• HPTF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Quick side note: you are within your rights to refuse service based on political affiliation full stop – it’s not protected under the equal protections clause.

    That being said, the issue is not about denying service full-stop, but the right to refuse expression of values you find to be wrong. Believe it or not, these cases are important for everyone and guarantees that the state can’t force you to create messaging in support of (i.e. endorse, which is a form of speech) something you disagree with.

    It’s not granting the right to discriminate. It’s protecting your first amendment right to not be compelled to engage in speech you disagree with.

    For example, say I go to a bakery run by devout Muslims and request a cake that depicts a cross with the phrase “only through Jesus may you find eternal life” underneath. That baker may be uncomfortable with the idea of creating that design as it not only goes against their own sincerely held beliefs, but may conflict with some negative views they may hold of Christians or Jesus (or even the particular denomination of the customer).

    That Muslim baker has every right to refuse the design of the cake on free speech grounds. Religion is a protected class in the equal protections clause, so the Christian may feel like they’re being discriminated against, but it’s the message (which is considered to be speech) and not the individual being a Christian causing the issue.

    That Muslim baker cannot blanket-refuse any Christians from buying any cakes. If that Christian customer instead asks for a blank cake that they’ll decorate themselves, the baker must sell it to them or else they are violating the equal protections clause. In that case, service is being refused based on the traits of the customer rather than on the particular message being expressed on the cake.

    It’s silly and I think people would be better off just accepting the work and taking the money. If I was aware of a business that made cakes, websites, whatever – but refused certain designs based on their personal views, I would simply discontinue any further support of them. I’d prefer a business who puts their own shit aside and serves whomever wants to pay them… but to compel them to suck it up and either compromise on their views or close up shop is directly contradictory to one of the most important rights we recognize here – to speak freely and without cohersion from the state.

    The business owner isn’t doing anything wrong with their signs, but they’re completely missing the point of the decision and comes off as a bit silly.

    • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      What you described was not the actual outcome of the ruling.

      The wedding website designer did not give them a website with no mention of being gay, that they could fill in themselves. The website designer was allowed to fully refuse them any kind of website at all. Just like refusing a blank wedding cake because the couple is gay.

      The justification of the decision was not in good faith. It stepped away over the bounds of protecting against compelled speech. And they deserve to feel the consequences.

      • snailtrail@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If the wedding designer has a “blank wedding site” package premade and refused to sell it to them then I don’t think that’s right. But if all of the websites are bespoke designs where the designer must create something for the couple, it’s fuzzy.

        Personally, I don’t know. There is, and should be, a line between personal life and work life. But depending on what you do for a living, the line can be a thin one or a thick one.

        For example, if I churn out hundreds of identical 3D printed characters and sell them at an open-air market, I shouldn’t be allowed to single out a customer and refuse business just because I don’t like the look of them. But if I’m a graphic artist, I shouldn’t be compelled to draw something that I find objectionable. Eg: I might be a woman who has been sexually abused in the past, and someone wants a sexually graphic depictions of a sexual assault (like the Guns ‘N’ Roses “Appetite for Destruction” cover).

        Those examples are easy to comprehend because they’re extremes. The difficulty in interpreting the outcome of the case is trying to bring the examples closer to the center.

        Can you refuse to sell handpainted greetings to someone you don’t like? No. It doesn’t matter that it’s a creative endeavour. If you created the product without coercion, and are now selling them at a stall in your local town, it’s not ok to refuse a simple transaction because you don’t like the buyer. What if you also offer a service of writing a message in fancy calligraphy on the inside? Can you refuse to write something you find objectionable? I think so.

        I don’t think it comes down to who your customer is. I think it comes down to what you’re being asked to do.

        Edit: lol, what a typo. Thanks swype keyboard!

        • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Someone else compared being gay to being racist, and now you’re comparing being gay to sexual assault.

          These are disingenuous comparisons at best, dangerously homophobic at worst.

          • snailtrail@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            WAT. I was giving extreme examples to illustrate that personal opinions sometimes have zero effect on your work, and sometimes they really really affect your work. And I specifically called out the fact that they were extreme examples:

            Those examples are easy to comprehend because they’re extremes.

            How the hell was that comparing being gay to sexual assault? How come you didn’t use the other example and accuse me of comparing being gay to 3d printing?

    • two_wheel2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the best take I’ve seen in this thread so far. It’s an issue of compelled speech, not of this or that demographic or ideology of the client or service. I’m not trying to dog whistle here, I hate that any business would exercise this in a hateful way, but another example of the reverse would be compelling a black-owned bakery to write an awful racist message on a cake. Obviously no person should be compelled to say what they don’t believe, regardless of the level of asshattery they dabble in.

        • two_wheel2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Alright I’m sorry, I don’t either. Which is actually why I pointed out specifically that I hate that anyone would use this in a hateful way. I’m surprised you think that I do think that it’s the same. Is there something in my comment which indicates that I believe that?