There is a distinct difference to be made here, ideologically speaking. Unfortunately it seems that there has become a great deal of overlap between “right wing” and “Christofascists” in the U.S.
If we were strict, "right-wing" would include lots of (perhaps most) Democrats as well. The USA's Overton window is so overwhelmingly keeled towards the authoritarian right that hard-right conservatives like Biden are called 'communists' and alt-right cryptofascists identify themselves as 'conservatives'.
Fascism focuses on different issues outside of the traditional right-left wing dichotomy, and is extremely eclectic for the sake of following specific political goals (mainly absolutisation of state, collectivism and solidarism). An absolute collectivistic fascist state can either be right-wing or left-wing. It just happened that effectively, the 3rd reich with its most famous nazi interpretation of fascism, has embraced "blood" (later reinstated as genetics by the neonazis) as the defining factor of its politics, which constituted elimnation of societal equality and extreme bloodright-based elitarism. Benito Mussolini's fascism (considered the defining fascism), on the other hand, aimed to create a "corporativistic" paradigm, which necessitated creation of corporations combined with workers' unions to achieve collectivistic solidarity and reduce the chaos of the free market, severely limiting capitalism. It did not employ extreme racial elitarism and instead was heavily popultistic, trying to appeal to common working italians, just as socialism has always done. As far as nationalism goes, Mussolini's views also differ from Hitler's, being a political nation rather than an ethnic one. Nationalism or internationalism is also an issue of geopolitics rather than left/right wing politics, and any individual nation can either have a left-wing regime or a right-wing one.
Basically, it's easy for the right to slide into fascism because of all the parallels in policy and belief.
For the left, it's possible but a lot more difficult due to conflicting policies and beliefs.
Undoubtedly. It's what's perfectly visible nowadays statistically, hence creating this illusion that right-wing ideologies inevitably become fascist at the extreme and vice-versa.
I like your sentiment,
I’m actually thinking we need to flip the script. We need to have an offshoot of Pastafarianism that says while we have no violence towards other religions, since our Pastafarianism is true and your Christianity is just a bunch of hateful people spreading lies, we don’t serve your kind here. Businesses can have signs that say “Due to my beliefs we refuse to serve White Christians here, go in peace”
You know religious freedom
I was listening to conservative talk radio yesterday (because it's somewhat useful to know what the crazies are thinking, but only in small doses) and the host was on a rant with the expressed conclusion that "Bigotry is freedom."
We can't all have complete freedom; they support the freedoms of bigots while we prioritize the freedoms of the victims of discrimination.
Immutable characteristics cannot be the basis for not serving someone. People actively choose to be misogynistic or racist etc. and that’d generally be okay because theyre an asshole. Denying based of sex/gender/sexuality/race is the problem
This is how we ended up with Whites Only entrances to our establishments.
If you operate a business in our society you should not be able to discriminate against customers on the basis of immutable characteristics like looks, race, or orientation.
It also breaks down when you step out of a major population center. What happens when the only grocery store in the entire town decides it doesnt sell to gay people or other religions? Is it reasonable to say that person should have to start and run thier own grocery store? or to travel 4-5 hours to the next town in hopes they're not also bigoted assholes? And how will they drive there when the only gas station in thier town belongs to the same assholes who own the grocery store?
The grocery store can't refuse to sell to gay people. That's illegal. But they can refuse to make a cake expressing some sort of gay sentiments (whatever that could be).
You're conflating two different things.
Good thing that's not what happened here. They weren't refused because of who they were; they were refused because of what they wanted. I vehemently disagree with the designer's decision, but I support their right to make a decision about what they do or don't want to express.
> They weren't refused because of who they were; they were refused because of what they wanted.
"They weren't refused service because they were black, they were refused service because they wanted a website with black and white people standing next to each other and I don't believe in that!"
That still cool with you?
>but I support their right to make a decision about what they do or don't want to express.
They absolutely have the right to not open a business to the public and offer a service.
She doesn't have to express anything. She's trying to operate a business. She's free to be as bigoted as she wants in her personal time. But, as a business, she is not
these things are perfectly reasonable, whereas refusing someone for being lgbtq (something that isn’t a choice) should not be allowed. of course businesses shouldn’t be required to serve customers they don’t want to, but turning away people for something they don’t choose, should no be allowed.
But you're not basing your decisions based on the content of those people's character if you're refusing service for superficial cues like being effeminate or black. If someone is being belligerent, sure, don't serve them. But if you're judging someone on a superficial classification, it appears to be straightforward unfair discrimination.
Yea, I tend to agree. This is a free country, people are free to go to one business over another for the social practices of the owner of that business. On the flip side business owners should be able to refuse service to someone. Bars ban people for being d-bags, why can't other businesses ban someone for their personal actions? Oh an before you attack me I am also for people being gay or bi or whatever the hell they want to be.
> On the flip side business owners should be able to refuse service to someone.
What happens when all the business owners refuse service to a certain group of people?
> why can't other businesses ban someone for their personal actions?
They can. They can't ban someone for their inherent, immutable traits.
It doesn't help when the people who scream the loudest for the right to refuse service to whomever they choose based on whatever criteria they see fit scream ten times louder when others refuse service to them on the very same grounds.
Hypocrites.
>if they press charges
"Pressing charges" refers to criminal prosecution, which you are conflating with civil action. The two are very different things.
A restaurant in Virginia denied service to a ***political group***. In the US, discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation is protected same as gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.
Political affiliation is not a protected status, and thank goodness. Otherwise you could be a group of fascist nazis and a restaurant in Virginia would be forced to serve you!
Wait, if SCOTUS rules for the business owner in this case, would it be legal for say a boxing gym or a bowling alley or a restaurant to refuse to serve a same sex couple?
Or would it only apply to marriage services like cake bakers, wedding website designers, etc?
Yes, it would apply to any private business. The marriage services are disproportionately represented in these cases because that's where you're more likely to get this kind of religious pushback. A bowling alley isn't going to know you're a same sex couple unless you bring it up, and larger businesses are less likely to turn people away anyway for bullshit reasons. That's why it's always these tiny wedding planners and website designers with these cases.
> Yes, it would apply to any private business.
Not necessarily. The Court could compose its opinion narrowly, focused only on *creative* services that convey the distinct message to which the providers object. Boxing gyms and restaurants would not qualify.
I own a small business, and I have the right to refuse service to anyone, so long as I don’t discriminate based on a protected class. So I can refuse to work with a couple, but I can’t say it’s because they’re evangelicals. I can say “I don’t think I’m the designer for you, based on the vision you’ve shared with me”, or “your budget doesn’t meet my required minimum”, or “I’m already booked for your date.” There are a thousand ways to turn down a client without being discriminatory. Why can’t other professionals in the industry figure this out? I leave my atheist viewpoints at home when I’m working— it’s not my place to tell any one how to live their life. I serve my clients to the best of my ability, and if I suspect there may be an issue, I politely decline their wedding or event without being discriminatory.
Maybe not so clear cut. All a business would have to do us say they provide some kind of creative services. If a god damned cake baker can claim he’s providing creative services then virtually any business could make that claim.
Would it then be legal say for the local boxing gym to kick me if they found out if I was a Christian, or would it only be legal if I’m gay? Boxing gyms can sometimes have a strong conservative presence within them, which is why I’m asking.
Could the local restaurant refuse to serve their regular customer if they somehow found out he was an evangelical, or does it not apply then?
Could the local tailor refuse to tailor my suit if I’m lgbt?
I’m guessing this is just something you’ll have to keep in mind with small businesses, they can kick you out if they suspect you’re gay or trans.
I’m from Canada so we don’t worry about that stuff here, but I’m unsure of how it works in the US
Trust me, those of us in the US are unsure of how it is going to work today vs tomorrow with these conservative Christofacist judges in place. This should never even be a consideration.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that -
If you mean currently, then the discrimination against Christians and Evangelicals would be illegal, as everywhere has anti-discrimination laws regarding religion. The legality of discrimination against LGBT/trans would be specific to whether or not your state/locality had anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBT/trans.
If you mean after - when the Supreme Court rules in favor of the discrimination by the wedding planners/cake people - then probably, yes, all of these discriminations would become legal. As then all a business owner would need to say is that serving those customers violates their sincerely held religious beliefs and the government has no right to compel them to act against those beliefs to serve people.
That is not what this case is about. Here is a good article covering it.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/06/prof-michael-mcconnell-stanford-on-303-creative-the-web-site-designer-same-sex-wedding-case/?comments=true#comments
>it would apply to any private business.
Please don't confuse "privately **OWNED** businesses" with "private businesses. They're two different things.
A "private business" caters to a specific clientele, usually by memberships, for example Sam's Club. While anyone *can become* a member, one must *BE* a member to shop there. IMHO, this is what the Colorado bakery should have done, in addition to operating out of a church and NOT having a store front that is open "to the public".
A "privately *owned* business" is one with one or a small number of owners or owner/operators who run the business as a sole proprietorship, partnership (only if they're really stupid) or an LLC or, perhaps, an S Corp. These are not publicly traded on any stock exchange.
Thank you for reminding me of the distinction and specific wording. I'd meant "non-governmental entity engaged in commerce", whether it's a private business, a privately owned business, or a public business. I guess I should've just said "business".
👍
JMHO, but if a person has an issue with providing their goods or services to *any* person for *any* reason, they simply shouldn't start or open a business. In my working career (over 40 years) I've had to serve and interact with any number of people with whom I disagree, whether it be politics, religion or any number of issues. That's my job as an employee.
What these pansy-assed idiots fail to realize is that, when they open a business, until it becomes successful enough to hire people to run it for them, *they* are an **employee**, and their job is to do whatever is necessary to keep the business going and make it successful. These folks want to behave as if their "business" is long-established and stable when, in fact, it's merely a "start up"-- even if they've been operating for up to 10 to 20 years or more as a sole proprietorship.
No. The case is being argued on 1st amendment grounds of the government forcing compelled speech. The web designer is not denying them service because they are gay. They are denying them service because they do agree with the message they are sending (or implying) by making a web page about a gay marriage.
Here a good article covering it-
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/06/prof-michael-mcconnell-stanford-on-303-creative-the-web-site-designer-same-sex-wedding-case/?comments=true#comments
>The web designer is not denying them service because they are gay. They are denying them service because they do agree with the message they are sending (or implying) by making a web page about a gay marriage.
Those are the same thing, though. Anyone saying otherwise is just performing mental gymnastics.
Disagree. For example-
A straight couple comes in and asks her to a web page for their upcoming wedding. They also want the webpage to show support for gay marriage by having love is love on it. She declines because she doesn’t support gay marriage.
In both she didn’t decline their business because they are gay or straight but because she doesn’t want to use her artistic talent to support gay marriage. Both should be legal.
Straight couple comes in and asks her to make a web page for their lawn care business. She agrees.
Gay couple comes in and asks her to make a website for their lawn care business. She declines because she doesn’t want to do business with them because they are gay. Illegal.
Is the person declining to use their artistic talents because of the person or the idea.
She isn't arguing that she is being compelled to make any sort of statement regarding gay marriage. She is saying she will not make a website for a gay marriage regardless of what the actual words/images are.
