Transcription for the blind: Storefront with two paper signs taped to the window. Left sign says "Since the supreme court had ruled that businesses can discriminate…NO SALES TO TRUMP SUPPORTERS. Right sign says “We only sell to churches that fly the pride flag” and has an illustrated image of a pride flag and a church.
-Transcription done by a human volunteer. Let me know how I can do better.
deleted by creator
Good ai human not robot
*hand out treats
Good human
Good human
Good human
Thanks dude. You make the world a better place.
Thank you, I’m not blind but I appreciate you helping out others
good
bothuman
Removed by mod
I’m not sure about discrimination against customers based on ideology, but I’m pretty sure you can’t discriminate against customers based on protected class (sex, race, orientation, etc.) What this supreme court case does (IIUC) is that companies are now allowed to not provide services to protected classes if those services constitute speech. So if you are a restaurant owner, or a hotel, you still can’t refuse a gay couple, if you are a cake designer, you can’t refuse to make a cake, but you can refuse to do anything remotely gay-related to that cake, if you are a web designer, you can refuse to make something altogether because the government can’t restrict or compel speech (and graphic design is speech).
The problem is it is vague imo. Baking a cake could be speech to this court
Baking the cake is definitely not speech ( although I appreciate your point about this Court interpreting it that way).
However, decorating the cake could reasonably be construed as speech, especially if there is text, logos, etc in the decoration.
Gotcha, yeah I agree. I personally don’t think a website designer building something for a client is either. But we live in a dystopia right now. Hope you are doing well this evening.
I think that was the majority opinion’s goal, they think the line between what is speech and what isn’t should be spelled out more minutely with more legal precedent rather than what we had before where all speech in relation to selling a service was regulated under anti-discrimination statutes.
Money is speech, right? Does that make the ramifications of this decision go a lot farther? I don’t see how yet, but it seems like this ruling may have broad impacts when people start getting creative with it…
Bold assuming the corrupted six ever used anything close to consistency to inform their rulings.
I mean, there’s one thing that’s pretty consistent: they’ll do whatever their wealthy backers want them to do.
money is speech, right?
I mean, they do say that “money talks” and last time I checked, talking is a form of speech.
This is a problem with the US legal system. Every decision is a precedent, no matter how specific it is.
Well, Roe v Wade set a precedent, which was then reverted ~50 years later, so I’m not sure how much precedents apply to the supreme court (it definitely applies to lower courts tho)
This is how common law everywhere that England colonized works. It’s not endemic to the US.
…I feel like you’ve got some stories you could be sharing
If they’re trump supporters… they probably wouldn’t be paying you anyway.
Removed by mod
I’m sure they can afford a lawyer. I was more referring to the link between being a Trump supporter and Trump’s own … habit of not paying his lawyers.
trump griftes any monies left
I mean, yeah, at that point they’re just a big fat liability.
And they learned it from watching Trump.
This guy laws
deleted by creator
Quick side note: you are within your rights to refuse service based on political affiliation full stop – it’s not protected under the equal protections clause.
That being said, the issue is not about denying service full-stop, but the right to refuse expression of values you find to be wrong. Believe it or not, these cases are important for everyone and guarantees that the state can’t force you to create messaging in support of (i.e. endorse, which is a form of speech) something you disagree with.
It’s not granting the right to discriminate. It’s protecting your first amendment right to not be compelled to engage in speech you disagree with.
For example, say I go to a bakery run by devout Muslims and request a cake that depicts a cross with the phrase “only through Jesus may you find eternal life” underneath. That baker may be uncomfortable with the idea of creating that design as it not only goes against their own sincerely held beliefs, but may conflict with some negative views they may hold of Christians or Jesus (or even the particular denomination of the customer).
That Muslim baker has every right to refuse the design of the cake on free speech grounds. Religion is a protected class in the equal protections clause, so the Christian may feel like they’re being discriminated against, but it’s the message (which is considered to be speech) and not the individual being a Christian causing the issue.
