Last week a restaurant in Virginia refused service to a group called the Family Foundation, which opposes gay marriage and abortion rights:
“We have always refused service to anyone for making our staff uncomfortable or unsafe and this was the driving force behind our decision,” read an Instagram post from Metzger Bar and Butchery....“Many of our staff are women and/or members of the LGBTQ+ community. All of our staff are people with rights who deserve dignity and a safe work environment. We respect our staff’s established rights as humans and strive to create a work environment where they can do their jobs with dignity, comfort and safety.”
Just to rub it in, the restaurant called the Family Foundation and canceled the reservation for their dessert reception 90 minutes before it was scheduled to start.
There's an outside chance that this is a strongly-held conviction on the part of the restaurant and the timing is just a coincidence. But what are the odds? It happened three days before the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear arguments in the case of a website designer who didn't want to design a site for a gay wedding.
So this is most likely intended as a warning shot. You don't want to create websites for gay couples? Then we don't want to bake desserts for groups that oppose gay couples.
I suppose this was inevitable, and legally I don't know if the case of the restaurant and its desserts is comparable to the website case. But there's no question that it escalates the war over civil rights vs. religious and free speech rights.
I have periodically suggested that liberals could rein in a few policy views in order to gain votes from centrists. I usually get scoffed at, with the implied question being "Who do you want to throw under the bus?" No one, of course, but I confess this whole fiasco is an issue I wish everyone had left alone. If some Christian hardass doesn't want to make a website or bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, then fuck 'em. Just hire someone else. There's no need for random revenge. And it's not as if this kind of provincialism is so widespread that it makes it all but impossible for gay couples to buy a wedding website.
But I'm not gay and I'm not getting married, so that's easy for me to say. I get it. At the same time, it sure seems like it amps up the culture wars a lot in return for only a tiny, symbolic gain.
UPDATE: I initially wrote that the current Supreme Court case was about a baker and a cake. Needless to say, that was a case a few years ago. The case at hand today is about a website designer who doesn't want to create a website for a same-sex wedding.
I see that more classified documents have been found at Mar-a-Lago. By itself that's probably not a big deal, but you should read the whole story anyway. It's bonkers:
At one point, as Mr. Trump sought National Archives documents related to the investigation into whether his 2016 campaign conspired with Russian officials, he proposed that his lawyers suggest a trade with the agency: what he sought in exchange for the documents he had.
wtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtf. Maybe we should just hang Donald Trump upside down by his ankles and shake him to see what comes out.
Finally, about that attempted coup in Germany:
Prince Heinrich XIII of Reuss, a descendant of a 700-year-old noble family that once reigned over a tiny state in eastern Germany, was a relatively obscure figure — until Wednesday, when he was named as one of the leaders of a group accused of plotting to overthrow the German government.
So it wasn't just a hapless attempt at a coup, it was a hapless attempt at a monarchist coup. Of course it was. In fairness, though, I prefer weird farces like this to serious attempts at imposing fascism. Prince Heinrich is now my hero.
As others have pointed out elsewhere, nobody actually cares about the "bake a cake for a gay wedding", nor "set up a site for a gay wedding": there will be other options. Probably better options. The problem is when a gay couple travel someplace far away, arrive at their hotel with a reservation, and are turned away b/c they're gay, at 11pm.
That's the sort of thing that is in the offing. We'll need a "Pink Book".
Well, then what the heck are you doing fighting over a cake? You're about to lose the case because you chose something that most people are ambivalent about instead of something they're not. Well done.
I don't think they're going to lose the case because people are ambivalent about it. They're going to lose because six justices are eager to knock down discrimination laws.
In the case of the gay baker he refused to serve the couple before they asked for any particular design that he might find objectionable -- the refusal was based on the nature of the event (and by extension the couple's identity) rather than on any particular work they were requesting.
In the case of the gay wedding website, it's even worse. Nobody ever asked her to design a website for a gay wedding, so she didn't even have a chance to refuse service. She's the one that took the issue to court (no one sued her) to have Colorado's anti-discrimination law struck down. The Supreme Court should have never agreed to hear the case for insufficient ripeness.
The right is choosing these cases to try to make it seem like it's about creatives being forced to do things they find objectionable, yet in both they're essentially asking to be able to discriminate against a class of people before the work involved is even discussed. That opens the door to widespread discrimination.