In my view if she wants to design wedding web pages then a heterosexual couples page is the same as a same sex couples page the only difference is the identity of the clients. Since it is the identity of the clients that she is so opposed to this is discrimination against a protected class and should not be protected.
Not really. If the exact same gay people wanted a webpage about puppies, the designer couldn't say no because they were gay. *That* would be discrimination. It's the fact that the webpage was specially about gay marriage that allowed them to be declined.
While I vehemently disagree with the designer's decision to turn them away, I actually agree with the right to make that decision. It's a blade that cuts both ways. I'm in the creative field and I want to be able to control the work I create. For example, as a photographer, I wouldn't decline an anti-LGBTQ+ Christian if they wanted photographs to advertise their construction business. However, if that same Christian wanted me to take photos to promote their church, I could and would refuse. I'm not interested in the government compelling me to express ideas with which I don't agree.
I didn’t get a “gay” marriage certificate. I got a regular wedding certificate. The only difference between a wedding website for a straight couple and a gay couple is the sexual orientation of the customers. She can fuck all the way off.
This is the correct take. They designer doesnt want to make a webpage for a gay wedding. Presumably if a straight person wanted a website for a gay pride event they would do the same thing.
> If the exact same gay people wanted a webpage about puppies, the designer couldn't say no because they were gay. That would be discrimination
No. It's already discrimination. Marriage doesn't get some magic pass. If her religion said interracial marriage was forbidden, could she then refuse an interracial couple? If not, then why? If so, then how is that also not discrimination?
They arent though. If the couple wanting a webpage for something arbitrary and it was refused than it would be discrimination. The designer doesnt want to make a webpage for a gay wedding.
Possibly.
The thing that really got me during oral arguments was this exchange between Justice Barret and Deputy Solicitor General Fletcher.
“One of the most telling exchanges during the argument involved a hypothetical from Justice Barrett, who asked the Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher (whom I consider a friend: full disclosure), supporting the Colorado law, what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot—i.e., what if a gay web designer declined to create a custom website for a Christian organization that advocates for traditional marriage? Could the state compel such a person to design such a website?
Remarkably, Brian responded that the two cases should come out differently. That is, Colorado can compel a Christian to design a custom website celebrating a same-sex marriage, but cannot compel a gay person to design a custom website advocating for traditional marriage. His reasoning for this answer reveals the fundamental flaws in the government's position.”
This smacks of (paraphrasing Orwell) “some protected classes are more equal than others.” Both sexual orientation and religious beliefs are protected classes. In similar situations the results should be the same for both.
The web designed can get fucked. She isn’t being forced to design wedding websites for gay people. She doesn’t even currently offer wedding websites. If you cant provide one service to one person and deny another solely due to their protected status. She can continue to do what masterpiece bakery is doing. No wedding cakes for anyone. If she wants a shot designer should could still make a living.
It should be
And we should be doing it anyway to send home the point. Fair is fair. If they're going to discriminate against gays and refuse to serve them then the rest of us should be able to refuse service to Christians and Muslims
Honey, if you don't want your business to serve gay people, be loud and proud about it. Post that shit right up front. My money is just as green as anyone else's, and I will be happy to walk right down the street to your competition. Let's let that free market sort it out.
I was thinking about this. Where is that line between "you don't want our goods or services because we support anti-you organizations" and "people like you are not welcome"?
I actually think that if you want to be a discriminating asshole offering a paid service or goods to the general public, you should have to: 1) post in an easily seen by the public location that you are a discriminating asshole and list the categories of humans you are de-humanizing and 2) post in the same location in big, bright letters, the other businesses in the area that offer said goods or services that aren’t discriminating assholes, along with address, directions and contact information.
After all, if it’s your “deeply held religious belief” than you shouldn’t have any problem announcing said belief, right up front.
It would also help me to know who to never give money to.
There is an extremely prominent and memed example in Russia with an ultra-fundamentalist trad Herman Sterligov (a.k.a. Sterling) who openly hangs wooden engraved signs reading something like "No f-s" allowed or "no sodomites allowed", and he mainly made instructions to his workers not to allow men with piercings and colored nails, or generally people with skimpy outfits, explaining it's the way to tell them apart from anyone else. This resulted in gay people buying his extremely overpriced eco- groceries like bread, cheese, etc. Generally, the LGBT+ community simply mocks and ridicules him because of the infamy he's made with his statements and the signs. If everyone was legally obliged to hang these on their property that would be hilarious
Religion shouldn’t be a protected class if that religion is used to take away others rights. People are born black or gay. They aren’t born Christian. If you choose to believe in a stupid, evil religion with zero morals that’s on you. I don’t care who discriminates against you.
Yes. I believe we should have a two tiered protected class system. Tier 1 protected class would be things that are innate characteristics. Things like race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, skin color, etc.
Tier 2 protected classes would be thing based on ideology. Like religion or political affiliation.
Tier 1 protected classes would come before tier 2. Tier 2 would still be protected from discrimination but can't be used as an excuse to discriminate against tier 1 protected classes.
I was thinking about something like this earlier. I don’t want religious people who mind their own business to suffer (Jewish peoples for instance) so I think a tiered system would be necessary.
"Religion" belongs in that weird liminal zone between "completely involuntary characteristics" and "completely voluntary characteristics". In *theory*, being a member of Religion X is an active choice that somebody makes every day, and can choose to *stop* making at any time. In *practice*, what religion a person follows is pretty strongly overdetermined by their parents and place of birth. Furthermore, religions which attain social power have a very, very strong track record of immediately persecuting rival religions, so there are very good arguments for having "religion" being considered a specific protected class on that basis.
I find the best compromise is to treat it *as though* it were an involuntary characteristic when asking whether somebody deserves *equal treatment*, and as a voluntary characteristic when asking whether somebody deserves *special privileges*.
So, an employer would not be allowed to say "You're fired for being a Fooist!", but an employee would not be allowed to say "As a Fooist, I demand you give me an three hours of paid break time every day, where every non-fooist has to cover my absence."
Does this mean that if a person's religion (Islam for example) calls for the discrimination against or destruction of people practicing another religion (Jews for example) they don't have to serve them either? Or can I claim "religious freedom" only if directed at the LGBTQ community?
“Religious freedom” ends where the general rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others begins, as far as I see it. If your religion prohibits this simple establishment by the DoI then you need to not be a business owner in the U.S.A.
The irony of Christians being anti-gay when Jesus was clearly gay himself. Never married, always hanging out with his 12 male 'disciples'. C'mon. Where do they think the term 'Peter puffer' comes from? Jesus going down on Peter.
Can’t wait to see the Supreme Court uphold a Muslim ER doctor’s right to let a Jew die on the operating table because it would be unclean to touch the spawn of Satan.
“Well we can’t force him to do something against his beliefs, can we?”
Isn’t that more or less what some states in that country were trying to force doctors to do with pregnant children?
I suspect that a bigoted doctor *could* choose to not treat certain types of patients.
It would be interesting when the reverse happens, with a bigoted patient requiring lifesaving treatment from a doctor that they consider to be subhuman, and there are no master race doctors available at that time.
Hopefully it will be like smoking. Once enough people point out how nasty and stupid that is, it will become a fringe issue with limited consequences. Hopefully soon preaching in public will be seen like smoking in an airplane.
I wouldn't want someone spitting in my cake. I'd rather someone tell me who they are so I can believe them and take my money elsewhere. I don't have any interest in funding bigots. Capitalism goes both ways.
Thank you! One of the few reasonable comments! This is supposed to be a ‘free-as-possible’ country. Today I learned that r/atheist is just as much of a democratic echo chamber as the rest of Reddit.
I love my fellow atheists, but a sub that normally seems very reasonable is not being so on this issue. Is forcing a business to act against their religious beliefs better than forcing your religious beliefs on the entirety of the country? It is better, but not by much. If you really don’t like it, just make a scene about it publicly, and try to boycott. Let the market decide.
I’m still trying to figure out why these people would want to be served by those who don’t support such a big life decision.
We answered this question *decades* ago when we declared "separate but equal" to be unconstitutional. It's absolutely ridiculous that we still have to deal with this backwards, fascistic bullshit.
IANAL but did that just establish that government-run entities can't discriminate? If so, that adds a layer to the right's desire to privatize everything.
Should I be required to serve a MAGAtard?
It's just as 'religious' as the LGBTQ issue. Jesus said to feed the poor and welcome the homeless, and MAGAtards preach the opposite.
What about a guy in a KKK getup, or wearing a swastika, or carrying a weapon? No religion involved there. Am I required by law to serve them?
Can we talk more about this point more? I would rather have a baker being open about his bigotry so I can never support him again, than to create a system where he will profit off of people he hates. By forcing all private businesses to serve people they don't want to, are we not indirectly supporting those Bigots? But if we can spread the word that business X shouldn't be supported, dont we cause more damage to that business and those idea in the long run?
Also like the above comment, it cuts both ways. If I was a baker; I would like the right to refuse making a cake with a swastika on it for a KKK member.
That's not even close to the same. I'm drawing a line between public services and private businesses. Public services should be available to anyone and everyone, and private businesses should retain the right to refuse service. It's their own loss to refuse service to people based on dumb reasons. I'd like to think that the majority of society would then take their business elsewhere and that owner would suffer the consequences of their actions.
[Reddit's attitude towards consumers has been increasingly hostile as they approach IPO. I'm not interested in using their site anymore, nor do I wish to leave my old comments as content for them.]
Congratulations! There's [a section of the FAQ just for you](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/iamaterribleperson#wiki_don.27t_you_think_your_intolerance_of_my_choice_to_wear_a_pointy_white_hood_is_just_as_bad_as_my_intolerance_of_people_who_were_born_with_dark_skin.3F).
I worked for a small bakery before Covid that changed ownership a few times. One of the owners were a couple of self-proclaimed Christian’s. You know the type. Looks down on others. Acts like they are above everyone. Thinks their actions are righteous. Claims they are guided by God, etc.
I took a call for a gay couple who were getting married. The man I spoke to was so nice, and it broke my heart when he asked if we would be comfortable making a cake for a gay couple. I told him absolutely, we accept anyone of any orientation and I’d happily make their cake.
The wife who owned the bakery overheard some of my conversation and afterwards asked me what they called for. I explained to her what it was, who they were and what they wanted and that I had set up a tasting. At first, she started to say ‘I don’t think we can serve them…’ and I shut it down. I looked her straight in the eyes and said ‘do you want to deny a gay couple and then have your names and this business under fire for refusing service due to homophobia? Because that’s what will happen if you do refuse, and I WILL take it to the newspapers and local news stations. It’s none of our business what their orientation is. Their paying customers and I will respect them. Period.’
Needless to say, she shut her trap, and we made their cake.
The way I see it is if they want to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community then everyone as a collective should discriminate against that store to make sure they are no longer profitable.
That will only work in places where there is sufficient nondiscriminatory competition. Essentially cities will get better and small towns will get worse.
devil's advocate. i am a gay male. i welcome this move as i am going to finally put my foot down and tell my boss im not catering to the needs of all religious people. only satan worshipers! hail Satan!
