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.
This is the way.
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
I disagree with him, and I think he’s bigoted. But I don’t think anyone has the right to his labor and that he should be legally forced to photograph things that he doesn’t want to photograph. And it’s not like photography is a business that anyone can corner the market of in a small town or anything like that, all you need is a camera. It’s the most common side hustle I see people try.
And how do you differentiate between this and say, a shop, or a doctor? Do LGBT people not “have the right to the labour” of those services?
I disagree with that framing entirely. But I’m curious to know how you would differentiate.
I’d say it’s the business model.
Not defending the practices or arguing in defense of bigotry, just offering an explanation.
If it’s a business model like a store where you come in and buy things with prices on them, that’s open to everyone equally.
If it’s a business where you sit down individually with each client and work out custom goods and services and pricing, then it’s less “owner sells things” and more “clients contract owner for XYZ”, and at that point, I’d tend to agree that it’s a two way street, that both parties must agree to terms.
At that point, both sides have the option to simply not agree and not enter into a contract, for any reason. Just because one may disagree with one party’s decision to not enter that agreement doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have that option.
What if it was a photographer who didn’t want to be hired to photograph a Trump rally, a pro-life protest, or something else they felt strongly against like a (peaceful, lawful) far right event?
I don’t think in those cases that a photographer should have no choice because the organizers are paying the money, so likewise, in this case, I don’t feel like it’s fair to force the photographer to cover an event they have a strong moral objection to, simply because that’s their business.
Again, I’m not arguing that I agree with the photographer or that their position isn’t bigoted, just offering a distinction.
I think your comment can be summed up more succinctly with “independent contractors have more discretion to choose their clients or projects than businesses that serve the public.” And I agree with you
But why
For the same reason that I don’t believe gay couples should be legally forced to accept services from a MAGA photographer. A private contract in this situation is just that, a contract. Both parties have the power to set whatever terms and conditions that they want.
For example, imagine a black couple wanted a photographer for a family event and said something along the lines of “we’d like to support members of the black community by hiring an independent black photographer.” If a white photographer saw this and sued, everyone would (rightfully) react negatively to him trying to force a private party to break the conditions they set for their private contract.
But a MAGA supporter is not the same characteristic as being LGQTB. They are not equivalent. Some countries have protected classes which I think is best. Political affiliation is not protected. Sexual orientation is. A protected class is saying that infringing the freedoms of others based on these characteristics is a great threat to freedom. The country needs to explicitly state it won’t tolerate it, because it will erode the freedom far greater than not allowing it. You can discriminate against someone based on choices they make, but not on inherent characteristics they have.
Likewise saying you are hiring a black photographer isn’t the same as saying you’re not hiring a white photographer. The distinction is important. You’re not saying you exclude a person based on an inherent/protected characteristic. The exclusion can be inferred but it doesn’t actually mean the exclusion exists. You can say you will hire a black photographer does not mean you won’t consider or hire any other. But saying you will not hire a white photographer does concretely state your exclusion which shouldn’t be a factor in business in any free Democratic country.
I would think this is a choice that doesn’t have a right answer. All choices suck. You infringe on someone regardless of choice. But saying that I think the choice with least harm is choosing to have protected classes that can’t be infringed on vs allowing people to disallow people access to services based on these protected classes. I would prefer a person who feels they will infringe on those rights to not choose to be in the market offering services where they can discriminate based on sex, race, sexual orientation or other traits that should be protected. But if they feel they don’t want to serve plumbers or Democrats or movie producers all the power to them
Religion is a protected class.
deleted by creator
I’m not saying I disagree with your position, but being a Trump supporter or anti-choice is a choice, whereas being LGBTQ isn’t, so the comparison isn’t of equal demographic descriptors.
I disagree with your appraisal but as an example that splits your uprights: let’s say the photographer in question is a member of a demographic that is or was persecuted in some way and those trying to hire them are members of the persecuting demographic.
A Ukrainian photographer being asked to cover a family event for a family of Russians. Even if nobody involved has anything to do with the war, the situation could very likely make the photographer uncomfortable, and I don’t think that most people would fault the photographer for passing on the opportunity.
A black photographer being asked to cover a wedding being held on the grounds of a former Southern plantation is another case where I feel that the photographer would be understandably uncomfortable and the photographer would be completely justified in declining.
Even something like, say, an artist who is the daughter of Filipino parents who were subjected to horrific treatment during the japanese occupation during ww2, and now she’s being approached by a Japanese patron to commission her for a piece. While there’s a good chance that the artist may not be affected by her family’s history and be able to create the commission without any issue, I also feel that if that’s not the case, and the dynamic makes her uncomfortable, she would be completely within her rights to simply decline.
