His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.
As one of the LGBT, I’m fine with this. I want the ability to refuse work to the Religious and Republicans—and I have done so for decades. The difference is, I don’t tell them why. I just say I’m busy. Because even though I want them to burn in a fiery hell, I’m not an asshole.
While religion is a protected class, political orientation is not protected. It is perfectly legal (and moral) to ask someone if they are conservative before agreeing to do work for them.
You can even cite a policy to really drive it home: “I do not conduct business with racists, bigots, misogynists, homophobes, xenophobes, fascists or any other type of conservatives.”
Some asshole lawyer will eventually win the argument that religiosity and conservatism are commutative.
And tbh, they’ll be right.
Nope. Conservatism is a political affiliation. Will always be before the eyes of the U.S. law*
*Unless the fucking SCOTUS fucks things up again.
You should just assume the Supreme Court follows Clavinball and Whose Line is it Anyway rules at this point.
Sure, just look at Trump supporters they are a cult, so maybe they can get a religious protection.
Religion should arguably not be a protected class either.
“My religion forces me to vote republican.”
“My religion forces me to cut up baby dicks.”
I think you’re getting downvoted by fans of baby dick mutilation, unfortunately.
This is the way.
Cool but where do you draw the line? If a taxi driver refuses to drive you is it still fine? What if a teacher refuses to teach your children? Or if a doctor refuses to treat you?
I don’t know what the person you’re replying to does for work, but I feel like what their work is really makes a big difference. Teachers don’t (or shouldn’t) teach kids any differently based on orientation, political ideology, etc., other than perhaps excusing them from work that goes against their beliefs (for example celebrating a holiday they take objection to). The teacher isn’t required to “go against their beliefs” and do something they disagree with, only to keep their mouth shut about any disagreements they may have with a student’s lifestyle. A teacher should not be able to refuse to teach anyone because they are not being asked to do a special job catering to any particular student. If they disagree with the curriculum, I would guess they just shouldn’t be a teacher then (as in, if you’re a high school science teacher you may be required to teach evolution).
Similarly with a doctor, they should not be able to say “I refuse to treat you because you’re gay/religious/political.” Everyone gets the same medical care. The only exception I can think of is transgender medical care, but if they don’t want to do that they can just not go into that field.
Anything that involves creating is a little different. A wedding photographer would be more actively participating in a gay wedding. Or a Christian wedding, etc. If they feel really uncomfortable with that, they shouldn’t have to. That doesn’t change my opinion that they’re closed-minded and bigoted, and it doesn’t mean people can’t leave them bad reviews stating as much. Plus, these services are not basic rights, whereas healthcare and education are basic rights.
There’s been lots of recent stories of teachers refusing the call kids by their preferred pronouns, for one. But also, I think you’re trying to be more rational than these conservatives are. They don’t need there to be a difference in how they work with someone to refuse to do it. Some will literally claim it’s against their religion to be involved with an LGBT person at all.
Stuff like education is an obvious basic right, yeah, but there’s so much fuzziness. Should the only store in walking distance be able to refuse to serve you? Especially in small towns where there might only be a single business providing a service, they can easily make the area effectively an unlivable area for whichever group is the current focus of conservatives.
Plus there’s the good ol’ paradox of intolerance. By just allowing people to discriminate, it spreads. When it’s acceptable for one business to discriminate, it’s more likely others are going to adopt the same stance. More people will be taught their intolerance. It’s basically a social illness. Much like a real illness, that needs to be isolated and prevented from spreading.
Taxi? I mean, I guess? If I was a taxi driver and a bunch of people from the Westboro Baptist Church tried to get into my cab, I’d speed off for sure.
Teacher? Hmm. Well, they can try. But, humorously, it’s just like a “conservative” to deny a child an education. It’s all about the kids right? Trash.
Doctor? No. They are governed by rules that prevent that.
Ok, so let’s hope that the supreme court agrees with you and draws the line at taxi drivers. Because today they let photographers discriminate you and tomorrow they can decide that the rules for doctors are unconstitutional.
I understand your fear. But my opinion isn’t going to impact that crooked group. It’s not like I voted for them. Whatever is gonna happen is gonna happen regardless of what you or I do. We’re all fucked. I may as well be allowed to legally discriminate against the people who can legally discriminate against me. 🤷♂️
Do you really want a doctor treat you who despises you? Can you still trust them to do their best?
The real problem lies deeper than this.
So where you live doctors just let people suffer/die if they don’t like them and it’s ok? You don’t have any oversight, expert panels, ethics boards, investigations? That’s wild.
You don’t think there’s a range between doing the bare minimum and giving your best? I don’t say they let you die, or send you away. I said I wouldn’t be sure they treat me with the same effort they treat someone they like (or at least don’t dislike).
I think you watch to much TV. That’s not how medicine works. How do you imagine it? I go to a doctor with migraine and he starts thinking real hard what could be the cause? And if he ‘despises’ me he just doesn’t think as hard?
There are procedures doctors have to follow. If they fail to follow the procedures it’s malpractice. The procedures are the same for all doctors. There’s no ‘look, I did the bare minimum, you can’t punish me’. Either you did what was required or you didn’t. Each time a doctor would mistreat someone on purpose because he ‘despises’ them they would open themselves for investigation and a court case. That doesn’t mean there are no shitty doctor making mistakes, they would just have to be really dumb to do it in purpose.
I think it depends if you are a contractor or an employee. A contractor like a cab driver or photographer sure they can refuse clients, but a teacher and Dr are both employees of a school district and insurance company who have a public image to uphold.
