US Supreme Court sides with Christian graphic designer who refused to create same-sex wedding website

[SerendipityJane]

Not sure quite what this means. None of us approves of forced speech, and yet ?

https://news.sky.com/story/us-supreme-court-sides-with-christian-graphic-designer-who-refused-to-create-same-sex-wedding-website-12912559

I'm homosexual. I'm fine with people choosing whether or not they want to involve themselves in or celebrate homosexuality. Capacity for respecting others' beliefs intact and working. There's then plenty of market for graphic designers who do don't find homosexuality conflicts with their beliefs.

I certainly wouldn't accept a contract requiring me to celebrate child transition or excluding women from women's spaces to permit men to have more choice for example.

Is this essentially any different to the wedding cake ruling in Northern Ireland?

I think this judgment is correct. A website isn't an essential service and there must be other options. You can design your own website.
If she was refusing to sell them a computer or book a restaurant just because they were homosexual, that would be different. But this involves her personally.

I'm all for people sometimes being able to refuse to be involved in what they see as unethical activity.

But say, I would be a lot less happy about a company that owned a lot of advertising billboards being able to pick and choose which political parties it wanted to work with.

This is a piss-poor article that doesn't mention the crucial fact about this case, which is that nobody actually asked this person to create a same-sex wedding website. This entire proceeding was about a made-up hypothetical case, and I gather it's extremely unusual for SCOTUS to accept to hear something like this. Basically, the whole thing was engineered by "conservative" legal strategists because bona fide previous cases hadn't yielded quite the desired results (reasoning in the judgment too narrow for their purposes, etc.)

As an aside, and a long-time bug bear, it's also piss-poor journalism to use the euphemism "Christian" when what is meant is "right-wing evangelical" and excluding the actual majority of moderate, non-batshit members of mainline denominations. It's a colonialism use of language that sadly the US media have swallowed hook, line and sinker, but I'm really disappointed to see it used by a British site which probably cut and pasted the article wholesale.

Sexual orientation is not a protected class in the US. As it has gone through the Supreme Court it sets precedent for other businesses to refuse to accept members of the LGBTQ community as clients. A doctor could refuse to treat someone with an STI as they contracted it via gay sex, an obstetrician could refuse to treat a lesbian who is pregnant via IVF or artificial insemination as they don't agree with how the baby will be brought up. In a city there are other options for providers, in rural areas it is very different. There could be one dentist or doctor for 50 miles.

This has serious ramifications.

As an aside, and a long-time bug bear, it's also piss-poor journalism to use the euphemism "Christian" when what is meant is "right-wing evangelical" and excluding the actual majority of moderate, non-batshit members of mainline denominations.

A long-time bug beat of mine is when posters use ‘evangelical’ to mean republican and ignoring the fact that a lot of evangelical churches (especially in the UK) are left wing.

Sexual orientation is not a protected class in the US. As it has gone through the Supreme Court it sets precedent for other businesses to refuse to accept members of the LGBTQ community as clients. A doctor could refuse to treat someone with an STI

I think it depends on the state whether sexual orientation is protected.

The precedent is about "expressive activity", so it's unlikely that it can apply to medical treatment.

Personally I doubt that being forced to design something is really being "compelled to speak", so I'm not sure I like the technical reasoning here.

However you can certainly make a distinction between refusing service to a gay person because they are gay, and refusing them (or anyone else) service because you don't want to be involved in a particular kind of activity. So if a straight person turns up and asks for a custom made gay wedding cake for a family member, they are also getting refused service because it's about the "unethical" activity.

Do you have some reason to think these rulings would apply in that way, because frankly I don't really see how they could.

I for one would always want a doctor to treat a child no matter how it was conceived, but I wouldn't want one compelled to be involved in surrogacy arrangements, Which could involve a few complicated questions, but that doesn't mean they don't need to be addressed.

Personally I doubt that being forced to design something is really being "compelled to speak", so I'm not sure I like the technical reasoning here.

Because the efficacy of the message depends entirely on your input, and it means you're forced to choose between your professional integrity (doing the best job you can possibly do, furthering your own career, etc) and your personal beliefs.

It's compelling a person to use their creative and persuasive skills to promote something they fundamentally disagree with, and the better the job they do, the more effectively the message they fundamentally disagree with gets disseminated to others.