I agree with you on the ridiculousness of this person getting heard by the supreme court. They would normally dismiss based on the plaintiff not having standing. That being said I disagree with your broader point. The issue becomes more apparent if you reverse things. What if the web developer was LGBTQ+ and the customer wanted an anti-gay marriage site. Should the web developer be forced to create the website? It's probably the clearest example of compelled speech I can think of. Regardless of how the law should be interpreted the plaintiff is still a bigot and people should take that into account when considering hiring her or socializing with her.
My cousin could truly receive money in their spare time on their laptop. their best friend had been doing this 4 only about 12 months and by now cleared the debt. in their mini mansion and bought a great Car.
That is what we do.. https://profitguru9.blogspot.com/
That's not the same thing. Not allowing a gay couple to check into a hotel would discriminate against a class of people (i.e. gays). That should clearly not be allowed. In the case of the cake and website, the vendors are not discriminating against a class of people, they are refusing to support gay marriage. Being against gay marriage doesn't imply discrimination against gay people. If the baker refused to make a birthday cake for someone because they are gay, that is discrimination and wrong. But being forced to make a cake celebrating the and event which they oppose is a different story.
I tend to agree about staying focused but this is not a case of the left picking unnecessary fights. The plaintiff is complaining that state law might force them to make a website for a gay wedding even through the plaintiff does not even do wedding websites. It’s purely theoretical.
And Kevin can't actually believe that if we didn't fight this that the fundagelicals would just say "Okay, that was our only objection. We're fine now." does he? They want to roll back all gay rights. This is just the start.
My cousin could genuinely get cash in their extra time on their PC. their dearest companion had been doing this 4 somewhere around a year and at this point cleared the obligation. in their smaller than usual house and purchased an extraordinary Vehicle.
That is our specialty. http://www.richsalaries55.blogspot.com/
Yeah, perhaps I’m the one who’s confused, but isn’t this case about a hypothetical web site and not a actual cake? And I understood it wasn’t brought forth by liberals but by some cristofascist types. What am I missing here?
Drum’s half assed attempt to create clickbait. He can’t even be bothered to get the current SC case right.
I'll give Kevin the benefit of the doubt: this post, and scores like it, are probably not intended as clickbait, but Kevin does revel in a certain smug contrariness. And is wrong 90% of the time. I do guarantee that he would take these matters much more seriously if it had a negative effect on affluent retired white guys in late middle age living in Orange County.
It is well established law (established mostly by the left, BTW) that a law, policy, or regulation that creates a chilling effect on speech can be challenged on its face with no need to have it actually enforced against anyone.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
If I understand correctly, the legal difference between the two cases is the website case is directed against a protected status (sexual preference) while the restaurant case is directed against a political position, which has no protection.
While I understand the logic, I don't think the restaurant's stand helps liberals.
Now do a restaurant that has a large black workforce that doesn’t want to serve the KKK or local Citizens’ Council dinner reservations in the late 1950s or early 1960s.
Political views aren't a protected category, so as long as the workforce was willing to serve some whites, they ought to have been okay.
/end of playing a lawyer/
"in the late 1950s or early 1960s"
Seriously? You have a working time machine and can go back and do that? Okay, let's save JFK's life; also MLK's. And make sure Al Gore becomes President in 2000.
Guaranteed to have the most novel ingredients in the salad dressing.
I’m pretty sure that scenario wouldn’t come up in real life for basically the same reason why a gay couple wouldn’t want to hire a wedding cake baker no matter how good her cakes were. Speaking for myself only, I try to stay on excellent terms with the people who handle my food.
>> Speaking for myself only, I try to stay on excellent terms with the people who handle my food.<<
No, you are also speaking for me on that subject.
Political discrimination is only banned in a few places like Seattle and DC.
Tryin to identify "legal differences" in cases being use by the SCOTUS religious fanatic majority's jihad to turn the US into the Republic of Gilead is, frankly, a mug's game.
I seriously doubt that will fly.
1. It is already well established that refusing to provide goods or services to a same sex marriage is discrimination against homosexuals because of the close connection between the activity (same sex marriage) and the protected status.
2. The Family Foundation is an explicitly faith based organization that opposes gay marriage for religious reasons. This is not a political position for them, it is a religious position. Indeed, given that current First Amendment law treats every faith, creed, sect, and idiosyncratic cult equally, the Family Foundation has a far better argument that their activities are fundamentally tied to their brand of religion than a gay person has claiming that same sex marriage is fundamentally tied to being homosexual - after all, many homosexuals do not get married or get married to opposite sex partners for social, family, or religious reasons.