A contractor like a cab driver or photographer sure they can refuse clients
In certain cities cabbies are actually not allowed to refuse clients, particularly to avoid discrimination issues
I can tell you one thing: wedding photography is not where to draw the line.
Edit: come to think of it, you’re right, though. Businesses should serve all people, especially protected classes. Don’t want to deal with it? Don’t start a business.
Probably the teacher. I’d support law brought in that public service jobs i.e. medicine, education, government etc must serve all but surely that’s already law in the sense of discrimination?
But people offering a taxi ride, photography etc? They can tell you to fuck off for the simple reason of not liking your voice on the phone or the look of your face. Why does the world insist on this delusion of forced love and happiness? And it’s ironic as they are upset they can’t have access to X so want to upset the person providing X and force them to provide it to people they don’t want to?
Insanity.
The world is a mean place, always has been, always will be.
Do you think it’s a good world if someone, say, can’t use the nearest small grocery store or has a 50/50 chance that any given taxi will refuse to serve them, leaving them stranded for longer and regularly late as a result? All because maybe they look gay or trans or Muslim or whatever the right wing media is currently drumming up fear towards?
Your comment is about the perspective of the person providing the service, but what about the people being affected by the discrimination (who are often more vulnerable in the first place)? Do you not care about their experience? Their ability to experience the same quality of life as everyone else?
And sure, the world is a mean place, but why defend that? Why not try to make it at least a little bit better?
Yes
I guess if it’s contract work. In a teacher’s case all the kids pay for his service combined and he workdls for the school not the kids directly, I guess. And a taxi driver can refuse to drive you, and some of them have to people who act racists towards them or act like karens in a few videos I’ve seen.
It’s probably easier to say what professions are clearly behind the line. Nobody’s going to be harmed if a photographer denies someone a service. And would they have wanted a forced service from a photographer who’s so clearly against their core values anyway? That seems like a recipe for lousy pictures.
It’s a bit stunning how many people just don’t get this. The laws say you can’t discriminate people based on their race, religion or sexuality for a reason. If you accept this behaviour you basically saying that discrimination is fine and legal. This means corporation can stop hiring LGBT people, businesses can stop serving them, private school can reject their kids. Legally it’s the same. This is not about one guy rejecting a customer. He could just say that he’s busy, no one will force him to work. This is about him saying that this is specifically because of their sexuality and and the courts trying to legalize discrimination. And some people claim that this entire case was made up on purpose: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/09/24/alliance-defending-freedom-wedding-lawsuit/
The fact that people don’t understand how this works is just stunning.
deleted by creator
wanted to prove the law was unjust before it even affected him
Who was denied or sought a service here?
Removed by mod
I don’t see a point in making people angry. I just don’t want to be around them or talk to them or help them make money 🤷♂️ I’m sorry my take on hating people who hate me disturbs you. Maybe stop hating lol
Why are headlines about American Christians always the exact opposite of what the Bible wants them to be?
What happened to love thy neighbour and shit
Selective religion to suit their needs. Oldest trick in the literal book.
Jesus was white BTW
/s in case it wasn’t abundantly clear
I bet he had a Midwestern accent too.
As someone who grew up in a very religious household, I can tell you without a doubt in my mind, the worst people I ever met were the church crowd. Everyone was so nice to each other inside the building but as soon as the service was over, people showed their real colors in the parking lot.
You’d get parents screaming at their kids for “misbehaving” during the boring ass sermon, cars bolting out of their parking spaces with no disregard for other people walking, cars battling each other to try and get out of the lot before the other guy… You know… Cause football was starting soon.
What does america/americans have to do with it? Im pretty sure religious people being hypocrites riding on their high horse while doing awful things has been a thing since long before the US was founded.
deleted by creator
That’s not a protected class. 100% ok.
They have no class
nice
Removed by mod
Tolerance is a social contract. If one party does not practice tolerance, they have voided their right to be a part of that contract. People that support someone like Trump have revoked their place the contract of tolerance.
Was it you.
Nobody seems to be asking the main question: why would LGBT+ couples want to hire an open homophobe to take their wedding pictures to begin with?
I feel like framing the issue like this kinda dangerous. If a single entity (in this case, a business) is allowed to discriminate against a protected class, then are all businesses that provide that service allowed to discriminate against said class?
It seems as though they would be. That gets us back to a version of the Jim Crow South pretty quickly. How are LGBTQ+ folks supposed to exist as equal members in a society if entire segments of that society are legally allowed to close themselves off? What happens when a business that controls major segments of more important service sectors makes a similar decision (for example, say the only Level 1 trauma center in a city is in a privately-owned, religiously-affiliated medical center that now has a legal precedent to say they won’t serve LGBTQ+ patients for religious reasons)?
I feel like framing the issue like this kinda dangerous. If a single entity (in this case, a business) is allowed to discriminate against a protected class, then are all businesses that provide that service allowed to discriminate against said class?
I think the issue lies in the different measures of protected class, and the layers of law between State and Federal. US law is needlessly complicated and full of holes.
The Civil Rights Act provides protections for employees against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin under Title VII. Title II covers inter-state commerce and protects against discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin - but not sex.
Beyond this, states are supposed to make their own laws. However, the Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis undermines this, as the court ruled that the 1st Amendment and free speech overrules any discrimination law the state makes. Thus, provided you avoid Title II by only doing business within the state, it would be possible to argue that you can discriminate against any protected classes, so long as that class isn’t protected by other Federal legislation (eg the Americans with Disabilities Act provides extensive coverage for those with disabilities).
