• Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    sides with business owner who refused to provide services for same-sex wedding, citing freedom of speech.

    Um, “freedom of speech” would be to say that you don’t support same-sex marriage, but refusal to provide a service based on the fact that you don’t agree with same-sex marriage seems like flat out discrimination.

  • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So as a queer person, does this mean I can choose not to service Christians at my business?

    Because somehow I doubt the Supreme Court would back me up there.

    • SapphicFemme@lib.lgbt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It confuses me religion (an unscientific idea) is even a protected class versus an immutable characteristic like skin color, gender, sexuality, disability etc.

      • br3d@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Religious privilege is getting an invite to the meeting where this stuff was decided

    • maporita@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It means that if a Christian asks you to design a website with messages that violate your religious beliefs then you can refuse. If I as a satanist believe that a woman’s right to abortion is sacred then I can refuse to design a website with an anti-abortion message. I can’t simply refuse to design a website for a Christian. Not saying I agree with the ruling, just explaining what it means.

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The ruling says you don’t have to design a website that violates any sincerely held beliefs, not just religious beliefs.

        So if you are gay and a Catholic asked you to design a website promoting “Marriage is for one man and one woman”, you can refuse. Before the ruling, you might have been found to be discriminating against Catholics.

    • HairHeel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is it would depend on what kind of business you’re in and what kind of services the Christian customers asked for. You could say “I do websites for weddings, but not Christian weddings” for example.

      As I understand it, this ruling still wouldn’t necessarily protect broader discrimination like “I own an ice cream shop, but I won’t sell ice cream to certain people”; whether the people you’re refusing to sell to are Christian, gay, etc…

      • SpaceToast@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Thank you. So many people don’t understand what happened and think the Supreme Court made it legal to discriminate against gay people.

    • SpaceToast@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Your response to hate is more hate?

      I seem to have upset the blue haired weirdos. Plz stay on Reddit.

      • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Whoa, calm down there! It’s definitely not hate. I love all Christian people. I just disagree with their lifestyle. How can they force me to support the messed-up things they do? You’re getting dangerously close to treading on my constitutional right of free speech, my friend!

        • SpaceToast@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Same way nobody can force someone to build them a website.

          • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Actually this is not true! The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did indeed force private businesses to act to end segregation:

            The act outlawed segregation in businesses such as theaters, restaurants, and hotels. It banned discriminatory practices in employment and ended segregation in public places such as swimming pools, libraries, and public schools.

            So yes, the government can and does literally force businesses to provide equal access to their services.

            Of course, this doesn’t apply to websites because the Supreme Court appears to approve of some kinds of discrimination, but not others.

            That was the my initial point. The Supreme Court is fine with discrimination against LGBTQ people. But you had better believe that if someone actually discriminated against white people or Christians, they would come down against it like a ton of bricks. Because this is not motivated by an ideological belief in the first amendment, but a conservative desire to roll back rights and access for minorities they dislike.

            • SpaceToast@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You aren’t understanding what happened here.

              They didn’t flat out refuse service because the customer was gay, they refused to create something that they didn’t agree with.

              Do you really think LGBT devs would be forced to design a website for the KKK? If so you don’t live in the real world.

              You can’t force people to do what you want.

              • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Oh no, I understand.

                Would it surprise you to know that literally that exact same argument was used against Black people to resist integration, and indeed, the same Civil Rights Act of 1964 I linked? That it wasn’t because the person was Black, but because the business owner had a religious belief that was incompatible with service? That they shouldn’t be compelled to provide a service they disagreed with? It is as spurious then as it was now.

                The reason your example is bad is because membership in the KKK is not a protected class, not because businesses are not required to provide equal access. Businesses are in fact barred from discriminating against protected classes and must provide them equal access (in general). Except, of course, if the Supreme Court likes the protected class in question less than they do the “free speech” of another class.

                So, yes indeed, the government can and does force people to do what they want.

                They will make an exception if you’re a Christian apparently, however.

                • SpaceToast@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  By your own words, you still aren’t getting it.

                  You keep comparing it to businesses not serving black people, which is discrimination 100%.

                  That’s not what happened here. The gay customers weren’t denied service. The developer just declined creating something that they don’t agree with.

                  Here are some examples to make it easy for you.

                  1. I’m selling cupcakes and refuse to sell to a gay couple. - illegal

                  2. I’m selling cupcakes and a gay couple wants custom made cupcakes with rainbows and unicorns, but I don’t like unicorns so I decline. - legal

      • Steve@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think they’re more just pointing out how this ruling isn’t fair because of the fact that it doesn’t go both ways.