As a firefighter/paramedic for better than a quarter century, I never once asked the religion or sexual orientation of anyone about to get an IV, medication, etc. because of my religious beliefs, or lack there of.
IMO these cases are leading in that direction, but I see a bright line between essential, often publicly funded services and non-essential services like cake baking and website design -- although the bright line dulls and even disappears when a non-essential service is the only one available in a given area. My web designer could be anywhere, though I like to buy as local as I can. Baked goods, especially elaborate baked goods like wedding cakes, are not so portable.
I wonder sometimes about the motivation behind these suits. As a lesbian and a feminist, I would not patronize a company that was explicitly homophobic, misogynist, racist, and/or antisemitic. (Fwiw, I'm a regular customer of web-related services but have never needed a cake baked to order.) That goes double for any service that involves creativity: do I want my wedding or birthday cake baked by a bigot?
It's just the self-righteous virtue signaling of the thing. It's perpetuating misinformation and hatreds. I want to ask that pious woman if she would offer her web services to child molesters. If so, is she aware that the majority of molesters are heterosexual married men? And of those, disproportionately skewed to practitioners of fundamentalist Christianity in which men are given dominion over women and children? Is she aware that lesbian couples are the least likely to participate in domestic violence? Is she aware that the few Bible verses that mention sodomy refer to males and do not mention women at all? (I think the Evangelicals have updated the King James bible, however.) Will she offer web services to blasphemers, liars, fornicators, or any other violators of the 10 Commandments? Of course she would. Because if she didn't, she would have no business at all. Freedom of religion means one's right to worship in private; not to enforce one's beliefs on anyone else. Otherwise one is practicing authoritarianism or a novel form of elitism.
Really? I'm a freelance editor. I don't have to advertise; my new clients come by referral or word of mouth, so they generally have an idea of what my skills and interests are. But if someone approached me and asked me to edit a paper or a book that promoted racist and/or misogynist views, I would say no. Is that just "self-righteous virtue signaling"?
The self-righteous virtue signaling resides in going to court to force a decision on whether or not a business can reject classes of people whom they argue violate the business owner's personal or religious beliefs.
The odd thing about this case is that it seems to have been manufactured by the right-wing Alliance for Defending Freedom and doesn't have all that much to do with the plaintiff. Mark Joseph Stern's account in _Slate_ explains how it came about, and is worth reading in its entirety, but here's a key part of it:
"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." [Emphasis mine]
I have found in calling, I usually get to talk to a person in district offices. When it's usually an answering machine in DC. I also call senators and reps in other states, give them my name and a short message. Of the probably 100 calls I made, I have only been asked for my address 3 times. To those who told me they did not take calls from nonvoters, I said, "Oh I'm sorry. I thought she/he was a US Senator." Only voters... so self-serving!
My hunch is that the staffer misspoke. It's pretty common that elected officials prioritize calls from constituents, especially on high-call issues, so the staffer may have meant people who don't vote in the legislator's state or district.
As everyone can see, I am a woman of color. I don't want to spend my money with racist. I'm just saying! I spend my money with the people who are serving everyone and appreciate all Americans. The last time I looked, money is green.
It’s sad to feel like we’re standing on a backward treadmill with this SCOTUS, spinning us back fifty years. Bigotry has always existed in America but our principles - that all are created equal and entitled to equal rights and freedom from persecution. But when/if the highest court entertain otherwise, they inflame hatred and intolerance and it is indeed a slippery slope. Thank you again for keeping us informed and calling us all to be activists against these threats.
I'm fairly confident that in California our Democratic Reps. and Senators in Sacramento and in Congress are on the side of the Rule of Law..However, I will be reaching out to all of the Republican members to see to it that they make a public statement as to their position on this insane notion of ripping up the Constitution and kicking Joe Biden to the curb on Pennsylvania Ave..
I am a resident of Los Angeles, have been most of my life, but for 9yrs in the '80s while living in NY..I retired in the spring of 2018 after 23yrs as an AFL-CIO International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees I.A.T.S.E. Local 600 Still Photographer.. We are a diverse group politically I will give you that..but anti-union? Perhaps when you say "the southern part of CA" you are referring to the San Diego and vicinity area..
Coastal San Diego and other coastal areas in Southern California lean strongly blue; it's when one goes east in SD Co. and other counties east of the coast, that one encounters the more conservative, likely Republican, electorate. In San Diego County, we have elected numerous Democrats to both Houses of Congress and to the California legislature. However, that lean Republican has been changing (with the exception of the 50th Congressional District) and even Orange County - long a Republican stronghold - has now twice elected a Democratic Congressional Representative, the second time by a wide margin.