You can take anything and make it horrifying if you want. It’s either a slippery slope or reductio ad absurdum.
This is a photographer that wanted to decline a customer, nothing more or less.
A business should be able to decide the kind of services it provides. If I don’t want to bake a gigantic 5’ swastika cake I shouldn’t have to.
At the end of the day capitalism protects everyone against excessive descrimination - business that reject people get less money, fewer reviews, will grow slower, etc. If that business rejects your business someone else will provide it. If nobody serves a community, there’s a business opportunity waiting. Etc.
I don’t know how delusional you need to be to assume it could EVER be possible that somehow every business would just refuse to serve a population because of X characteristic.
I don’t know how delusional you need to be to assume it could EVER be possible that somehow every business would just refuse to serve a population because of X characteristic
But they just said it: the Jim Crow south. This isn’t some crazy delusional scenario. It’s literally already happened, and it was not even a hundred years ago. When schools were integrated there were mobs of white housewives yelling racial slurs at little children because they were black. This is real shit that’s gone on for more of America’s history than not.
Don’t skip history class, everybody. But I guess if conservative judges get their way we’ll probably lose that too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
Jim Crow laws didn’t mean that no business served black Americans. Don’t skip history class, everybody.
Good point, must not have been that bad, supreme court could really bring that one back with zero consequences, huh?
What? What are you even talking about?
Nobody wants racial segregation except the ignorant racists, who deserve the economic damage caused by being ignorant racists.
Forcing an ignorant racist to serve people they hate will accomplish nothing, and certainly won’t help their ignorance or racism.
Daryl Davis is pretty vocal about the way he deradicalized KKK members, I recommend looking into him. Spoiler: the secret is shared interests (music) and normal conversation, just getting to know each other.
/facepalm
I guess you’ve got a good point…its hard to imagine it could ever get that bad.
Same reason black people wanted to eat at the whites only lunch counters.
I don’t think that’s a 1:1 comparison.
Why not? Equality is equality.
In 303 Creative v. Elenis the answer is: the couple was manufactured. No LGBT+ couple tried to hire them. The man named in court docs who supposedly tried to hire 303 Creative first heard about the case when reporters contacted him shortly before the Supreme Court released their decision. He has been happily married (to a woman) for a long time, and had no need for a wedding website.
I doubt it starts that way, probably more like a Google search for “wedding photographers near me”, a few names pop up, you go there, start signing paperwork and getting signed up, and then when you put down your two names, they look at you with disgust and tell you to get out of their shop, interrupting your thoughts about normal stuff like marriage licenses.
So then you take your shaken fiancé from the store, and look for other wedding photographers, and probably learn that there are far more Christian photographers than you thought, and not many that would preside over a fairly mundane marriage, save for the fact its just two guys instead of a guy and a gal.
Does this in return mean that LGBTQ+ couples win the right to discriminate against christian photographers?
It would also likely mean that LGBTQ+ photographers won the right to discriminate against christians.
I would refuse to work at a Trumper wedding, so I’m glad we have the right to say no to that. That’s the whole point of this ruling.
If this was a photographer of color refusing to work a klan wedding no one would be arguing that they shouldn’t have been allowed to say no.
Well, they can, by just not choosing to hire one.
I think you might actually have just gotten the point here without knowing it. It’s perfectly reasonable to pick a photographer who’s not a bigot, just like how I would choose not to shoot photos for bigots.
You get how this works now?
Yes. For example, by not hiring him
deleted by creator
What about a pharmacist refusing to fill a legal, correct, and safe prescription that they disagree with?
Not covered, IMO. A pharmacist isn’t writing the scrip and isn’t administering the treatment. They’re merely completing a retail transaction, albeit one with a lot of paperwork. If they have a moral position against doing their job as prescribed by law, they should find a new job.
A care provider, like a doctor or nurse, has personal involvement with the patient. I’m ok with refusing to perform a procedure they disagree with, as long as there is no negative impact for the patient.
Pharmacists are a strictly regulated profession. The whole job is filling prescriptions ordered by doctors and informing customers (patients) about the safe use of the substances. It’s not a creative process and it’s not their choice to prescribe or deny medication.
Last I checked bakers and photographers are barely regulated by comparison, and you could easily consider their work creative in nature.
deleted by creator
I could see myself not wanting to dispense the drugs for an execution. (I know they’re not going through the pharmacy, but let’s pretend they did.)
Is your entire argument based on something that doesn’t happen and will never happen?
deleted by creator
Sure, but your example is too extreme to take seriously.
Death like that is so much worse than anything else, that it imo makes any other discussion meaningless. But when your scenario would never ever happen, it’s just a useless comment.
It doesn’t strengthen any point.
deleted by creator
Maybe, but the problem here is that it’s so extreme that it makes no sense.
Bringing up abortion pills would makeore sense, since someone could conceivably consider that to be murder and refuse to sell it. That would obviously be very stupid but it’s something that actually could happen.
So I agree with the content of your comment. I don’t agree with all the implications. A cake maker should be able to refuse to make a dick cake, but they shouldn’t be able to refuse to make a cake just because the couple is gay. If they would make an identical cake for a straight couple, they should make the same cake for a gay couple.