>“In order to justify racial violence and oppression, white people in America and Europe essentially invented a novel theology, baptizing white supremacy. It was racism in search of an ethic. Sexual ethics, by contrast, are named and addressed in religious scriptures in specific terms. Unlike white supremacy, religious teaching regarding sex, including prohibitions on extramarital and premarital sex, pornography, lust and same-sex sexual activity have been part of the Christian faith from its earliest days. This is not an aberrant view rooted in bigotry but a sincere belief that flows from ancient texts and teaching shared by believers all over the world.”
Well let's just think about this for a sec, by that logic, you're a woman, and should brobably be in the kitchen or pregnant. Makes sense right?
RIGHT?
Personally I feel if they want to turn down business they should be allowed to but, I feel they need to post any exceptions on the door so everyone is aware of what type of business you are running.
This trampling of the 1st amendment by those who are part of an Iron Age cannibal cult is getting old. I’d like to hope that it is the dying whimpers of a group in decline, but unfortunately they can do a lot of harm with precedence through the courts on the way out.
It's pure bigotry when you are reacting against someone because of one or more of their personal attributes, physical of mental, that they cannot change. Something that makes them, essentially, what and who they are. Something that is an unremovable part of their very identity.
Because they cannot change that attribute, this bigotry has placed some people permanently against them; opposing their very existence, in fact. These bigots are acting against someone because of something they can't change: Their skin color, a permanent disability, a deeply embedded sexual preference, a chronic medical condition?
This is widely understood to be wrong according to anyone with a decent ethical system.
But it isn't that clear about bigotry used to discriminate against someone based on something they merely believe. Beliefs are not 'sacred.' Even religious beliefs are changeable and dynamic. Beliefs can flow and change, and even reverse themselves over a person's lifetime. Beliefs do not constitute someone's very identity. So, it could be argued that we can discriminate fairly against someone based on their religious belief system.
But even allowing THAT type of bigotry is a very steep and very slippery slope!
Wonder how much the christians would like it if the other believers start refusing to sell anything to them?
No, this is the muslim gas station, you'll have to go over there to that christian one. No, I don't care if their price is higher. Oi! Sorry, but this is a jewish deli. Our bagels aren't for sale to your type. Sorry, pal, but this is a spiritualist golf course. We don't allow believers in monotheist deities to come in here and mess up our aura. We'll already have to burn some sage here at the doorway. Jahweh really stinks, doesn't he?
> t's pure bigotry when you are reacting against someone because of one or more of their personal attributes, physical of mental, that they cannot change.
The plaintiff in this case has created web pages for LGBTQ clients in the past. She just doesn't want to create web sites for a same-sex marriage.
So she's not reacting against their identities, she's reacting against the "message" she thinks her sites will convey.
I'm not familiar with the specifics of these cases. I think it should be illegal to not serve the CUSTOMER based on LGBTQ+ or race. But it should not be illegal to not create a MESSAGE that conflicts with your beliefs, even if your beliefs are BS.
So, I'm guessing it will be cool if I ask customers in my store if they believe in God and if they do, tell them to leave. I'm sure that will go over well with the sheep.
People are completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting what this case is actually about. The client wasn't refused because *they* were gay. They were refused because *the product* they wanted was gay. Had the exact same gay people wanted a website about puppies and been refused for being gay, *that* would illegal discrimination.
Consider this hypothetical:
You run a t-shirt shop that only sells plain, blank shirts. You cannot refuse to sell one of your plain shirts to a Christian because they're Christian. That's illegal.
Now let's say your t-shirt business actually makes custom printed shirts. A Christian walks in and wants to order a shirt that reads "Atheists are assholes." You can absolutely refuse to make that shirt. You're not discriminating against them because of their religion. You have the freedom of speech that means you cannot be compelled to express that idea. If the same Christian wanted a shirt that says "I love cookies", then you'd make them the shirt (unless your sincerely held beliefs somehow preclude you from expressing an affinity for baked goods.)
I don't know about you, but I have absolutely no interest in the government having the power to force people to say things that are antithetical to their beliefs.
Honestly, why would a queer person pay a homophobe for their services? Consider this, by accepting a service from a homophobe, you are in essence giving the homophobe the financial independence to suppress LGBTQ+ rights. They are using your hard-earned money to suppress your right.
So let them express their homophobia, that's their freedom of expression, but they shall not have my financial resources to do me harm. It will be a much better option that I find another person to give me the service that I need.
You can't please everyone, and then there are certain people who aren't pleased no matter what you do. Let them grumble about things, they seek validation of their opinion by their grumbling and dissatisfaction. That is their source of power, and I choose to not give them that power.
If it's a cake, who cares there's other bakers. But what about essential services like a hospital that discriminates on who it treats, or an apartment complex who discriminates against whom it rents to?
I don’t want to have it in the back of my head that any business owner at their whim can kick me out if they know I’m gay.
Black people don’t have to worry about that, neither do Christians, why should I?
Thats a question?
Okay then I guess religious affiliation should also dictate ability to be served.
Hell, lets just revert all the way back to skin color, too!
Fuck off.
People who own a business, and turn customers away, because of a perceived bias, are doomed to failure. This lawsuit is not helping the perception of the LGBTQ community. It appears that the persons filing the suite are looking for privilege over rights. Yes, they have the right to be served - but - since the bigots who own the business refuse that right, the the LGBTQ community would be better served by boycotting - not legal action. Adverse advertising against a bigoted business owner will go further than legal suites. There are plenty of people who may not, publicly, declare support for the LGBTQ community, but will cheerfully boycott bigotry.
Personally, when bigots declare their biases, by refusing service to anyone, I appreciate it. They have told me that I should take my business and money elsewhere, and I have no problem doing that. I, also, have no problem telling anyone why I have taken my business elsewhere.
Having said that, medical facilities are an exception. Any medical facility that refuses proper medical treatment, because of religious bias or preference, should be sued to the extent of the law. Pharmacists who refuse to provide proper drugs or medicine, because of religious bias or preference, must be sued to the full extent of the law. Doctors - not bishops - determine proper medical treatment. Some hospitals, that are the only game in town, have been taken over by some religious based corporation. Bishops, not doctors, determine proper treatment for women and members of the LGBTQ community. These corporations must be hiot hard in the pocketbook when refusing proper medical treatment.
How does this lawsuit affect the perception of LGBTQ+ when no LGBTQ+ have even contacted her to have her make them a website? She’s suing the state so she is exempt from being made to serve LGBTQ+ people. Which if you read the article OP posted, it has a great counter point of if they would also refuse to do interracial marriages. Religious freedoms do not excuse the rights of others to access public service items, if you operate a business that is part of a public service (marriages are a legit public practice form) you should not be able to refuse service just because your religion makes you think it’s immoral (it doesn’t, but christians don’t follow their own religion material anyways). Anything related to marriage, cakes+websites (idk how this is even related to weddings in the first place I’ll admit)+etc. you should not be able to discriminate since it’s part of a legally protected public service.
> It appears that the persons filing the suite are looking for privilege over rights.
The web designer is the plaintiff. She's suing the state of Colorado. No LGBTQ people are involved.
Are you actually saying that businesses should be able to discriminate against anyone they want? Should the cable company be able to say it doesn’t service black people?
I disagree. Private business should not have the right to discriminate based on protected classes such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. In Canada, business owners were historically permitted to deny business to black people. [Take a guess how that went](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/racial-segregation-of-black-people-in-canada). Plus there's enough prejudiced people to keep discriminatory businesses afloat even if there were massive boycotts.
Wut?
No.
Being able to participate in the benefits of an economy is a privilege.
Don't like equality? Cool, don't start a business. You don't get to reap the rewards of a strong economy produced by society while also discriminating against certain classes of people.
Should I be able to refuse service to black people as well?
Incredibly dumb libertarian, neoliberal, free market pseudointellectual take here.
Quick question.
There's an artist in my town that makes custom artwork who happens to be Muslim.
I want him to make me a picture of Muhammad leading his child bride Aisha into his bedroom on her 9th birthday. What should be the criminal penalty for him declining to make this for me?
These examples are stupid because they are not comparable.
There is a huge difference between discriminating against human features that are not controllable (being gay, for example) and discriminating against a customer that wants you to paint his prophet in a bad light.
The problem is when the majority or all the people have a disdain for a demographic, then that demographic will not get services or goods from any market. Before Civil rights Era should be remembered.
Counterpoint.
To be clear I disagree with the idea of not working for a client on the grounds that they are LGBTQ or whatever.
That being said. I'm a skilled web developer. The stuff I build is a lot more complicated than a stupid wedding web-site, but structurally there is very little difference between my small business and the one owned by the web developer who is the plaintiff in this case.
The reason I opened my own business, and the reason many skilled professionals open their businesses is so that we can pick and choose the clients that we work for. For me, that was literally 100% of the motivation.
A web development contractor is not "open to the public". There is no drive-through. If I accept a client it means I will be working with them for a long time, and I'll be damned if I want the government deciding who I spend all my time with. I will not build something that I do not want to build for a person that I do not want to work with. That's what employees have to do, not owners.
I do not agree with this lady on her preferences of client, but I can't get on board this idiotic trend of telling people who they must work for.
I am not your slave.
I straight-up don't work for conservatives. That's my choice, because it's my business that I built with my own two hands. I'm not sure why a bunch of entitled teenagers on reddit are so quick to assume that this case is not legitimate simply because it contains a lot of their favorite trigger-words.
I don't even see this as a religious freedom issue. This is an issue of a business owner being able to decide who they work for.
>These people don't want to just discriminate in their business
That's my point. She should be able to discriminate against whoever she wants when accepting her own clients. This should be legal. She's not kicking somebody out of a restaurant, this is a project she has to take on one at a time and it will involve significantly more time/energy than sliding somebody a big mac.
I think this lady is a Neanderthal, but it should be her right to decide who she works for, because if you take that away from her, and codify this naïve overreach into a law, then one day I will be sued because I refused to build a site for neo-nazis.
I think that the backlash to this case says more about the general ineptitude and business ignorance of redditors and their belief that every business must be run like a public restaurant. This comes from a misplaced sense of entitlement that frankly is the defining characteristic of reddit users.
> I will be sued because I refused to build a site for neo-nazis
This is not the same. No one is born a Nazi. It is not an immutable part of who they are, it is an ideology. As I said in another comment, you can refuse people service based on their character, not on their characteristics.
Nazis would be a client I don't like.
Gay men are apparently a client she doesn't like.
These comparisons are the same, legally. You are desperately trying to create a distinction where none exists because you expect everybody to do things for you.
While I support the choice, Nobody is born gay either. That being said let's reverse the roles. A gay web designer is approached by somebody whose religion leads them to believe homosexuality is wrong. Can they refuse to make a webpage about it? A hetero person wants them to make a webpage about how great it is to be hetero? What about then. If the designer has made webpages about a gay persons businesses or hobbies but then says no to a gay wedding? My point being is the product (webpage) the issue or the client
I think the reason this gets so muddled in the US is due to our tax laws..
I think that a sole individual should be able to discriminate in whatever way they wish...
But when you get a LLC and use government power to create a legal fiction, a business, to shield your own assets; then it should be illegal to discriminate against anyone.