That Muslim baker cannot blanket-refuse any Christians from buying any cakes. If that Christian customer instead asks for a blank cake that they’ll decorate themselves, the baker must sell it to them or else they are violating the equal protections clause. In that case, service is being refused based on the traits of the customer rather than on the particular message being expressed on the cake.
It’s silly and I think people would be better off just accepting the work and taking the money. If I was aware of a business that made cakes, websites, whatever – but refused certain designs based on their personal views, I would simply discontinue any further support of them. I’d prefer a business who puts their own shit aside and serves whomever wants to pay them… but to compel them to suck it up and either compromise on their views or close up shop is directly contradictory to one of the most important rights we recognize here – to speak freely and without cohersion from the state.
The business owner isn’t doing anything wrong with their signs, but they’re completely missing the point of the decision and comes off as a bit silly.
What you described was not the actual outcome of the ruling.
The wedding website designer did not give them a website with no mention of being gay, that they could fill in themselves. The website designer was allowed to fully refuse them any kind of website at all. Just like refusing a blank wedding cake because the couple is gay.
The justification of the decision was not in good faith. It stepped away over the bounds of protecting against compelled speech. And they deserve to feel the consequences.
The whole goddamn case was not in good faith.
The supposed customer for a gay wedding website turned out to actually be a married straight dude.
deleted by creator
If the wedding designer has a “blank wedding site” package premade and refused to sell it to them then I don’t think that’s right. But if all of the websites are bespoke designs where the designer must create something for the couple, it’s fuzzy.
Personally, I don’t know. There is, and should be, a line between personal life and work life. But depending on what you do for a living, the line can be a thin one or a thick one.
For example, if I churn out hundreds of identical 3D printed characters and sell them at an open-air market, I shouldn’t be allowed to single out a customer and refuse business just because I don’t like the look of them. But if I’m a graphic artist, I shouldn’t be compelled to draw something that I find objectionable. Eg: I might be a woman who has been sexually abused in the past, and someone wants a sexually graphic depictions of a sexual assault (like the Guns ‘N’ Roses “Appetite for Destruction” cover).
Those examples are easy to comprehend because they’re extremes. The difficulty in interpreting the outcome of the case is trying to bring the examples closer to the center.
Can you refuse to sell handpainted greetings to someone you don’t like? No. It doesn’t matter that it’s a creative endeavour. If you created the product without coercion, and are now selling them at a stall in your local town, it’s not ok to refuse a simple transaction because you don’t like the buyer. What if you also offer a service of writing a message in fancy calligraphy on the inside? Can you refuse to write something you find objectionable? I think so.
I don’t think it comes down to who your customer is. I think it comes down to what you’re being asked to do.
Edit: lol, what a typo. Thanks swype keyboard!
Someone else compared being gay to being racist, and now you’re comparing being gay to sexual assault.
These are disingenuous comparisons at best, dangerously homophobic at worst.
WAT. I was giving extreme examples to illustrate that personal opinions sometimes have zero effect on your work, and sometimes they really really affect your work. And I specifically called out the fact that they were extreme examples:
Those examples are easy to comprehend because they’re extremes.
How the hell was that comparing being gay to sexual assault? How come you didn’t use the other example and accuse me of comparing being gay to 3d printing?
In theory yes, but what’s going to happen now, is 2 obviously gay men will go to that Muslim baker and ask for blank cake they will decorate themselves and Muslim will ask them to leave.
And if that was the case and they wanted to pursue their legal options, they could sue the baker.
They could. And theyll probably have too. The problem with this law is it really sets the tone and reinforces peoples shitty views.
I definitely agree that stupid people are stupid, and they will either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstand the ruling and skew it to their messed up views. It doesn’t make SCOTUS wrong in this case though.
So can the wedding website designer be sued for not selling them a generic wedding website with no mention of them being gay, that they could fill in themselves?
From my understanding, that would be a different case entirely. So yeah, they could be sued.