Similarly, a photographer should be allowed to refuse to take nudes photos, but they shouldn’t be allowed to take identical photos that they would for a straight couple just because the couple is gay.
deleted by creator
If the photograph isn’t at ease with that, I’d argue they should be allowed to ensure not to be in a situation where they can’t render the proper service
But where does that stop? At what point are racists who are uncomfortable with interracial marriage allowed to deny services to people because of their race
deleted by creator
I pretty much already stated all that. When it’s about performing some act, and where “what you don’t agree with” impacts the work being performed.
…so if we go with the previous example, a photographer should be allowed to deny service to an interracial couple if they’re “not at ease” with seeing them -
“move a little closer”, “look this way”, "kiss lightly ", etc., etc.
Well the hypothetical protection you’re describing would in practice protect and embolden people who hold white supremacist beliefs. I say “embolden” because you know what a racist photographer would do without those protections? They’d either turn them down, or they would take the pictures, take the money, and keep their ugly mouths shut. Because those are better options than fighting a battle they believe they could lose.
However, if they are legally protected by the federal government in communicating to interracial couples they won’t provide service to them because they are an interracial couple, can you imagine the actions a now unrepressed fanatic would take? You think you wouldn’t see “whites only” on some of these people’s websites? And can you begin to imagine the fear and anxiety that would inspire in the people who now have to see those kinds of notices while looking for a wedding photographer? A wedding cake? Who now have to ask every photographer and cake maker if they serve “couples like them” if they don’t have a notice? Can you see the parallels?
Legal action that empowers bigots and disempowers those they hate at scale is all it takes to develop a foundation and vocal support for the return of socially acceptable and legally backed discrimination. And you better believe that a foundation is exactly what the far-right politicians that brought about these “protections” view it as, because plenty have signaled openly that they have no interest in stopping legalized queer discrimination here, and will absolutely use this decision to justify going further in the future, the same strategy they use for all their culture wars.
So bakers should be forced to make a cake that reads "I hate "?
Is there any legal basis in this?
Not really. As far as I’m aware there’s nothing in law that differentiates between selling a product and providing a service. However the whole problem here is that the law isn’t actually that well fleshed out.
The 14th Amendment gives equal protection under law. This basically says the state can’t treat any citizen different for any reason. Thus, a court can’t refuse to hear your case because you’re black, and a state can’t refuse your marriage because you’re gay. This only really applies to governments, however.
The Civil Rights Act has various Titles, most of them still relate to the state (eg voting). There are two exceptions where this goes beyond the public sector, though, Title VII on employment and Title II on inter-state commerce. Title II outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin - but not sex nor sexual orientation, and it only applies to inter-state commerce. Title VII prohibits private employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, but might not cover sexual orientation (I haven’t found a definition on what “sex” covers, orientation might fall under this but it might not).
There is other legislation covering specific aspects, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act which provides extensive protection to people with disabilities.
Beyond that, it is up to individual states to set their laws. However, they must do so within the bounds of the Constitution, which is what allows free speech challenges like the one in the Supreme Court ruling over 303 Creative v. Elenis, which set a clear precedent allowing private businesses to discriminate regardless of state law.
All in all, anti-discrimination laws in the US are actually very weak.
IANAL, feel free to correct me if you know better.
Dang. It’s so nice getting informative responses instead of memes and lame jokes.
Thank you.
deleted by creator
In US law specifically no, the US judicial system is purposefully built to give more power to courts to decide things like that on case by case basis and to get this kind of rules of thumb based on previous rulings, but not bounded by them. That’s why it’s so hard to codify anything into law, compared to other countries.
Even more than the outright bigotry, what concerns me most is this growing trend of conservative ideology that allows for lawsuits without cause. You shouldn’t be able to sue unless you are harmed. That’s the way its supposed to work. Yet these conservative courts have been turning that concept entirely on its head lately.
Um that’s not true at all. You are absolutely allowed to challenge the precedence of laws even if you have been yet to be directly affected.
That’s something completely different. You can tell by your use of the word “yet”.
How is that “completely different”
Why did you use the word “yet”?
because you are allowed to challenge laws even if they have yet to affect your life
Again, why are you using the word yet? Think about it. When you have you’ll understand the difference.
? All I’m saying is that immediate harm is not required for a lawsuit. I know you think you’re being smart but you’re overanalyzing what I said for no reason.
deleted by creator
I think you might need to read my comment again as you wildly misinterpreted it.
deleted by creator
I think you’re not appreciating the difference between a criminal violation and a civil tort. In civil law plaintiffs are required to claim damages. This is a means to ensure the system isn’t full of pointless petty lawsuits.
deleted by creator
Not even in the slightest. That’s just simply not how laws work.
deleted by creator
You absolutely should have that right. What is the issue?
Isn’t religion one of a few “protected classes”? Can’t fire someone for race, sex, religion, disability, or age. I think you can’t deny service for those reasons either. Well not if the SCOTUS considered precedent and made good faith rulings at least.
“Should” is the operative word in my statement. I personally believe that you SHOULD have that right. I have always held the belief that I would much rather people discriminate against me openly so I can determine who I want to give my money to. If a company doesn’t want to do business with me, then I certainly don’t want to do business with them. Instead we have laws that prohibit discrimination, but face discrimination in practice. It’s like having a friend who smiles to your faces, but talks shit about you behind your back. No thanks, I’ll pass.
Don’t you? It’s your business you can do what you want.
It’s your business but if you want to do business in the US, federal and a lot of state laws say you can’t discriminate against customers based on factors such as race, religion, sex or national origin.