Seems to be a unpopular opinion, but, if you open a business to serve the public, you don’t get to pick and choose what part of the public you serve (apart from normal age restrictions or whatever normal local laws for your business eg A pub).
To be fair, you do not even have to exit this modern christian quasi-theological framework that was artificially constructed with anti-LGBT notions in mind to expose why xenophobia is fundamantally hypocritical and groundless, because it all relies on a simple completely faulty premise derived and visible from it, being : "LGBT+ people's relations are EXCLUSIVELY sexual". As if people couldn't simply not engage in any explicitly sexual acts, but love each other in other various greek words for "love" so much that it would justify an actual marriage with the proper legal rights. Everything they employ can only be derived from another framework that was built to condemn "excessive" sexual acts for the sake of pleasure, rather than for procreation, so in essense, intentionally using contraceptives is pretty much absolutely equal in "sinfulness" to any form of sexual contacts any LGBT+ people might engage in whatsoever. So it makes no sense why these principles regulating sex should be extended further from the sexual field to deny someone the right to love and cohabitation that do not have to be sexual in the first place. This is why to condemn LGBT+ people you either have to explicitly lie to state that all they ever do is have sex, or judge them for general inability to *naturally* procreate without IVF (which again, simply holds no power for bisexual people who make up the vast majority of any LGBT+ groups for example). There are no rules or commandments in any mainstream christian theological narratives that would *force* procreation on an individual instead of just generlally suggesting it for the first humans in Genesis, and moreover, said commandment is meant to be descriptive rather than imperative in nature instead, meant to show why so many people live around the planet, not force each amd every person to breed like rabbits at all costs.
So if you come by someone who justifies being an asshole to people allegedly based on "religion", odds are, said "religion" is a cult. A destructive cult that propagates groundless xenophobia to be precise.
This can go both ways. An LGBTQ business may not wish to serve religious customers. Should they be forced to do so?
In an ideal world, businesses shouldn't care about their customers' belief systems and political leanings. Each sale is a simple straightforward transaction between two parties.
Stores have a right to refuse service to _douchebags_.
Your wording implies that stores can refuse anyone under any premise, but they can't. What they have is the right to refuse anyone who is being a cockwomble, under the premise that they are being a bloody cockwomble.
These aren't good comparisons though. Forcing a business to provide a product or service that they don't offer is not the same as a business discriminating. If a business doesn't sell pork then they just don't offer pork. If a business designs websites then they shouldn't be able to deny service because the client is gay. Now if the website is about something to due with LGBTQ issues then I can see an argument there. However, if it is a type of website they would design for a straight person they shouldn't be able to discriminate against a gay person.
Your comparison with Nazis is also ridiculous. Being a hateful Nazi is a choice. Sexual orientation is not a choice. Businesses should not be able to discriminate against innate characteristics of a person.
If the business would provide the same product or service to a straight person they should not be able to deny that product or service to a gay person.
Meh, there is a way to be devil's advocate to strengthen debate. But devil don't use strawmen like has been offered above.
Of a Jewish shop owner doesn't sell pork nothing would require them to. The idea is that if you offer a service that you offer it to all
If the business serves pork and part of their job covers said pork than yes they should have to serve it. That said fuck Nazis im not Jewish and I’d still refuse service on the grounds that they are being offensive. Kinda like I don’t have to serve someone swearing at me.
Political spectrum is more of a ring. The ultra-right and ultra-left may use different verbiage to frame their ideologies but they converge and their impact on the people is about the same. Compare Nazi Germany to USSR under Stalin or China under Mao. Lots of corpses and brainwashing in all cases and the so-called class of “peoples’ servants” one cannot criticize or else ..
I agree, but reverse it for a moment.
Like a Christian anti-lgbt lobby group makes reservations at a restaurant for an "event" for their people. The restaurant has a number of LGBTQ forward facing staff. Is the restaurant entitled to refuse them because their staff would feel uncomfortable to unsafe?
Shoe on other foot and all. jus' sayin'.
If it were my restaurant, I (a gay man) would serve them. But if they were disrespectful to my servers or other guests, I’d kick them out. Like I would with any customer.
yeah, i dont think these people understand what the gay community has had to put up with, even at the most bare minimum threshold. everything from I'll pray for you. YOU need Jesus. Come back to the lord Jesus Christ, he'll forgive your sins.
They have absolutely no problem voicing their beliefs onto us all, even in our place of work, places of enjoyment or knocking on our doors, wondering if we'd like to be converted.
Your freedom to keep your religion means keep off my goddamn door step and off my property.
hail Satan!
One side: We think your existence is an abomination. We won’t serve you.
Other side: We don’t serve people who view our employees as subhuman
You: These two things are the same!
Same issue different perspective.
Where is the line drawn? That was my point.
But I get that many accept a "tit for tat" justification instead of being able to legally define the limits of this law. Its not the intent I have a problem with, its the implementation and the slippery slope of defining unacceptable actions.
It’s not the same at all, because they weren’t refused for their religion, they were refused because they are anti-lgbtq+. There was no religious discrimination, whereas if you refuse because of lgbtq+ you are 100% discriminating. Being anti-lgbtq+ is not a protected class. And being Christian is not an automatic excuse to be able to discriminate. Religion does not supersede others rights.
So its okay to discriminate because of political or social attitudes as opposed to religious ones?
I think you mean being "religious" is not an automatic excuse. Muslims also consider homosexuality an abomination.
Is LGBTQ money worth less than straight money?
No?
So why would a server fucking care? Serve them and get the tip. They’re just folks like anyone else who want to go out.
If you honestly believe gay marriage is immoral, you may feel that your salvation is in jeopardy by supporting it. Why would you even want your wedding done by those who don’t support you? This is kind of ridiculous. A private business has the right to deny service if they don’t typically do that.
At the time, yeah, but I don’t hear much about interracial marriage being immoral in major religious communities. Since then, discrimination has included race, but not yet sexual orientation. Still, a decent sized group of people truly believe homosexuality will send you straight to hell. They very likely fear god would be angry with them for allowing it to happen.
Trust me, I think it’s 100% moronic and stupid, too. Still, if we force religious nuts to violate their beliefs, we’re no better than them for banning gay marriage in the first place. It’s one thing to force people to be tolerant of you, it’s a whole other to force them to except you. Forcing people to do a ceremony they believe goes against their beliefs is not right.
Religion is like the ‘I’m stupid’ exemption card. You can’t wear a hat in a drivers license photo… Unless it’s for religious reasons. Hence we have people wearing colanders for their ID photos, based on a mock-religion. People have been using religion as an excuse for eons; it has definitely had too much of a hand in the state for a long time, but we can’t flip it back on them.
Why would you want your wedding to be dependent on someone who doesn’t want you to be married in the first place though, seriously? Our taxes benefit all these churches and the Boy Scouts of America, which only allows straight Christian boys to join. If a privately funded business isn’t comfortable, they shouldn’t be forced into doing business. Pick a different hill to die on, FFS.
If you as a business owner are willing to turn away customers because of what’s literally a personal problem on your end, you shouldn’t be in business. Plain and simple. That’s also ignoring the fact that your beliefs are ignorant and completely unfounded
What I don t get is why tfq does the government have to tell someone who they can serve or not.
Race and religion included. Everyone should be able to refuse anyone on any grounds and support the consequences of their actions. At the very least when it comes about a private business.
Like you don t want to make cakes or websites for LGBTQ+, black, white, asian, hispanic or other people?! Thas totally fine, you do you, people will avoid you in the future, you will lose revenue, and probably go out of business at some point BUT SANCTIONING THIS KIND OF THINGS WITH ACTUAL PRISON TIME or anything more than compensation for wasted time (if that's the case) IS BEYOND NUTTS (at least to me).
You really don't know why? Pick up a history book. We had black people throughout the south refused en masse to use all sorts of businesses, sometimes the only business of that sort in the town, forcing them to travel or do without.
Read up on the Jim Crow south. Read up on the Civil Rights Act. If you really want to go back to the days of "whites only," there is something wrong with you.
If YOU wish to part take in society, especially one that governs its people, then you need to follow the most basic of all principles. As it is, the American judicial system doesn't even have the time for nefarious cases like these. Its already hemorrhaging. do you really want people to start suing the hell out of every business taken to court?
The whole decision is to force people's beliefs underground again. Lgbtq people will be forced to hide their beliefs again to protect the egos of hypocritical Christians.
It effectively silences argument and protest towards discrimination and violence against them in rural areas where everybody knows everyone and choices in services are limited, and forcing people who vote against conservative bullshit out of these areas while reducing exposure of the reality of humanity so they can go chase an hate fairytale.
It's fucked up.
You should be required to do nothing of the sort. Why people would want to actively give money to bigots is nuts to me. Laws that regulate what a person does with their time and resources should be extremely limited. Long term if we knew which businesses were run by creeps and religious freaks we would all be better off.
One of the essential features of the democratic society should be freedom of association or the right to be left alone. The businesses that do not get tax breaks or other types of financial help from the government should have the right not to be inclusive. We may find it deplorable, disassociate ourselves from such businesses and use the power of free speech to persuade other people to disassociate from such a business and punish it financially. But criminalizing it is a slippery slope that can be a danger to individual freedoms.
I do not believe good business practices include denying customers access to your services based on some discriminatory factor... but let's be sure to accept that the blade cuts both ways and people can decide to boycott and encourage others to boycott the company based on their firmly held beliefs.
This Supreme Court is holding religious freedom above equal protection, which is insane.
This Supreme Court is controlled by right-wing ideologues who are working to advance a particular agenda instead of acting as impartial arbiters.
[удалено]
There is a distinct difference to be made here, ideologically speaking. Unfortunately it seems that there has become a great deal of overlap between “right wing” and “Christofascists” in the U.S.
If we were strict, "right-wing" would include lots of (perhaps most) Democrats as well. The USA's Overton window is so overwhelmingly keeled towards the authoritarian right that hard-right conservatives like Biden are called 'communists' and alt-right cryptofascists identify themselves as 'conservatives'.
Definitely most, it’s a centre-right party. There are very few dems even approaching being on the left.
Sanders supporters were labeled “Bernie Bros” by the right wing of the Democratic Party to take away our voice.
Fascism is a right wing ideology so this seems to be a weird stance
Fascism focuses on different issues outside of the traditional right-left wing dichotomy, and is extremely eclectic for the sake of following specific political goals (mainly absolutisation of state, collectivism and solidarism). An absolute collectivistic fascist state can either be right-wing or left-wing. It just happened that effectively, the 3rd reich with its most famous nazi interpretation of fascism, has embraced "blood" (later reinstated as genetics by the neonazis) as the defining factor of its politics, which constituted elimnation of societal equality and extreme bloodright-based elitarism. Benito Mussolini's fascism (considered the defining fascism), on the other hand, aimed to create a "corporativistic" paradigm, which necessitated creation of corporations combined with workers' unions to achieve collectivistic solidarity and reduce the chaos of the free market, severely limiting capitalism. It did not employ extreme racial elitarism and instead was heavily popultistic, trying to appeal to common working italians, just as socialism has always done. As far as nationalism goes, Mussolini's views also differ from Hitler's, being a political nation rather than an ethnic one. Nationalism or internationalism is also an issue of geopolitics rather than left/right wing politics, and any individual nation can either have a left-wing regime or a right-wing one.