There’s even the possibility of the effects of real trauma being unjustly applied: the black photographer who was assaulted by a white person and now simply doesn’t want to work events for white people (or vice versa). The female SA victim who won’t work with men.
Simply flipping the party who has a condition they can’t change seems (to me at least) to change the dynamic. Having non-choice conditions on both sides changes the dynamic even more.
As such, I feel that the only fair situation is one in which the business contact is understood to be a two party contract, with both sides having full agency over their decision about whether to enter into the agreement for any reason. It’s different when it’s like a shop owner or something, where the entire transaction takes a minute and the goods and services they provide are open to the public in general.
But in the cases I’m talking about, I see the business models and getting comparable to valves or switches in a system. Some valves are “always open” except in specific circumstances: the main water valve, the valve from the pipes into your toilet tank, etc. and they’re just left open outside of specific special circumstances. Others are “always closed” outside of special circumstances: the bypass for a filter, or a drainage valve, or even the knobs on the sink which are only open when you’re actually using it. I see storefronts as “always open” valves, providing their services to the public in general unless they’re closed. In contrast, contract workers are “always closed” valves, not working by default, and their valve of work only opens when they agree to it. And in that business model, they should be free to keep that valve closed for any reason, regardless of whether it’s a good or shitty reason to anyone else.
While you or I may not particularly like or approve of one party or the other’s reasoning for opting out of a contract, I do believe it should be their decision.
Did you respond to the wrong comment? If not, you read a lot into what little I said and much I wouldn’t have said, had I said more.
If it’s a business where you sit down individually with each client and work out custom goods and services and pricing, then it’s less “owner sells things” and more “clients contract owner for XYZ”, and at that point, I’d tend to agree that it’s a two way street, that both parties must agree to terms.
Healthcare falls into this quite easily.
So I agree with you, but food for thought as I was mulling this over: what about someone building a deck? I shouldn’t discriminate who I build a deck for based on color or orientationn because building that deck doesn’t expose me to anything I object to (I’m using “I” universally here - I’m queer positive and don’t build decks). But like if I’m a boudoir photographer who is squicked by queer sexuality I ought to be able to decline a shoot.
So I don’t know that the line is just a one on one service. That’s not quite there, but it’s close. I recognize the need to protect folks from being forced to witness or participate in things they object to, but I also recognize the need to protect minority groups from being excluded from the benefits of society.
I also think it would do people good to get over themselves and be exposed to things they find uncomfortable and grow as a person, but I recognize that isn’t anything that can be forced on someone.
Yeah I agree that it doesn’t seem to be a firm hard line, but maybe that’s a good thing. And honestly, to me it’s one of those things that, from a purely economic standpoint, it’s just opening up that opportunity to competitors.
So you don’t wanna photo gay weddings? That’s cool, someone else will.
Gig worker versus someone providing a service to the general public. A wedding photographer is not on the job until you both accept the terms and sign a contract.
Besides, do you really want a wedding photographer that doesn’t want to be there and has to be legally forced?
Not saying this is a perfect analogy, but consider housing. If you are renting or selling real estate, you can not discriminate based on protected classes. However, if you are renting a room with shared spaces, you can deny applicants for any reason.
I think the difference comes down to creative outlets. Just like with the “create a website for same-sex weddings”. I also feel a photographer should be able to deny a Trump themed wedding or cake. But if it’s a general service or product offered to everyone, you shouldn’t be able to deny a person just for being gay or black or anything protected. I don’t know if I’m elaborating my thoughts about it well but do you get where I’m coming from?
A wedding photographer offers their services to everyone having weddings. If that photographer refuses to photograph same-sex weddings, is that not the same as denying service to someone over their sexuality?
You make a good point and I thought the same thing after I made my initial comments. Another one I thought about was what if a person truly strongly believed in segregation, even maybe it being a part of their religion. Does that mean it’s ok for them to deny black people? That makes me deeply uncomfortable to put it lightly; I don’t think that is justifiable.
At the same time, there is something very personal about creative pursuits. Graphic artists can reject any idea and they don’t have to justify it. And this is something that is custom made for each customer. If the artist isn’t interested, and even is morally opposed to performing the work, even if they were legally required to do it, is it going to be their best work? Can they be penalized for deliberately doing a terrible job? I don’t know
I think this issue is why we have protected classes and why sexual orientation/preference/gender should be one.