Something that has been playing out in Georgia and beyond in Republican constituencies is the blind leading the blind following of anyone with a R after their name and voting for them regardless of their fitness for office..I will admit that I am paying more attention the last few cycles and can't speak to this more broadly..But I don't see the same thing on the Democratic side of things, in terms of the fitness for office..Herschel Walker, Doug Mastriano and Kari Lake are perfect examples..What happened in the Senate race in Ohio is telling of the lack of critical thinking in the constituency..However, perhaps I am not looking in the right places, or don't know how to tell..
I hadn’t thought a case would come along that I would lose more sleep over than Dobbs. I am a doc who cares for high risk pregnancies for a living, so Dobbs was a very big deal to me, and to the women I take care of. But I find myself even more worried about Moore v. Harper. Would it be hyperbolic to say that this case could be a nail in the coffin of American democracy?
While young Iranians draw a line in the sand for freedom. Let’s exchange freedom-haters here for enthusiastic young people there! Trump would be right at home.
The politicization of SCOTUS, hearing a case based on a theory you described as “bunk” and “nonsensical”, seems to me to be the issue. What “serious issues” could SCOTUS’ extremist bloc have seen in this case?
Thinking further that this case is about originalism gone mad, the Elections Clause being subject to a fantasy that conveniently suits right wing obsession with power and the ability of states to circumvent being part of the union of states, thus subject to Federal legislative and judicial authority.
There are religious sects, denominations, and cults attempting to justify just about every imaginable form of human behavior. (The Bible, for example, along with various interpretations of Christianity, was used to justify slavery in the old south.) If a person does business in this country, they do so under the protection and in compliance with the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Discrimination against any group based on religious beliefs violates a fundamental basis of our society.
I'm not waitng to hear from any elected official regarding Trump's desire to end Constitutional government. Their silence has spoken for them. They are complicit.
On ABC This Week Rep David Joyce said re Trump “He says a lot of things...” .. “And I can’t be really chasing every one of these crazy statements that come out about from any of theses candidates...” Sounds like the GOP doesn’t want to babysit their own. They must solve this problem whether they like it or not.
this is a tangential issue, tied to the uproar over trump having dinner with Nick Fuentes and Kanye West. Joyce, I am wondering if your extensive experience interacting with the press might yield some insight.
So far, the reported concerns have focused on Fuentes' clear championing of white supremacy and antisemitism, which should be called out.
The videos of this man ranting in various settings have also included a vicious streak of sexism. His comments re: what he feels should be done to the rights and bodies of women are vile and direct incitement to violence against women.
I am disturbed by the repeated deletion of virulent sexism in reporter and commentator descriptions of why the dinner guests are so disturbing, and how they amplify trump's already demonstrated dangerous traits. Insights on why this happens, and perhaps how to nudge the press to expand their focus would be welcome.
Agree. Fuentes advocates taking away the right to vote from women, and has “joked” about domestic violence (essentially saying it’s OK if women get “out of line.”) All of his views are vile, and ALL of them should be called out.
Hi Joyce. I certainly don’t want the power of my vote to be diluted. Will we be able to hear the argument this week in Moore v Harper? Is gerrymandering ever bipartisan? It appears to be a political tool plain and simple. And New York got gerrymandered that clearly favored Republicans in the recent midterms and completely threw off the democratic hold in the state. I’m not really clear on this issue. Also re 303, is the law regulated solely by the state? I would think there would be a general law regarding serving the public that would have to be bipartisan. Enjoy your week. I’ve got a lot to learn this week. Enjoyed your 100th episode on your Sisters in Law
Many thanks for getting me focused is week, Joyce! To me, Moore v Harper is critical to our constitutional democracy; and, as a Veteran, I view ISL theory as an existential threat to the freedoms that so many have fought and died for. ISL can not be allowed to nullify our votes/freedoms and take us down the path to "autocracy of both the classes and the masses" as the Preamble to the Constitution of the American Legion has pledged to combat. I've expressed my concerns to both the American Legion and my elected leaders in Idaho. Like the rest of you, I'm waiting.
As a firefighter/paramedic for better than a quarter century, I never once asked the religion or sexual orientation of anyone about to get an IV, medication, etc. because of my religious beliefs, or lack there of.
Will the court allow that in the future?!?
IMO these cases are leading in that direction, but I see a bright line between essential, often publicly funded services and non-essential services like cake baking and website design -- although the bright line dulls and even disappears when a non-essential service is the only one available in a given area. My web designer could be anywhere, though I like to buy as local as I can. Baked goods, especially elaborate baked goods like wedding cakes, are not so portable.