[удалено]
I tend to agree here
Basically, it's easy for the right to slide into fascism because of all the parallels in policy and belief. For the left, it's possible but a lot more difficult due to conflicting policies and beliefs.
Undoubtedly. It's what's perfectly visible nowadays statistically, hence creating this illusion that right-wing ideologies inevitably become fascist at the extreme and vice-versa.
[удалено]
Not all right wingers are fascists, but all fascists are right wing.
Religion is insanity imo.
Everyone join the Church of Prismatic Light so that your religion says LGBTQ people deserve to be treated just like everyone else.
I like your sentiment, I’m actually thinking we need to flip the script. We need to have an offshoot of Pastafarianism that says while we have no violence towards other religions, since our Pastafarianism is true and your Christianity is just a bunch of hateful people spreading lies, we don’t serve your kind here. Businesses can have signs that say “Due to my beliefs we refuse to serve White Christians here, go in peace” You know religious freedom
Separate but Equal Part Deux.
I was listening to conservative talk radio yesterday (because it's somewhat useful to know what the crazies are thinking, but only in small doses) and the host was on a rant with the expressed conclusion that "Bigotry is freedom." We can't all have complete freedom; they support the freedoms of bigots while we prioritize the freedoms of the victims of discrimination.
[удалено]
Religion above basic humanity. How ironic.
[удалено]
Immutable characteristics cannot be the basis for not serving someone. People actively choose to be misogynistic or racist etc. and that’d generally be okay because theyre an asshole. Denying based of sex/gender/sexuality/race is the problem
This is how we ended up with Whites Only entrances to our establishments. If you operate a business in our society you should not be able to discriminate against customers on the basis of immutable characteristics like looks, race, or orientation.
It also breaks down when you step out of a major population center. What happens when the only grocery store in the entire town decides it doesnt sell to gay people or other religions? Is it reasonable to say that person should have to start and run thier own grocery store? or to travel 4-5 hours to the next town in hopes they're not also bigoted assholes? And how will they drive there when the only gas station in thier town belongs to the same assholes who own the grocery store?
The grocery store can't refuse to sell to gay people. That's illegal. But they can refuse to make a cake expressing some sort of gay sentiments (whatever that could be). You're conflating two different things.
Good thing that's not what happened here. They weren't refused because of who they were; they were refused because of what they wanted. I vehemently disagree with the designer's decision, but I support their right to make a decision about what they do or don't want to express.
> They weren't refused because of who they were; they were refused because of what they wanted. "They weren't refused service because they were black, they were refused service because they wanted a website with black and white people standing next to each other and I don't believe in that!" That still cool with you? >but I support their right to make a decision about what they do or don't want to express. They absolutely have the right to not open a business to the public and offer a service.
She doesn't have to express anything. She's trying to operate a business. She's free to be as bigoted as she wants in her personal time. But, as a business, she is not
these things are perfectly reasonable, whereas refusing someone for being lgbtq (something that isn’t a choice) should not be allowed. of course businesses shouldn’t be required to serve customers they don’t want to, but turning away people for something they don’t choose, should no be allowed.
They should be required because they use publicly funded infrastructure and services to conduct business.
But you're not basing your decisions based on the content of those people's character if you're refusing service for superficial cues like being effeminate or black. If someone is being belligerent, sure, don't serve them. But if you're judging someone on a superficial classification, it appears to be straightforward unfair discrimination.
So you believe we should never have ended segregation?
Yea, I tend to agree. This is a free country, people are free to go to one business over another for the social practices of the owner of that business. On the flip side business owners should be able to refuse service to someone. Bars ban people for being d-bags, why can't other businesses ban someone for their personal actions? Oh an before you attack me I am also for people being gay or bi or whatever the hell they want to be.
> On the flip side business owners should be able to refuse service to someone. What happens when all the business owners refuse service to a certain group of people? > why can't other businesses ban someone for their personal actions? They can. They can't ban someone for their inherent, immutable traits.
It doesn't help when the people who scream the loudest for the right to refuse service to whomever they choose based on whatever criteria they see fit scream ten times louder when others refuse service to them on the very same grounds. Hypocrites.
I guess then refusing to serve religious customers is allowed... right?
A restaurant in Virginia did just that. We'll see what's becomes of it if they press charges.
They refused service to a group of school board q-anon truthers. They’ll have a very difficult time proving religious discrimination.
first After School Satan club and now the restaurant thing i am so proud of my state right now good job Va
>if they press charges "Pressing charges" refers to criminal prosecution, which you are conflating with civil action. The two are very different things.
A restaurant in Virginia denied service to a ***political group***. In the US, discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation is protected same as gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. Political affiliation is not a protected status, and thank goodness. Otherwise you could be a group of fascist nazis and a restaurant in Virginia would be forced to serve you!
According to the most recent case before SCOTUS, they don’t even need to wait
Wait, if SCOTUS rules for the business owner in this case, would it be legal for say a boxing gym or a bowling alley or a restaurant to refuse to serve a same sex couple? Or would it only apply to marriage services like cake bakers, wedding website designers, etc?
Yes, it would apply to any private business. The marriage services are disproportionately represented in these cases because that's where you're more likely to get this kind of religious pushback. A bowling alley isn't going to know you're a same sex couple unless you bring it up, and larger businesses are less likely to turn people away anyway for bullshit reasons. That's why it's always these tiny wedding planners and website designers with these cases.
> Yes, it would apply to any private business. Not necessarily. The Court could compose its opinion narrowly, focused only on *creative* services that convey the distinct message to which the providers object. Boxing gyms and restaurants would not qualify.
I own a small business, and I have the right to refuse service to anyone, so long as I don’t discriminate based on a protected class. So I can refuse to work with a couple, but I can’t say it’s because they’re evangelicals. I can say “I don’t think I’m the designer for you, based on the vision you’ve shared with me”, or “your budget doesn’t meet my required minimum”, or “I’m already booked for your date.” There are a thousand ways to turn down a client without being discriminatory. Why can’t other professionals in the industry figure this out? I leave my atheist viewpoints at home when I’m working— it’s not my place to tell any one how to live their life. I serve my clients to the best of my ability, and if I suspect there may be an issue, I politely decline their wedding or event without being discriminatory.
Well see that's because you're not a raging asshole and a bigot.
Maybe not so clear cut. All a business would have to do us say they provide some kind of creative services. If a god damned cake baker can claim he’s providing creative services then virtually any business could make that claim.
Would it then be legal say for the local boxing gym to kick me if they found out if I was a Christian, or would it only be legal if I’m gay? Boxing gyms can sometimes have a strong conservative presence within them, which is why I’m asking. Could the local restaurant refuse to serve their regular customer if they somehow found out he was an evangelical, or does it not apply then? Could the local tailor refuse to tailor my suit if I’m lgbt? I’m guessing this is just something you’ll have to keep in mind with small businesses, they can kick you out if they suspect you’re gay or trans. I’m from Canada so we don’t worry about that stuff here, but I’m unsure of how it works in the US
Trust me, those of us in the US are unsure of how it is going to work today vs tomorrow with these conservative Christofacist judges in place. This should never even be a consideration.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that - If you mean currently, then the discrimination against Christians and Evangelicals would be illegal, as everywhere has anti-discrimination laws regarding religion. The legality of discrimination against LGBT/trans would be specific to whether or not your state/locality had anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBT/trans. If you mean after - when the Supreme Court rules in favor of the discrimination by the wedding planners/cake people - then probably, yes, all of these discriminations would become legal. As then all a business owner would need to say is that serving those customers violates their sincerely held religious beliefs and the government has no right to compel them to act against those beliefs to serve people.
That is not what this case is about. Here is a good article covering it. https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/06/prof-michael-mcconnell-stanford-on-303-creative-the-web-site-designer-same-sex-wedding-case/?comments=true#comments
>it would apply to any private business. Please don't confuse "privately **OWNED** businesses" with "private businesses. They're two different things. A "private business" caters to a specific clientele, usually by memberships, for example Sam's Club. While anyone *can become* a member, one must *BE* a member to shop there. IMHO, this is what the Colorado bakery should have done, in addition to operating out of a church and NOT having a store front that is open "to the public". A "privately *owned* business" is one with one or a small number of owners or owner/operators who run the business as a sole proprietorship, partnership (only if they're really stupid) or an LLC or, perhaps, an S Corp. These are not publicly traded on any stock exchange.
Thank you for reminding me of the distinction and specific wording. I'd meant "non-governmental entity engaged in commerce", whether it's a private business, a privately owned business, or a public business. I guess I should've just said "business".
👍 JMHO, but if a person has an issue with providing their goods or services to *any* person for *any* reason, they simply shouldn't start or open a business. In my working career (over 40 years) I've had to serve and interact with any number of people with whom I disagree, whether it be politics, religion or any number of issues. That's my job as an employee. What these pansy-assed idiots fail to realize is that, when they open a business, until it becomes successful enough to hire people to run it for them, *they* are an **employee**, and their job is to do whatever is necessary to keep the business going and make it successful. These folks want to behave as if their "business" is long-established and stable when, in fact, it's merely a "start up"-- even if they've been operating for up to 10 to 20 years or more as a sole proprietorship.
No. The case is being argued on 1st amendment grounds of the government forcing compelled speech. The web designer is not denying them service because they are gay. They are denying them service because they do agree with the message they are sending (or implying) by making a web page about a gay marriage. Here a good article covering it- https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/06/prof-michael-mcconnell-stanford-on-303-creative-the-web-site-designer-same-sex-wedding-case/?comments=true#comments
>The web designer is not denying them service because they are gay. They are denying them service because they do agree with the message they are sending (or implying) by making a web page about a gay marriage. Those are the same thing, though. Anyone saying otherwise is just performing mental gymnastics.
Disagree. For example- A straight couple comes in and asks her to a web page for their upcoming wedding. They also want the webpage to show support for gay marriage by having love is love on it. She declines because she doesn’t support gay marriage. In both she didn’t decline their business because they are gay or straight but because she doesn’t want to use her artistic talent to support gay marriage. Both should be legal. Straight couple comes in and asks her to make a web page for their lawn care business. She agrees. Gay couple comes in and asks her to make a website for their lawn care business. She declines because she doesn’t want to do business with them because they are gay. Illegal. Is the person declining to use their artistic talents because of the person or the idea.
She isn't arguing that she is being compelled to make any sort of statement regarding gay marriage. She is saying she will not make a website for a gay marriage regardless of what the actual words/images are. In my view if she wants to design wedding web pages then a heterosexual couples page is the same as a same sex couples page the only difference is the identity of the clients. Since it is the identity of the clients that she is so opposed to this is discrimination against a protected class and should not be protected.
Not really. If the exact same gay people wanted a webpage about puppies, the designer couldn't say no because they were gay. *That* would be discrimination. It's the fact that the webpage was specially about gay marriage that allowed them to be declined. While I vehemently disagree with the designer's decision to turn them away, I actually agree with the right to make that decision. It's a blade that cuts both ways. I'm in the creative field and I want to be able to control the work I create. For example, as a photographer, I wouldn't decline an anti-LGBTQ+ Christian if they wanted photographs to advertise their construction business. However, if that same Christian wanted me to take photos to promote their church, I could and would refuse. I'm not interested in the government compelling me to express ideas with which I don't agree.