3. The remaining question is whether the mandating activity is expressive.
a. It is very hard to claim that creating a web site with custom text and design is not expressive.
b. Most people would not consider serving people standard restaurant dishes and drinks an expressive activity. If it is an expressive activity then virtually every service (and it is hard to provide goods with no services - you have to ship - so goods too) is expressive.
On balance, I think Metzger Bar and Butchery loses fast and hard on this one. If they do not, the precedent would imply that a wedding venue can refuse to rent to same sex weddings, a flower company can refuse to produce even standard arrangements for a same sex wedding, a tuxedo rental store can refuse to rent tuxedos to the wedding, and, of course, a restaurant can refuse to host a dinner or reception for a same sex wedding.
Prince Heinrich just wants his stuff back, is that too much to ask?
So my family should demand our Bavarian Baronial title be restored 150 years later?
If it's just the title why not? The entertainment value could be endless.
You could hang it on your goldfish while you sip margaritas on the beach.
Secretly tattoo a heraldic crest on the cat so only people who know the secret will know where to look. Blazon it on cheese!
The worst that could happen is somebody from a remote Alpine village will appear with your grandfather's notes on how to revive the dead, and that would be fantastic!
I, for one, would be pleased to address you as The Baroness HokieAnnie
I think maybe he wants his stuff back but also a piece of everyone else’s stuff, too. I mean, the guy’s the pretender to the throne of someplace the size of Tarzana.
But, in fairness, the guy’s got style. Best dressed coup-plotter ever. Republicans could learn a lot from him.
"Name of the two smallest states of the German Confederation, which lie almost in the centre of Germany, east of Thuringia, on the western boundaries of the Kingdom of Saxony. Their united area is 440 sq. miles. "
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Reuss
So, about 20 by 20 miles; smaller than a township.
I don't know where you're from, but around here a township is a 6x6 mile square, 36 sq miles.
I personally think refusing service to customers because of their beliefs is generally bad and isn't politically helpful.
I also think that in a world where there's no anti-discrimination law, it hurts vulnerable minorities a lot more than it will ever hurt Christian, white, or right wing groups. There's a reason we have the protected classes we do -- because people discriminated against them. Christians are largely safe from the fallout.
This Court is trying to dismantle anti-discrimination law by making discrimination a part of free exercise. That's not good at all.
Frankly, the best reason to deny service to Evangelicals is they tend to be rude, demanding patrons while tipping terribly to not at all. I'm not kidding. I waited tables in Tennessee in high school. I still have a printed card left in lieu of tip hawking Jesus at me.
Sure Kevin, makes total sense. And then when they demand to not serve blacks at a diner, blacks should just go elsewhere, instead of making trouble. And then when they tell Jews to go live in certain neighborhoods, they should do that. Don't want to lose centrist votes. It's not like any of this has a historical precedent and we know how it will turn out. jfc smh
Serving blacks or Jews is not expressive.
A web designer should certainly be free to refuse a commission to design and write a site celebrating blackness or Jewishness or to provide his service for a Jewish ceremony that he thinks is idolatrous, blasphemous, or heretical.
For example, some Orthodox Jews would categorically refuse to provide any goods or services for a Reform Jewish wedding. They see it as a mockery of their religion, blasphemy, etc. They might have less problem providing goods or services for a Christian or Muslim wedding - nothing to do with them, not their problem, etc. I do wonder if it is right to find and prosecute such people.
Principality or weather map?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_County_of_Reuss
Ruritania, or Grand Fenwick?
A young Reuss Count, sent to the 1815 Congress of Vienna, is the protagonist of the 1899 operetta Wiener Blut and the 1942 film based on it. Much of the hilarity of the film centers around his impossible name of "Reuss-Schleiz-Greiz".
Now that's comedy!
I rather enjoyed this one. I hear church attendance is in the toilet.
“No one, of course, but I confess this whole cake fiasco is an issue I wish everyone had left alone.”
Huh?
You’d prefer that the issue of treating gay people as 2nd class citizens would be best left alone?
Really?
I’ll wait for you to correct your grievous misjudgment.
This is actually a big part of the issue.
You know the gay people can get a cake elsewhere. What you do not want to tolerate is the baker, the web designer, the florist saying publicly and to their faces "You are not my equal, you are an abomination, your marriage is a mockery of one of my faith's most important rituals, and you will burn in hell."
This really is about the message, not the inconvenience. And that directly impacts the First Amendment.
There's a huge difference between outright telling someone "no, I won't do that" and telling them "sure" then saying "nah, I changed my mind" 90 minutes prior to when people start showing up. If you're going to change your mind, you have to give sufficient notice. Leaving your clients scrambling for an alternative means you haven't done that. In fact, this could go to court and be summed up in three words: "Breach of Contract".
