[subego]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

The House passed a bill yesterday protecting marriage equality, and 47 Republicans voted with the majority. It’s nice to see Congress attempting to get out in front of what will almost certainly be a push to get SCOTUS to overturn Obergfell. Very surprised that many Rs were on-board. Hopefully that bodes well for the bill’s chances in the Senate.

My guess is it’s because that particular horse can’t be put back in the barn without it getting very messy. Countless contracts depend on Obergefell, as does immigration law.

[reader50]

An important ruling regarding election law. SCOTUS just rejected the Independent State Legislature theory with regard to the North Carolina case.

ISL holds that the US Constitution gives Federal (or presidential) election oversight to state legislatures exclusively, regardless of what a state's constitution says. Meaning that a state legislature could pick a presidential candidate, ignoring how the public votes. And that state Supreme Courts have no authority to intervene. Not even if the state constitution says they can.

In the North Carolina case, the state supreme court stuck down a Republican gerrymandering of voting districts. SCOTUS has now ruled the state supreme court does indeed have authority - the state legislature does not get unchecked power.

The case drifted in recent months, because Republicans got control of the NC supreme court since the case was filed. And the NC court then reversed its previous ruling, now saying the state court has no authority on the subject. SCOTUS has now overturned that. The way I read it, the captured NC supreme court could still rule the gerrymandered map OK. But cannot absolve itself of authority in such cases.

The SCOTUS decision was 6-3. Dissenters were Thomas and Alito (of course), plus Gorsuch.

This rules out the broader versions of ISL, which were always the most dangerous to representative democracy. It isn't quite a knockout punch - not all ISL issues were on the table in this case. But it's pretty close.

[OreoCookie]

Apart from Thomas and Alito I cannot yet predict which of the new judges will implicitly or explicitly endorse such crazy legal theories. Indeed, this crackpot theory found a majority at NC’s Supreme Court.

[andi*pandi]

So, lessee...

This week the supreme court weighed in on a web designer who said she had been approached to do gay weddings but actually never had; the person she said approached her is married to a woman and has kids. Court ruled she did not have to make gay wedding websites. Is this great advertising for her or what? And since when does the supreme court weigh in on future crime? Did no one fact check this before it got there?

Court knocked down affirmative action;

Court knocked down student loan repayment; (seemingly every R senator with a quote about how everyone should pay their way also benefited from lots of PPP loans, huh)

Never mind the loans that Kav had repaid when he got on the court....

Someone is getting their money's worth from this court!

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

And since when does the supreme court weigh in on future crime?

Well, the literal answer is since whenever lower courts have decided to weigh in on it.

[reader50]

Hopefully the "wedding website" case will be struck from the record. It was a fake case. Guy is straight, married to a gal, and is a web designer himself. He says he'd build his own website, not hire someone. The plaintiff may have lied it all together in an attempt to get a SCOTUS ruling.

[subego]

IIUC, the case isn’t fake. She didn’t make the claim when she submitted the case to the lower courts. It was made later in response to a motion by the defense for a dismissal.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, the literal answer is since whenever lower courts have decided to weigh in on it.

So the lower courts were also either idiots or "activist judges" pushing this agenda? Mitch mcconnell pushing any trump federalist nominee thru while blocking any obama nomination is really paying off for somebody...

[subego]

Where’s the idiot part?

Just as a general question, should people with religious objections to same-sex marriage be compelled to provide services for one?

[andi*pandi]

Do the courts try theoretical offenses now? The idiot part is not knowing what a real case is, either by due diligence or the nature of a trial. This is future crime - an actual "minority report".

It would be slightly less ridiculous if there actually was a case, a la the wedding cake scenario, but this was made up of whole cloth just for clicks. She should have been prosecuted for wasting the court's time. Didn't we solve this with the wedding cakes? Do we need a separate legal case for every service a gay person might need?

Are gay people protected from discrimination? Should people be compelled not to discriminate? IIRC the argument with the wedding cakes was that there were other vendor options out there so it wasn't as serious, as, say, an emergency surgeon refusing to work on a gay person, or a pharmacist refusing to fill birth control pills. Then again you have people who keep kosher at home who might work in a deli or restaurant making ham sandwiches for other people, without any issue.

