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

politics

19078 readers
6080 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
outrageousmatter
aidan
jordanlund
HLMenckenFan
little_cow
63
Supreme Court Backs Web Designer Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s to c/politics
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2dollarsim 49 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I just read an article on this. It's fake. The whole thing was a sham used to push this through the court. There was no web designer or gay couple. I thought this was wierd when I read it, because:

  1. How could some petty matter make it that high up?
  2. How could this ever actually happen in real life, when the business can say 'oh we're sorry we can't take on another job right now.' and avoid any costly legal proceedings??? For that matter, what customer is going to hold a business legally accountable to do work? Wouldn't they just like.. find someone else who will do the work?
  3. A business turning down paid work in this economy? Totally BS

I don't see really an issue with this, because in principle, any business can turn down work and not give a reason, or give a BS reason, so... nothing changed in the real world. There's plenty of other people more than willing to do paid work.

It's pretty bad publicity for businesses now to be labelled as 'we don't serve gays here' so I don't see how this is good for them either.

Seems to be an example of legislation that solved a problem that didn't exist.

[–] S_204 40 points 1 year ago

Apparently the guy named in the suit.... isn't gay and is married with children.

The Court is revealing it's true colors with rulings like these. America is in for dark days ahead.

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

That's the part that pisses me off the most. All of this shit is happening because of lies. And the politicians know it's all lies. They don't care. Bread and circuses for their voters.

[–] sensibilidades 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

continuing the trend of christians getting preferred status

[–] Guy_Fieris_Hair 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sweet, my business no longer serves christians.

[–] phoneymouse 1 points 1 year ago

Or conservative Supreme Court justices

[–] inclementimmigrant 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This literal fake case shouldn't have gotten as far as it did but it shows the illgitamacy and partisan bullshit of these "justices".

And yeah, those deeply held religious beliefs, like Republican racism, won't be long until it spreads to minorities.

[–] Gorbachof 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Are there religious beliefs out there that forbid one from doing business with another sect? I'd love to see someone use that to try and challenge this precedence.

[–] DevCat 7 points 1 year ago

[–] danc4498 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Liberal here... Straight white male for reference... I've never seen the problem with this. Why force a biggot to do business with people? They should be called out and forgotten about.

I understand if they provide a service that cannot be acquired elsewhere, but that's rarely the case anymore.

[–] 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.

[–] Guy_Fieris_Hair 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I saw a bartender at a restaurant tell a black person "I don't serve N$&@$!" I think that should be illegal. This is in the same vein.

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

Agree to disagree.

I hope you left that bar and posted that story about the bar and bartender on every social media website you could find. As well as leave reviews literally everywhere.

[–] FlyingSquid 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What if every bar in town refuses to serve black people? What if instead of bars, it was the only supermarket in town? Welcome to the South pre-civil rights. And don't tell me that people didn't know about it since it was pre-internet. It was widely-known about by pretty much everyone that being black in the South meant you were not allowed into all sorts of businesses.

And that's what you want to go back to. That's so liberal of you.

[–] danc4498 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Again, there's a difference between saying no businesses in town will serve them and they have plenty of access to the service, but want to force the biggots to serve them. If it's a problem with access, yes, government should be able to step in and force the hands of the bigots.

I will say, though, I don't know the implications of the SC judgement. Maybe they don't care about access, I just know when I looked into this a while ago, access was a big part of the case. The [probably fake] customer could have gone anywhere, but was trying to force the biggots to do business with them.

And that’s what you want to go back to. That’s so liberal of you.

I also think we live in a wildly different society than the south in the 60s. No way we will go back there. If society ends up trending that way, I absolutely think the government should step in and reverse course, but I just don't think that will happen.

[–] WetBeardHairs 3 points 1 year ago

There are enough small towns where the permitting process legally allows the city council to prevent the establishment of new businesses and effectively create local monopolies. No new grocery stores, hardware stores, etc. Guess what - if you piss them off, you cant get your house fixed or buy food. Build a restaurant? Well, you're going to have to make daily runs to another city for supplies.

This ruling gives those small towns even more control because TPTB can blackball anyone now with impunity.

[–] theoldgreymare 2 points 1 year ago

I think the fact we had Trump as President for 4 years shows how little it would take to get swaths of this country back to "the south in the 60s." And as one who grew up in California in the 60s, the poison was spread far from the south. And it persists to this day. Look at the way color imbalance tracks with wealth imbalance.

[–] FlyingSquid 2 points 1 year ago

How do you effectively apply "you can refuse service to anyone unless the whole town refuses service to a specific group of people" as a law?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Straight white male for reference

I've never seen

Fancy that.

[–] danc4498 1 points 1 year ago

Fancy

Thanks!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because they're going to bring back the whites only restroom and the sundown town.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That last part is especially true. Even if they can't openly declare it, people need to do things like grocery shop and work where they live. If they can't do it, then they need to leave. Essentially forcing places to become all white, cis, het

People keep saying "But they will go out of business!" No they won't. We have seen this before. Chances has it they will he perfectly fine, because a lot of people won't care enough to do anything. Like people who kept going to Chick Fil A, even after we learned the owner was donating the conversion therapy camps.

Some people really look back at the Civil Rights Movement as a mistake and pretend to be the rational ones.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So I guess nobody has to provide services for anyone they disagree with...say like MAGA idiots?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Magats aren't a protected class.

I can't wait to deny service to whitey, and bible thumpers.

Goose gander.

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

So, the judgement appears to make this distinction:

  1. It’s still illegal to refuse to serve people from a protected class. One cannot refuse to serve gay people, for example.

  2. One cannot be compelled to perform work which contradicts personal beliefs. For example, a website designer cannot be compelled to make an anti-gay website for a Muslim. While the Muslim is following their religious beliefs, and religion is a protected class, this ruling permits one to refuse to make the website.

I’m okay with this. I’m not sure how this is materially different to Masterpiece v. Colorado.

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

You shouldn't be ok with this. It is in fact no longer illegal to not serve people from a protected class.

[–] hal_5700X -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good. If you don't like it find another web designer or whatever.

[–] Ryumast3r 1 points 1 year ago

You don't understand what "standing" is and it shows.

load more comments
view more: next ›