Gay Wedding Cake Issue Revisited In Denver . . . Only Now It's Websites - Not Cakes

[PeacefulWarrior]

if there was something important in the document relevant to this you would post an excerpt and not expect me to go to a website or a different document and read your argument I won't do that.
this was in regards to a state law in the state she was wanting to start a business in she has standing. Whether she served customers or not.
BS. Being an agnostic doesn't mean you don't have beliefs and if you have beliefs against two people of the same sex getting married you'd have the same right to decline that anyone else does.
she did have a business in which the law would be applied.
that's not relevant the law stated a business cannot discriminate against a couple because they're gay and if this business was making wedding websites and absolutely does affect them so. You are 100% wrong in this regard.
except she very clearly absolutely does have that exact situation. If Colorado law says You must be put in that situation every citizen that runs this type of business in the state of Colorado has that standing.
I think you made a mistake and analyzing particularly with regard to what standing is. A citizen who subject to fines and penalties due to a law that they are bound by has absolute standing in a lawsuit against the state.

Sorry.

Thanks for the illustration of Stockholm Syndrome.

Good luck.

 

[CLAX1911]

Actually it is very easy to see, I would say it is trivially obvious given the facts of the case and the definition of legal standing I already graciously provided for you.

it's very clear that really any citizen that wanted to start a business in Colorado has standing.

Please, read the definition of legal standing.

I Did it doesn't change my position maybe you need to read it and understand the facts of the case.

 

[CLAX1911]

The reason for an actual controversy is simple enough, in this case.

Let's say she sells templates - insert names, dates, etc., and you have a website ready to go for your wedding The gay couple does that. The website designer isn't asked to provide ANY speech for that template for a gay wedding at all - the gay couple fills in the blanks. So is that protected speech according to SCOTUS, ALLOWING a gay couple to fill in blanks on a standard wedding template? Just selling a template to a gay couple? We don't have any idea because she didn't have a website or products and therefore could not have ever objected to any actual speech supposedly compelled by the state. The state said they'd never compel her to speak in ways she didn't believe, and in any event cannot have compelled any speech because she had no products, no website, and no gay couple had ever approached her for services.

of this case rule does not apply to someone who just creates generic templates for other people to fill in the blanks. You would have never said anything like that if you knew the details of the case.

I mean - read the opinion. It's incredible, actually, that the majority and dissent disagree on the FACTS. I've never seen anything like it, and it's because there was no actual controversy. There were NO FACTS on which to make a decision. So the SCOTUS took a hypothetical case and that allowed the majority and perhaps the dissent to invent their own facts on which to base their opinion. This just never happens, and should not ever happen.

I think you should take your own advice and read the case I don't think you have because of the first comment you made

 

[CLAX1911]

OK, read the case and tell me what speech the state compelled.

okay if you go to 303 limited or whatever and ask her to make you a website where she promotes your same sex wedding and she said no, you could go to Colorado's enforcement and either forced her to do it which is compelled speech or find her which is failure to be compelled.

The state didn't compel any speech, imposed no penalties,

they don't have to in order for the law to be a violation of your rights

because the website didn't exist,

it doesn't have to the law would compel speech

the products didn't exist and no gay couple had ever requested the designer to speak in any way pro or con SSM.

okay in order to get judicial review of law whether it's constitutional or not you don't have to wait till someone is victimized by the law. If the laws violates the right to free speech it doesn't matter if you've include any penalties the fact that you might is enough.

 

[CLAX1911]

There needs to be a specific harm done to bring it to SCOTUS. Thats always been the rule as far as i know.

A specific harm like a law compelling you to you say something that you don't wish to seems to be pretty specific you have to explain why it's not.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yes, so "trivially obvious" that the Tenth Circuit decided she had standing, and the Supreme Court found that part of their decision so unremarkable that they spent half a page discussing standing, and the dissent didn't mention it at all.

But no, you're probably more knowledgeable than they are.

Didn't you know federal courts are this huge right-wing conspiracy all of a sudden to enact fascism on people. It something.

 

[JasperL]

of this case rule does not apply to someone who just creates generic templates for other people to fill in the blanks. You would have never said anything like that if you knew the details of the case.

The problem is there ARE NO DETAILS. It's all hypothetical. She had no website, offered nothing for sale. And from the dissent:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

"Indeed, petitioners here concede that if a same-sex couple came across an opposite-sex wedding website created by the company and requested an identical website, with only the names and date of the wedding changed, petitioners would refuse. Id., at 37–38.11 That is status-based discrimination, plain and simple."