This is the best take I’ve seen in this thread so far. It’s an issue of compelled speech, not of this or that demographic or ideology of the client or service. I’m not trying to dog whistle here, I hate that any business would exercise this in a hateful way, but another example of the reverse would be compelling a black-owned bakery to write an awful racist message on a cake. Obviously no person should be compelled to say what they don’t believe, regardless of the level of asshattery they dabble in.
A lot of shitty analogies abound.
How about these ones:
Is it ok to refuse service to a mixed race couple getting married?
Is it ok to refuse service to a couple, both of whom are black who are getting married?
I think these examples are much closer to the analogies people are coming up with in this thread. Or do you think being gay is an ideology? Is being gay a religion? Is being gay like being a racist?
Or is being gay something that a person is born as? If so isn’t this a lot like being refused service because of race?
The question THIS LAW interacts with is the CONTENT of the message. If you’re providing tables for a wedding this law wouldn’t protect you. If you were asked to write something specific for the wedding and the content of the request is antithetical to your beliefs, this law would protect you, if you could show that. Not a lawyer, but that’s how I read it.
Now. Is it “right” to do so? I would say in absolutely no universe. It’s morally wrong, it undermines our liberal society, and I have no tolerance for it. My point is that this particular law isn’t about whether someone is a Christian, their race, or sexuality. This decision wouldn’t protect me from writing some basic software for a nazi (others might) but it DOES protect me from building a website supporting them, or writing prose related to nazism, or anything else which would be CLEARLY against what I believe. Please DON’T read that I’m saying that being a nazi is the same as being homosexual, it isn’t, I’m not, fuck nazis.
To get back to your question: as I read this decision, a cake maker could potentially be compelled to make a cake for an interracial couple, but they might not be compelled to make a cake with something like “interracial is the only way to go”
This all sounds like the staff using religion as an excuse to discriminate against gay people. Doesn’t seem all that Christian to me, and in fact it seems like they’re taking Our Lord’s Name in vain by using it to justify their hateful actions.
But maybe they don’t follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and don’t follow the Commandments. Even if that’s the case, the business is responsible for ensuring that customers aren’t discriminated against by staff. If the business owners aren’t up to meeting that standard, then they shouldn’t be trying to run a business.
You’re right, and it doesn’t to me either, and I feel that it’s wrong, and I wouldn’t go and get a cake made with someone I know does this. I also think that you and I would agree on more than not. I’ll also add that I don’t have a dog in the religion debate here. But I still feel very strongly that in a free society it is their right not not be compelled to write something which directly contradicts their belief. I’ll need to think about this more in general, I might end up changing my mind on it, but at least for right now the right to not have to say something you don’t believe feels important to me. Let me ask you this, if an atheist baker were asked to write “Jesus is Lord” on a cake and said no, would you take issue with that? I wouldn’t; I’d argue that is a very clean first amendment right, and an important part of living in a liberal society. I also would go as far as to say that isn’t even intolerance from the atheist, it’s simply them believing something.
To your second point, while I agree that a business owner should not discriminate against a particular demographic, I’m not sure I’d go all out on any time someone says this they’re discriminating. Every religion and value system has prohibitions, and few of them are aligned. It’s possible to respectfully decline to do something as it directly contradicts your beliefs. Now if your beliefs are discriminatory, that’s a different and more complex question entirely. I’m not sure what to think about that case.
To me there needs to be a distinction between a business and a person. Sure maybe a person can’t be compelled to do something against their beliefs, but a business can’t claim to have beliefs and therefore can be compelled to do whatever the law requires.
And claiming religious beliefs isn’t a card you can lay down anytime you want to get out of your responsibilities. I mean if I claim that paying taxes is against my religious beliefs do you think the government shouldn’t be able to compel me to pay taxes simply because it’s against my religious beliefs?
There’s always an element of common sense judgement needed in the law which is why the people that do that are called Judges. So if in our best judgement these people simply don’t like gay people and in our judgement they’re just using religion as a way to trick people into thinking they’re motives are based in religion and not based off on their prejudice, then what is the decision? To go along with their trickery that’s using religion as an excuse? Or just tell them their arguments about religion is bullshitt and they have to get over their dislike of gay people and follow the law?
The problem here is members of Supreme court are willing to abdicate their responsibility to use judgement and go along with the obvious trickery because they share the baker’s dislike for gay people.
I think that I agree with you in general on your first point. A business isn’t a person, it doesn’t have a religion, it can’t have an opinion on people. But we’re talking about a small business. If someone is running a web design company, they don’t have a huge staff, they’re just one person, so their individual convictions are at play, don’t you think?
The example you give in your second point isn’t quite congruent with this case, taxes are not speech. We’re talking about speech. Now I have a personal conviction that the USA shouldn’t be spending nearly so much on the military, but unfortunately for me, my taxes, and many people around the world, I don’t have a say in the matter. If someone said something like “I don’t want to pay this tax because it’s being spent on something antithetical to my religious belief” even there, it’s not speech.
I don’t think it makes sense to compare being gay to being racist.
Alright I’m sorry, I don’t either. Which is actually why I pointed out specifically that I hate that anyone would use this in a hateful way. I’m surprised you think that I do think that it’s the same. Is there something in my comment which indicates that I believe that?
You reached for a completely non sequitur analogy.
compelling a black-owned bakery to write an awful racist message on a cake
It’s not at all like that. If you’re in the business of making cakes, and if you make cakes that have people’s names on them for their weddings, and then you refuse a cake that looks like all the other cakes to a couple because you don’t approve of which two consenting adults want their names on the goddamn cake because you just think exactly only one peen should be named in their relationship, that is just bigoted bullshit, and yes, this free country should stamp that shit out and not apologize for it, and we should all burn sparklers and celebrate that this free country offers us all the same freedom to buy a cake from the already-putting-peoples-names-on-wedding-cakes baker. There is no analog there for hateful messages on cakes whatsoever.
Edit: And if I missed your point entirely, I apologize. I’m not trying to be combative with anyone, but I am trying to stop what seems like people rationalizing this situation as having anything to do with free speech. I emphatically believe that it is a shitty excuse to apologize for a clearly biased agenda from the people who wormed their way into the US Supreme Court.
Yeah sorry, a couple of people sound like they think I meant that, I must not have articulated myself well.
If this decision protects that cake maker from doing so, then I would worry about it. Imagining EVERY cake were the same, obviously that would be wrong. I’m just trying to say that it seems like the law has more to do with the content of the message. If a couple wanted a cake saying “only gay sex” or something similarly funny, or a straight couple wanted a cake saying “all gays are bad”, I would feel that while we don’t need to be tolerant of the former business person, or the latter client, neither business person should be compelled to write the message on the cake. In the former case, they should be compelled to make a blank or similar cake with no message, simply not compelled to write the message.
Again, I’m not a legal expert so if I’m misreading the decision, that’s a different story.
This sets out my own thoughts on the situation as well. Thanks for posting.
Very well put
well put
Only state actors can violate the equal protection clause of the us constitution. The Muslim bakery example doesn’t implicate the federal equal protection clause.
“If that Christian customer instead asks for a blank cake that they’ll decorate themselves, the baker must sell it to them or else they are violating the equal protections clause.”
This is an issue too though. The only person who can enforce the requirement that the Muslim Baker sell the cake is the government and the only way the government can force someone to work is through force. What you end up with is the government using threat of force to require someone to work. Which is slavery at its core. Anyone should have the right to refuse work if they don’t want to.
That’s not what equal protections meant though. It just meant you can’t refuse to serve a customer based on their protected statuses like religion or sexual orientation.
If a church calls you to order a cake but you were planning to take time off work for a while, you could still say no. It was only a problem if you say “no, I don’t bake cakes for Christians”. That’s not slavery. You can stop working, nobody was forcing you. Just that when you do work, you can’t discriminate.
“If that Christian customer instead asks for a blank cake that they’ll decorate themselves, the baker must sell it to them or else they are violating the equal protections clause.”
This is an issue too though. The only person who can enforce the requirement that the Muslim Baker sell the cake is the government and the only way the government can force someone to work is through force. What you end up with is the government using threat of force to require someone to work. Which is slavery at its core. Anyone should have the right to refuse work if they don’t want to.
Nope, because then you have people saying “I won’t sell to blacks, if you force me sell them things I made it’s slavery”. And they aren’t being forced to work, they are being forced to operate under the parameters our society agreed to (via lawmaking). The baker can quit, he’s not forced to work there. The shop owner can close up shop, he’s not forced to run that business. But if the owner wants to run that business they have to follow the laws of the land which say you will serve the public, and that means all of the public.
A Baker should be able to refuse to bake a cake he doesn’t want to make. He shouldn’t even have to give a reason. Anything less than that is by definition forced labor.
deleted by creator
Wouldn’t supplying Trump come under religious belief.
Trump support is a practically a cult.
It is also definitely religious-based.
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason! :D
Especially racist sexist homophobic chud dipshit fascist bootlickers.
Those signs won’t stop them because they can’t read
🤣
That’s something that I could get behind.
MAGA isn’t a protected class. This has always been allowed.
It is in some states.
Religion is also a protected class (re the pic)
For me the difference is in refusing to serve someone because how they were born vs the choices they make.
Totally ok with the later, but the laws are supposed to prevent the former. Just like it being illegal to discriminate against someone just because they are black or white or Asian or whatever.
Tattoos are a choice, would you be denied services because you have a tattoo? Or I don’t serve women wearing pants, because I think they should only wear dresses.
Obviously I disagree, but I also want to point out that many conservatives think being gay or trans is a choice.
And they’d be wrong. Being gay is a choice as much as being straight is.
I’m always quick to point out if someone believes being gay is a choice, they are admitting THEY actively are choosing not to be gay everyday… that they actually could find the same sex attractive but choose not to.
Sure, but to the religious right, they think they are right in that sexuality is a choice, and also that they are never wrong.
Of course they’re wrong, but that’s what they think and that’s how they will discriminate. Well they to discriminate based on what you’re born as too so it really doesn’t matter. But they think it’s a choice, yes often because they are bi and to them it’s a choice to act on it, so they project.
I agree with you. Isn’t race specifically a protected class with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment specifically? Political ideology or beliefs are not protected, unless violence is utilized. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Correct. The point is sexual orientation should be protected like race.
For employment purposes, it is. Court precedents have affirmed that discriminating against someone based on sexual orientation is a form of sex-based discrimination which is illegal under Title VII.
But creative works (like baking a cake or building a website) are protected by the constitution as free speech. You can’t compel someone to perform a creative work against their own beliefs.
That’s why you’re allowed to refuse to build a website for a gay couples wedding, but you can’t refuse to change their tyres.
That’s great and all, but I personally don’t think that is right for fair.
Imagine a baker saying they don’t want to bake a wedding cake because of an interracial couple or for black people. I get the law is different, I’m saying personally I don’t agree with that law and think that’s a load of shit.
The problem is you’re wrong though, because legally you have to look at the lowest common denominator.
Imagine you are a baker and someone wants you to bake a nazi cake? Would you want to? Hell no, but saying that a producer is required by law to perform any creative production asked of by the client means that you as a Jewish gay person (hypothetically) would be forced to bake that nazi cake.
Similarly, it doesn’t really matter what’s “right” it doesn’t change that for some people, lgbt issues are considered religious sin, and they feel like they would be committing a religious sin in baking a pride cake. Now are they loony? Yeah they are. But it doesn’t change that you cannot force someone to artistically create something against their will. ESPECIALLY when you can just go to another baker who will.