When you say “graphic artists can reject any idea and they don’t have to justify it” the implication is that they can reject it for any reason which is not strictly true.
“I don’t feel like it” is a perfectly valid reason.
“I don’t like Black people” is not.
A photographer can choose not to do a job because they don’t feel like it, but not because it’s for a Black person or a Jewish person.
The issue here that is being overlooked in a lot of the discussion (but definitely is not being overlooked by the Supreme Court) is that LGBTQ people are not a protected class. Every time one of these cases pans out it sets another precedent that will be used to keep it that way.
It’s not the same as being forced to photograph a Trump rally or campaign photos. A far more apt comparison imo is race. Most people would agree that a business (any business) should not be able to exclude someone based on their race.
One is and artistic and expressive occupation. Stitching up a gay person wouldn’t be perceived as a form of statement. But being required to produce work in the traditional style of a wedding photographer could be perceived as issuing a statement in support of the event.
If you sold signs, you shouldn’t be able to decline someone a blank sign just because they are LGBT. But you shouldn’t be required to design one that carried a pro LGBT (or any other kind) of message.
I see where you are going with that, and I follow. But what about when we get into healthcare that can be perceived as queer-specific?
Say, when a doctor refuses to do proper STD screenings for a gay man, refuses to prescribe PrEP or PEP, or refuses to authorize checks on hormone levels?
All taken from experiences me and my friends have had, by the way.
I wouldn’t consider screenings or prescribing countermeasures to people who suspect exposure to medical threats particularly artistic or expressive. All those seem like pretty normal things for any sexually active adult to ask for regardless of sexuality.
Additionally those should be confidential so I don’t see them as a form of compelled speech.
Take something you strongly disagree with. Let’s say a certain political party and their agenda. Republicans, Democrats, Nazis, a radical independent, doesn’t matter what, just one you disagree with.
You’ve decided to provide a private service as an individual. Let’s say, event planning.
A political party approaches you to host their biggest rally yet. On enquiring, what it’s about, you find out it’s the one you disagree with.
Should you be made to? Are you denying rights by declining your services to them, or are you exercising your own by choosing to stand by your beliefs?
Your beliefs will of course outrage some people that have opposing ones, but they are yours and they should be protected no matter what they are or how wild or somber they are. It is only when you actively start harming people or directly denying human rights is when it becomes an issue… But you host events, you don’t control water, shelter, justice, health, or food to societies. So unless that’s somehow happening—and boy would that have been a regulatory fuck up—you have the freedom to not host events for things that go against what you believe, and we protect that even if people disagree with them.
You can’t make someone do things against their beliefs, just as you wouldn’t want to be made to do things against your own. That’s called hypocrisy and double standards. We respect this by disagreeing with someone’s beliefs, but we don’t strip them from people and force our own on them, just because we disagree.
You can’t make someone do things against their beliefs, just as you wouldn’t want to be made to do things against your own.
In the US, the civil rights legislation forces racists to serve black people and that is great.
There is a fundamental difference between immutable traits, such as race, gender, sexuality, and physical ability, and political beliefs. So your comparison to “something you strongly disagree with” is not fitting analogy.
Your beliefs will of course outrage some people that have opposing ones, but they are yours and they should be protected no matter what they are or how wild or somber they are.
We aren’t talking about “beliefs”. We’re talking about actions. Discrimination is an action.
It is only when you actively start harming people or directly denying human rights is when it becomes an issue…
And denying people goods and services based on who they are is harming them. So it is an issue.
You can’t make someone do things against their beliefs, just as you wouldn’t want to be made to do things against your own.
We can and we do, all the time. That’s part of living in society.
The thing’s you say are very authoritarian. The disregard for individual thoughts and freedoms is honestly scary. You can’t even differentiate private venture with public service. I suspect you discriminate against others all of the time, but it’s fine since it’s coming from you and your side of things, never questioning if you’re the bad person or not.
It slowly gets worse and worse each time you type. That last part is just flat out disgusting to say.
The Handmaiden’s Tale didn’t get 8.4 on iMDB because people can’t wait for that future enough.
Nothing but baseless assumptions and accusations. Waste of time.
Heh. Thank you. My point and case for anti-libertarian rests on that response perfectly.
And I appreciate you taking your time to state you’re wasting your time. Best your words and outlook rest here than elsewhere. We’re trying to progress as a species so, in a way, this is unintentionally helping.
More baseless accusations, without addressing anything I said.
You’re right, but that’s an unpopular take in this hive mind.