Some people might be able to put their conflicting ideologies in a box in order to make a living, rather than grandstanding.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Where’s the idiot part?

Just as a general question, should people with religious objections to same-sex marriage be compelled to provide services for one?

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...J15-Oleske.pdf

Although religious objections to interracial marriage were pervasive at the time — as reflected in the statements of politicians, preachers, and
jurists, as well as in public opinion polls — those objections never found a home in the pages of America’s academic law journals.
This Article offers the first comprehensive discussion of why the legal academy has been so solicitous of religious objections to same-sex marriage when it
was never receptive to similar objections to interracial marriage. After examining several factors that have contributed to this “marriage dichotomy” in the
academy — including the rise of the conservative legal movement, the influence of the Catholic Church, and the unique role of race in American history — the
Article explains why the most important factor for purposes of the proposed exemptions is the recent reconceptualization of religious liberty as extending
fully to for-profit commercial businesses.
...
The once-prevailing view that religious individuals who choose to open a business must comply with the same rules governing other market participants is no longer a given. Instead, one of the most passionate arguments made by religious liberty advocates today is that the religious convictions of business owners should presumptively trump laws governing the secular economy. Conceived of in those terms, religious liberty will inevitably conflict with the rights of third parties in the marketplace, whether competitors, customers, or employees. And the specific third-party right threatened by allowing businesses to refuse marriage-related services and benefits to samesex couples is the right of those couples to receive equal protection under state antidiscrimination laws.

This debate is yet another prong in the conservative-think-tank-driven culture war specifically designed to create and persecute an "other" group in order to stoke division.

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

This issue is just another chance to solidify an out-group and bind them with the law.

[subego]

Should Catholic priests be required to perform same-sex marriages?

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Do the courts try theoretical offenses now? The idiot part is not knowing what a real case is, either by due diligence or the nature of a trial. This is future crime - an actual "minority report".

If this is the case, all laws are inherently constitutional until such time as they are first enforced.

I submit what makes a law unconstitutional is it violates the Constitution. Enforcement is irrelevant.

[subego]

To put this another way, generally speaking, if a law abridges my freedom of speech, it’s unconstitutional. I don’t have to engage in the abridged speech and get whacked first for the unconstitutionality to kick in.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Should Catholic priests be required to perform same-sex marriages?

Should McDonald's be required to sell Whoppers?

[subego]

Are two different pieces of commissioned art the same product?

[Laminar]

You lost me.

[subego]

Big Mac ≠ Whopper

One commissioned piece of art ≠ Other commissioned piece of art by the same artist

[Laminar]

Like the article says, the extension of religious protection to for-profit commercial businesses is a new thing.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Should Catholic priests be required to perform same-sex marriages?

Churches ≠ business
Businesses serve the community and are subject to laws, rules and regulations. This case and the previous baker case both raised all the relevant questions, but the verdicts fail to address the issues systematically:

- What constitutes free speech? Is putting frosting on a cake an act of artistic expression? What about changing the font on the template of a website?
- Why is an individual’s (e. g. employee or owner) personal convictions relevant in a business context? Wouldn’t the (lack of) rights of companies be what is relevant instead ?
- What are valid target groups? Can a business deny service to members of a particular faith, e. g. Jews or Christians? Is it legal to deny service to particular races of mixed race couples? Why/why not?
- What’s the legal difference between not wanting to serve homosexual couples and a black couple? What legal principles do you base that on?
- Conversely, under what circumstances can a business only serve one particular group? What are the legal principles that allow the Jewish dating site jdate to only serve Jews?

To me one central part of the argument is that when you use a business, you don’t enter a business relationship with a particular baker or a sales person. But you enter a business relationship with, well, the business. That’s true even when you are dealing with a 1 person business and you are being served by the owner. Maybe the employee may not want to do something, but IMHO you need to accept that doing things you don’t support may be part of the job. You have to serve mixed race couples, because businesses are not allowed to discriminate based on race. Homosexuality fits the same principle in my mind. And if you don’t like that you might have to do things as part of your job that you object to, why not change jobs?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Like the article says, the extension of religious protection to for-profit commercial businesses is a new thing.

In spirit it isn’t the first decision, I think the Hobby Lobby and the money = speech cases are expressions of the same philosophy: it transfers individual rights afforded to humans to corporations.

