Last week, the Supreme Court handed down, as they usually do as the term comes to an end, a flurry of highly anticipated major decisions. Two of them made a lot of news: one effectively ended affirmative action in American higher education, and another ruled that a Colorado web designer could refuse to create a wedding website for a same-sex couple.
During the whole lead-in I was thinking, "please let Sarah be a guest here so she can shoot down all these silly opinions from these TV anchors." YAY!
This was a good episode. I think I'm continually disappointed by people that care nothing for process and only want their outcomes. Harry just sounds like he wants the power to tell people how to live, which is sadly unsurprising. When Bari asked "good or bad decision" and Sarah said, "it's the right decision" ... chef's kiss.
I think it's telling that one guest, when asked whether the Harvard/UNC decision was a "good decision or bad decision," replied essentially, "I don't agree with it. Bad decision."
And this person is supposedly an expert. Supreme Court decisions aren't about what we want or what makes us comfortable.
Also disappointed that so much of the discussion revolved around how to get more low-achieving students into college in the name of diversity. How about we start addressing why only a system that minimizing academic achievement in an academic endeavor is seen as the only way to get students of color into college? It seems to be that the real racism here is the racism of low expectation for certain groups.
I respectfully submit that the real racism is giving preferences and exemptions to low-achievers because they belong to a favored racial group. Furthermore, I fail to see "racism" in having low expectations of a favored racial group which consistently meets low expectations.
I thought this was a fantastic discussion. Would love to listen to a similar discussion on the ethics scandals of the Supreme Court. I really appreciate how the FP takes out the alarmism of the issue.
Bari, I thought this was a great episode. I feel more informed for having listened to it. And I don’t know if I’m hormonal rn or what, but I teared up at the very end just bc I found the whole conversation so refreshing and feel like this is what media-types should be striving for. Thanks!
It’s racist to discriminate against whites and Asians . Discrimination against any race is racist . U cannot pick a favored race. W affirmative action many minorities that’s get in to these difficult schools will end up w debt and no degree . Pick based on merit only . Two wrongs don’t make a right . Past discrimination doesn’t mean we need more discrimination
No I can see that argument. However if the signs said "the Catholic Church doesn't approve of homosexuality" or something which is just a fact, how is that compelled speech? I mean I'm imagining a wedding website and it probably says things like "x and y are getting married" and "share in the loveof blahblahblah". Is that considered compelled speech? Cause it's actually what's happening under US law, these people are being married. I understand it's not what you might want as a Catholic but I just don't see the case there for compelled speech. How is this not just a carte blanche for not taking things that go against my political opinions? Like, i don't do websites for professional women cause I don't think women should be allowed to work.
The question is, is the item creative or not? Denying someone gas, food, lodging, groceries, etc... is not creative. Reusing to create a custom design based on deeply held religious beliefs, is allowable. A tattoo artist does not have to create a custom tattoo with symbols they disagree with just as a website designer does not have to create a custom website for a gay couple. I truly don't understand why the Left refuses to understand why this is a good decision.
But, just as a thought experiment, if this "gay website" had no symbols on it but purely photos of this couple and a wedding registry and "X and Y are getting married" blah blah generic text, WHERE is the compelled speech. Are you at that point not simply saying "I'm not doing this for these people because they're gay". Because people always bring up the swastika but what is the swastika in this example if these people only had text and pictures of themselves and not the progress flag or whatever. They are getting married. That's not compelled speech, that's reality according to US law at this point. I'm very sympathetic to free speech arguments, I just really don't understand this particular subset.
Free speech also means freedom from compelled speech. You say that this is "reality according to US law." What US law? The Colorado law that seems to keep coming up with activists targeting and suing people (like the Christian baker). The law seems to be according to the SC, that you cannot compel people in the creative fields.
Can a Republican demand that a liberal speech writer prepare a speech for them? Then of course sue the liberal writer for malpractice when they deliver a bad speech. The Left acts like this is not a free speech issue; it will be if the Right starts suing creators on the other side for not taking them as clients in an effort to make examples of them.
This issue seems to really perplex the Left; just use someone else. There are plenty of people that would gladly provide creative services. Instead, they choose people to make an example of and then act surprised when they lose at the SC. These conservatives were targeted in an effort to enshrine into law their beliefs. Shit got real and they did not get the decision they expected. I don't understand why they keep trying on this, and they keep losing.
Ok so I am just asking a perfectly valid question I feel, and this whole answer is full of "the left" and "the right" and points to some Colorado law, which I care little for, to be perfectly honest. I'm just going to write down that you also do not know this answer, but seem to be happy to accept the ruling without further question since it fits your priors, which is frankly absolutely your right. Just please drop the smug tone with me (the whole "I can't with the left, ugh"), I'm just trying to understand.