So how does this ruling reaffirm or change that?
This ruling confirms that people who are LGBTQ+ can be discriminated against in ways that other people cannot.
That’s kind of the point, right? So, are businesses allowed to do business with whoever they please? Does the discrimination clause prevent a business owner from deciding not to do business with some people? Which precedes the other?
In the US there are laws to protect certain groups against discrimination, so no, a business cannot legally just do business with whoever they please if they are discriminating against a protected group.
All this ruling shows is that LGBTQ+ folks are not a protected group and have less rights under the law than other groups (religious groups, for example).
Did this ruling explicitly strike lgbtq+ folk from the protected classes? I guess that’s where I’m hung up.
Are they no longer a protected class or did this ruling just say that a business doesn’t have to abide by the protected class rule in certain circumstances?
And to follow up, how far does that go? Where’s the line?
deleted by creator
i am kind of torn on this.
on the one hand I think it’s important that you can refuse to work with people you don’t like for whatever reason.
On the other hand, this is an absolutely childish and stupid reason to not work with someone.
You can refuse for any reason - except those involving discrimination against a protected class. Sexual orientation is supposed to be a protected class. You can still discriminate, you just have to give another/no reason and make sure it doesn’t look like you’re doing it for a prohibited reason.
If I wanted to say that no people with glasses were allowed to shop in my store, that would be allowed. If I wanted to say that no pregnant women could shop in my store, that wouldn’t be allowed. If it was a pregnant woman wearing glasses, I could claim the first reason, but then, if I was found to be allowing other people with glasses to shop, my reasoning would be challenged and I would have to demonstrate that I wasn’t discriminating because of pregnancy.
At least, this is how discrimination laws are supposed to work.
It turns out that anti-discrimination laws in the US are actually very weak and not fully defined, allowing bullshit like this to seep out of judge’s mouths and through the cracks. The Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment only grants equality under law, so it only really affects governments. The Civil Rights Act extends this out to private employment under Title VII, but not much further.
What the 303 Creative v. Elenis ruling (the Supreme Court ruling that led to the settlement here) does, in theory, is allow any private person the right to discriminate against any protected class (eg pregnancy, disability, and all the others) so long as the person they’re discriminating against isn’t an employee. This is clearly bullshit, and I’m sure if people started discriminating against Christians they’d be up in arms.
Thankfully, this settlement does not in any way strengthen this ruling, it only gives one asshole permission by one state - there is no ruling here, just an out of court settlement, thus it does not extend to anyone else. In particular, the state probably thought that because there was no injured party actually being discriminated against there wasn’t much point wasting time and money litigating.
Obligatory IANAL.
Your comment should be an article. Excellent clarifications.
Thanks. I think my other comment made soon after gave a bit better detail on the laws:
I think the issue lies in the different measures of protected class, and the layers of law between State and Federal. US law is needlessly complicated and full of holes.
The Civil Rights Act provides protections for employees against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin under Title VII. Title II covers inter-state commerce and protects against discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin - but not sex.
Beyond this, states are supposed to make their own laws. However, the Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis undermines this, as the court ruled that the 1st Amendment and free speech overrules any discrimination law the state makes. Thus, provided you avoid Title II by only doing business within the state, it would be possible to argue that you can discriminate against any protected classes, so long as that class isn’t protected by other Federal legislation (eg the Americans with Disabilities Act provides extensive coverage for those with disabilities).
deleted by creator
It feels…weird to me. Like refusing to work with someone at your job because they like coffee. Or dislike tigers.
Or more accurately, they were born with blue eyes and you just hate people with blue eyes. And you can’t stand them so much that you take your case against blue-eyed folk to the highest court of the land just to ensure you never have to work with them or take them as clients at your IT company. Sometimes it makes me wonder how we ever even got here, lol.
I’m pretty sure the photographer in question got all his court fees paid for by PACs or think tanks.
What’s there to be torn on?
You can’t honor people’s rights just when they suit your agenda. What would happen if you refused to work with someone and other people thought it was ‘absolutely childish and stupid’?
So you think I should be able to start job interviews by asking people if they’ve ever voted Republican? Because we absolutely employ LGBT people, so I have a legitimate interest in protecting them from bigots.
At this point? I think it’s not unreasonable. Given the state of the Republican party right now, you don’t vote for them for their economical policy or whatever they pretended to care about decades ago. They only concern about culture war bullshit, and by voting for them you agree with it, and that includes unwavering hate for LGBT people.
deleted by creator
Well, turned out it’s perfectly OK to start your interview by stating your allegiance to a christian god, so it’s only fair.
Not liking someone because they smoke isn’t the same as not liking someone for who they are.
wanted to prove the law was unjust before it even affected him
Who was hiring him?
More work for the intelligent ones that don’t discriminate.
I can´t believe I actually have to say this but here it comes: Everyone should be free to choose the things they do and don´t do. Nobody should be forced by law to do things they don´t want to do. This goes for LGBTQ+ people just as it goes for photographers and all other humans in this world. I support human rights 100%, which obviously especially includes discriminated minorities like LGBTQ+. However, I have to say that the framing in the article and it´s title, are edgy af and sound like based on an extremist, culture warrior ideology, instead of rational thinking and common sense.
“I don’t want to treat black people or LGBTQ like human beings.” – like that? Or how about signs on businesses “No Gays” or “No Hispanics”. Does this apply to government entities and their employees? How about it enough people don’t want to drink out of the same public fountain as black people, should we then bring back segregated fountains since everyone has a right to drink from fountains?