[subego]

@Oreo

Are these two not distinct?

A) Refusing a job because the client belongs to a class.

B) Refusing a job because there is an objection to the content.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

IIUC, the case isn’t fake. She didn’t make the claim when she submitted the case to the lower courts. It was made later in response to a motion by the defense for a dismissal.

I've heard that courts avoid theoretical rulings - this probably falls under the Standing doctrine.

... a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have ... sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

In this case, it seems the website designer has not made wedding websites, and is not guaranteed to do so in the future. And the supposed customer is made-up. A real person, but there was no request. And not likely to ever make such a request. Also, he didn't know, and thus had no opportunity to defend any of his own concerns in the case.

So her basis of standing is built on an issue that could hypothetically come up, but has not done so, and will never come up in the specifics given to the court. Also, lying to a court is a serious offense. If a lawyer did it knowingly, that becomes a fraud upon the court. Something that can get a lawyer disbarred and sent to jail. Fraud upon the Court is so serious, that it's not subject to a Statute of Limitations.

It looks to me like she never had standing, and the court considered a fake situation in deciding if she was harmed. It shouldn't meet the standard for a court to consider, so the case should be struck. Until a more-honest party can allege an actual harm, in which case the court will consider the actual facts.

[subego]

The wiki entry on standing notes the courts will sometimes take a First Amendment case for a plaintiff without standing due to the chilling effect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect


A statement can be untrue, but also not a lie. If I am approached by someone impersonating person X, a claim I was approached by person X is false, but that’s not lying.

Since you’re accusing the plaintiff of lying, you can prove that, right?

[reader50]

You are misapplying Chilling Effect. Plaintiff isn't arguing she will be unable to speak. Rather, she's seeking permission for her possible future business to discriminate based on customer sex issues. If you see it as a speech issue, she's seeking permission to not speak in the future. So no Chilling Effect angle.

Side note - if you remove the ".m." from early in the URL, you get the full wiki webpage. That's how you escape ghetto mobile versions. You're welcome.

Someone is lying. Either someone in the legal filing, or the guy given as the example. Their stores are not compatible. Shouldn't be too hard to check marriage licenses though, to see if he really is married to a woman. Or has kids with her.

And you've gotten the lying premise backwards too. I don't have to prove a party is lying. Rather, it must be shown to the court that their example is true. That's the whole point of "under penalty of perjury", etc. Why lawyers sign their filings, that they are not misleading the court, or words to that effect.

The burden of proof is on those asking for a judgement, to show their filings are true. And the court is not being misled into using its power for an unjust result. btw - that's why Fraud upon the Court is so serious. Courts are supposed to deliver Justice. If a lawyer feeds in false info, the court ruling may in fact produce injustice.

Journalists have discovered critical data provided to the court are not true (or the guy is lying). If the data is false, it likely causes the plaintiff to lose standing. Both are critical problems for any case.

[andi*pandi]

Also, for more irony, the guy given as the example, is also a web designer. Who, even if he were gay, would not need to hire someone for a wedding website.

Frankly, no one needs to hire anyone for a wedding website. The wedding websites exist already. https://www.theknot.com/gs/wedding-websites/designs/

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I don't have to prove a party is lying

What is the evidence the plaintiff is lying?

There is clear-cut evidence the plaintiff submitted something untrue. This is not the same as lying.

For it to be lying it needs to be shown the plaintiff knew what they submitted to be untrue.

[andi*pandi]

For the plaintiff not to actually know what they submitted to be untrue would require them to be either mentally unwell (gee I didn't know I was making up lies) or the victim of an ruse.

In fact, her lawyer does suggest it could have been a troll filling out the webform... but who does that benefit? Surely not the plaintiff who has got lots of free advertising. Also interesting is this same lawyer worked for the cake baker incident... whose original request also may have been a troll form submission? GEE WHAT A COINCIDENCE IT'S ALMOST LIKE THEY ARE SUBMITTING THESE REQUESTS THEMSELVES

Because most website owners get a sense when comments are spam, trolls, or otherwise not legit and just move it to trash. Even if you can't lead any job lead unturned, perhaps before filing a lawsuit you have a conversation or something to prove the troll is a troll. But they didn't. This webform is a pretext.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/11856...rt-gay-couples

Smith's lawyer, Kristen Waggoner, said at a Friday news conference that the wedding request naming Stewart was submitted through Smith's website and denied it was fabricated.