OTOH, if this is the New Normal for trolling, we can expect this sort of thing to happen both ways. "Sure I'll bake that cake!" "Nope I changed my mind, lolz." Beyond the "freedom of expression" issues, this is quite a slippery slope we are heading down.
A restaurant reservation isn’t a contract.
Close enough, especially if you don't want both sides doing this to each other.
As Leo1008 has said a few posts down...
"An eye for an eye: and soon enough the whole world is blind."
Did they search Ivana Trump's casket at Bedminster? I'm taking odds there is something besides his ex wife in there.
Ten men had trouble carrying the casket (apparently very heavy) that supposedly only had, at "best", a tin of ashes.
The facts of the 303 Creative case, with the Christian web designer, are bonkers. In fact, there is no case. No gay couple requested her services. Nobody got turned down for so-called religious reasons. It's all the equivalent of a thought experiment.
Slate:
When you first hear the facts of 303 Creative v. Elenis, you may be stirred to sympathy toward the plaintiff. According to her lawyers at Alliance Defending Freedom, Lorie Smith is just a humble website designer trying to make a living in accordance with her Christian beliefs. That means she must respectfully decline to create a wedding website for any same-sex couple, as such unions contradict her faith. Intolerant bureaucrats in Colorado are threatening to punish her for these deeply held beliefs. And so she has reluctantly asked the Supreme Court to shield her from this persecution.
That’s the story that ADF told the Supreme Court on Monday during oral arguments in 303 Creative. It’s the story that the court probably will adopt if it sides with Lorie Smith, as it very likely will. But it bears, at best, only a passing resemblance to the truth.</i?
The true origin story of 303 Creative is much less sympathetic than the lawyer-crafted narrative. Before this litigation, Lorie Smith appeared to be a normal website designer who advertised her services to all potential customers. In 2016, after ADF took her on as a client, she rebranded as a conservative Christian who channeled her faith in God through her work. Indeed, her revamped website included language seemingly finessed to transform her into a First Amendment test case, explaining that her “expressive content … communicate[s] ideas or messages.” Also worth noting: No same-sex couple has ever asked Smith to make them a wedding website; in fact, she has never made a wedding website for anyone. Her work to date focuses on local politicians, dog breeders, contractors, and houses of worship—not celebrations of life events. Nonetheless, ADF sued Colorado on Smith’s behalf in 2016, challenging a state law that bars anti-gay discrimination in public accommodations. Smith one day might be asked to make a same-sex couple’s website, ADF asserted. And when that day comes, she wants the right to say no.
The whole thing is worth reading.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/303-creative-gay-rights-free-speech-supreme-court.html
This is where they lose me (and, I suspect, many others as well):
“Many of our staff are women and/or members of the LGBTQ+ community. All of our staff are people with rights who deserve dignity and a safe work environment. We respect our staff’s established rights as humans and strive to create a work environment where they can do their jobs with dignity, comfort and safety.”
This statement simply does not establish sufficient damages. All of us, at some point in time (whether its in our own families, at our jobs, during school, or somewhere else) encounter people we don't like or disagree with. Quite often, in fact, we may encounter, or even be related to, people we find entirely reprehensible (for political, cultural, religious, or other related reasons).
And yet most of us, I believe, understand that we can't force the rest of the world to adapt itself entirely around our own personal beliefs, preferences, or identities. At best, we can maybe hope to maintain some kind of harmony in our own household. But even that effort, of course, will fail a lot of the time.
So putting up with people we believe or feel to be jerks is just a normal part of adult life. Refusing to engage with the world in that way simply comes off, in my view, as childish. It easily inflames right-wing caricatures of the Left as a bunch of "snowflakes." And it is obviously counter-productive.
If communities facing legitimate discrimination want to actually win public support, they will simply have to present a better case than "I don't feel safe around people who disagree with or don't like me."
Sure. Now apply that to the website designer bitch who was never asked by any LGBT person to design anything, probably because she’s never designed a wedding website ever in her life. Yet she’s suing to preserve her right to discriminate against LGBT people in the future should she ever feel like designing wedding websites.
That bitch didn’t establish any damages at all and yet she’s getting a Supreme Court ruling. If she can do that, a restaurant can boot out whomever it doesn’t want to serve too.
"If she can do that, a restaurant can boot out whomever it doesn’t want to serve too."
