedding websites as an example of "a solution looking for a problem.”

A person cited by the designer as making the request later told news media outlets he had not in fact done so and was a straight man who was a web designer himself. The request wasn’t the basis of the lawsuit, but was used as a reference by the designer’s attorneys as the case made its way all the way up to the high court.

Buttigieg, who is openly gay, cited the fact that the designer wasn’t even approached for such a request to speak out against the majority opinion.

"I think it’s very revealing that there’s no evidence that this web designer was ever even approached by anyone asking for a website for a same-sex wedding. Matter of fact, it appears this web designer only went into the wedding business for the purpose of provoking a case like this,” Buttigieg said on CNN’s "State of the Union.”

In that senes, I think there’s something in common between this Supreme Court ruling and what we’re seeing happening in state legislatures across the country, which is kind of a solution looking for a problem,” he added.

"In other words, sending these kinds of things to the courts and sending these kinds of things to state legislatures for the clear purpose of chipping away at the equality and the rights that have so recently been won in the LGBTQ+ community,” Buttigieg said.

Yeah, I’m sure Buttigieg would be perfectly fine with a gay graphics designer being compelled by law to create t-shirts for a Westboro Baptist Church protest…

56 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Yeah, I’m sure Buttigieg would be perfectly fine with a gay graphics designer being compelled by law to create t-shirts for a Westboro Baptist Church protest…

Justice Neil Gorsuch explicitly acknowledged this scenario in the Supreme Court’s opinion, writing that under the dissent’s logic, “[The government] could require ‘an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message,’ or ‘an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal,’ so long as they would make films or murals for other members of the public with different messages. Equally, the government could force a male website designer married to another man to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage.”

I would just also like to add, thank god we don’t live in a county where the government can compel speech.  Lest we go down the road canada has gone down with all the nonsense will Bill C—16, where the government has made it illegal to not use someone’s preferred pronouns.