How is that different than a template? The gay couple is asking for an 'identical' website, which is aka a template.

I think you should take your own advice and read the case I don't think you have because of the first comment you made

I have, which is why I quoted from it (see above) and know the majority and dissent assume different facts.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

People are 'hung up on the religious angle' because the court cases deal with the 'religious angle.' That's very explicitly the issue, so of course the public reading the cases gets hung up on the facts of the case. No one is suing for the right to include a message on the website - "No colored weddings."

And what message did the state compel her to make? Oh, right, no message because it's all based on hypotheticals. The dissent claims posting a simple message, "John and Bob to be married June 1, 2024" is a bridge too far for the designer - she says she would refuse that announcement. Why not a wedding announcement that has a black man and a white woman, if they really do NOT agree with interracial marriages?

You're also missing the point. If she produces cakes with "DJT is Awesome!!" on them, what she claims the right to do is to produce that website for a straight couple, but not a gay couple. The 'speech' is the same in both cases, but the buyers are not. The only difference is the names on the gay couple's website is John and Bob versus John and Mary.

You clearly have an objection to the case that I don't have. I was looking for a specific criteria with a specific question. I got that answer. I already posted the stuff that was relevant to the Supreme Court's decision. Why people are responding to me in old posts (not you) that are now invalidated by my post in #478, I have no idea. I also have no idea why you have a quote from an edited post (#487 - my post) because I misread a document and edited out exactly what you quoted when I clearly stated it was false information.

I can post more about why I now feel she had standing and why she was suing if you like (Post #489) I could again post what the issue is that the court honed in on. I could also post that that issue had nothing to do with being compelled to write a certain message, but rather in providing unequal goods and services (post #489). I could even tell you how my question was answered by the court documents themselves. I could also post to the vague language in the Colorado law that is causing the problems and either needs to be taken out or revised. I could post the exact quote of the Supreme Court, which shows what their ruling is and its scope.

But I doubt it will convince you since you believe the court erred in its judgment, and I don't. We've been talking past each other too many times and we've not been responding to each other in a language we both understand.

As for me, I've gotten my answers from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and posted about (Post #478). I see no reason to be in this thread anymore. Bowing out.

 

[JasperL]

A specific harm like a law compelling you to you say something that you don't wish to seems to be pretty specific you have to explain why it's not.

But the law would compel her to say what exactly? We have no idea, because there was no website, no services offered. Apparently putting "Jim and Bob" on a page that previously had "Jim and Mary" is sufficient to trigger her refusal to sell that service.

 

[CLAX1911]

The problem is there ARE NO DETAILS. It's all hypothetical. She had no website, offered nothing for sale. And from the dissent:

the business was to design websites not sell things on a website.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

"Indeed, petitioners here concede that if a same-sex couple came across an opposite-sex wedding website created by the company and requested an identical website, with only the names and date of the wedding changed, petitioners would refuse. Id., at 37–38.11 That is status-based discrimination, plain and simple."

so the possibility that the state would attempt to compel speech sounds like standing to me.

The state compelling speech weather you were actually compelled to speak or theoretically compelled to speak is unacceptable in any terms

How is that different than a template? The gay couple is asking for an 'identical' website, which is aka a template.

the business was building websites not selling templates.

I have, which is why I quoted from it (see above) and know the majority and dissent assume different facts.

even The descent acknowledges that the law compels speech. The law compels speech regardless of whether the person filing a grievance was actually compelled or not.

You don't have to wait till the state violates your rights in order to petition.

Where do you people come up with this crap?

 

[CLAX1911]

But the law would compel her to say what exactly?

That two people of the same sex are married.

We have no idea,

yes we do. Anything that a heterosexual couple can get made for their wedding a same-sex couple can get made for their wedding. So all of the speech there within would be what would be compelled.

because there was no website, no services offered. Apparently putting "Jim and Bob" on a page that previously had "Jim and Mary" is sufficient to trigger her refusal to sell that service.

yes even The descent agreed that that would be compelled speech.

The grievance was with the Colorado state law not any gay couple I don't know why you don't understand this.

 

[CLAX1911]

Thanks for the illustration of Stockholm Syndrome.

Good luck.

Thanks for the obligatory personal attack. It really shows that you have a strong well reasoned position.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

The part of this discussion that kind of blows my mind is the idea that the "religious" business owner is trying to force her values on society.

I disagree with that. If the state forces her to make a thing that represents a lifestyle or worldview she disagrees with then it is the state forcing the values of others on her.