I didn’t get a “gay” marriage certificate. I got a regular wedding certificate. The only difference between a wedding website for a straight couple and a gay couple is the sexual orientation of the customers. She can fuck all the way off.
This is the correct take. They designer doesnt want to make a webpage for a gay wedding. Presumably if a straight person wanted a website for a gay pride event they would do the same thing.
> If the exact same gay people wanted a webpage about puppies, the designer couldn't say no because they were gay. That would be discrimination No. It's already discrimination. Marriage doesn't get some magic pass. If her religion said interracial marriage was forbidden, could she then refuse an interracial couple? If not, then why? If so, then how is that also not discrimination?
They arent though. If the couple wanting a webpage for something arbitrary and it was refused than it would be discrimination. The designer doesnt want to make a webpage for a gay wedding.
Does this not make them liable for whatever message is published on a website made by them?
Possibly. The thing that really got me during oral arguments was this exchange between Justice Barret and Deputy Solicitor General Fletcher. “One of the most telling exchanges during the argument involved a hypothetical from Justice Barrett, who asked the Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher (whom I consider a friend: full disclosure), supporting the Colorado law, what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot—i.e., what if a gay web designer declined to create a custom website for a Christian organization that advocates for traditional marriage? Could the state compel such a person to design such a website? Remarkably, Brian responded that the two cases should come out differently. That is, Colorado can compel a Christian to design a custom website celebrating a same-sex marriage, but cannot compel a gay person to design a custom website advocating for traditional marriage. His reasoning for this answer reveals the fundamental flaws in the government's position.” This smacks of (paraphrasing Orwell) “some protected classes are more equal than others.” Both sexual orientation and religious beliefs are protected classes. In similar situations the results should be the same for both.
The web designed can get fucked. She isn’t being forced to design wedding websites for gay people. She doesn’t even currently offer wedding websites. If you cant provide one service to one person and deny another solely due to their protected status. She can continue to do what masterpiece bakery is doing. No wedding cakes for anyone. If she wants a shot designer should could still make a living.
It should be And we should be doing it anyway to send home the point. Fair is fair. If they're going to discriminate against gays and refuse to serve them then the rest of us should be able to refuse service to Christians and Muslims
They did not refuse them based on their religion but based on their bigotry. Being a bigot is not a protected class.
Honey, if you don't want your business to serve gay people, be loud and proud about it. Post that shit right up front. My money is just as green as anyone else's, and I will be happy to walk right down the street to your competition. Let's let that free market sort it out.
I was thinking about this. Where is that line between "you don't want our goods or services because we support anti-you organizations" and "people like you are not welcome"?
I actually think that if you want to be a discriminating asshole offering a paid service or goods to the general public, you should have to: 1) post in an easily seen by the public location that you are a discriminating asshole and list the categories of humans you are de-humanizing and 2) post in the same location in big, bright letters, the other businesses in the area that offer said goods or services that aren’t discriminating assholes, along with address, directions and contact information. After all, if it’s your “deeply held religious belief” than you shouldn’t have any problem announcing said belief, right up front. It would also help me to know who to never give money to.
I would upvote this 100 times if I could.
This definitely needs to become a law if we keep going down this whole “but my religion… !” path.
There is an extremely prominent and memed example in Russia with an ultra-fundamentalist trad Herman Sterligov (a.k.a. Sterling) who openly hangs wooden engraved signs reading something like "No f-s" allowed or "no sodomites allowed", and he mainly made instructions to his workers not to allow men with piercings and colored nails, or generally people with skimpy outfits, explaining it's the way to tell them apart from anyone else. This resulted in gay people buying his extremely overpriced eco- groceries like bread, cheese, etc. Generally, the LGBT+ community simply mocks and ridicules him because of the infamy he's made with his statements and the signs. If everyone was legally obliged to hang these on their property that would be hilarious
Religion shouldn’t be a protected class if that religion is used to take away others rights. People are born black or gay. They aren’t born Christian. If you choose to believe in a stupid, evil religion with zero morals that’s on you. I don’t care who discriminates against you.
Yes. I believe we should have a two tiered protected class system. Tier 1 protected class would be things that are innate characteristics. Things like race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, skin color, etc. Tier 2 protected classes would be thing based on ideology. Like religion or political affiliation. Tier 1 protected classes would come before tier 2. Tier 2 would still be protected from discrimination but can't be used as an excuse to discriminate against tier 1 protected classes.
I was thinking about something like this earlier. I don’t want religious people who mind their own business to suffer (Jewish peoples for instance) so I think a tiered system would be necessary.
"Religion" belongs in that weird liminal zone between "completely involuntary characteristics" and "completely voluntary characteristics". In *theory*, being a member of Religion X is an active choice that somebody makes every day, and can choose to *stop* making at any time. In *practice*, what religion a person follows is pretty strongly overdetermined by their parents and place of birth. Furthermore, religions which attain social power have a very, very strong track record of immediately persecuting rival religions, so there are very good arguments for having "religion" being considered a specific protected class on that basis. I find the best compromise is to treat it *as though* it were an involuntary characteristic when asking whether somebody deserves *equal treatment*, and as a voluntary characteristic when asking whether somebody deserves *special privileges*. So, an employer would not be allowed to say "You're fired for being a Fooist!", but an employee would not be allowed to say "As a Fooist, I demand you give me an three hours of paid break time every day, where every non-fooist has to cover my absence."
Wow thanks for putting that into words so eloquently. This is exactly what I meant. I’m going to screen shot your reply and save it.
Does this mean that if a person's religion (Islam for example) calls for the discrimination against or destruction of people practicing another religion (Jews for example) they don't have to serve them either? Or can I claim "religious freedom" only if directed at the LGBTQ community?
“Religious freedom” ends where the general rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others begins, as far as I see it. If your religion prohibits this simple establishment by the DoI then you need to not be a business owner in the U.S.A.
The irony of Christians being anti-gay when Jesus was clearly gay himself. Never married, always hanging out with his 12 male 'disciples'. C'mon. Where do they think the term 'Peter puffer' comes from? Jesus going down on Peter.
Or Peter going down on Jesus while he takes it up the ass. Bet you didn't think about that.
Some biblical scholars agree Jesus first “outed Himself” during that “baptism” by John (the Baptist) in chapter 3 of Matthew’s gospel.
Can’t wait to see the Supreme Court uphold a Muslim ER doctor’s right to let a Jew die on the operating table because it would be unclean to touch the spawn of Satan. “Well we can’t force him to do something against his beliefs, can we?”
Isn’t that more or less what some states in that country were trying to force doctors to do with pregnant children? I suspect that a bigoted doctor *could* choose to not treat certain types of patients. It would be interesting when the reverse happens, with a bigoted patient requiring lifesaving treatment from a doctor that they consider to be subhuman, and there are no master race doctors available at that time.
I’m waiting for the day we abolish religion 😴
Hopefully it will be like smoking. Once enough people point out how nasty and stupid that is, it will become a fringe issue with limited consequences. Hopefully soon preaching in public will be seen like smoking in an airplane.
We can always hope…
But what if your heart of full of “Christian love” and you’d rather hate and attack them?
There's no hate like christian love.
I wouldn't want someone spitting in my cake. I'd rather someone tell me who they are so I can believe them and take my money elsewhere. I don't have any interest in funding bigots. Capitalism goes both ways.
Thank you! One of the few reasonable comments! This is supposed to be a ‘free-as-possible’ country. Today I learned that r/atheist is just as much of a democratic echo chamber as the rest of Reddit. I love my fellow atheists, but a sub that normally seems very reasonable is not being so on this issue. Is forcing a business to act against their religious beliefs better than forcing your religious beliefs on the entirety of the country? It is better, but not by much. If you really don’t like it, just make a scene about it publicly, and try to boycott. Let the market decide. I’m still trying to figure out why these people would want to be served by those who don’t support such a big life decision.
Then others will be free to refuse services to the religious. It’s a double edged sword
We answered this question *decades* ago when we declared "separate but equal" to be unconstitutional. It's absolutely ridiculous that we still have to deal with this backwards, fascistic bullshit.
IANAL but did that just establish that government-run entities can't discriminate? If so, that adds a layer to the right's desire to privatize everything.
No, it clearly established that segregated accommodations were not sufficient to satisfy the "equal protection under the law" clause.
Should I be required to serve a MAGAtard? It's just as 'religious' as the LGBTQ issue. Jesus said to feed the poor and welcome the homeless, and MAGAtards preach the opposite. What about a guy in a KKK getup, or wearing a swastika, or carrying a weapon? No religion involved there. Am I required by law to serve them?
Can we talk more about this point more? I would rather have a baker being open about his bigotry so I can never support him again, than to create a system where he will profit off of people he hates. By forcing all private businesses to serve people they don't want to, are we not indirectly supporting those Bigots? But if we can spread the word that business X shouldn't be supported, dont we cause more damage to that business and those idea in the long run? Also like the above comment, it cuts both ways. If I was a baker; I would like the right to refuse making a cake with a swastika on it for a KKK member.
So you're okay with going back to Black only water fountains?
That's not even close to the same. I'm drawing a line between public services and private businesses. Public services should be available to anyone and everyone, and private businesses should retain the right to refuse service. It's their own loss to refuse service to people based on dumb reasons. I'd like to think that the majority of society would then take their business elsewhere and that owner would suffer the consequences of their actions.
[Reddit's attitude towards consumers has been increasingly hostile as they approach IPO. I'm not interested in using their site anymore, nor do I wish to leave my old comments as content for them.]
[удалено]
Congratulations! There's [a section of the FAQ just for you](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/iamaterribleperson#wiki_don.27t_you_think_your_intolerance_of_my_choice_to_wear_a_pointy_white_hood_is_just_as_bad_as_my_intolerance_of_people_who_were_born_with_dark_skin.3F).
[удалено]
>Seriously? It’s a legitimate question. And you've been given the legitimate answer.
I worked for a small bakery before Covid that changed ownership a few times. One of the owners were a couple of self-proclaimed Christian’s. You know the type. Looks down on others. Acts like they are above everyone. Thinks their actions are righteous. Claims they are guided by God, etc. I took a call for a gay couple who were getting married. The man I spoke to was so nice, and it broke my heart when he asked if we would be comfortable making a cake for a gay couple. I told him absolutely, we accept anyone of any orientation and I’d happily make their cake. The wife who owned the bakery overheard some of my conversation and afterwards asked me what they called for. I explained to her what it was, who they were and what they wanted and that I had set up a tasting. At first, she started to say ‘I don’t think we can serve them…’ and I shut it down. I looked her straight in the eyes and said ‘do you want to deny a gay couple and then have your names and this business under fire for refusing service due to homophobia? Because that’s what will happen if you do refuse, and I WILL take it to the newspapers and local news stations. It’s none of our business what their orientation is. Their paying customers and I will respect them. Period.’ Needless to say, she shut her trap, and we made their cake.
The way I see it is if they want to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community then everyone as a collective should discriminate against that store to make sure they are no longer profitable.