I believe you are correct that a private business, such as a restaurant, can indeed "boot out" whoever it wants to.
But I'm not talking about what they can do, I'm talking about what they should do.
And I don't think it's in any way productive to respond to one reductive perspective (on the part of the religious group that doesn't recognize same-sex marriages) with another reductive perspectives (on the part of the LGBT employees who will not associate with those they deem to be insufficiently progressive).
The restaurant had an opportunity here to portray what broadmindedness can look like in a religiously, ideologically, and culturally diverse society. They could have opened their doors even to those they vehemently disagree with and thereby made themselves look like the better people. Instead, they responded to narrow-minded pettiness with more narrow-minded pettiness.
An eye for an eye: and soon enough the whole world is blind.
Are you claiming that serving a meal and drinks is an expressive activity?
I actually think we should consider it that way.
For example, should an observant Hindu who believes cows are sacred and sharpens knives for a living be required to sharpen the knives of a Muslim who states he plans to use his knives to sacrifice a cow for Eid al Adha and therefore needs them super sharp?
But the law gives the Hindu no leeway - sharpening knives is an undifferentiated service with no expressive content.
Totally agree with you. Also, "safe" is one of the most misused words by the left (and sometimes the right). Did the restaurant have some indication this group was going to inflict physical violence on the staff? Just because you encounter someone with a different views than your own doe not mean you not "safe".
'An insult to me': Marjorie Taylor Greene says Herschel Walker's 'major mistake' was not using her,
https://www.rawstory.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-herschel-walker/
Oh, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Herschel Walker has never even heard of you.
I think if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the website designer, blue states should require all businesses that don’t want to serve gays (or any other group) to hang a sign outside their business stating this fact. Make them publicly own their bigotry. It’s not going to be a big selling point in most urban areas and even in many suburban areas - lots of regular people don’t want other people they know to see them walking into a store that says “No gays” or “no blacks.” Implicit bigotry may be cool but explicit bigotry is a big turn off for many people who like to think of themselves as “decent.”
Yep. And add a proviso that any advertising must bear the same Surgeon Generally warning.
+10
So... "Whites Only?" I'm old enough to have seen those signs...
Dude, the guy is clearly a catspaw for Vladimir Putin. The Prince is Reussian!
In the Netherlands in the 20th century there was verzuiling (pillarization), where people lived their entire lives in religiously exclusive spaces. Catholics not only went to Catholic churches, but to Catholic-owned stores, Catholic sports clubs, Catholic schools, etc. Protestants had their own pillar, as did the non-affiliated. The growth of the Muslim immigration population caused concerns as they, too, began to form a pillar.
Are we simply going to do that along political lines? We are sorting ourselves geographically, and there are some places that feel a bit pillarized (REI, Cracker Barrel, NASCAR, vegan restaurants), but will we take it further? Will every purchase or trip out require research, just to make sure that the puzzle room or corner gas station is part of my political sphere?
It does feel like that is going to be the future. I'm not sure how that will work in a country as diverse as this one. Will any restaurant serve Log Cabin Republicans? Will rural liberals have to get all their food delivered from afar?
I believe you still don't have this right. This case was about a website designer who didn't want to create a website for... some theoretical gay couple. Nobody asked for a website. The website designer planned to put a disclaimer on her site telling gay couples, in essence, to fuck off, but Colorado has an anti-discrimination law. So she filed a -preemptive- lawsuit. There are no facts in this case; nothing actually happened, no websites were forced to be gay against their will. If that's even a thing.
"
Maybewe should just hang Donald Trump upside down by his anklesand shake him to see what comes out."TIFIFY
Public accommodation laws specify particular protected classes where discrimination is illegal. In Colorado, the law specifically bars discrimination against gay people. I gather that there are a few jurisdictions that ban discrimination based on political beliefs, but Virginia is not one of them. So the cases really are different from a legal standpoint.
One aspect of the Colorado case that doesn't get emphasized enough is that "wedding website for a gay couple" issue is purely hypothetical. The website designer has never constructed a wedding website, may or may not decide to get into that business. No gay couple has asked to to create a website. Apparently, this was a conscious choice by the foundation that is funding the lawsuit. On one side you have a sympathetic, real-life person who feels wronged. On the other side there is no equally-sympathetic gay couple who's been denied service.
Is she refusing to make websites for gay people or refusing to make a website specifically for a gay marriage? I think there's a big difference between the two. One discriminates against a class of people and should not be allowed.
Both the restaurant and the site designer should be allowed to pick their customers. Yes - regardless of who they are.