Sorry, but showing bigotry cannot be accepted by a tolerant society because it breaks the one tenet of such a society: be tolerant.
The thing you’re ignoring is that being rejected by businesses is harmful to those being rejected. And moreover public businesses discriminating is a great way to fracture society and uphold a culture of bigotry and discrimination that then bleeds into every other area. If your religion teaches you to be a bigoted asshole then you need a different religion.
If you run a business, you don’t have a right to discriminate against whole groups of people.
Putting up a discriminatory sign is public structural discrimination and already illegal afaik, so it does not work as an example in this context of private individual discrimination. In reality it is not possible to force a homophobe person to become tolerant, no matter how many laws you make against discrimination. The only way that really helps is education and a social development towards more tolerance. Forcing christian fundamentalists to work with gay people, despite they absolutely refuse it, is not the way but would only create even more social tension and hate.
They absolutely have the right to post such things(first amendment). They just have to be willing to accept any consequences as a result.
So in your example Black people have no right to a service if the location does not wish to serve them? If the next closest location is a days drive away so be it? Maybe they just need to go live closer to those services?
Yes. As a business owner they can refuse business to anyone. They also have to deal with any fallout as a result of such a racist policy.
There should be some class of protections, maybe some civil code of rights or something…
Unfortunately, i think these only pertain to hiring of individuals.
only pertain to hiring of individuals
Not true. Title II of Civil Rights Act (1964) prohibits discrimination in public accomodations (such as hotels and restaurants or other establishments that serve the public), as affirmed by the Supreme Court to be enforceable in for example Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. (1964).
An atheist living in Saudi Arabia absolutely has the right to walk into the public square and shout that god does not exist. They just have to be willing to accept the consequences of execution as a result.
Stating a fact of physical ability does not contribute any additional information in a discussion about legality.
I stated the amendment pertaining to my comment.
You absolutely do not have the right to post a sign like “No Hispanics” at your restaurant, under current US law (Civil Rights Act of 1964). You do not have to wait for an actual hispanic person to show up and be refused service to be liable - the presence of the sign alone is already in violation and can get you fined or imprisoned. You cannot claim “This sign is just for decoration as an expression of my 1st Amendment rights, we would never actually enforce it.” In this way, the Civil Rights Act already does abridge your right to write any sign you want, ironically in direct contradiction to the “Congress shall make no law” language of the 1st Amendment.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
And yet, it seems legal to not serve someone based on religious beliefs as well as sex, based on the numerous times it has happened. Why is that ok but not the other? I mean, i know it’s not really ok, but it’s still allowed to happen.
That’s the Supreme Court for ya! Their judgements do tend to meander and sometimes flip over the years, especially recently. You are probably refering to Masterpiece Cakeshop (2017) decision being different from the civil rights era cases, like say Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. (1968) where the defendant who did not want to serve black customers at his BBQ restaurants unsuccessfully argued that “the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever.” It is still enlightening to read the actual court decisions and the justifications used to arrive at one conclusion or another, and especially their explanations for how the current case is different from all the other cases decided before. After a while though it does start to look as if you could argue for any point of view whatsoever if you argued hard enough.
So they can post the sign as long as it’s just decoration? The fuck are you talking about?
Explain to me how the first amendment pertains at all to refusing service to people based on race or sexual orientation.
deleted by creator
In theory I agree with you but at the same time it seems incredibly naive to me to think laws that force homophobes to work with gay people against their will, are going to fix discrimination, to be honest that would even create additional problems imo. How do you even want to put that in practice? Force the photographer at gunpoint to take nice pictures on a gay wedding? i don think that would be practicable. Maybe fining the photographer if he is stupid enough to be honest about why he refuses a job? Well, from now on he will just say his schedule is full when a gay person calls. I just can imagine any realistic way this would work tbh.
Of course open and structural discrimination needs to be outlawed, like having signs that say “No blacks” or “No gays” but the issue of individual discrimination can not be solved by the law, it can only change through real social development towards a tolerant society, sorry USA but that is how it looks.
deleted by creator
You don’t get to pick and choose who you don’t like.
Do your feet still touch the ground when you walk?
deleted by creator
Yes, obviously it is, that was never in question from my side though. However the question remains how far laws can help with discrimination. As you know racial discrimination is illegal in the USA for some decades now. So how is the situation today? Did those laws fix racism? Sure people can put up discriminatory signs anymore but in fact the USA is still one of the most racist societies on the planet, until this day. So obviously laws can help only to a certain degree. I think laws can help with public and structural/institutional discrimination pretty well but they can not fix individual discrimination. So obviously, there is a limit to how far we can get in fixing this problem just by making more laws. What laws can not change is how people feel and think, only real social development towards more tolerance, based on proper education can do that imo.
deleted by creator
Nobody should be forced by law to do things they don´t want to do.
That’s not going to work. There are many kinds of people, and some of the things they want to do or refuse to do are disruptive or dangerous.
That guy doesn’t want to take care of his home projects, and now toxic smoke is blowing into his neighbors houses. Are you going to just say “well he doesn’t want to deal with that, so the law can’t make him”? I hope not because that creates a shitty world for everyone.
So maybe you meant something different and more limited than what you wrote?
I think the implication in all personal freedom discussions is: freedom so long as it doesn’t unnecessarily harm others. You may have freedom of speech in America, but that doesn’t protect the right to falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
Sure, but that brings us right back to “does refusing service to someone harm them?”