I believe the state should have exactly zero say in who you marry. And similarly it should have zero say in who you do or do not want to do business with.

This seems very simple and clear to me.

 

[Absentglare]

Why?

You stated your opinion. It’s certainly not my fault that your statement of opinion has no validity based on your own argument.

what you wrote was facile why was I incorrect?

No.

Re-read our interaction if you are unsure.

so because you failed to argue mean completely in this entire post you're blaming me for having a bizarre fantasy because you suck at this?

Again, law should be based on fact, not fantasy, and certainly not fraud.

it's very clear that really any citizen that wanted to start a business in Colorado has standing.

Again that may be your opinion but you have already denied the relevance of your own opinion.

I Did it doesn't change my position maybe you need to read it and understand the facts of the case.

Okay then you don’t seem to understand that this was clearly a bad faith charade to legislate from the bench or a monument to the incompetence of our conservative SCOTUS.

 

[reflechissez]

A very late update to this story:

Back in June, SCOTUS ruled 6-3 in favor of web designer Lorie Smith who refused to design wedding websites for same-sex couples, finding the 1st Amendment prohibits the State from forcing Smith to express messages contrary to her religious beliefs.

The ruling establishes that states cannot force or coerce artists to create speech which would violate their free speech rights.

source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/read-f...ner-declining-to-make-lgbtq-wedding-websites/

We did this one...back in June when it happened.

Supreme Court backs web developer who didn't want to create same-sex wedding sites

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Friday backed a web designer who wants to decline to create websites for same-sex weddings because of her religious beliefs – the latest legal setback for LGBTQ Americans from the high court. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority. The case...

debatepolitics.com

 

[CLAX1911]

You stated your opinion.

Except I didn't.

Re-read our interaction if you are unsure.

I'm not unsure.

Again, law should be based on fact, not fantasy, and certainly not fraud.

The fact it was based on in this case was that Colorado had a law that compelled speech. Sorry you are struggling with this.

Okay then you don’t seem to understand

Attempted gaslighting noted

 

[CLAX1911]

We did this one...back in June when it happened.

Supreme Court backs web developer who didn't want to create same-sex wedding sites

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Friday backed a web designer who wants to decline to create websites for same-sex weddings because of her religious beliefs – the latest legal setback for LGBTQ Americans from the high court. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority. The case...

debatepolitics.com

This thread was started in December.

 

[reflechissez]

It is not. It is an effort to stand for what they believe without being forced to abet sinful behavior. Those denominations that support “gay rights” are violating scripture. Those that ordain gay people to the ministry, etc., are apostate.

There is no effort by evangelical Christians to establish a theocracy in the US. This country is too far into the toilet for that. Evangelicals are anticipating the rapture of the true Christian church. Those that are left behind can have what remains of this world.

Do you have to be alive to participate?

 

[bomberfox]

A specific harm like a law compelling you to you say something that you don't wish to seems to be pretty specific you have to explain why it's not.

But this law didnt affect her. Thats the difference. Its long standing procedures.

 

[bomberfox]

Except I didn't.

I'm not unsure.

The fact it was based on in this case was that Colorado had a law that compelled speech. Sorry you are struggling with this.
Attempted gaslighting noted

Since she didnt even have a business she wasnt compelled. Unless she was actually compelled instead of hypothetically there is no standing according to scotus guidelines.

 

[CLAX1911]

But this law didnt affect her. Thats the difference. Its long standing procedures.

Yeah it did.

 

[CLAX1911]

Since she didnt even have a business she wasnt compelled

She did have a business. An LLC is a business

 

[Crunchtime]

LOL one of the funnest things evangelicals do is explain how they are the only ones Christian enough to experience the Rapture.

Christian enough? Evangelicals believe the Bible is authoritative. We don’t eliminate anyone. They eliminate themselves by unbelief. Unbelief equates to disobedience. It’s simple. Read the Bible. Become a student of the scriptures. They are very clear. Concentrate if you will on the red letters. The words of Jesus Christ. Follow Him or don’t. It’s your choice.

 

[Crunchtime]

That evangelicals are now trying to make laws stopping things that might happen is cause for concern. It represents a major increase in their attempt to legally control the religious and sexual behavior of all citizens.

Another falsehood. You’re in poor form today. Stop with the bs agenda.

 

[Crunchtime]

Can you show me where "scripture" says that a cake may not be baked for a gay person?

I can show you where Jesus said that marriage is between a man and a woman. And I can show you where it says abetting another persons sin (such as gay marriage) is a sin. Interested?