If I were forced to use my professional skills to directly promote ideas that strongly conflicted with my most fundamental beliefs with no option to leave my job, I would wonder what kind of society this is.

"Because the efficacy of the message depends entirely on your input"

But you don't have to come up with arguments for something you disagree with. You don't have to write the rhetoric.

You just need to make a website look pretty or functional or whatever.

That's only a small part of the "efficacy of the message", and nothing is stopping you making another website to attack the message. No one would assume you necessarily agree with the message just because you worked on website design.

Would you be forced to participate in something you find unethical? Yes, sure.

But forced to speak? Seems questionable imo.

The design of a website can't be an insignificant part of the efficacy of the message, though, or why would people pay for it, or approach any particular person to do it? A good designer engages with the message or aims of the people/organisation commissioning it, so that they can support those aims or that message. It's horrible that this woman and her church are homophobic, but you can't force her to feel differently. Why would you want anyone who despised you to design your website anyway? What if a homophobic church wanted you to design a website that proudly proclaimed their illiberal views? (Assuming that's not illegal in that state.) Do you think you should be forced to do so? Would you be happy about them splitting hairs about whether it was participation or speech?

I think it depends on the state whether sexual orientation is protected.

It also depends on what the issue is. The Supreme Court case establishing the right to same sex marriage was based on equal protection principles so in that sense sexual orientation was recognized as a protected class nationwide. My concern is that the present court will overturn that decision as they have overturned abortion rights.

I'm torn on this one.

What's the difference between a Christian baker turning down a commission for a wedding cake saying "I support gay marriage"...and a TRA type venue turning down a GC talk to be held there?

It's always useful to consider the opposite of the scenario you think others should put up with.

As a self-employed web designer, would you be content to be required to accept a commission to design a website for a church challenging gay rights, or a pro-life group, or a trans rights organization, or whatever things are dearest to your heart?

It depends on how you define TRA venue?
Are you talking about a place that is solely for TRAs or a public place that would have LBGTQ+?

A public place open to all. Are we saying this is the difference...a private contractor like a baker, web designer, artist etc can "reasonably" say thanks but no thanks to a commission involving a message that they heartfelt disagree with?

But a public venue cannot "bar entry" to those with attitudes that the management take exception to?

So, a pub could "reasonably" bar the meeting of a Helen Joyce meet if the management and staff were unanimously TRA in outlook?

Not particularly. Similarly, should we decry a pub turning down a GC event if the guvnor is TRA in attitude?

It was proved a couple of weeks back that a public place could not bar a person with differing views to them as it would be discriminatory but they could ban them on the grounds of it being unsafe.
However its its private then you can refuse service.

Like @RealityFan I'm torn on this.

I suppose (getting off the fence slightly) I might say that creative work is a bit different to a "renting out a meeting room" type of business. In the sense that producing something creative necessarily needs you to "give" something of yourself to the process, IYSWIM? So asking somebody to create something they fundamentally disagree with is asking them for a part of themselves?

Disclaimer: I don't work in a creative-type job so maybe I'm talking out of my posterior.

Yes, but if you had a spare venue space, and DQSH wanted to hold a Queer The Infants! event, would you be happy to allow them to hold it? Especially if you're known as the local GC witch, running Down With Intersectional Politics and A Man Is A Man Is A Man events otherwise.

I mean it's your name and reputation above the door.

Good point... I'm just going to climb right back onto this here fence...

Normally I'm at one with Helen Joyce, but here, not so sure. She's good with this verdict, and I am generally, but I still can't see how she would then object to a DQSH supporting Dog And Duck pub telling her to begone if she wanted to host a launch of a GC book in this pub.

Or maybe she wouldn't.

In this country (UK) I think you would have to let them (assuming queer theory was a protected belief, or at least not officially declared not WORIADS) provided every aspect was legal and covered by your insurers. If you could make a child safeguarding case perhaps you could refuse on those grounds. I don't think your name being above the door and your extra activities would make a difference, because ultimately all you are doing is renting them a room.
At any rate, if you refused, I don't think it could be because you disapproved. Not explicitly stated, anyway. IANAL.

Yes, but a Christian baker CAN say he won't bake a "I love gay marriage" message?

And a TRA baker CAN say he won't bake a "Men can't become women" message?