38
US top court deals blow to LGBTQ rights in web designer case (www.aljazeera.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

The whole idea of some things being protected and some not is very wrong. Rights should be a wildcard. That's the right of private discrimination as ancaps see it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    There are two rights that the courts have traditionally protected, the right to say (or not say) what you want, and the right to be free of discrimination.

    In this case, the two rights were in conflict. The court decided that the first one takes precedence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    That's to be free of discrimination by the state, which usually will treat your obligations independently of your rights.

    While private discrimination is always something in the grey area. By private discrimination I mean both a banner saying " are not welcome here" and having face control (something quite normal for night clubs, and you'll also pick your tenants if you rent out).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent