I’m good with religious rights, but like ALL rights, they end when they attempt override the rights of others. What religious rights are you worried about losing?
So religious rights END the moment they suggest that someone shouldn’t exist or is somehow immoral. Glass houses and all.
You can practice your religion all you’d like, and I’ll practice mine, but the second you start “protesting pride” or something insane like that, you’ve crossed the foul line.
I don’t show up at your Sunday services to protest the existence of the Catholic church for the same reason (or mosques, temples etc…)
So! If your religion is against abortion, that’s fine, don’t get one! But your religion shouldn’t dictate what I can do, that’s over the foul line.
This part, right here. I’d never want anyone’s religious freedoms infringed on, that’s not how that’s supposed to work but someone’s religious freedoms can’t infringe on others’ rights and freedoms. There’s supposed to be a separation of church and state because of this. One’s beliefs are PERSONAL to oneself and using those beliefs to dictate how others should live is wrong. Full stop.
One of the major cases ruled on which this article no doubt references (it is behind a paywall app I can’t read it) is the case where a web designer was being sued for refusing to make a pride site.
That’s overriding the rights of the designer, who would have been compelled to express and associate themselves something they do not agree with.
Religious rights are free speech rights. You don’t get to force people to not say or believe something just because you disagree with it. That goes true in reverse as well.
Nothing is stopping you from going to a church and protesting its existence. That’s completely legal and part of your free expression rights. At the same time however you don’t get to dictate what they can and can’t say either.
Okay so we will ignore That this case was built upon entirely fabricated lies. (The people in question entirely deny any such request being made)
I can understand the “forced speech“ argument, but there needs to be some limits there. I mean if I build a website for someone, I don’t need to put my name on it nor my logo or anything, so I don’t really have to be THAT associated with it. What if this were a racist or antisemitic case? Same idea, but I refused to make a cake for a black or Jewish person (or some other obviously bigoted reason)
Where do we set the reasonable limits? Or can I just post a sign on my web design or cake shop saying that I refuse to serve black folks?
Your racism example is a perfect example. No one is forcing you to give them a platform.
We need to remember that cases like this are important in setting future legal precedence. If it becomes okay to force religious people to make LGBT speech, then legally a case could be made that we need to give platforms to people like nazis or pedophiles.
Well, no, because making a wedding cake supporting a marriage is inherently different from making a cake supporting a hate group. One is about bringing people together, the other is about dividing them. Also, LGBTQ* people don’t choose their sexuality, it’s an inalienable part of who they are. Nazis choose to be Nazis. Some might be raised in it, so it’s all they know, but it’s something they can change about themselves. Someone who is bisexual is pretty much always going to be bisexual. It’s the same reason we don’t discriminate on the basis on skin color: it’s something the person can’t control about themselves and has no bearing on who they are except to the degree society has made it so. A religion discriminating on the basis of race or sexuality doesn’t mean it’s okay to do so. Christians also used to believe in child marriage, but guess what? Times have changed.
Additionally, just because it’s speech doesn’t mean it’s equal in what it’s doing nor does it mean that it should be treated the same. Ignoring that this case probably shouldn’t be used as precedent because the underlying facts are made up (also showing how disingenuous the argument is), there’s a difference between saying you can’t choose to deny business to someone because of who they are (LBGTQ*) versus saying you can choose not to do business with someone over their opinion (Nazi).
You don’t seem to understand. Free speech is fundamental. If you make it so hate groups can’t express themselves you open up precedent to making it so LGBT people can’t express themselves.
If you force people to platforming LGBT speech against their beliefs, it opens the legal argument that you need to give a platform to hate groups as well.
This is about precedent, not morals. That’s how free speech is codified in America. It is not like Europe where you can pick and choose what’s legal.
I mean, I honestly have never met a “free speech absolutist” that was any different than musk. “Free speech absolutist unless I don’t like you posting it and then I’ll flip sides because my original position was a convenient lie”
HOWEVER, it’s fairly well supported that a tolerant society MUST NOT tolerate intolerance. So we MUST not tolerate any view that a particular group of people shouldn’t exist (with the obvious exceptions of other intolerance)
The paradox of tolerance is on Wikipedia if you’d like a read.
Free speech is not absolute, there are exceptions. And the government can’t really stop hate speech until it crosses a certain threshold. Also, the fictional gay couple in the case in question was literally denied a platform and your argument has no internal logic, so I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say. Saying you can’t discriminate against gay people is not the same as saying you should be forced to build websites for Nazis. To argue otherwise is disingenuous.
It is currently illegal to refuse service based on race. I can’t have a sign in my shop that says “no blacks”
Do you believe the I should be allowed to refuse service based on racism?
