- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
So as a queer person, does this mean I can choose not to service Christians at my business?
Because somehow I doubt the Supreme Court would back me up there.
It confuses me religion (an unscientific idea) is even a protected class versus an immutable characteristic like skin color, gender, sexuality, disability etc.
Religious privilege is getting an invite to the meeting where this stuff was decided
It’s a security blanket that large blocks of society have yet to grow out of, unfortunately. Like trying to phase a toddler out of their binky, suggesting laying it aside is likely to result in tantrums.
XD OMG Yess!! 😄😄😂😂😂
Honestly I’ve been waiting for someone to do exactly this. And now they have a precedent to cite when it goes to court, one which specifically addresses religious beliefs.
It means that if a Christian asks you to design a website with messages that violate your religious beliefs then you can refuse. If I as a satanist believe that a woman’s right to abortion is sacred then I can refuse to design a website with an anti-abortion message. I can’t simply refuse to design a website for a Christian. Not saying I agree with the ruling, just explaining what it means.
The ruling says you don’t have to design a website that violates any sincerely held beliefs, not just religious beliefs.
So if you are gay and a Catholic asked you to design a website promoting “Marriage is for one man and one woman”, you can refuse. Before the ruling, you might have been found to be discriminating against Catholics.
The whole idea of some things being protected and some not is very wrong. Rights should be a wildcard. That’s the right of private discrimination as ancaps see it.
Curious, why don’t you agree with the ruling?
Because it’s a shit ruling that says discriminating against people is a form of speech. At least that’s why I think it’s a horrible ruling.
That’s not what it says.
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is it would depend on what kind of business you’re in and what kind of services the Christian customers asked for. You could say “I do websites for weddings, but not Christian weddings” for example.
As I understand it, this ruling still wouldn’t necessarily protect broader discrimination like “I own an ice cream shop, but I won’t sell ice cream to certain people”; whether the people you’re refusing to sell to are Christian, gay, etc…
Thank you. So many people don’t understand what happened and think the Supreme Court made it legal to discriminate against gay people.
Not a lawyer, but my reading says: yes.
If you’re not super tired up with being American for the near future, do it and have an exist strategy to e.g. Canada.
Your response to hate is more hate?
Whoa, calm down there! It’s definitely not hate. I love all Christian people. I just disagree with their lifestyle. How can they force me to support the messed-up things they do? You’re getting dangerously close to treading on my constitutional right of free speech, my friend!
I hate all religious equally, many religious people are good people but I hate their faith.
Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Same way nobody can force someone to build them a website.
Actually this is not true! The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did indeed force private businesses to act to end segregation:
The act outlawed segregation in businesses such as theaters, restaurants, and hotels. It banned discriminatory practices in employment and ended segregation in public places such as swimming pools, libraries, and public schools.
So yes, the government can and does literally force businesses to provide equal access to their services.
Of course, this doesn’t apply to websites because the Supreme Court appears to approve of some kinds of discrimination, but not others.
That was the my initial point. The Supreme Court is fine with discrimination against LGBTQ people. But you had better believe that if someone actually discriminated against white people or Christians, they would come down against it like a ton of bricks. Because this is not motivated by an ideological belief in the first amendment, but a conservative desire to roll back rights and access for minorities they dislike.
You aren’t understanding what happened here.
They didn’t flat out refuse service because the customer was gay, they refused to create something that they didn’t agree with.
Do you really think LGBT devs would be forced to design a website for the KKK? If so you don’t live in the real world.
You can’t force people to do what you want.
Oh no, I understand.
Would it surprise you to know that literally that exact same argument was used against Black people to resist integration, and indeed, the same Civil Rights Act of 1964 I linked? That it wasn’t because the person was Black, but because the business owner had a religious belief that was incompatible with service? That they shouldn’t be compelled to provide a service they disagreed with? It is as spurious then as it was now.
The reason your example is bad is because membership in the KKK is not a protected class, not because businesses are not required to provide equal access. Businesses are in fact barred from discriminating against protected classes and must provide them equal access (in general). Except, of course, if the Supreme Court likes the protected class in question less than they do the “free speech” of another class.
So, yes indeed, the government can and does force people to do what they want.
They will make an exception if you’re a Christian apparently, however.
By your own words, you still aren’t getting it.
You keep comparing it to businesses not serving black people, which is discrimination 100%.
That’s not what happened here. The gay customers weren’t denied service. The developer just declined creating something that they don’t agree with.
Here are some examples to make it easy for you.
-
I’m selling cupcakes and refuse to sell to a gay couple. - illegal
-
I’m selling cupcakes and a gay couple wants custom made cupcakes with rainbows and unicorns, but I don’t like unicorns so I decline. - legal
-
I see it didn’t take very long for lemmy to become just as smooth brained as reddit.
Remind me to never develop a website for you.
I think they’re more just pointing out how this ruling isn’t fair because of the fact that it doesn’t go both ways.
sides with business owner who refused to provide services for same-sex wedding, citing freedom of speech.
Um, “freedom of speech” would be to say that you don’t support same-sex marriage, but refusal to provide a service based on the fact that you don’t agree with same-sex marriage seems like flat out discrimination.
I think the argument is essentially that the alternative is forcing the person to literally “say” (write) something (code) and they have the freedom not to write things they disagree with. It seems like a very narrow ruling and it will be interesting to see if it is kept that way, I doubt it. I also may not understand all of the nuance.
I think of a bakery case, would the ruling mean they can’t refuse to bake a cake, which is not speech, but they could refuse to write “happy pride” on a cake, or does it now mean that they can refuse all forms of service. I don’t think it does, but it wasn’t really a question before.
One of the most interesting parts to me was an article I saw yesterday, where one of the supposed gay men who requested the website was contacted and said he was straight, married with a kid, and had never asked for such a thing. It seems like the case may have been invented out of thin air to create a precedent. (Apparently someone posted it farther down)
Just found this dark related article https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/06/hate-group-may-have-faked-key-argument-in-lgbtq-supreme-court-case-and-they-might-win/
Nice to know that Supreme Court makes decisions based on fucking fabrications and delusions.
According to court filings from the plaintiff, Stewart contacted Smith in September 2016 about his wedding to Mike “early next year.” He wrote that they “would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website.” Stewart included his phone number, email address, and the URL of his own website—he was a designer too, the site showed.
This week, I decided to call Stewart and ask him about his inquiry.
It took just a few minutes to reach him. I assumed at least some reporters over the years had contacted him about his website inquiry to 303 Creative—his contact information wasn’t redacted in the filing. But my call, he said, was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.”
Yes, that was his name, phone number, email address, and website on the inquiry form. But he never sent this form, he said, and at the time it was sent, he was married to a woman. “If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that,” Stewart explained. (Stewart’s last name is not included in the filing, so we will be referring to him by his first name throughout this story.)
Ok if that’s the road they want to take then they will lose a lot more than they gain.