I wonder sometimes about the motivation behind these suits. As a lesbian and a feminist, I would not patronize a company that was explicitly homophobic, misogynist, racist, and/or antisemitic. (Fwiw, I'm a regular customer of web-related services but have never needed a cake baked to order.) That goes double for any service that involves creativity: do I want my wedding or birthday cake baked by a bigot?
It's just the self-righteous virtue signaling of the thing. It's perpetuating misinformation and hatreds. I want to ask that pious woman if she would offer her web services to child molesters. If so, is she aware that the majority of molesters are heterosexual married men? And of those, disproportionately skewed to practitioners of fundamentalist Christianity in which men are given dominion over women and children? Is she aware that lesbian couples are the least likely to participate in domestic violence? Is she aware that the few Bible verses that mention sodomy refer to males and do not mention women at all? (I think the Evangelicals have updated the King James bible, however.) Will she offer web services to blasphemers, liars, fornicators, or any other violators of the 10 Commandments? Of course she would. Because if she didn't, she would have no business at all. Freedom of religion means one's right to worship in private; not to enforce one's beliefs on anyone else. Otherwise one is practicing authoritarianism or a novel form of elitism.
Really? I'm a freelance editor. I don't have to advertise; my new clients come by referral or word of mouth, so they generally have an idea of what my skills and interests are. But if someone approached me and asked me to edit a paper or a book that promoted racist and/or misogynist views, I would say no. Is that just "self-righteous virtue signaling"?
The self-righteous virtue signaling resides in going to court to force a decision on whether or not a business can reject classes of people whom they argue violate the business owner's personal or religious beliefs.
The odd thing about this case is that it seems to have been manufactured by the right-wing Alliance for Defending Freedom and doesn't have all that much to do with the plaintiff. Mark Joseph Stern's account in _Slate_ explains how it came about, and is worth reading in its entirety, but here's a key part of it:
"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." [Emphasis mine]
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/303-creative-gay-rights-free-speech-supreme-court.html
This situation is nuts.
It’s optional wherever I’ve lived, except on the Rez.
I have found in calling, I usually get to talk to a person in district offices. When it's usually an answering machine in DC. I also call senators and reps in other states, give them my name and a short message. Of the probably 100 calls I made, I have only been asked for my address 3 times. To those who told me they did not take calls from nonvoters, I said, "Oh I'm sorry. I thought she/he was a US Senator." Only voters... so self-serving!
I have experience the same thing. If you are not in my zone, go to who represents you!
Hello, our tax dollars pays all of the Representatives.
My hunch is that the staffer misspoke. It's pretty common that elected officials prioritize calls from constituents, especially on high-call issues, so the staffer may have meant people who don't vote in the legislator's state or district.
Always thought that religion was for humans not corporations. If you’re a business, you have to open the doors.
As everyone can see, I am a woman of color. I don't want to spend my money with racist. I'm just saying! I spend my money with the people who are serving everyone and appreciate all Americans. The last time I looked, money is green.
I’m ready for the news onslaught this week, thanks again to you dear Joyce. You make it so comprehensible and I am very grateful. Thank you!
When I hear Independent State Legislatures I see the potential for state sized fiefdoms.
Like Florida under DeSantis?
Yes and worse
It’s sad to feel like we’re standing on a backward treadmill with this SCOTUS, spinning us back fifty years. Bigotry has always existed in America but our principles - that all are created equal and entitled to equal rights and freedom from persecution. But when/if the highest court entertain otherwise, they inflame hatred and intolerance and it is indeed a slippery slope. Thank you again for keeping us informed and calling us all to be activists against these threats.
I'm fairly confident that in California our Democratic Reps. and Senators in Sacramento and in Congress are on the side of the Rule of Law..However, I will be reaching out to all of the Republican members to see to it that they make a public statement as to their position on this insane notion of ripping up the Constitution and kicking Joe Biden to the curb on Pennsylvania Ave..
I'm a native San Franciscan and ever since I can remember, the southern part of CA has been anti-union and extremely conservative.
I am a resident of Los Angeles, have been most of my life, but for 9yrs in the '80s while living in NY..I retired in the spring of 2018 after 23yrs as an AFL-CIO International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees I.A.T.S.E. Local 600 Still Photographer.. We are a diverse group politically I will give you that..but anti-union? Perhaps when you say "the southern part of CA" you are referring to the San Diego and vicinity area..
Coastal San Diego and other coastal areas in Southern California lean strongly blue; it's when one goes east in SD Co. and other counties east of the coast, that one encounters the more conservative, likely Republican, electorate. In San Diego County, we have elected numerous Democrats to both Houses of Congress and to the California legislature. However, that lean Republican has been changing (with the exception of the 50th Congressional District) and even Orange County - long a Republican stronghold - has now twice elected a Democratic Congressional Representative, the second time by a wide margin.