Lemmy folk can’t handle reality that contradicts their ideals.
a hive mind isnt when people disagree with you honey
This feels like it should be Libertarian 101. Thought the communities were left here, but apparently they just say that to feel good.
I’d say anything that could be considered as creative, and isn’t necessary for life.
That said, I’d rather non-essential creatives be allowed to discriminate. Who wants a closeted homophobe photographing their wedding? I’d rather a non-professional friend do it with their cell phone.
Should they also be allowed to have a whites only business? Because I’m pretty sure they legally can’t discriminate that way. It’s only okay if someone is LGBT+.
No. But he should be able to reject creating something that says “whites only” or “straights only”.
Example:
Denying a “white power” photo session - should be legal
Denying taking senior photos because the client is white - should not be legal
Denying professional headshots because the client is gay - should not be legal
Denying a “gay pride” photo session - should be legal (though you’re an asshole if you do it IMO)
But the thing is, don’t even give a reason. You don’t have to take every job, and you don’t have to say why. If you make the stand to not take a certain job because of political reasons, you are bringing negative attention on yourself
I don’t think you understood what I said.
The difference is in the business model.
If they’re working individual jobs on a freelance, case by case, contract-based model, then they can do whatever they want as far as signing a contract to do work or not signing a contract to do work with whomever they wish.
The reasons might be shitty sometimes, but that’s not enough of a reason to compel all freelancers to do work they don’t want to.
Are you actually claiming that as long as you’re freelance, you can discriminate against people by race?
I’m saying you don’t have to sign any contract you don’t want to sign with anyone for any reason.
Any reason including “I don’t work with black people?” Are you sure about that?
So you’re saying minorities don’t have a right to anything but the bare essentials?
Or are you saying the right of bigoted business owners to discriminate trumps the right of individuals to be treated equally?
I don’t think you understood what I said.
Is mixing a drink creative?
Is hairstyling creative?
Is designing landscapes creative?
Is putting shingles on a house creative?
Is doing electrical work creative?
What type of work that requires some level of skill and design specific to the project not creative?
Why don’t minorities deserve the right to hire the same businesses as everyone else?
I don’t think you understood what I said.
To say that anyone can be a photographer belittles the skill associated with a professional photographer. That’s akin to saying that you can hire anyone with a voice to be a singer. Sure, you can, but there’s a qualitative difference.
That aside, would there be any sign that the photographer could put on their door that would be illegal? No Blacks, No Jews, No Women, etc… If not, play that to the logical extreme; What if all photographers in town had the same sign? What services are appropriate to deny in entirety to a specific class of people.
That’s akin to saying that you can hire anyone with a voice to be a singer. Sure, you can, but there’s a qualitative difference.
Yes anyone with a camera can be a photographer just like anyone with a paintbrush can be a painter. Just because it takes skill to be good at them doesn’t mean the unskilled are just babies with fisherprice cameras pretending.
Oh boy, someone feels called out.
Whether you see it or not, your opinion is carving out a way for legal bigotry when done by a christian. Of course an atheist refusing to serve this asshole bigot would open up the door for a religious discrimination case against the atheist because bigots want nothing more than to divide society. We have no obligation to defend a bigot’s rights they are actively taking those same rights away from others.
This potentially opened the floodgates for discrimination. Unless this is specifically only for for “hired” or “contract” If not…. Coming soon to stores in the south near you
“NO F****TS ALLOWED”
“TRA***ES NOT WELCOME”
No. He gets to choose who to work for. He doesn’t get to choose not to work for entire classes of people when those classes are protected.
It’s the same as if he said he didn’t want black clients.
I mean…now you’re getting into the realm of words vs actions.
In the case of a freelance contract worker, there’s a difference between saying “I don’t do work for gays and blacks” and keeping your mouth shut (or providing some excuse like that you’re already too booked) and no-quoting that work, in effect not working for these groups.
However in both cases, I believe it is (and should be) legal.
Rude and offensive, sure, but I feel it’s a situation where you have to allow assholes to be assholes because the alternative is compulsory work which opens a whole new can of worms and is an even bigger restriction on freedoms.
So many people in these comments are trying to legislate morality, and it’s just a non-starter in these circumstances.
Protected classes deserve protection. Trying to get around that gets you sued.
I don’t think he has the right to make his business known publicly if it isn’t available to the public-- all of it.
What a dumb take. There are plenty of businesses that advertise to the public but are not open to serving the public.