She suggested it could have been a troll making the request, something that's happened with other clients she has represented. In 2018 her client Colorado baker Jack Phillips won a partial U.S. Supreme Court victory after refusing to make a gay couple's wedding cake, citing his Christian faith.

[subego]

Is the important distinction between “the plaintiff lied” and “the plaintiff may have lied” not self evident?

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Plaintiff isn't arguing she will be unable to speak.

She isn’t?

Her entire claim is the anti-discrimination law makes it impossible for her to legally go into business.

She can’t go into business because of the law, but the law is not silencing her?

[reader50]

She *can* go into business, she'd just have to comply with the same rules other businesses abide by.

This type of disagreement pits rights against rights. Customers have the right not to be discriminated by businesses. ie - the old "No Coloreds" signs are illegal today.

More recently, some religious people want to enter business, but impose their beliefs upon their customers. ie - trying to make the shop owner's religious right more important than the customer's right to equal service.

Nothing is compelling her to enter the wedding-websites business. She could go into any number of other niches, or seek employment. If she went into home construction, could she refuse to build a home for a gay couple?

As I see it, she's asking the court to hold her beliefs more important than her customer's "gay choice". I'm not convinced gay people have a choice in the matter, or that making their lives difficult will cause them to change their minds. And I don't see why the customer should have to go to another business, vs the business owner not choosing to offer a specific service.

After all, she could build websites, but not wedding sites. Hers would be an actual choice, fully under her control, and with no significant impact on her life or income. Vs the customer becoming a 2nd class citizen. Where some businesses will serve them, and others will wait for them to choose the straight path. That, or hit the road, Jack Stewart.

After all, refusing to sell/service a party is a boycott. Boycotts are implemented to get the other party to change their behavior. We have assorted boycotts in effect against Russia to get them to stop invading other countries. And against China so they'll stop the racist BS against Uyghurs, stop product dumping, and stop them from selling suspect electronics to Western buyers. Suspected of containing backdoors for snooping on our military, government, businesses, and Chinese diaspora.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

This type of disagreement pits rights against rights.

Precisely. Rights are not always easily reconcilable. They come in conflict.

The state can compel service to protected classes. The state cannot compel speech.

Service can be compelled. Speech can’t. If the service necessitates compelling speech, the rights are in conflict.

How would you best resolve this conflict?

For my answer, I’ll parrot the Court. The state can compel service, but can’t when the service is speech.



As an aside, the plaintiff very well might be the biggest fuckface in Colorado. That doesn’t make the conflict go away, or the need for a resolution.

[subego]

Here’s a good question. Should rights be ranked? Should we endeavor to consider them all equal? Something else?

[reader50]

My preferred solution is to not artificially create the conflict. So we don't have to choose if one person's right is more important.

Everyone who opens a business has to abide by the same laws. If their state has laws against discrimination, all business must comply.

If the business owner wants to discriminate on a particular service, she should not offer that service. Websites made on demand, except wedding websites. Or wedding cakes, etc. So she doesn't break the law and/or try to get a courts permission to override a customer's rights.

If you don't believe in car insurance (strongly held religious belief), don't drive on public roads. Take the bus, call a taxi, tap a friend, or walk/cycle/etc. Don't drive anyway, get pulled over, and take it to SCOTUS that you shouldn't need to comply with the local laws, because you firmly believe against them.

At one time, some cemeteries did not accept black people. Others had a fence between the black plots, and the rest of the plots. If the business owner wants to discriminate customers by race today, they shouldn't offer burial service to any customers. Offer the other digging services instead, like tree planting, basement digging, pipe trenches.

She wants to (maybe) offer a service where she will discriminate against some customers. And she wants a court to exempt her from anti-discrimination laws that apply to all other businesses that also offer that service. My opinion: if she doesn't want to comply with business laws on that service, she should not offer the specific service that conflicts with her beliefs. That leaves everyone's beliefs and rights in full force, without a court granting a privileged position to one party.

ps - the gay wedding website is the customers' speech, not the developer. Same as a lawyer is speaking for their client, not themselves.

