Christian photographer wins right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples
Christian photographer wins right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples
His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case...
His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.
You're viewing a single thread.
Permanently Deleted
"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.
Permanently Deleted
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).
I'm happy to be proven wrong. I just don't understand why they seem so lenient when there's discrimination regarding religion or sexual orientation.
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.
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Then rejecting a Christian should be perfectly legal. Soery mate, O don't serve christians because I'm atheist.
Permanently Deleted
You did they're just taking it personally.
In that same vein, as an independent repair tech decades ago, I refused to work on some guys computer because he had a swastika as his background.
Should I have been sued and forced to do so anyway, even though it's against my morals to work with shitheads?
That's totally fine. You shouldn't be forced to work with people you don't want to work with.
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
Permanently Deleted
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.
Permanently Deleted
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."