… well, some religious groups, and some laws
https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/samuel-alitos-moms-satanic-abortion-clinic
4 Likes
i get that, and still feel differently. i think we not only have rights, we have responsibilities.
i think white people especially find this constraining, and wish to take from society without giving. but it doesn’t work that way.
like it or not, every human is born into a context that involves others. this is the milieu we have to accept as part of being alive – so on a deep, fundamental level: we don’t get to pick and choose our fellow humans.
individuals, fine. refuse individuals - especially for abusive, violent, or antagonist behavior. but classes of people? no. that’s the price of being alive, and definitely the price of doing business ( which as you say, has many separate governmental protections and obligations )
eta:
i mean, dear god. a web designer who believes they haven’t benefited from the insight, intelligence, and labor of queer people? if so, then they know nothing about the history of computing, it’s pioneers, and the contributions of gay and trans folks. why should this person benefit from the legacy of lgbtq engineers and scientists, turn around, and offer nothing but hate and disparagement in return?
no way. not acceptable.
/end righteous rant
8 Likes
And it’s a law that surely could be sidestepped easily? “I’m really sorry guys, I’ve got several big commitments in the next month’s, so I’m not taking on additional work right now. So I’m not going to be able to make you a website/cake/whatever. I hope you find someone else and have a fantastic day.”
No-one is going to take up court to disprove that.
(And yes, it does involve bearing false witness, but I think we’ve established that commandant is one of the bits of the Talmud that evangelicals are allowed to ignore, like not eating lobster.)
5 Likes
It was all entirely based on hypotheticals. There was no harm because there was no real client and there was no remedy because nothing actually happened. Yet, somehow this gets fast tracked to the Supreme Court where they use this hypothetical scenario to make new laws.
And Republicans get to complain about so-called “activist judges” on the left? These rightoids on the bench, two of whom are in stolen seats, are literally denying freedoms to people to further their own self-serving agendas. This isn’t justice. This isn’t serving the public. It’s usurping the law-making branches of government by creating new legislation out of thin air.
13 Likes
I don’t understand how a fictional grievance allowed locus standi in the first place. The case should have been tossed out because of that.
I do know that dodgy grievances have been used in the past to change the law (I’m looking at you rotting snail and tort law) but we are a better informed and connected society now so there is no excuse.
5 Likes
2 Likes
16 Likes
If a private business has the luxury of turning down paying customers, then I think they should have that right (unless the services they provide are subsidized by another group, like the government, that stipulates they must operate in a non- discriminatory manner).
I also don’t understand why a customer would want to patronize a business that has offended them.
1 Like
You mean, the straight already-married man who himself was a web designer and therefore had no need to patronize that particular business?
11 Likes
That’s not the only limit. Public accomodations (like bakeries or Web designers) are not allowed by law to turn away or otherwise discriminate against customers on the basis of their race, skin colour, religion, or national origin.
The SCOTUS majority in this decision, by twisting the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that underlies Title II of the Civil Rights Act to allow businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ people*, has opened the door to discrimination against those other explicitly protected classes (and also women). Don’t think for a minute that the Xtianists and white supremacists aren’t already planning that as their next step.
This is entirely beside the point given all of the above. The law is intended to protect those with privilege and options as well as those without.
[* and, while they’re at it, to outlaw affirmative action.]
11 Likes
… so you’re saying the Greensboro Four were wrong and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unconstitutional 
13 Likes
The extension of this is obviously all private businesses as public accommodations. Restaurants, transportation, entertainment, hotels - even medical facilities and emergency rooms. It’s happened before. Some states are already passing legislation to allow refusal of medical treatment to trans people. Refusal of pharmacy services to them - and to women seeking treatment related to choice. Contraception is on their list.
17 Likes
They can. As long as they are refusing service for a reason other than discrimination. If you refuse service to someone on the grounds that they are a specific skin color or national origin, that’s illegal. If you refuse service because they are an asshole, that’s perfectly fine.
Discriminating against someone due to their sexual orientation is illegal. Well, at least it was, since now you can just say your religion prohibits it. After all, what’s more Christian than refusing service to someone who’s different from you, right? Not like that was part of Jesus’ origin story or anything.
That’s the thing. The supposed customer wasn’t actually a customer.
Other than that, sometimes you have little choice but to patronize a business even if the proprietor is a terrible person.
17 Likes
Yeah, it’s easy for people in the city to forget that a lot of people live in towns that only have one or two shops that offer a certain product or service.
16 Likes
Thank you and @gracchus for your replies. I see the laziness in my statement and better understand the issue.
7 Likes
No, the court said that the service needed to have a creative product. There’s nothing creative about retail sales.
I can’t find any reference to this email in the plantiff’s filings with the USSC or the USSC’s decision. If someone can please point out where. It seems like this was only part of a filing with one of the lower courts.
Hello,
Assuming the plaintiff in the case was aware of the fictitious nature of the request to make a wedding site for a gay couple, does this mean that they bore false witness?
If that is the case, does anyone know what their religion says about this? Does this mean that they are going to Hell in the afterlife, if that is what their religion states is the punishment?
2 Likes
You’re allowed to break the rules if you’re doing the Lord’s work.
2 Likes