Now to your points: "What US law?" Homosexual marriage in the US is lawful under a Supreme Court decision, and hence I do not understand how the statement "John and Barry are getting married" can be a form of compelled speech, when it is simply the reality in that land at that time. Maybe a reality you don't like, sure, but as real as "women have the right to work". Am I allowed to not make a website for a female lawyer on religious grounds because I don't think women should work?
And then, you say "they choose people to make an example of and then act surprised when they lose at the SC", even though this case was brought preemptively by the designer and she did not seem, in fact, to have any clients that had asked her for such a website. She brought it on.
So please stop assuming I'm "perplexed" by anything when you frankly do not seem to know exactly what is going on here, just that you like it. Which agin, perfectly fine. Just no "Ugh I don't understand" vibe, cause frankly you don't seem to understand either.
You start with "Ok so I am just asking a perfectly valid question...." in effort to steel man anything that comes next. Your question could be completely fucking stupid (it is), but you decided to try to deflect any criticism of the question with your opening statement. You then go on to state you don't care about Colorado law; the lawsuit in question was from Colorado, so that seems an idiotic stance to take since that is where the case started. I was not trying to be "smug," I was trying to give an honest reply on compelled speech, but since you decided to go with insults, here we go.
As the Supreme Court ruled, you might want to read the decision so here you go: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf, If you want to get to where the SC talks about compelled speech, here is a little snippet: "...Once Ms. Smith offers some speech, Colorado
“would require [her] to create and sell speech, notwithstanding [her] sincere objection to doing so”—and the dissent would force her to comply..."
This was about a creative process, so no, I don't think you would/should be compelled to "create" a website for a female lawyer on religious grounds. That said, I don't know what modern religion has these views, but I will go along with your silly little example. BTW, those are not my views, and I could care less who gets married.
A more direct statement is that activist lawyers look for opportunities to sue hoping to get local, state, district and eventually the SC to rule the way that they hope to enshrine their views into law. These cases aren't random, and the plaintiffs and defendants are selected with purpose. My point was, this attempt backfired, and they got their asses handed to them at the court where they were betting it would go the other way.
The only thing that perplexes me is why you decided to not take my response in the manner it was intended, a good faith attempt to have a discussion and then come with personal attacks. Your little thought experiment didn't seem to go the way you hoped and exposed the level of condescension you have for others.
Great episode. The ONLY nit I had with it was Jeannie Suk Gersen kept casually referring to Asians as being "overrepresented". I get that in the context of the decision, it's a matter of fact, but as an argument, the fact that Asians are overrepresented even with affirmative action headwinds suggests that affirmative action is not broadly needed and I would have to hear Jeannie explain how Asians came to be overrepresented and how that strengthens or weakens the rationale for Affirmative Action.
The state has no legitimate interest with whom I choose to do business. It has no interest in FORCING the redress of past discrimination, only maintenance of current interactions with those whom they DO have an interest if taxpayers are funding. The state should have NO part in sanctioning or approving civil union (marriage) or writing tax code that gives preference to any such union.
I really was rather disappointed with what I experienced as little pushback to the gay wedding website ruling. I understand and appreciate the free speech argument, but I just do not see how someone can argue that writing speech such as "we are getting married" or things like "x and X share their love" or whatever can be the object of a religious exemption (all the counterexamples were crass hate-speech -nazis, segregation...-; they are not adequate counterexamples in my mind at all). These people are not getting married in the Catholic church. The state is marrying them. I see how you may have an opinion about that, but I do not see how it collides with your faith in any way, unless you believe the state is Catholic itself or that it should be held to Catholic standards. It does seem to boil down to you not agreeing; I would hope that the bar to say "I cannot do this out of a deep-seated belief" were frankly higher. In my mind this opens horrible doors for odious versions of religious exceptions to be argued. I guess we will see.
If a gay printer received a request from a Christian to print a dozen signs that said “Homosexuals are going to Hell!” for use at a legal peaceful political protest, would you say the printer had to take the business?
I think it’s compelled speech basically. That was my understanding as they were talking about it. So if you are a wedding cake baker and you’re making a wedding cake you can’t discriminate against your clientele for being gay but you can decline to put 2 plastic grooms on a cake
You raise a valid argument. If you want to get to the heart of the controversy, go back to this question: did the court unwittingly create the controversy you raise, by unnecessarily creating this distinction re "creative" activity? This called making up law to achieve a result. Why not issue a decision that said "Person A cannot be compelled to create a website for Person B without violating the Constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude" ?
During the whole lead-in I was thinking, "please let Sarah be a guest here so she can shoot down all these silly opinions from these TV anchors." YAY!