Sure it does. Notice i said unreasonable harm. There is a clear distinction between refusing to take someone’s wedding photo and providing someone with life saving care.
There are US Court cases that deal with this distinction.
Edit: i originally said unnecessarily as opposed to unreasonably… But the point still stands
So maybe you meant something different and more limited than what you wrote?
No, just more limited than your interpretation. I never meant to imply that “Nobody should be forced by law to do things they don´t want to do.” should cancel out all of people’s personal responsibilities. Nobody who offers a service is responsible to offer that service to everyone imo. Imagine a gay person working in any field, could be forced by law, to provide their service to neo-nazis and you might see how pointless your approach is in practice.
Glad we agree that we don’t want an unbounded freedom from responsibility.
But I mean if you don’t force people to serve the entire public you risk some presumably unwanted consequences. Should a whole grocery chain be able to say no blacks? What if it’s the only one in the town? Should realtors be allowed to refuse to sell houses to non whites? What if that means all the black people get forced into one part of town, and coincidentally that part has shitty services and other unwanted traits?
Is the rule “as long as there’s alternatives it’s ok”? Separate but equal was already decided to be unequal.
On the other hand, I do want to be able to refuse service to Nazis. Maybe the key is naziism is wholly something you choose. But I also don’t want people to be able to refuse service to, like, union members.
There’s no universal “anti social behavior” metric, unfortunately, I don’t think.
But I mean if you don’t force people to serve the entire public you risk some presumably unwanted consequences. Should a whole grocery chain be able to say no blacks? What if it’s the only one in the town? Should realtors be allowed to refuse to sell houses to non whites? What if that means all the black people get forced into one part of town, and coincidentally that part has shitty services and other unwanted traits?
Those are examples of public, structural discrimination, which imo is the kind of discrimination that is manageable with laws pretty well. However there is also the kind of individual, private discrimination that can not really be solved by the law. I think it absolutely should be illegal for a company to openly discriminate a group, let’s say by putting up a “No XY” sign and officially not serving XY. However, I also see the limits of how much such laws can do in practice. For example despite such a law being in place, a company could easily still not serve XY -just inofficially- and simply claim a full schedule whenever XY people show up/call, without the law being able to do anything about it. That is why I think laws are not enough and in the end a real social change is necessary to end these types of unjust discrimination.
Is the rule “as long as there’s alternatives it’s ok”? Separate but equal was already decided to be unequal.
Discrimination based on inherent traits is unjust af and therefore can never be “okay”.
On the other hand, I do want to be able to refuse service to Nazis.
I feel the same
Maybe the key is naziism is wholly something you choose. But I also don’t want people to be able to refuse service to, like, union members.
It’s not a simple topic, right? On one hand, I would want it to be legal to put up a “we don serve Nazis” sign, on the other hand, one could argue that someone who was born into a Nazi family and was constantly spoon fed the ideology from the beginning, never really had a chance to not become a Nazi.
There’s no universal “anti social behavior” metric, unfortunately, I don’t think.
In the end I think only education that leads to the understanding that people who are different from you are not your enemies, can help the problem.
Then rejecting a Christian should be perfectly legal. Soery mate, O don’t serve christians because I’m atheist.
Sure, obviously you should have the right to do so, if that´s what you want to do. That is exactly what I meant to express when I wrote “Everyone should be free to choose”. Apologies if I did somehow not express that clearly enough in my first comment.
You did they’re just taking it personally.
deleted by creator
That’s totally fine. You shouldn’t be forced to work with people you don’t want to work with.
While I agree with you in theory, the problem is that this Christian photographer likely has screamed cAnCeL CuLtUrE at some point when someone denied them access to something, like during the pandemic when businesses required masks.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Waiting for the first Christian couple to be denied the photographers services, to lose their shit about it! It happened when that bakerdid it and it will happen here.
That would be appropriate, since a lot of people in the LGBTQ community behave like they were in a fundamental religion.
How is his policy/service any different from a whites only lunch counter?
It isn’t.
The line seems to be based around custom services or requiring artistic impression. Just selling tacos with choice of 5 toppings, can’t discriminate. Selling tacos with custom designs on the tortillas, can discriminate.
deleted by creator
Making burgers is the same regardless of who eats it.
Taking photos is different based on what you’re taking pictures of.
It’s a single independent contractor performing a service considered to be bespoke skilled labor. He has no obligation to enter a work contract the same way I can’t force you to clean my gutters. A chow house on the other hand, serves the same food to everyone. There’s no contact to enter, only goods to be purchased.
Can a dentist have a non-gay/non-black policy?
Not that I personally agree, but per the Supreme Court, probably.
With that said, on what planet would a black person even want some racist bigot working on their teeth?? There’s a huge risk of him being a total piece of shit and doing a terrible or deliberately malicious job.
Why is society obligated to allow a discriminatory business like this to exist?
Why do we just take as a given that anyone is allowed to start a business?
No one said otherwise, just pointing out why Walmart can’t deny your right to buy a redbull but I have no obligation to fix a computer with a Nazi flag stickers on it.
But our existence is not some kind of political opinion. If a wedding photographer won’t take jobs from interracial couples because he thinks that they sully the white race or some shit it is not really different from the stuff this guy did. And my example would hopefully fall under any anti-discrimnation laws.
Honest question, In your mind, should I be legally compelled to work on systems operated by people openly racist towards me?
What exactly do you mean with “systems”?