Again I draw the line on discrimination based on how a person was born vs their decisions.
Bakers can say no to nazis, democrats, republicans, tattoos, whatever.
But bakers being able to say no just because how you are born: white, black, male, female, gay, straight… that’s horse shit.
Why would argue that’s ok or morally correct or fair?
deleted by creator
It’s a fine line, but it comes down to this: it’s not OK for the baker to refuse to bake a cake for someone in a protected class.
However, it’s also not OK for someone in a protected class to compel speech from the baker.
Ask the baker to bake a plain cake with no messaging on it: the baker can’t refuse on the basis of any protected attributes, like the customer’s race, etc.
Ask the baker to decorate the cake with a “happy pride day” message? Only if the baker agrees to that expression. You can’t compel speech.
It works the other way too: you can’t compel the baker to write something they disagree with if they don’t want to. It’s clear why a baker would be within their rights to refuse a “I’m glad all the Jews died” message on the cake. The baker is within their rights to decline any expression they don’t like. And that’s the way it should be.
The problem is that while it is obvious to you that sexual orientation is a matter of birth and not choice, it isn’t to, to be honest, the vast majority of people on this planet.
And also, just to put things in perspective, even the science isn’t fully convinced. Most evidence tells us it’s something from birth, and my personal life anecdote tells me I’m bisexual since the day I was born, but truthfully we don’t have any hard evidence to prove it, since it is nearly impossible to prove.
This is why it has to be included with the rest.
I think you mean for a hypothetical website that was never ordered and certainly never order by the straight man the website sited. The court just ruled on two cases that were effectively made up. As the loan company also didn’t have any issue with debt forgiveness, and the state “filed for them” to “create” an injured party. it is past time to pit enough people on the bench that One president can’t fuck the legal system up for 6 peoples lifetimes.
It’s the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects from discrimination from any of the following: race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Basically anything else is fair game, as far as I understand.
A lot of the people who discriminate against the lgbtq+ community absolutely believe that sexual orientation is a choice, and I’d wager that includes the justices who ruled in favor of the web designer.
To be fair if I see a sign saying they support Trump, GOP, or anti-LGBT I keep walking on by. I have seen many places that say if you are a bigot, sexist, or racist you are not welcome here. Those are the places I spend my money at.
Exactly. A Trump sign at a business guarantees that business won’t get my money now or in the future.
There’s a large grocery store chain here that the owner was at the Jan 6th insurrection. A lot of people, including myself, refuse to shop there now.
Was it Publix? I know the owner’s a huge supporter of conservative causes— really hope she’s not also an insurrectionist. (Asking bc I’m trying to avoid giving business to Walgreens, and just started sending prescriptions to Publix instead.)
No it isn’t anything that big.
I stopped going to a dentist because her office looked like Trump campaign headquarters. Signs and shit everywhere. She otherwise seemed nice and competent but hell no.
There’s a pizza place in a town near me that has “Make Pizza Great Again” permanently painted on their sign in huge letters. Needless to say, they will never get my business.
There’s a place near me that I was planning on eating at. Then I saw they had a “Back the Bleu” burger. They won’t get my business.
Don’t forget the “Jesus fish” on their logo.
I’m from out west, so it was a very foreign concept for me when I visited my sister in Arkansas and saw a lot of “Christian Family Auto” type places with Jesus swag trying to win over business.
Don’t forget the “Jesus fish” on their logo.
I’m from out west, so it was a very foreign concept for me when I visited my sister in Arkansas and saw a lot of “Christian Family Auto” type places with Jesus swag trying to win over business.
You could always do this. But you’d be a damn idiot to antagonize half a potential customer base but … Well that’s one way to run a business.
I may be misinformed - but I was led to believe this is a book shop and therefore unlikely to lose many customers
🎤🫳
the potential customers that would already point their finger at you screaming “shame” if they saw you do business with people they dislike? Good riddance.