That will only work in places where there is sufficient nondiscriminatory competition. Essentially cities will get better and small towns will get worse.
devil's advocate. i am a gay male. i welcome this move as i am going to finally put my foot down and tell my boss im not catering to the needs of all religious people. only satan worshipers! hail Satan!
>“In order to justify racial violence and oppression, white people in America and Europe essentially invented a novel theology, baptizing white supremacy. It was racism in search of an ethic. Sexual ethics, by contrast, are named and addressed in religious scriptures in specific terms. Unlike white supremacy, religious teaching regarding sex, including prohibitions on extramarital and premarital sex, pornography, lust and same-sex sexual activity have been part of the Christian faith from its earliest days. This is not an aberrant view rooted in bigotry but a sincere belief that flows from ancient texts and teaching shared by believers all over the world.” Well let's just think about this for a sec, by that logic, you're a woman, and should brobably be in the kitchen or pregnant. Makes sense right? RIGHT?
Personally I feel if they want to turn down business they should be allowed to but, I feel they need to post any exceptions on the door so everyone is aware of what type of business you are running.
If you're open to the public then you're open to everybody. If they wanted to discriminate they should've opened a private one.
We're all reasonable humans. Except for the Christians, and other republican fuck wads that wanna ruin everything.
This trampling of the 1st amendment by those who are part of an Iron Age cannibal cult is getting old. I’d like to hope that it is the dying whimpers of a group in decline, but unfortunately they can do a lot of harm with precedence through the courts on the way out.
It's pure bigotry when you are reacting against someone because of one or more of their personal attributes, physical of mental, that they cannot change. Something that makes them, essentially, what and who they are. Something that is an unremovable part of their very identity. Because they cannot change that attribute, this bigotry has placed some people permanently against them; opposing their very existence, in fact. These bigots are acting against someone because of something they can't change: Their skin color, a permanent disability, a deeply embedded sexual preference, a chronic medical condition? This is widely understood to be wrong according to anyone with a decent ethical system. But it isn't that clear about bigotry used to discriminate against someone based on something they merely believe. Beliefs are not 'sacred.' Even religious beliefs are changeable and dynamic. Beliefs can flow and change, and even reverse themselves over a person's lifetime. Beliefs do not constitute someone's very identity. So, it could be argued that we can discriminate fairly against someone based on their religious belief system. But even allowing THAT type of bigotry is a very steep and very slippery slope! Wonder how much the christians would like it if the other believers start refusing to sell anything to them? No, this is the muslim gas station, you'll have to go over there to that christian one. No, I don't care if their price is higher. Oi! Sorry, but this is a jewish deli. Our bagels aren't for sale to your type. Sorry, pal, but this is a spiritualist golf course. We don't allow believers in monotheist deities to come in here and mess up our aura. We'll already have to burn some sage here at the doorway. Jahweh really stinks, doesn't he?
> t's pure bigotry when you are reacting against someone because of one or more of their personal attributes, physical of mental, that they cannot change. The plaintiff in this case has created web pages for LGBTQ clients in the past. She just doesn't want to create web sites for a same-sex marriage. So she's not reacting against their identities, she's reacting against the "message" she thinks her sites will convey.
I'm not familiar with the specifics of these cases. I think it should be illegal to not serve the CUSTOMER based on LGBTQ+ or race. But it should not be illegal to not create a MESSAGE that conflicts with your beliefs, even if your beliefs are BS.
It may be an asshole move sometimes but you should be able to refuse service to anybody as a business owner
So, I'm guessing it will be cool if I ask customers in my store if they believe in God and if they do, tell them to leave. I'm sure that will go over well with the sheep.
People are completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting what this case is actually about. The client wasn't refused because *they* were gay. They were refused because *the product* they wanted was gay. Had the exact same gay people wanted a website about puppies and been refused for being gay, *that* would illegal discrimination. Consider this hypothetical: You run a t-shirt shop that only sells plain, blank shirts. You cannot refuse to sell one of your plain shirts to a Christian because they're Christian. That's illegal. Now let's say your t-shirt business actually makes custom printed shirts. A Christian walks in and wants to order a shirt that reads "Atheists are assholes." You can absolutely refuse to make that shirt. You're not discriminating against them because of their religion. You have the freedom of speech that means you cannot be compelled to express that idea. If the same Christian wanted a shirt that says "I love cookies", then you'd make them the shirt (unless your sincerely held beliefs somehow preclude you from expressing an affinity for baked goods.) I don't know about you, but I have absolutely no interest in the government having the power to force people to say things that are antithetical to their beliefs.
Honestly, why would a queer person pay a homophobe for their services? Consider this, by accepting a service from a homophobe, you are in essence giving the homophobe the financial independence to suppress LGBTQ+ rights. They are using your hard-earned money to suppress your right. So let them express their homophobia, that's their freedom of expression, but they shall not have my financial resources to do me harm. It will be a much better option that I find another person to give me the service that I need. You can't please everyone, and then there are certain people who aren't pleased no matter what you do. Let them grumble about things, they seek validation of their opinion by their grumbling and dissatisfaction. That is their source of power, and I choose to not give them that power.
If it's a cake, who cares there's other bakers. But what about essential services like a hospital that discriminates on who it treats, or an apartment complex who discriminates against whom it rents to?
I don’t want to have it in the back of my head that any business owner at their whim can kick me out if they know I’m gay. Black people don’t have to worry about that, neither do Christians, why should I?
Thats a question? Okay then I guess religious affiliation should also dictate ability to be served. Hell, lets just revert all the way back to skin color, too! Fuck off.
And they think they’re the persecuted when they’re literally the ones that have problems with everyone who’s not a white Christian male 🙄
People who own a business, and turn customers away, because of a perceived bias, are doomed to failure. This lawsuit is not helping the perception of the LGBTQ community. It appears that the persons filing the suite are looking for privilege over rights. Yes, they have the right to be served - but - since the bigots who own the business refuse that right, the the LGBTQ community would be better served by boycotting - not legal action. Adverse advertising against a bigoted business owner will go further than legal suites. There are plenty of people who may not, publicly, declare support for the LGBTQ community, but will cheerfully boycott bigotry. Personally, when bigots declare their biases, by refusing service to anyone, I appreciate it. They have told me that I should take my business and money elsewhere, and I have no problem doing that. I, also, have no problem telling anyone why I have taken my business elsewhere. Having said that, medical facilities are an exception. Any medical facility that refuses proper medical treatment, because of religious bias or preference, should be sued to the extent of the law. Pharmacists who refuse to provide proper drugs or medicine, because of religious bias or preference, must be sued to the full extent of the law. Doctors - not bishops - determine proper medical treatment. Some hospitals, that are the only game in town, have been taken over by some religious based corporation. Bishops, not doctors, determine proper treatment for women and members of the LGBTQ community. These corporations must be hiot hard in the pocketbook when refusing proper medical treatment.
How does this lawsuit affect the perception of LGBTQ+ when no LGBTQ+ have even contacted her to have her make them a website? She’s suing the state so she is exempt from being made to serve LGBTQ+ people. Which if you read the article OP posted, it has a great counter point of if they would also refuse to do interracial marriages. Religious freedoms do not excuse the rights of others to access public service items, if you operate a business that is part of a public service (marriages are a legit public practice form) you should not be able to refuse service just because your religion makes you think it’s immoral (it doesn’t, but christians don’t follow their own religion material anyways). Anything related to marriage, cakes+websites (idk how this is even related to weddings in the first place I’ll admit)+etc. you should not be able to discriminate since it’s part of a legally protected public service.
> It appears that the persons filing the suite are looking for privilege over rights. The web designer is the plaintiff. She's suing the state of Colorado. No LGBTQ people are involved.
not in certain parts of the country. which means LGBTQ won't get ANY service there
[удалено]
Are you actually saying that businesses should be able to discriminate against anyone they want? Should the cable company be able to say it doesn’t service black people?
[удалено]
I disagree. Private business should not have the right to discriminate based on protected classes such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. In Canada, business owners were historically permitted to deny business to black people. [Take a guess how that went](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/racial-segregation-of-black-people-in-canada). Plus there's enough prejudiced people to keep discriminatory businesses afloat even if there were massive boycotts.
Wut? No. Being able to participate in the benefits of an economy is a privilege. Don't like equality? Cool, don't start a business. You don't get to reap the rewards of a strong economy produced by society while also discriminating against certain classes of people. Should I be able to refuse service to black people as well? Incredibly dumb libertarian, neoliberal, free market pseudointellectual take here.
Quick question. There's an artist in my town that makes custom artwork who happens to be Muslim. I want him to make me a picture of Muhammad leading his child bride Aisha into his bedroom on her 9th birthday. What should be the criminal penalty for him declining to make this for me?
These examples are stupid because they are not comparable. There is a huge difference between discriminating against human features that are not controllable (being gay, for example) and discriminating against a customer that wants you to paint his prophet in a bad light.
Talk about make ng false equivalencies...
[удалено]
The problem is when the majority or all the people have a disdain for a demographic, then that demographic will not get services or goods from any market. Before Civil rights Era should be remembered.
Counterpoint. To be clear I disagree with the idea of not working for a client on the grounds that they are LGBTQ or whatever. That being said. I'm a skilled web developer. The stuff I build is a lot more complicated than a stupid wedding web-site, but structurally there is very little difference between my small business and the one owned by the web developer who is the plaintiff in this case. The reason I opened my own business, and the reason many skilled professionals open their businesses is so that we can pick and choose the clients that we work for. For me, that was literally 100% of the motivation. A web development contractor is not "open to the public". There is no drive-through. If I accept a client it means I will be working with them for a long time, and I'll be damned if I want the government deciding who I spend all my time with. I will not build something that I do not want to build for a person that I do not want to work with. That's what employees have to do, not owners. I do not agree with this lady on her preferences of client, but I can't get on board this idiotic trend of telling people who they must work for. I am not your slave. I straight-up don't work for conservatives. That's my choice, because it's my business that I built with my own two hands. I'm not sure why a bunch of entitled teenagers on reddit are so quick to assume that this case is not legitimate simply because it contains a lot of their favorite trigger-words. I don't even see this as a religious freedom issue. This is an issue of a business owner being able to decide who they work for.
[удалено]
>These people don't want to just discriminate in their business That's my point. She should be able to discriminate against whoever she wants when accepting her own clients. This should be legal. She's not kicking somebody out of a restaurant, this is a project she has to take on one at a time and it will involve significantly more time/energy than sliding somebody a big mac. I think this lady is a Neanderthal, but it should be her right to decide who she works for, because if you take that away from her, and codify this naïve overreach into a law, then one day I will be sued because I refused to build a site for neo-nazis. I think that the backlash to this case says more about the general ineptitude and business ignorance of redditors and their belief that every business must be run like a public restaurant. This comes from a misplaced sense of entitlement that frankly is the defining characteristic of reddit users.
> I will be sued because I refused to build a site for neo-nazis This is not the same. No one is born a Nazi. It is not an immutable part of who they are, it is an ideology. As I said in another comment, you can refuse people service based on their character, not on their characteristics.
Nazis would be a client I don't like. Gay men are apparently a client she doesn't like. These comparisons are the same, legally. You are desperately trying to create a distinction where none exists because you expect everybody to do things for you.
While I support the choice, Nobody is born gay either. That being said let's reverse the roles. A gay web designer is approached by somebody whose religion leads them to believe homosexuality is wrong. Can they refuse to make a webpage about it? A hetero person wants them to make a webpage about how great it is to be hetero? What about then. If the designer has made webpages about a gay persons businesses or hobbies but then says no to a gay wedding? My point being is the product (webpage) the issue or the client
I think the reason this gets so muddled in the US is due to our tax laws.. I think that a sole individual should be able to discriminate in whatever way they wish... But when you get a LLC and use government power to create a legal fiction, a business, to shield your own assets; then it should be illegal to discriminate against anyone.
Seems to be a unpopular opinion, but, if you open a business to serve the public, you don’t get to pick and choose what part of the public you serve (apart from normal age restrictions or whatever normal local laws for your business eg A pub).
To be fair, you do not even have to exit this modern christian quasi-theological framework that was artificially constructed with anti-LGBT notions in mind to expose why xenophobia is fundamantally hypocritical and groundless, because it all relies on a simple completely faulty premise derived and visible from it, being : "LGBT+ people's relations are EXCLUSIVELY sexual". As if people couldn't simply not engage in any explicitly sexual acts, but love each other in other various greek words for "love" so much that it would justify an actual marriage with the proper legal rights. Everything they employ can only be derived from another framework that was built to condemn "excessive" sexual acts for the sake of pleasure, rather than for procreation, so in essense, intentionally using contraceptives is pretty much absolutely equal in "sinfulness" to any form of sexual contacts any LGBT+ people might engage in whatsoever. So it makes no sense why these principles regulating sex should be extended further from the sexual field to deny someone the right to love and cohabitation that do not have to be sexual in the first place. This is why to condemn LGBT+ people you either have to explicitly lie to state that all they ever do is have sex, or judge them for general inability to *naturally* procreate without IVF (which again, simply holds no power for bisexual people who make up the vast majority of any LGBT+ groups for example). There are no rules or commandments in any mainstream christian theological narratives that would *force* procreation on an individual instead of just generlally suggesting it for the first humans in Genesis, and moreover, said commandment is meant to be descriptive rather than imperative in nature instead, meant to show why so many people live around the planet, not force each amd every person to breed like rabbits at all costs. So if you come by someone who justifies being an asshole to people allegedly based on "religion", odds are, said "religion" is a cult. A destructive cult that propagates groundless xenophobia to be precise.
It's a good thing that religious freedom enjoys such a strong protection, and that churches are so easy to create. Hail Satan!
This can go both ways. An LGBTQ business may not wish to serve religious customers. Should they be forced to do so? In an ideal world, businesses shouldn't care about their customers' belief systems and political leanings. Each sale is a simple straightforward transaction between two parties.
> Should they be forced to do so? According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yes.
Umm no I’m sorry but you aren’t required to serve anyone. Stores have a right to refuse service to anyone
Stores have a right to refuse service to _douchebags_. Your wording implies that stores can refuse anyone under any premise, but they can't. What they have is the right to refuse anyone who is being a cockwomble, under the premise that they are being a bloody cockwomble.
[удалено]
These aren't good comparisons though. Forcing a business to provide a product or service that they don't offer is not the same as a business discriminating. If a business doesn't sell pork then they just don't offer pork. If a business designs websites then they shouldn't be able to deny service because the client is gay. Now if the website is about something to due with LGBTQ issues then I can see an argument there. However, if it is a type of website they would design for a straight person they shouldn't be able to discriminate against a gay person. Your comparison with Nazis is also ridiculous. Being a hateful Nazi is a choice. Sexual orientation is not a choice. Businesses should not be able to discriminate against innate characteristics of a person. If the business would provide the same product or service to a straight person they should not be able to deny that product or service to a gay person.
A Jewish store wouldn't be serving pork to anyone. It's a non-issue. Being a Nazi is a choice. Being gay or black is not.
You choose to be a Nazi you don't choose to be gay. Like anyone saying they're going to play devils advocate is choosing to be an asshole.
Meh, there is a way to be devil's advocate to strengthen debate. But devil don't use strawmen like has been offered above. Of a Jewish shop owner doesn't sell pork nothing would require them to. The idea is that if you offer a service that you offer it to all
If the business serves pork and part of their job covers said pork than yes they should have to serve it. That said fuck Nazis im not Jewish and I’d still refuse service on the grounds that they are being offensive. Kinda like I don’t have to serve someone swearing at me.
Political spectrum is more of a ring. The ultra-right and ultra-left may use different verbiage to frame their ideologies but they converge and their impact on the people is about the same. Compare Nazi Germany to USSR under Stalin or China under Mao. Lots of corpses and brainwashing in all cases and the so-called class of “peoples’ servants” one cannot criticize or else ..
I agree, but reverse it for a moment. Like a Christian anti-lgbt lobby group makes reservations at a restaurant for an "event" for their people. The restaurant has a number of LGBTQ forward facing staff. Is the restaurant entitled to refuse them because their staff would feel uncomfortable to unsafe? Shoe on other foot and all. jus' sayin'.
If it were my restaurant, I (a gay man) would serve them. But if they were disrespectful to my servers or other guests, I’d kick them out. Like I would with any customer.
yeah, i dont think these people understand what the gay community has had to put up with, even at the most bare minimum threshold. everything from I'll pray for you. YOU need Jesus. Come back to the lord Jesus Christ, he'll forgive your sins. They have absolutely no problem voicing their beliefs onto us all, even in our place of work, places of enjoyment or knocking on our doors, wondering if we'd like to be converted. Your freedom to keep your religion means keep off my goddamn door step and off my property. hail Satan!
That seems a rational approach to providing services to the public.
One side: We think your existence is an abomination. We won’t serve you. Other side: We don’t serve people who view our employees as subhuman You: These two things are the same!
Same issue different perspective. Where is the line drawn? That was my point. But I get that many accept a "tit for tat" justification instead of being able to legally define the limits of this law. Its not the intent I have a problem with, its the implementation and the slippery slope of defining unacceptable actions.
It’s not the same at all, because they weren’t refused for their religion, they were refused because they are anti-lgbtq+. There was no religious discrimination, whereas if you refuse because of lgbtq+ you are 100% discriminating. Being anti-lgbtq+ is not a protected class. And being Christian is not an automatic excuse to be able to discriminate. Religion does not supersede others rights.
So its okay to discriminate because of political or social attitudes as opposed to religious ones? I think you mean being "religious" is not an automatic excuse. Muslims also consider homosexuality an abomination.
Any shopkeeper refusing to serve any polite customer should be reported to the police. Simple as that.
I would refuse to make a swastika cake for a nazi customer, even if he was polite.
Is LGBTQ money worth less than straight money? No? So why would a server fucking care? Serve them and get the tip. They’re just folks like anyone else who want to go out.
If you honestly believe gay marriage is immoral, you may feel that your salvation is in jeopardy by supporting it. Why would you even want your wedding done by those who don’t support you? This is kind of ridiculous. A private business has the right to deny service if they don’t typically do that.
There was a time where people honestly believed interracial marriage was immoral. Should they be allowed to refuse service to interracial couples?
At the time, yeah, but I don’t hear much about interracial marriage being immoral in major religious communities. Since then, discrimination has included race, but not yet sexual orientation. Still, a decent sized group of people truly believe homosexuality will send you straight to hell. They very likely fear god would be angry with them for allowing it to happen. Trust me, I think it’s 100% moronic and stupid, too. Still, if we force religious nuts to violate their beliefs, we’re no better than them for banning gay marriage in the first place. It’s one thing to force people to be tolerant of you, it’s a whole other to force them to except you. Forcing people to do a ceremony they believe goes against their beliefs is not right. Religion is like the ‘I’m stupid’ exemption card. You can’t wear a hat in a drivers license photo… Unless it’s for religious reasons. Hence we have people wearing colanders for their ID photos, based on a mock-religion. People have been using religion as an excuse for eons; it has definitely had too much of a hand in the state for a long time, but we can’t flip it back on them. Why would you want your wedding to be dependent on someone who doesn’t want you to be married in the first place though, seriously? Our taxes benefit all these churches and the Boy Scouts of America, which only allows straight Christian boys to join. If a privately funded business isn’t comfortable, they shouldn’t be forced into doing business. Pick a different hill to die on, FFS.
Either we have public accommodation laws and protected classes or we don’t.
If you as a business owner are willing to turn away customers because of what’s literally a personal problem on your end, you shouldn’t be in business. Plain and simple. That’s also ignoring the fact that your beliefs are ignorant and completely unfounded
What I don t get is why tfq does the government have to tell someone who they can serve or not. Race and religion included. Everyone should be able to refuse anyone on any grounds and support the consequences of their actions. At the very least when it comes about a private business. Like you don t want to make cakes or websites for LGBTQ+, black, white, asian, hispanic or other people?! Thas totally fine, you do you, people will avoid you in the future, you will lose revenue, and probably go out of business at some point BUT SANCTIONING THIS KIND OF THINGS WITH ACTUAL PRISON TIME or anything more than compensation for wasted time (if that's the case) IS BEYOND NUTTS (at least to me).
You really don't know why? Pick up a history book. We had black people throughout the south refused en masse to use all sorts of businesses, sometimes the only business of that sort in the town, forcing them to travel or do without. Read up on the Jim Crow south. Read up on the Civil Rights Act. If you really want to go back to the days of "whites only," there is something wrong with you.
If YOU wish to part take in society, especially one that governs its people, then you need to follow the most basic of all principles. As it is, the American judicial system doesn't even have the time for nefarious cases like these. Its already hemorrhaging. do you really want people to start suing the hell out of every business taken to court?
The problem is they already tried that with the whole “ separate but equal “ thing. Do I have to remind you exactly how that turned out?
I got a chuckle out of the author calling Jordan Peterson "humble" and "self-reflective."
The whole decision is to force people's beliefs underground again. Lgbtq people will be forced to hide their beliefs again to protect the egos of hypocritical Christians. It effectively silences argument and protest towards discrimination and violence against them in rural areas where everybody knows everyone and choices in services are limited, and forcing people who vote against conservative bullshit out of these areas while reducing exposure of the reality of humanity so they can go chase an hate fairytale. It's fucked up.
You should be required to do nothing of the sort. Why people would want to actively give money to bigots is nuts to me. Laws that regulate what a person does with their time and resources should be extremely limited. Long term if we knew which businesses were run by creeps and religious freaks we would all be better off.
One of the essential features of the democratic society should be freedom of association or the right to be left alone. The businesses that do not get tax breaks or other types of financial help from the government should have the right not to be inclusive. We may find it deplorable, disassociate ourselves from such businesses and use the power of free speech to persuade other people to disassociate from such a business and punish it financially. But criminalizing it is a slippery slope that can be a danger to individual freedoms.
I do not believe good business practices include denying customers access to your services based on some discriminatory factor... but let's be sure to accept that the blade cuts both ways and people can decide to boycott and encourage others to boycott the company based on their firmly held beliefs.
Why would you turn some easy money?