[subego]

Are literally all services the speech of the client and not the service provider? Unless this is the case, that wedding website designer or attorney might not meet the standard is irrelevant. As the joke goes, we’ve determined the standards can be met, we’re just haggling price.

Likewise, how is the artificiality relevant? How does it alter the conflict? The state can compel service, but not speech. We still face this conflict regardless of the context in which it’s raised.

[reader50]

I don't see why this is hard to understand. The example given to the court is artificial because the plaintiff is deliberately creating it (never mind the artificial client). Say that you are an athlete, with a wide interest range. You enjoy playing golf, basketball, baseball, football, and competitive swimming.

But for personal reasons, you don't think basketball should have referees. They're OK on the other sports. So instead of playing all the games you enjoy, and avoid basketball with other people ... you cry to the courts, insisting on playing basketball without refs. You'll make the calls during disputes.

Never mind all the other games you can and do play, you insist on basketball and that everyone else must bow to your choices. That isn't a reasonable position, it's a control freak trying to show everyone else who's making the decisions.

It may not be a perfect comparison to the case, but the plaintiff here doesn't have any obvious life-compelling reason to offer wedding websites. Those are an extreme minority of web pages. And she's free to make them voluntarily for whoever she likes - discrimination laws apply to business exchanges, not volunteer work. Or she can sell them if she complies with the rules for businesses who sell websites. There's no compelling need for this case, unless she wants to force her beliefs upon others. There are names for people who do that.

I've tried to think of reasons why she'd be justified insisting on basketball by her rules. What I came up with is the religious belief she chooses to have, is more important than the gay orientation a gay couple does not choose to have. And this is somehow a just outcome? It looks to me like she forced the exact issue primarily to establish her rights over others. Not due to any real need to enter the booming wedding-website business.

[subego]

Liars get 1A protections.

Fuckfaces get 1A protections.

Bigots get 1A protections.

People with no life-compelling reasons to express particular speech get 1A protections


Lying, fuckface, bigots with no life-compelling reasons to express particular speech get 1A protections.

The qualifiers are irrelevant. What’s relevant is by way of the 1A, the state cannot compel speech.

Even if the person deserves it.

[Laminar]

Are you trying to get everyone to define what speech is?

[subego]

No.

As long as it’s agreed there is some point where the service is the speech of the service provider, it is like I said, we have determined it is the speech of the provider, we’re just haggling price.

[andi*pandi]

I don't recall seeing that the fake webform submission asked the plaintiff for copywriting. Just design. No speech there. Part of web design is asking the client to provide the copy. Then redoing it 3 times when they change the copy...

What they are trying to define as speech is the "implied approval of gay people just by virtue of working for them". But really who would know? You don't have to put a signature on a website.

[subego]

Speech in the legal sense isn’t limited to words.

Most paintings don’t have words. They’re not speech in the legal sense? Would it be constitutional to abridge the freedom of what a painter can paint?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Oreo

Are these two not distinct?

A) Refusing a job because the client belongs to a class.

B) Refusing a job because there is an objection to the content.

No, because here the class determines the content. Someone objecting to creating wedding websites for mixed race couples could conceivably be allowed to refuse service to my kids (once they get of age, obviously). Also, do businesses have religious first amendment protections? Personally, I’d definitely say no, businesses are subject to regulations and cannot discriminate against customers.

Note that I have an example where I think you *might* want to make an exception: it makes sense to me that jdate might refuse to allow non-Jewish people to join. Still, you need concrete legal tests rather than one-off decisions.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

As long as it’s agreed there is some point where the service is the speech of the service provider, it is like I said, we have determined it is the speech of the provider, we’re just haggling price.

I don't recall reaching such an agreement, nor that we have determined it. And I don't think we're haggling price. More like a woman trying to establish she's a higher legal class than gays, and related laws need not apply to her.

Might I point out that religious belief is a choice, and many people change their religion at least once during their lifetime. Some people have doubtless changed it many times.