Because that’s where the reasonableness argument comes in. I can refuse service to you for any reason I want EXCEPT specific protected reasons (handicap, race, etc)
You seem to be making the argument that I should be allowed to post a sign saying “no blacks” and such signs once existed…
If someone black asked you to make a black supremacy website, you can turn them away because you don’t agree with their views, not because of their race. That’s not discrimination, that’s expressing your free speech rights via choosing who and what you associate with.
If I don’t agree with making an LGBT themed cake or website, it is legal so long as I’m willing to make any other cake/website for them. (I’m LGBT myself, mind you, but that’s beside the point).
Now if you make it so a Christian must make an LGBT themed creation for an LGBT person, then you are setting precedence that a Christian can go to an LGBT run business and force them to create something offensive to LGBT people.
Remember, free speech protects all speech, not just morally correct speech. Even literal nazis have a right to free expression. What people do not have a right to is a platform. You can’t force groups or people to give platform to views they do not agree with, that’s a violation of their first amendment rights.
Nobody asked if you’re lgbtq because it doesn’t matter. You keep professing it like it buys you credibility, but nobody is buying that you are a part of that group. It’s classic “as a black man, I think racism is okay” type of garbage. You reveal your true colours too easily.
But you’re again twisting the argument.
“Black supremacy” would again be about hatred and “intolerance” much like “white supremacy”
We cannot tolerate intolerance.
Free speech has limits, and you’re making a bad faith argument that it shouldn’t. We both know that you shouldn’t be allowed to yell “bomb” in an airport, just as you aren’t allowed to “lie under oath” nor allowed to say “I won’t serve you dinner because you’re handicapped” or “I won’t make you a cake because you are black”
So I’m done with the debate, you’ve moved to bad faith arguments because you just care about winning.
You win. Have a nice day.
A web designer is not a church. And a wedding is a wedding. Same sex marriage is legal in the US, and we can assume that most same sex couples who want to get married will want to have a wedding, whether it’s religious or secular, and that’s their protected right to do so.
Your argument makes sense for a church to pick and choose who they perform weddings for, because that’s their religious freedom as a religious institution. And the couple should choose a church that wants to support them. A same sex couple can go to a different church and have a religious ceremony by a different Christian pastor who believes in and supports their right to get married.
But a web designer is not a religion - it’s a service being provided for a wedding, which happens to be for a same sex couple, i.e. a wedding for a legal marriage between two people of a protected class.
So the web designer should just exercise their right to not be in the fucking wedding business if they have a problem with weddings.
Okay I’ll bite….
I’m good with religious rights, but like ALL rights, they end when they attempt override the rights of others. What religious rights are you worried about losing?
So religious rights END the moment they suggest that someone shouldn’t exist or is somehow immoral. Glass houses and all.
You can practice your religion all you’d like, and I’ll practice mine, but the second you start “protesting pride” or something insane like that, you’ve crossed the foul line.
I don’t show up at your Sunday services to protest the existence of the Catholic church for the same reason (or mosques, temples etc…)
So! If your religion is against abortion, that’s fine, don’t get one! But your religion shouldn’t dictate what I can do, that’s over the foul line.
This part, right here. I’d never want anyone’s religious freedoms infringed on, that’s not how that’s supposed to work but someone’s religious freedoms can’t infringe on others’ rights and freedoms. There’s supposed to be a separation of church and state because of this. One’s beliefs are PERSONAL to oneself and using those beliefs to dictate how others should live is wrong. Full stop.
One of the major cases ruled on which this article no doubt references (it is behind a paywall app I can’t read it) is the case where a web designer was being sued for refusing to make a pride site.
That’s overriding the rights of the designer, who would have been compelled to express and associate themselves something they do not agree with.
Religious rights are free speech rights. You don’t get to force people to not say or believe something just because you disagree with it. That goes true in reverse as well.
Nothing is stopping you from going to a church and protesting its existence. That’s completely legal and part of your free expression rights. At the same time however you don’t get to dictate what they can and can’t say either.
Okay so we will ignore That this case was built upon entirely fabricated lies. (The people in question entirely deny any such request being made)
I can understand the “forced speech“ argument, but there needs to be some limits there. I mean if I build a website for someone, I don’t need to put my name on it nor my logo or anything, so I don’t really have to be THAT associated with it. What if this were a racist or antisemitic case? Same idea, but I refused to make a cake for a black or Jewish person (or some other obviously bigoted reason)
Where do we set the reasonable limits? Or can I just post a sign on my web design or cake shop saying that I refuse to serve black folks?
What then? Where are the reasonable limits?
Your racism example is a perfect example. No one is forcing you to give them a platform.
We need to remember that cases like this are important in setting future legal precedence. If it becomes okay to force religious people to make LGBT speech, then legally a case could be made that we need to give platforms to people like nazis or pedophiles.