What if it’s purely a subject matter question? Surely you wouldn’t be OK with a wedding photographer being forced to stay around for some spicier honeymoon pictures if they didn’t want to photograph adult activity…
They shouldn’t be blocked from being a photographer just because they’re unwilling to photograph ALL subjects. That’s fucking stupid.
Unfortunately this is a strawman argument. The subject in question is a wedding. It shouldn’t matter what sexuality or race the people are.
There’s a difference between filming/photography of pornography vs a wedding. Don’t be disingenuous suggesting that the mere act of being gay equates the same to pornography.
photographer being forced to stay around for some spicier honeymoon pictures
probably shouldn’t compare a gay wedding to being forced to take sexual photos
While I agree about a photographer not having to photograph things they don’t want to, as someone else said, where do you put that line in the sand?
If the private business of a photographer can deny their services, can the private business of a hospital deny their services for those same reasons?
The problem is it’s a hard discussion to have as on the one hand you want private businesses to be able to give bigoted folks the boot, but then private businesses of bigots can then throw you out all the same. Advocating for the first does mean unintentionally advocating for the latter.
The bigger problem is why are there private hospitals.
That’s a much easier answer. Money and
briberylobbying.
Eh, if he want to leave money on the table, that is his business, I am sure there are plenty of people in a small town seeing the niche the guy just opened, the “Don’t be an asshole” niche.
The discriminating photographer will find that more than just LGBT people don’t want to support him. How many more is absolutely up for debate, but probably enough to support a new photographer
deleted by creator
Why shouldn’t he be forced to photograph things he doesn’t want to photograph? If he just photographed things he wanted to, it would be a hobby. He’s not hanging around weddings taking photos for fun. He’s being paid to do a job, and the job is the same whether it is two men, two women, or one of each.
Apply the same logic to someone who didn’t want to photograph Asian people. “Hey, I know you’re in love, but I don’t condone your marriage because my God says Asian people shouldn’t get married. Sorry.”
It’s not that he should be forced to work for people he hates. It’s that he should not be allowed to be in the business at all if he wants to discriminate against his clients.
This is about my position. If somebody wants to discriminate, then a business is not the right structure for them. Same with public service, if you choose to be mayor, your responsibility is to everyone, not just a preferred subset.
Edit: To go further, talking about where to draw the line. I think for a business that’s an easy answer, the law. As a photo business for example they’d have have the duty to be available for hire to photograph any legal activity. But someone asking to photograph abuse or something is crossing the line.
I agree with that last point. You can’t be required to photograph crimes, and I’ll take it a step further and say you don’t have to offer your services to everyone. A wedding photographer doesn’t have to do proms, and a baker doesn’t have to make cookies. But if you photograph weddings and you bake wedding cakes, you can and should be prohibited from discriminating against clients based on your religion.
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.
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 guess you’ve got a good point…its hard to imagine it could ever get that bad.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Sigh. US politics really wants me to become an anarchist.
Having looked at his photos, I’m gonna say this is no big loss for the LGBTQ+ community. They’re marginally better than the stuff advertised on Nextdoor, but man really went all in on the vignettes, and he doesn’t seem to have any eye for detail.
But also, fuck the Supreme Court for allowing this nonsense.
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.
Yeah no. Replace gay with with black and you have your answer . There was a civil rights era fought over this exact discrimination. The sctous is currently full of political hacks.
They just took away our right not to be discriminated against and not a peep out of anyone. All those people, for years, fighting for civil rights. Gone. It’s the frog in the pot strategy but I doubt the religious will wait long to use this.
Soon we will hear about waitresses and barbers not wanting to do their job because muh religion gave them an excuse to discriminate
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.
Nope. As I understand it works like this- if you have a business you agree to offer your services to and serve everyone. You don’t get to pick and choose who you serve. Otherwise get sued and close. Now they can always come up with some BS reason why they don’t want to do the job. They just can’t refuse to because a client is LGBT.
To the people trying to justify this: tell it to all the black people who suffered through segregation at white owned cafeterias.
You don’t get to pick and choose who you don’t like.
Do your feet still touch the ground when you walk?
I lived in Tennessee and I’ve seen how hateful they can be. This is discrimination pure and simple.
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.
The way it works is if you don’t want to serve everyone you shut down. Period.
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."
We’ve always had bigots. We always will. In the past, bigoted business behavior has resulted in opportunity for those who are willing to serve the clients the bigots won’t. Minorities understand this, and minority-friendly businesses prospered.
I can understand being upset that a business won’t accept you as a customer. What I don’t understand is why anyone would still insist on supporting that offensive business with their patronage. I’d be spreading the word about their practices, asking folks to boycott them.