Plaintiff is a fundamentalist Christian today. She doesn't want involvement in gar marriage.
Tuesday, she sincerely switches to Islam. She doesn't want to serve Jewish customers.
Wednesday, she sincerely switches to Buddhist. She sincerely won't serve ... PRC leaders? (I lack knowledge about Buddhists)
Thursday, she sincerely switches to Hare Krishna, and won't sell real burgers to anyone. Vege-burgers are OK. (side Q - how does a religion survive that favors celibacy?)
Friday, it's time for Jehova Witness. Not sure who she discriminates against here, but you get the picture. I hope.

To my knowledge, there is no law against the above, and it is possible. If her beliefs change sincerely (even day-to-day) she writes herself the right to discriminate against any group that any religion frowns upon. And she can enter business, ignoring the related laws.

At least the groups listed above, except gays, presumably have a choice in belonging to their groups. And she's "limited" to groups that are disapproved of by religions, which might in theory not include a few people on the planet. Who somehow slip through all the different nets.

So if she picks the right religion on Saturday, she can presumably discriminate against (almost) any person. And to my knowledge, there's no daily limit to religious belief. She could switch beliefs on an hourly basis. Or faster.

Every right has limits, even the 1st Amendment. In particular, when they bump against other people's rights. You seem to be arguing that no matter the reasons, or how ridiculous her solution can get, her paid-customer-speech is always the one on top. Was she born royalty?

[andi*pandi]

She filed the lawsuit. The next day she got the form submission.

which comes first, chicken or the egg?

Also her website is basic.

why I create

As a Christian who believes that God gave me the creative gifts that are expressed through this business, I have always strived to honor Him in how I operate it. My primary objective is to design and create expressive content—script, graphics, websites, and other creative content—to convey the most compelling and effective message I can to promote my client’s purposes, goals, services, products, events, causes, or values. Because of my faith, however, I am selective about the messages that I create or promote – while I will serve anyone I am always careful to avoid communicating ideas or messages, or promoting events, products, services, or organizations, that are inconsistent with my religious beliefs.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

The qualifiers are irrelevant. What’s relevant is by way of the 1A, the state cannot compel speech.

It seems you hold her 1A rights above all others. And unless I've missed it, you haven't spoken once about what rights the (hypothetical) gay couple have.

How about the 14th Amendment.

... nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As the 14th was passed later than the 1st, a later law overrides an earlier law (at the same level) whenever there is a conflict. So the Equal Protection Clause should trump 1A rights in *every* case of conflict. Unless you want to consider qualifiers after all. Or reasonable balancing of rights.

Note that the legal basis of copyright is in the original Constitution text:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

... while the 1A was passed at a later date. So Freedom of Speech should trump copyright in every case. Numerous businesses don't like that interpretation. Like movie studios, song distributors, authors, newspapers, etc. Good thing for them that we consider qualifiers and reasonable balancing of rights. Otherwise, the 1A right to anonymous speech would prevent most (all?) piracy enforcement. I don't see how patent rights could hold up either.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I don't recall reaching such an agreement, nor that we have determined it.

The foundation of the entire discussion is built on this, so we should get it sorted.

Is your argument there is no circumstance where a service being provided is the speech of the provider?

I commission a sketch from Picasso. I tell him it can be whatever. That’s my speech, not Picasso’s?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Liars get 1A protections.

Fuckfaces get 1A protections.

Bigots get 1A protections.

People with no life-compelling reasons to express particular speech get 1A protections


Lying, fuckface, bigots with no life-compelling reasons to express particular speech get 1A protections.

Yes, but you are only considering the rights of one party, ignoring rights of others. You don't have the right to have a business that is exempt from rules and regulations. E. g. you cannot force Youtube to allow porn. But you can forbid Porntube from accepting child porn, because the latter is a crime. Discriminating against people on the basis of e. g. the color of their skin or their sexuality is in many places against the law (although not necessarily against criminal law).

Originally Posted by subego 

The state can compel service to protected classes. The state cannot compel speech.

Service can be compelled. Speech can’t. If the service necessitates compelling speech, the rights are in conflict.

How would you best resolve this conflict?

I think one potential answer is to revoke the business license. You don't have a right to create a business that is exempt from certain laws in the same way you don't have a right to drive a car without a license (and insurance for that matter). Legally blind people are never allowed to drive a car.

I think society allowing others to run a business is very much like allowing them to use public roads, you need to follow the rules of the road if you want to continue driving on them. And if you don't, you might lose your license. Businesses are very much societal infrastructure like roads are.