Nowhere close to half of Americans are Trump supporters.
Even if you go by voting numbers in the only election he actually won (and even that wasn’t by popular vote), it WAS closer to ⅓, and that was SEVEN YEARS AGO. I’d wager quite a few who called themself a supporter back then have changed their minds since. They’re just not speaking up about it, and so the perception is skewed.
Well… it’s worth noting that (IIRC) a record number of people voted in the 2020 election, overall and for each major-party candidate. Are those who chose to vote for Trump not to be counted among “Trump supporters”? It was approximately (but decidedly not quite) half of voters.
Yes, but I was highlighting the disparity between “active voters” and “Americans in general”, and between them and now. Saying half of the country supports Trump simply isn’t factually true.
Now, whether people who don’t vote should even be part of the conversation is another debate, of course.
Depending on where they’re based it could be much less than half
No shoes, no shirts, no service. Also no cuts, no butts, no coconuts! Lol 😆
Half? Yeah right! Even if they were half the nation - which they aren’t - it’s gonna be like 90% in some areas and 10% in others.
This isn’t really malicious compliance. This is the very foundation of the point made by the Supreme Court. You should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Anything less than that is the government engaging in violence to force you to work.
Not any reason though, the case didn’t change any of the protected classes like sex, religion, or sexual orientation. It just made it so a company can choose what “expressive work” they want to do, especially websites. So it’s legal to say you don’t want to make someone a custom website if you disagree with the contents of the website (ie a website that supports gay marriage), but it’s still illegal to refuse to make someone a website because the customer is gay. You can choose what you make, but you can’t choose who you sell it to
Important distinction.
Very important distinction.
It’d be pretty bad if hotels or restaurants started restricting access based on sex or race!
It’s a huge difference and nobody seems to understand it.
But I can see this embolden racists / homophobes. They are generally dumb, and will probably refuse to serve people citing this decision and will either end up in court or get away with it.
Except I’m real and their god isn’t.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Are you just disagreeing with the ruling, or something about my interpretation of it? To be clear, I’m not arguing for or against the ruling, just explaining what it means
Disagreeing with the ruling.
I mean - there are protected classes, right? You can’t say “no whites” or “no Jews”, I’m not a religious man - but where’s the line between a political ideology and a religious one?
Or am I totally mistaken and this is completely permitted in the states?
That kind of discrimination is generally illegal, even after the recent supreme court case.
What the ruling says is that some kinds of business, such as designing a website, decorating a cake, or writing a song, for example, are considered speech. In those cases the right of the designer/decorator/songwriter to control their speech takes precedence.
However, this doesn’t mean you can kick someone out of your restaurant for being Jewish or refuse to make a non-marriage related website because a client is gay. It’s only cases where speech is involved.
The difference is that you can’t choose your skin color, but you can’t choose your beliefs in a different way.
In the US sadly that line no longer exists
Not just any business. The decision was specfically about what they called ‘expressive activity’ such as graphic designers, artists, speechwriters, and movie directors.
Just replace “Gay” with “Black” and see how awesome it sounds.
I don’t think it’s a smart decision. I think discriminating for any reason makes business sense nor will it win you any allies, but it should be legal. Anything less than that is the government forcing you to work.
Democrats have real difficulties with “gotchas” that the people they’re “targeting” outright agree with.
The more I see news about the United States the less I’m surprised
Well within their right. A business can serve whoever the fuck it wants. You don’t like it, don’t shop there.
This is a bad take. When we, society, allow you to register as a business, we form an agreement. Part of that agreement is that you follow certain rules. We make those rules to better society.
Some rules are things like pay taxes, or don’t sell outdated food. Some rules are there to make sure anyone can shop there, without discussion.
Those rules are important because it’s very possible for a small number of business owners to make a group of people’s lives very difficult, especially out in rural areas where people don’t have a lot of options.
For a concrete example, let’s say Pfizer cures cancer. Do you want them to be able to say they won’t sell to Christians? You can’t just “go elsewhere”. But now this is allowed.
