Supreme Court debates website designer’s freedom of speech over same-sex marriage

Rather than go the free speech angle, why not go the angle that is already out there? Bookstores need not carry all books. They might not have pornography magazines for example. Or they might be a “Christian” bookstore. Anything you buy at the store has a Christian angle to it. So when you open a Christian wedding website hosting company, make it clear your pages are full of bible verses, hallelujahs, and Praise the Lords…

And if that doesn’t work, and the gay couple says they want a lot of Bible verses and hallelujahs, just do a bad job and offer to give them a refund when they reject it. Neither SCOTUS nor Colorado can require you to do a good job.

Does an anti-discrimination law like Colorado has, requiring a business to not discriminate based on religion or sex, require a Jewish-themed bookstore to order you a copy of MacArthur’s Romans commentary because you want to be a customer there? This seems to me to be the heart of the issue rather than all the other things brought up by both sides.

Further, can McDonald’s legally only carry Coke products? What if you want Pepsi? Looks like the same issue to me. In other words, does a business have to offer the full spectrum of products available, or can you limit them to one theme.

Mark, you’ve listed two options:

1. Put YOUR message on every site you make. Might work. But I would think that most couples don’t want their wedding web site to be a polemic against gay marriage. And you would have to be pretty explicit in order to make ‘homosexual christians’ not want your product.

2. Do a bad job for some people. I would hope that would bother the conscience. If you’re charging for a service you should do a good job. And really, it isn’t honest.

[Dan Miller]

Mark, you’ve listed two options:

1. Put YOUR message on every site you make. Might work. But I would think that most couples don’t want their wedding web site to be a polemic against gay marriage. And you would have to be pretty explicit in order to make ‘homosexual christians’ not want your product.

2. Do a bad job for some people. I would hope that would bother the conscience. If you’re charging for a service you should do a good job. And really, it isn’t honest.

Honesty- be direct. Tell them you do not affirm gay marriage. Tell them you are not the person for them. Any honest customer would leave and go to another vendor. My proposal is just to keep the progressive court off your back. You followed the letter of the law… and offered a full refund.

KBJ brought up a hypothetical regarding an IaWL photo shoot. Was KBJ arguing that it would be wrong to insist on white models for this shoot?

It is weird to think about this as a hypothetical - who is that big of a fan of IaWL?

If I wanted to do a photo shoot to depict the life of George Washington Carver, I would choose a black man to depict him. I’d insist.

Do you really think that those bringing thesr lawsuits are honest customers? Do you think that the state commission on human rights cares? How long should we continue to assume the ostrich position?

I realize that the preferred position of some is to apologize for ourselves and our beliefs and not take full advantage of constitutional protections. This attitude has led us precipitously to this point and will continue at breakneck speed. BTW, the slippery slope is more reality than fallacy.

This is a crystal clear first amendment issue. Fundamentally, can anyone, with the force of the government behind them, compel your speech?

I would hope that we all know the answer to that question. I have my doubts, unfortunately.

Do you really think that those bringing thesr lawsuits are honest customers?

FYI, I think this suit was not brought by a customer but by a designer as a preemptive suit. She wanted to know if she entered this category of design work, would she be penalized or prosecuted by the state.

You’re right, Larry. I’m also referring to the suits brought against Jack Phillips, dba Masterpiece Cake Shop.