this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
63 points (98.5% liked)

politics

18880 readers
4253 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] teft 50 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It opens the door for people to discriminate against other protected categories of people.

Don't like gays, don't serve them. Don't Chinese people, don't serve them. Don't like people over 50 or under 30, don't serve them. Don't like women, don't serve them. Don't like me because I'm a veteran, don't serve me.

Basically any protected class can now be discriminated against if it aligns with your strongly held beliefs.

Bunch of originalist bullshit is what it really is.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I don't like cops, now I legally don't have to serve them right?

[–] danc4498 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I get what you're saying, but I still don't think we should be forcing bigots to do business with people. Let the bigots be flagged as bigots, so we all know which business to avoid.

Alternatively, we force them to do business with those people, and they do a shit job without revealing the reason.

[–] S_204 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Consider this in the context of a required service.

What if the doctor refused service because you were queer? How about lawyers?

Cakes and web design are used as the examples to make the problem seem less severe. It can and will extend much farther than what this ruling is based on.

[–] danc4498 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But those are wildly different types of services. Are you saying that this court case makes it so that doctors can refuse service to homosexuals now?

It was my understanding that the nature of the business (ie, not a required service) and amount of available alternatives was a factor into why they should be allowed to refuse service.

[–] WetBeardHairs 1 points 1 year ago

It's just an example of a necessary service. Keep in mind, many of those service providers require a decade of education, professional experience, and licensure before being allowed to practice. Sure, a website designer can say "nuh uh" and you can go on living. But if a doctor or lawyer, both necessary and in short supply, both say "nuh uh" then you could literally wind up dead or in jail.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

“Let the Free Market decide! After all, it put a stop to Jim Crow!

Oh. Wait. “

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Alternatively, we don’t humour their bullshit and massively fine and/or jail them until their disgusting hatred isn’t worth pursuing for them.

[–] danc4498 2 points 1 year ago

I know I'm in the minority in this thread. I'll just say that I don't think you can punish the bigotry out of people. But they can and do change.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You mean like with Chick Fil A when everyone was gonna stop going there becauae the owners were bigots?

[–] danc4498 1 points 1 year ago

Hmm, I don't remember Chick Fil A refusing to serve gay people.

[–] 2dollarsim 2 points 1 year ago

I get where you're coming from, but if some business wants to discriminate against me, they can discriminate themselves all the way to bankruptcy. I'd prefer that rather than them being legally forced to do shitty work for me because they're dicks.