Something that has been playing out in Georgia and beyond in Republican constituencies is the blind leading the blind following of anyone with a R after their name and voting for them regardless of their fitness for office..I will admit that I am paying more attention the last few cycles and can't speak to this more broadly..But I don't see the same thing on the Democratic side of things, in terms of the fitness for office..Herschel Walker, Doug Mastriano and Kari Lake are perfect examples..What happened in the Senate race in Ohio is telling of the lack of critical thinking in the constituency..However, perhaps I am not looking in the right places, or don't know how to tell..
Regarding the lean Republican to which you speak, I wonder if that constituency feels the same for our Constitution as the former President..
Not where I lived.
True true.
I hadn’t thought a case would come along that I would lose more sleep over than Dobbs. I am a doc who cares for high risk pregnancies for a living, so Dobbs was a very big deal to me, and to the women I take care of. But I find myself even more worried about Moore v. Harper. Would it be hyperbolic to say that this case could be a nail in the coffin of American democracy?
While young Iranians draw a line in the sand for freedom. Let’s exchange freedom-haters here for enthusiastic young people there! Trump would be right at home.
The politicization of SCOTUS, hearing a case based on a theory you described as “bunk” and “nonsensical”, seems to me to be the issue. What “serious issues” could SCOTUS’ extremist bloc have seen in this case?
Thinking further that this case is about originalism gone mad, the Elections Clause being subject to a fantasy that conveniently suits right wing obsession with power and the ability of states to circumvent being part of the union of states, thus subject to Federal legislative and judicial authority.
There are religious sects, denominations, and cults attempting to justify just about every imaginable form of human behavior. (The Bible, for example, along with various interpretations of Christianity, was used to justify slavery in the old south.) If a person does business in this country, they do so under the protection and in compliance with the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Discrimination against any group based on religious beliefs violates a fundamental basis of our society.
I'm not waitng to hear from any elected official regarding Trump's desire to end Constitutional government. Their silence has spoken for them. They are complicit.
On ABC This Week Rep David Joyce said re Trump “He says a lot of things...” .. “And I can’t be really chasing every one of these crazy statements that come out about from any of theses candidates...” Sounds like the GOP doesn’t want to babysit their own. They must solve this problem whether they like it or not.
this is a tangential issue, tied to the uproar over trump having dinner with Nick Fuentes and Kanye West. Joyce, I am wondering if your extensive experience interacting with the press might yield some insight.
So far, the reported concerns have focused on Fuentes' clear championing of white supremacy and antisemitism, which should be called out.
The videos of this man ranting in various settings have also included a vicious streak of sexism. His comments re: what he feels should be done to the rights and bodies of women are vile and direct incitement to violence against women.
I am disturbed by the repeated deletion of virulent sexism in reporter and commentator descriptions of why the dinner guests are so disturbing, and how they amplify trump's already demonstrated dangerous traits. Insights on why this happens, and perhaps how to nudge the press to expand their focus would be welcome.
Agree. Fuentes advocates taking away the right to vote from women, and has “joked” about domestic violence (essentially saying it’s OK if women get “out of line.”) All of his views are vile, and ALL of them should be called out.
Hi Joyce. I certainly don’t want the power of my vote to be diluted. Will we be able to hear the argument this week in Moore v Harper? Is gerrymandering ever bipartisan? It appears to be a political tool plain and simple. And New York got gerrymandered that clearly favored Republicans in the recent midterms and completely threw off the democratic hold in the state. I’m not really clear on this issue. Also re 303, is the law regulated solely by the state? I would think there would be a general law regarding serving the public that would have to be bipartisan. Enjoy your week. I’ve got a lot to learn this week. Enjoyed your 100th episode on your Sisters in Law
Many thanks for getting me focused is week, Joyce! To me, Moore v Harper is critical to our constitutional democracy; and, as a Veteran, I view ISL theory as an existential threat to the freedoms that so many have fought and died for. ISL can not be allowed to nullify our votes/freedoms and take us down the path to "autocracy of both the classes and the masses" as the Preamble to the Constitution of the American Legion has pledged to combat. I've expressed my concerns to both the American Legion and my elected leaders in Idaho. Like the rest of you, I'm waiting.
I am so very glad I get this as Twitter is getting crazier ..after 10 years I can hardly stand to watch it
Wish I could block the dogs who want me to tweet back.
So glad for Joyce and this blog (sort of) otherwise I'm just interacting with my Genetic Genealogy folks..