The much more dangerous part of this ruling is that the supreme Court ruled on a case where there was no standing. A lot of people don’t realize that having standing is one of the cornerstones of our legal structure. Now, in theory, any idiot could sue for any dreamed up scenario and have a much better chance of winning in court.
Society needs to codify these rules into law though otherwise bad actors break those rules. When a right wing activist supreme court removes these protections, people get hurt. But, a store like this isnt doing this to hurt people, it’s to make a statement that the far-rights own discrimination can backfire on them. It’s a form of protest and a statement, not true bigotry. Its like using the flying spaghetti monster tactic to push legislation to be more strict on religion. These people are trying ro show that regulation on business to prevent denying goods and services is important for everyone, not just minorities the the right hates.
I think I’m confused. I’m pretty sure the court case that the supreme Court just ruled on proved the opposite.
I think I’m confused. I’m pretty sure the court case that the supreme Court just ruled on proved the opposite.
You’re right in that the current state of the country does not actually reflect the ideals it professes to be based on, and this Supreme Court ruling is proof of that.
Gay. Wedding. Cakes.
There are already regulations on discrimination. You cannot be discriminated against for your religious beliefs. However, Pfizer could choose not to service rapists. In which case, want the cure for cancer? Don’t rape. Having the option to not service someone based on their actions is very different than not servicing them because of who they are. If someone is being a dick to your employees, you should have the right to kick them out. Based on what you’re saying, you think no matter how much of an asshole they are, the employees should put up with it and be their personal assistant.
All fun and games until you can’t find anywhere to shop or buy anything.
You want to act like it’s the odd shop and you can just go next door, but just look at history. Really, take an objective look at history.
This is what Republicans wanted after all. Remember gay wedding cakes??
Based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they cannot discriminate for any reason that is a protected status. However, they can makeup any reason for not serving them. That means some racist asshole could say they aren’t serving the black customer because they were rude or some other made up shit. Thankfully, your political stance is not a protected status.
Well they could do that a few times. But if someone really wanted to press the issue I am sure they could use the pattern of behavior to establish that he is indeed kicking out due to race.
Right. The various Civil Rights Acts in establishing proteted classes in placed of public accommodation and associated case law created a standard whereby there does not need to be, for example, an explicit “No blacks!” sign out front. A demonstrated pattern of refusing to serve black customers was sufficient to run afoul of the laws.
In fact, the discriminatory effect doesn’t even need to be intentional. If the end result of a policy results in a discriminatory result, it too is a violation of the law. For instance, where I grew up down south, whenever you went indoors you took your hat off. It’s respectful and such. Imagine a dining establishment that turned this custom into a steadfast rule – no one is seated while wearing a hat. Seems reasonable right? Everyone is treated the same! Until you refuse to serve a Sikh customer because they refuse to remove their turban. Now you’re discriminating against someone because of their religion, and there’s no overarching reason (safety, health, etc.) that a person can’t eat and wear a turban at the same time.
There’s a contradiction here. The Supreme Court ruled that Speech can’t be compelled, not that you could bar certain people from a business. You could decline to decorate a cake with “MAGA”, but not decline to sell a cake to a Republican, for example. What those signs are promoting is still illegal.
Forgive me, but I don’t believe political affiliation is a protected class–protected classes are the only things people can’t discriminate based on. So like, race, sex, religion are protected, but democrat/republican/green party aren’t protected. Businesses can legally discriminate against non-protected classes. It’s just usually a bad business strategy to turn customers away.
So you can simply refuse service in any business by refusing to speak to them.
Personally I think you should be able to decline any service to anyone for any reason. Anything less than that is government compelled work.
and then we’re back to segregation
That just allows people to be overtly bigoted and crated an apartheid society. And we did have this: “no blacks”, “no Irish”…
That makes no sense. You think it’s okay to deny service based on race?
and then we’re back to segregation