This was a good episode. I think I'm continually disappointed by people that care nothing for process and only want their outcomes. Harry just sounds like he wants the power to tell people how to live, which is sadly unsurprising. When Bari asked "good or bad decision" and Sarah said, "it's the right decision" ... chef's kiss.
I think it's telling that one guest, when asked whether the Harvard/UNC decision was a "good decision or bad decision," replied essentially, "I don't agree with it. Bad decision."
And this person is supposedly an expert. Supreme Court decisions aren't about what we want or what makes us comfortable.
Also disappointed that so much of the discussion revolved around how to get more low-achieving students into college in the name of diversity. How about we start addressing why only a system that minimizing academic achievement in an academic endeavor is seen as the only way to get students of color into college? It seems to be that the real racism here is the racism of low expectation for certain groups.
I respectfully submit that the real racism is giving preferences and exemptions to low-achievers because they belong to a favored racial group. Furthermore, I fail to see "racism" in having low expectations of a favored racial group which consistently meets low expectations.
I thought this was a fantastic discussion. Would love to listen to a similar discussion on the ethics scandals of the Supreme Court. I really appreciate how the FP takes out the alarmism of the issue.
As always...you delved into a difficult subject and taught us all how to appreciate well articulated, diverse opinions. Thank you.
Bari, I thought this was a great episode. I feel more informed for having listened to it. And I don’t know if I’m hormonal rn or what, but I teared up at the very end just bc I found the whole conversation so refreshing and feel like this is what media-types should be striving for. Thanks!
It’s racist to discriminate against whites and Asians . Discrimination against any race is racist . U cannot pick a favored race. W affirmative action many minorities that’s get in to these difficult schools will end up w debt and no degree . Pick based on merit only . Two wrongs don’t make a right . Past discrimination doesn’t mean we need more discrimination
Agreed. It's racist to discriminate against Whites (not whites) and Asians. Thank you.
Two Harvard Law grads, and one Harvard undergrad. Truly diverse panel, Bari
Funny, but true
No I can see that argument. However if the signs said "the Catholic Church doesn't approve of homosexuality" or something which is just a fact, how is that compelled speech? I mean I'm imagining a wedding website and it probably says things like "x and y are getting married" and "share in the loveof blahblahblah". Is that considered compelled speech? Cause it's actually what's happening under US law, these people are being married. I understand it's not what you might want as a Catholic but I just don't see the case there for compelled speech. How is this not just a carte blanche for not taking things that go against my political opinions? Like, i don't do websites for professional women cause I don't think women should be allowed to work.
The question is, is the item creative or not? Denying someone gas, food, lodging, groceries, etc... is not creative. Reusing to create a custom design based on deeply held religious beliefs, is allowable. A tattoo artist does not have to create a custom tattoo with symbols they disagree with just as a website designer does not have to create a custom website for a gay couple. I truly don't understand why the Left refuses to understand why this is a good decision.
But, just as a thought experiment, if this "gay website" had no symbols on it but purely photos of this couple and a wedding registry and "X and Y are getting married" blah blah generic text, WHERE is the compelled speech. Are you at that point not simply saying "I'm not doing this for these people because they're gay". Because people always bring up the swastika but what is the swastika in this example if these people only had text and pictures of themselves and not the progress flag or whatever. They are getting married. That's not compelled speech, that's reality according to US law at this point. I'm very sympathetic to free speech arguments, I just really don't understand this particular subset.
Free speech also means freedom from compelled speech. You say that this is "reality according to US law." What US law? The Colorado law that seems to keep coming up with activists targeting and suing people (like the Christian baker). The law seems to be according to the SC, that you cannot compel people in the creative fields.
Can a Republican demand that a liberal speech writer prepare a speech for them? Then of course sue the liberal writer for malpractice when they deliver a bad speech. The Left acts like this is not a free speech issue; it will be if the Right starts suing creators on the other side for not taking them as clients in an effort to make examples of them.
This issue seems to really perplex the Left; just use someone else. There are plenty of people that would gladly provide creative services. Instead, they choose people to make an example of and then act surprised when they lose at the SC. These conservatives were targeted in an effort to enshrine into law their beliefs. Shit got real and they did not get the decision they expected. I don't understand why they keep trying on this, and they keep losing.
Ok so I am just asking a perfectly valid question I feel, and this whole answer is full of "the left" and "the right" and points to some Colorado law, which I care little for, to be perfectly honest. I'm just going to write down that you also do not know this answer, but seem to be happy to accept the ruling without further question since it fits your priors, which is frankly absolutely your right. Just please drop the smug tone with me (the whole "I can't with the left, ugh"), I'm just trying to understand.