Well, no, because making a wedding cake supporting a marriage is inherently different from making a cake supporting a hate group. One is about bringing people together, the other is about dividing them. Also, LGBTQ* people don’t choose their sexuality, it’s an inalienable part of who they are. Nazis choose to be Nazis. Some might be raised in it, so it’s all they know, but it’s something they can change about themselves. Someone who is bisexual is pretty much always going to be bisexual. It’s the same reason we don’t discriminate on the basis on skin color: it’s something the person can’t control about themselves and has no bearing on who they are except to the degree society has made it so. A religion discriminating on the basis of race or sexuality doesn’t mean it’s okay to do so. Christians also used to believe in child marriage, but guess what? Times have changed.
Additionally, just because it’s speech doesn’t mean it’s equal in what it’s doing nor does it mean that it should be treated the same. Ignoring that this case probably shouldn’t be used as precedent because the underlying facts are made up (also showing how disingenuous the argument is), there’s a difference between saying you can’t choose to deny business to someone because of who they are (LBGTQ*) versus saying you can choose not to do business with someone over their opinion (Nazi).
You don’t seem to understand. Free speech is fundamental. If you make it so hate groups can’t express themselves you open up precedent to making it so LGBT people can’t express themselves.
If you force people to platforming LGBT speech against their beliefs, it opens the legal argument that you need to give a platform to hate groups as well.
This is about precedent, not morals. That’s how free speech is codified in America. It is not like Europe where you can pick and choose what’s legal.
Free speech absolutist I see.
I mean, I honestly have never met a “free speech absolutist” that was any different than musk. “Free speech absolutist unless I don’t like you posting it and then I’ll flip sides because my original position was a convenient lie”
HOWEVER, it’s fairly well supported that a tolerant society MUST NOT tolerate intolerance. So we MUST not tolerate any view that a particular group of people shouldn’t exist (with the obvious exceptions of other intolerance)
The paradox of tolerance is on Wikipedia if you’d like a read.
Free speech is not absolute, there are exceptions. And the government can’t really stop hate speech until it crosses a certain threshold. Also, the fictional gay couple in the case in question was literally denied a platform and your argument has no internal logic, so I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say. Saying you can’t discriminate against gay people is not the same as saying you should be forced to build websites for Nazis. To argue otherwise is disingenuous.
It really is a great example!!!
But you sidestepped the question.
It is currently illegal to refuse service based on race. I can’t have a sign in my shop that says “no blacks”
Do you believe the I should be allowed to refuse service based on racism?
Because that’s where the reasonableness argument comes in. I can refuse service to you for any reason I want EXCEPT specific protected reasons (handicap, race, etc)
You seem to be making the argument that I should be allowed to post a sign saying “no blacks” and such signs once existed…
Thoughts?
If someone black asked you to make a black supremacy website, you can turn them away because you don’t agree with their views, not because of their race. That’s not discrimination, that’s expressing your free speech rights via choosing who and what you associate with.
If I don’t agree with making an LGBT themed cake or website, it is legal so long as I’m willing to make any other cake/website for them. (I’m LGBT myself, mind you, but that’s beside the point).
Now if you make it so a Christian must make an LGBT themed creation for an LGBT person, then you are setting precedence that a Christian can go to an LGBT run business and force them to create something offensive to LGBT people.
Remember, free speech protects all speech, not just morally correct speech. Even literal nazis have a right to free expression. What people do not have a right to is a platform. You can’t force groups or people to give platform to views they do not agree with, that’s a violation of their first amendment rights.
Do you plan on answering the actual questions they’ve been asking you at some point or are you going to keep answering stuff they didn’t ask?
Nobody asked if you’re lgbtq because it doesn’t matter. You keep professing it like it buys you credibility, but nobody is buying that you are a part of that group. It’s classic “as a black man, I think racism is okay” type of garbage. You reveal your true colours too easily.
But you’re again twisting the argument. “Black supremacy” would again be about hatred and “intolerance” much like “white supremacy” We cannot tolerate intolerance.
Free speech has limits, and you’re making a bad faith argument that it shouldn’t. We both know that you shouldn’t be allowed to yell “bomb” in an airport, just as you aren’t allowed to “lie under oath” nor allowed to say “I won’t serve you dinner because you’re handicapped” or “I won’t make you a cake because you are black”
So I’m done with the debate, you’ve moved to bad faith arguments because you just care about winning. You win. Have a nice day.
A web designer is not a church. And a wedding is a wedding. Same sex marriage is legal in the US, and we can assume that most same sex couples who want to get married will want to have a wedding, whether it’s religious or secular, and that’s their protected right to do so.
Your argument makes sense for a church to pick and choose who they perform weddings for, because that’s their religious freedom as a religious institution. And the couple should choose a church that wants to support them. A same sex couple can go to a different church and have a religious ceremony by a different Christian pastor who believes in and supports their right to get married.
But a web designer is not a religion - it’s a service being provided for a wedding, which happens to be for a same sex couple, i.e. a wedding for a legal marriage between two people of a protected class.
So the web designer should just exercise their right to not be in the fucking wedding business if they have a problem with weddings.