4 ms·
> Refusing to serve, say, black people is illegal because of the pernicious societal harm caused by discrimination. That is true, but that's not what the Color
by cvwright 7y ago
> Refusing to serve, say, black people is illegal because of the pernicious societal harm caused by discrimination.
That is true, but that's not what the Colorado guy was doing. (In the Oregon case, you're right, it's much more similar.)
The Colorado guy was closer to somebody who refuses to make a cake for MLK Day. Not making a cake to celebrate Martin Luther King does make you a pretty crappy person, but it's not quite the same thing as excluding a customer based on their race.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- wpietri 7y agoI don't think that hair can be effectively split. By your logic there's all sorts of obviously anti-black stuff he can do on the nominal grounds of message. Refuse to make a cake bearing a name he sees as black. Refuse to make a cake celebrating the birthday of a black person. Similarly, a print shop could by that theory refuse to reproduce the resume of a black person on the grounds that they think black employment is against their religion. There's extensive (white) theological history supporting that position. Of course, exactly none of this is the same thing as YouTube deciding not to run ads on some corporation's videos.