← Back to context

Comment by jquery

9 years ago

Maybe when you get in the business of providing speech as a service. For example, imagine you went into the wedding cake business, and someone came in and wanted you to make a gay wedding cake (note: not a wedding cake for gay people, but a wedding cake that normalized gay marriage). Now imagine you're a very old-school traditionalist about that sort of thing. Should you be compelled to make that cake with two women on the top?

Given that the Supreme Court has already decided that "wedding cake makers" are part of critical speech infrastructure, I think that Cloudflare, a service that hosts ISIS, pirates, and others, should be subject to the same restrictions as wedding cake makers.

12 comments

jquery

Reply
bmelton  9 years ago

> http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakes...

They have not decided anything, other than to agree to hear the case:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakes...

  • jquery  9 years ago

    Wow, thanks. I still think it's an interesting case, because the people celebrating GoDaddy/Google/Cloudflare's decision largely seem to be against the right of the cake makers to refuse to make a gay wedding cake. "Wooo go GoDaddy! Hey wait a minute cake bakers!" This inconsistency is really concerning, because it betrays a simple tribalism instead of principles. I understand there are principled reasons to be for one and against the other, but that's not what I've been seeing lately. Mostly lots of celebration that corporations are censoring the speech they disapprove of.

    • bmelton  9 years ago

      Personally, I worry about ingroup vs. outgroup tribalism, whatever the ingroup or the outgroup is. Specifically, I very sincerely worry about its effect on the political landscape. I understand that this is not an issue of government action, but given how many responses of "They're nazis, fuck 'em" (paraphrased) I see, I honestly doubt it would matter significantly if it were in fact the government shutting the site down vs. a private entity.

      To head off the obvious criticism: Yes, I understand the distinct difference between first amendment protections vis a vis the government versus the absence of those protections when dealing with other individuals and companies.

      That said, I'm not a Nazi, nor am I a neo-Nazi, nor am I in any way sympathetic to their causes, but up to the point that their words specifically incite violence, I'll defend their rights to speak them.

      "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

      - H. L. Mencken

rtpg  9 years ago

beyond the fact that the wedding cake hasn't been decided, the point of that case isn't about free speech but about protected classes.

You don't want to let (for example) landlords to deny lending to people because they're gay, black, etc. Not as much of a free speech thing as a 14th ammendment thing

openasocket  9 years ago

> Given that the Supreme Court has already decided that "wedding cake makers" are part of critical speech infrastructure

They have? Source? And what's "critical speech infrastructure"?

  • toomuchtodo  9 years ago

    > A baker refused to make a cake for a gay couple due to religious beliefs. Supreme Court will rule on the case in fall

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religio...

    > And what's "critical speech infrastructure"?

    That's the joke. If the government can force a cake baker to make a cake for a gay couple, why not force (excuse me, regulate) internet companies to provide services to those they don't want to provide service for? Surely, if your sexual orientation is a protected class as a consumer, your first amendment rights are moreso protected.

    "No federal law requires businesses to serve all customers without regard to their sexual orientation, but 21 states have “public accommodations” laws that prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians.

    In 2012, he said he politely declined to make a wedding cake for Charles Craig and David Mullins, who had planned to marry in Massachusetts but then have a reception in their home state of Colorado. They lodged a complaint with the state civil rights commission.

    The commission ruled that Phillips’ refusal to make the wedding cake violated the provision in the state’s anti-discrimination law that says businesses open to the public may not deny service to customers based on their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. The panel ordered him to provide wedding cakes on an equal basis for same-sex couples.

    Phillips appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing he deserved a religious exemption based on the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. His lawyers say he refused to comply with the commission ruling while his appeal proceeded."

    • openasocket  9 years ago

      > If the government can force a cake baker to make a cake for a gay couple, why not force (excuse me, regulate) internet companies to provide services to those they don't want to provide service for?

      The government absolutely could, but there is currently no law banning discrimination of service against racists or ideology in general.

      The notion of protected classes with regards to private (not government) discrimination is not defined in the Constitution, but rather federal and state law. The Civil Rights Act defines race, religion, and sex as a protected class. If you want the government to prevent private companies from refusing to serve racists, you'd need a federal law passed, so I guess call your local congressman.

      1 reply →

noir_lord  9 years ago

On the flip side of that you can only run your cake making business because you benefit from access to a stable monetary system (hah, I live in the UK), a safe and civil society and an educated populace with money to buy over priced sugar.

Given that does society not have a right to say that "If you want to earn money providing a service then you should do so by providing that service equally to all people who aren't breaking the law"?

Not saying which side I fall, I'm not sure but I think the question is interesting.

Far to often we focus on our rights and forget that other people have rights and that society has a duty to us and we have a duty to society.