Now to your points: "What US law?" Homosexual marriage in the US is lawful under a Supreme Court decision, and hence I do not understand how the statement "John and Barry are getting married" can be a form of compelled speech, when it is simply the reality in that land at that time. Maybe a reality you don't like, sure, but as real as "women have the right to work". Am I allowed to not make a website for a female lawyer on religious grounds because I don't think women should work?
And then, you say "they choose people to make an example of and then act surprised when they lose at the SC", even though this case was brought preemptively by the designer and she did not seem, in fact, to have any clients that had asked her for such a website. She brought it on.
So please stop assuming I'm "perplexed" by anything when you frankly do not seem to know exactly what is going on here, just that you like it. Which agin, perfectly fine. Just no "Ugh I don't understand" vibe, cause frankly you don't seem to understand either.
You start with "Ok so I am just asking a perfectly valid question...." in effort to steel man anything that comes next. Your question could be completely fucking stupid (it is), but you decided to try to deflect any criticism of the question with your opening statement. You then go on to state you don't care about Colorado law; the lawsuit in question was from Colorado, so that seems an idiotic stance to take since that is where the case started. I was not trying to be "smug," I was trying to give an honest reply on compelled speech, but since you decided to go with insults, here we go.
As the Supreme Court ruled, you might want to read the decision so here you go: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf, If you want to get to where the SC talks about compelled speech, here is a little snippet: "...Once Ms. Smith offers some speech, Colorado
“would require [her] to create and sell speech, notwithstanding [her] sincere objection to doing so”—and the dissent would force her to comply..."
This was about a creative process, so no, I don't think you would/should be compelled to "create" a website for a female lawyer on religious grounds. That said, I don't know what modern religion has these views, but I will go along with your silly little example. BTW, those are not my views, and I could care less who gets married.
A more direct statement is that activist lawyers look for opportunities to sue hoping to get local, state, district and eventually the SC to rule the way that they hope to enshrine their views into law. These cases aren't random, and the plaintiffs and defendants are selected with purpose. My point was, this attempt backfired, and they got their asses handed to them at the court where they were betting it would go the other way.
The only thing that perplexes me is why you decided to not take my response in the manner it was intended, a good faith attempt to have a discussion and then come with personal attacks. Your little thought experiment didn't seem to go the way you hoped and exposed the level of condescension you have for others.
Great episode. The ONLY nit I had with it was Jeannie Suk Gersen kept casually referring to Asians as being "overrepresented". I get that in the context of the decision, it's a matter of fact, but as an argument, the fact that Asians are overrepresented even with affirmative action headwinds suggests that affirmative action is not broadly needed and I would have to hear Jeannie explain how Asians came to be overrepresented and how that strengthens or weakens the rationale for Affirmative Action.
Thank you for bringing back the debate and discussion! Will shout this out in our newsletter...
test
The state has no legitimate interest with whom I choose to do business. It has no interest in FORCING the redress of past discrimination, only maintenance of current interactions with those whom they DO have an interest if taxpayers are funding. The state should have NO part in sanctioning or approving civil union (marriage) or writing tax code that gives preference to any such union.
I really was rather disappointed with what I experienced as little pushback to the gay wedding website ruling. I understand and appreciate the free speech argument, but I just do not see how someone can argue that writing speech such as "we are getting married" or things like "x and X share their love" or whatever can be the object of a religious exemption (all the counterexamples were crass hate-speech -nazis, segregation...-; they are not adequate counterexamples in my mind at all). These people are not getting married in the Catholic church. The state is marrying them. I see how you may have an opinion about that, but I do not see how it collides with your faith in any way, unless you believe the state is Catholic itself or that it should be held to Catholic standards. It does seem to boil down to you not agreeing; I would hope that the bar to say "I cannot do this out of a deep-seated belief" were frankly higher. In my mind this opens horrible doors for odious versions of religious exceptions to be argued. I guess we will see.
If a gay printer received a request from a Christian to print a dozen signs that said “Homosexuals are going to Hell!” for use at a legal peaceful political protest, would you say the printer had to take the business?
I think it’s compelled speech basically. That was my understanding as they were talking about it. So if you are a wedding cake baker and you’re making a wedding cake you can’t discriminate against your clientele for being gay but you can decline to put 2 plastic grooms on a cake
If I am a tailor, can I be compelled to create Nazi uniforms? Does it matter if I am Jewish?
You raise a valid argument. If you want to get to the heart of the controversy, go back to this question: did the court unwittingly create the controversy you raise, by unnecessarily creating this distinction re "creative" activity? This called making up law to achieve a result. Why not issue a decision that said "Person A cannot be compelled to create a website for Person B without violating the Constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude" ?