13
The way they've made this ruling while the person at the center or the initial complaint has come forward to say that the entire case was fabricated confirms there's no bottom to the pit of BS
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
13 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10192 readers
154 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The level of fabrication would be impressive if it wasn't so maddeningly illegal.
The guy didn't contract for a website for his gay marriage.
He didn't know that guy he was supposedly marrying.
And he's straight.
And he's been married to a woman for 15 years.
How did nobody check this out and what penalties can the website designer and lawyers face for lying in court?
What was even the initial lawsuit?
The only way I can see this case happening is if a customer sued because of discrimination. But there was no customer. Who was she suing?
It's now legal to have a WHITES ONLY sign out front.
Only if you can make the argument that your business is artistic in nature... and if making a website is artistic in nature, surely serving food is too. Ironically this same argument could be applied to Katzenbach v. McClung and find the original ruling unconstitutional.
So you’re implying that you would want to give that person your business anyway? This ruling means nothing, find another web designer
Not all businesses are equal.
Imagine not being able to bury your partner because the funeral owner objects to your relationship. It's not like you can just go to the next funeral owner in town your going to have to drive a hour out and now your loved own isn't buried close by so forever you will be driving to see her grave stone.
The carve out they made to discrimination was if your work involved "expressive activity". Many businesses will apply to this label
I think that is a horrible and regrettable hypothetical, but one that should be allowed by the law. In the same way that I think Christians can be turned away at the door by a hardcore atheist.
If something about someone genuinely makes you uncomfortable, you should be allowed to distance yourself from them.
both of these hypotheticals are actually very unethical and i don't see why anyone would support that.
Interesting! Does your world view have any limits in this area? Like should any business be required to serve customers they are uncomfortable with?
Of course they did, they want to "fix" the various decisions of the last 10, 20, 50+ years until the US is a single-party Christian‐ruled white ethnostate. They'd ban gay marriage today and start shooting queers tomorrow if they could, but they can't (yet).
this is just the status quo. businesses, especially ones operated online, can really reject you for whatever reason they want. you can go full paranoia, and feed into political extremism, or just see this is as what it is; America being at crossroads for what "freedom" really means. Is freedom the ability to shop wherever, or the freedom for business owners to reject whomever they want, no matter the petty-ness of it?
businesses, especially ones operated online, can really reject you for whatever reason they want.
Legally speaking, this isn't actually true, at least in America. Businesses are not legally allowed to discriminate against protected classes. For example, it's the reason why it's illegal to refuse service to someone simply because they're black (race is a protected class) but ok to discriminate against say redheads (hair color is not a protected class).
False. It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on race, religion or sex, according to Title 2 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
America was at a crossroads of what freedom really meant 60 years ago, not today. It is now long-established law that freedom is the ability to shop wherever.
All that is up for debate is whether sexual orientation should be included, despite not being explicitly included. Textualists say no, intentionalists say yes.
That's true. Moving past the emotional attempt to rile up the community by stating "throw it into the fire", it isn't clearly defined what a business can refuse business for.
If someone at a restaurant acts like a complete jerk and the business rejects providing service, is the business wrong for punishing the customer for expressing their freedom of speech? As long as that customer is not trying to incite violence, as it stands, there is no clarity on which party would be in the right.
view more: next ›