I would say no to that because there is a big difference between refusing to work for someone that holds a discriminatory ideology and refusing to work for someone that is some category of human they hate especially if they can’t actually do something about being in that category like with skin colour or being LGBTQ+.
You can’t be tolerant of intolerance if you call yourself tolerant.
What exactly do you mean with “systems”?
Are you paying attention? In the first comment of his you replied to, he said: “but I have no obligation to fix a computer with a Nazi flag stickers on it.”
That right to refuse work based on your personal ideology has to cut both ways, otherwise those in power get to decide what is a ‘just’ reason for refusal of services and what is an ‘unjust’ reason. If the right group of racists were in power, then I could be legally compelled to perform services for those who are openly hostile towards me, which you yourself seem to intimate would be ‘unjust’
In the same way that I can choose not to take a job at Nestle because of how they treat our freshwater supply, I can also choose not to work on Jimbobs computer because he doesn’t believe the Holocaust happened.
Also ‘systems’ was just a placeholder to clarify I wasn’t selling commodites, sorry for any confusion there.
I’m not sure I see how the product of his photography service(however bespoke) is any different from the product of the meal and a place to eat. Everyone at the chow house is arguably getting a bespoke experience as well since there’s more than one seat and presumably you not every meal is going to be prepared in the exact same way and may in fact involve customization like the rarity of a steak or thes submission or removal of ingredients(eg ‘no cheese’).
My understanding is that a business is still allowed to deny service to any singular customer for no explicit reason. It’s the matter of stating and enforcing a policy of discrimination against a protected class.
You can’t force me to clean your gutters, but you also could sue me if I refused to clean your gutters by showing you my policy that I refuse to do business with anyone belonging to whatever protected class you fall under. Because the policy of discrimination is what’s illegal and not the individual act of discrimination itself.
Also, I’m pretty sure purchasing a good still legally qualifies as a form of a contract in tort law. Ofc I am in no way a lawyer so please, anyone, correct me if ive misunderstood here.
There was an article on Slate a few years ago that I wish I could find again. It was a fictional story about what it was like for a lesbian, with a kid and a wife, going through a day in which businesses were allowed to refuse her service. It’s a slippery slope, guys.
I feel like there’s a distinct possibility that this supreme Court is going to hollow out a lot of civil liberties over the coming years
Keep in mind, the supreme court doesn’t control the nation.
The people do.
You’re right. I’m a huge advocate for increased political participation. But. There are a lot of people who live in very red states that can have their liberties chipped away and they won’t have much redress because they’re surrounded by so many people that agree that they shouldn’t have those rights. There are a lot of states where abortion is illegal and it’s unlikely they will pass ballot initiatives to reinstate that right they way Ohio just did.
I think more participation and more education could solve all of this though.
So the people can fire the judges in the supreme court?
No. If the supreme court makes a ruling that is so unpopular that people don’t follow it, then people won’t follow it.
Not the Supreme Court, but cannabis is still a Schedule 1 controlled substance. That didn’t stop states from legalizing it because of how unpopular prohibition is. The federal government knows this, which is why we don’t see massive retaliation against states with legal weed.
Government and its enforcement is way more communal than people realize.
Got it, laws don’t exist if we can’t read
I don’t think you get it, because that was not my point.
You do know that enforcers/cops are fascists?
deleted by creator
Service isn’t really being denied here though.
There is a difference between refusing to make a cake about a subject and refusing to make a cake because of someone’s background.
Show me someone saying “This is fine”, and I’ll show you someone who has the privilege to not fear whether they’re going to be blocked out of society for the crime of…existing. This is only the first step to “All businesses, including businesses required for life, can discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals”. Y’all are unhinged.
Obligatory:
It’s not a step, they literally are allowed to discriminate, under US law.
First off, the only protection US law gives is towards “sex”, not “sexual orientation”. The right to gay marriage isn’t about sexual orientation, rather the 14th amendment merely states that the law must treat all citizens equally. The state cannot refuse to hear a civil suit filed by a black man, and the state cannot refuse the marriage of gay people. It only applies to the government (as well as those contracted by the government per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act).
Second, US law only considers sex a protected class in matters of employment. Title II of the Civil Rights Act governs inter-state commerce only, and only grants protections against discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. It does not cover sex/gender, and does not cover sexual orientation, and only applies when the business involves a significant number of customers from out of state or products whose supply chains involve other states.
The way it’s supposed to work is that states can set their own laws on the matter. However, states must set their laws within the bounds of the Constitution. What happened with 303 Creative v. Elenis is that the Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment right to free speech supercedes any law the state makes, thus, unless Federal law says discrimination is illegal then it is a-ok in law.
As it is, there is no federal law protecting against discrimination for sexual orientation specifically, and discrimination based on sex is only protected in matters involving employment.
US law is shiiiiiiiite. I wouldn’t hold my breath for a Republican Congress, too busy fingering their own assholes, to actually make some proper legislation.
Should a Jewish photographer be required to work the klan themed wedding of Baron Trump to the reanimated corpse of Eva Braun? Just because they were asked to?
A single proprietor business should be allowed to deny any job that they aren’t comfortable working, just like any employee of a company could refuse to work such a job.
I don’t like bigots either, but requiring a photographer to work at whatever event wants to hire them is absurd. You don’t lose all right to autonomy just because you offer a service, least of all a service that provides nothing that anyone actually needs.
I think it’s a bit silly to apply Popper to an issue about taking wedding photographs. Popper himself published the idea in 1945, in a time where intolerances were a bit more on the serious side.
