In its decision permitting an evangelical Christian web designer to refuse service for same-sex weddings, the court again embraced an expansive view of religious interests at the expense of protections for LGBT people.
Except that’s not what the ruling said. What it essentially said is that you cannot compel someone to say something if they don’t want to. The website makers in this lawsuit are not denying anyone service based on any protected class, the above document says they’ll create a website for anyone gay, strait, etc. What they are refusing to do is to create (say) something they don’t agree with (a website). No matter how morally correct the thing you want said, you can’t force anyone to say it, as protected by the 1st amendment.
As much as I don’t agree with the site makers, I likewise don’t agree that the government can just force you say anything against your will.
I agree that forcing speech is wrong, the risk is what constitutes "speech” and people/groups trying to expand “speech” to all sorts of business activity.
If in another scenario, this website creator had templates where a user just has to upload their own text and images, but the creator has to click a “publish” button to render and host the pages, does that constitute speech? Was the creating of templates and their final rendered state speech?
I acknowledge this is a false dilemma/slippery slope argument, though clearly corporate personhood has only grown in its interpretation over time (e.g. citizens united) and not reduced.
Imagine for a moment that you were running a web design business and an intolerant church group requested that you build a God Hates Gays website for them. Should Mississippi be able to have a a law that compels you to build that website or be liable for discriminating against a protected group, or should that law be unconstitutional under a compelled speech argument?
Isn’t it illegal to reject a customer due to religious belief? This does comes back to the question of “what is speech?” Maybe it’s like porn where you know it when you see it :P
I don’t exactly disagree with the ruling, just with the conservative backsliding the Supreme Court has been doing, I’m concerned about what this ruling might encourage in terms of growing the interpretation of speech and creative expression to provide work arounds to the civil rights act for those who wish to discriminate.
But hey, I could be overly worried for nothing. I sure hope I am.
Except that’s not what the ruling said. What it essentially said is that you cannot compel someone to say something if they don’t want to. The website makers in this lawsuit are not denying anyone service based on any protected class, the above document says they’ll create a website for anyone gay, strait, etc. What they are refusing to do is to create (say) something they don’t agree with (a website). No matter how morally correct the thing you want said, you can’t force anyone to say it, as protected by the 1st amendment.
As much as I don’t agree with the site makers, I likewise don’t agree that the government can just force you say anything against your will.
I agree that forcing speech is wrong, the risk is what constitutes "speech” and people/groups trying to expand “speech” to all sorts of business activity.
If in another scenario, this website creator had templates where a user just has to upload their own text and images, but the creator has to click a “publish” button to render and host the pages, does that constitute speech? Was the creating of templates and their final rendered state speech?
I acknowledge this is a false dilemma/slippery slope argument, though clearly corporate personhood has only grown in its interpretation over time (e.g. citizens united) and not reduced.
Imagine for a moment that you were running a web design business and an intolerant church group requested that you build a God Hates Gays website for them. Should Mississippi be able to have a a law that compels you to build that website or be liable for discriminating against a protected group, or should that law be unconstitutional under a compelled speech argument?
Isn’t it illegal to reject a customer due to religious belief? This does comes back to the question of “what is speech?” Maybe it’s like porn where you know it when you see it :P
I don’t exactly disagree with the ruling, just with the conservative backsliding the Supreme Court has been doing, I’m concerned about what this ruling might encourage in terms of growing the interpretation of speech and creative expression to provide work arounds to the civil rights act for those who wish to discriminate.
But hey, I could be overly worried for nothing. I sure hope I am.