Originally Posted by subego 

For my answer, I’ll parrot the Court. The state can compel service, but can’t when the service is speech.

Where is the delineation between speech and service? Again, take the cake example: is a plain sheet cake considered speech? What if you write John & Steve on that plain cake? Etc. The porn cop out (“I know it when I see it.”) is a horrible legal standard.

I'm not even denying there may be cases (e. g. a painter painting a painting of the couple) where it really is expression. But still, if you insist on adding this right, you need to clearly define where it starts and ends.

Originally Posted by subego 

The qualifiers are irrelevant. What’s relevant is by way of the 1A, the state cannot compel speech.

Even if the person deserves it.

Is (not) serving customers speech? Do rights of the individual transfer to the corporation or company they are a part of?

The current Supreme Court has made no serious attempt so far to suss out the important questions with the subtlety they require. They punted on the question in the cake baker case what constitutes protected speech. Baking a cake, picking the color of the frosting and putting two candles on it does not qualify for me. But I can see that in very artistic cake shops the answer might be yes. Where do you draw the line? If you want to give this right to people, you have to delineate it clearly. People should consider this clearly, because otherwise these laws can severely backfire as they might allow for discrimination against groups that many supporters of these cases are part of. (The case of certain school district banning the bible in school libraries using “obscenity” laws comes to mind.)

The second cluster is the relation between the rights of the individual (e. g. a worker or a company owner) and the rights and regulations of companies. E. g. under what conditions could you fire or forcefully reassign employees who refuse to do their job? Even if you are the owner, how many rights does your company “inherit” from you? Can you e. g. refuse to pay a share of your taxes, because you are a devout Jane (a very pacifist religion) and you don't want to support the US military?

If you want to carve out legal protections on First Amendment grounds in a business context, you need to do this very carefully. Otherwise, I reckon a lot of people might join Janism to avoid paying all of their taxes. Or allow black people to eat at their restaurants or stay at their hotels based on a religion of their own creation (the Church of the KKK). How much of this extends to Freedom of Speech and not just Freedom of Religion?

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

And unless I've missed it, you haven't spoken once about what rights the (hypothetical) gay couple have.

The rights homosexuals have is to be served by every business. I have mentioned this numerous times. When I say the state can compel a business to serve a protected class, it is these rights I am referring to.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

I commission a sketch from Picasso. I tell him it can be whatever. That’s my speech, not Picasso’s?

That is a work-for-hire, so you own the copyright. You literally own the painting from before it was made.

How can Picasso have speech in your property? Did you only pay 99% of the asking price? Do home builders retain a right to use your bathroom after the sale? So it is not Picasso's speech, it is yours. He made choices, yes. After you chose to authorize those choices. Note that the root of "authorize" is "author". He did the work (and presumably got paid, unless you stiffed him, you cheapskate). So he's the painter, and you are the owner/author of the resulting work.

I don't know how this opinion holds up to copyright law - I actually like Oreo's argument a lot, that there should be a reasonable scale. Of how much original element, vs how much generic content. Have fun.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Friday, it's time for Jehova Witness. Not sure who she discriminates against here, but you get the picture. I hope.

They refuse to make birthday cakes.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

She filed the lawsuit. The next day she got the form submission.

which comes first, chicken or the egg?

Also her website is basic.

I read an article and maybe even posted it here a few years back about a guy that was doing research in AI. The crux of it was that he fed it a ton of data and then asked it to generate the most politically and socially divisive scenarios possible, and it basically came up with Kaepernick's kneeling and several other items that ended up being big news stories. I can't find the article now due to the explosion of AI-related results in the past couple of year, but it changed how I look at stuff like this. I'm fully bought in on the conspiracy theory that situations like this are wholly invented to distract and divide people. Another prime example is Brittney Griner - a drug-using black woman vs. a treasonous soldier - these cases are a siren song for dumb people who can't resist sharing their horrible opinions, and there are just enough angles to bring in the most people possible. It's an argument where there's no right answer and it keeps people engaged in hating each other.

This case specifically feels this way, except extremely lazy, but again maybe that's the point. It's why I stay out the culture war bullshit and cases like this that feel specifically designed to divide and distract.