3 ms·

I struggle with this sort of case. I guess it’s the difference between some random half rate web developer and a major corporation. Like if random web guy says

I struggle with this sort of case. I guess it’s the difference between some random half rate web developer and a major corporation. Like if random web guy says he won’t build websites for gay people..no harm done other than an asshole being an asshole. But if, say, Amazon said they’d stop letting gay people buy things from Amazon.com it would be a much larger scope and I’d be much more angry. On the face of it, I guess that’s pretty irrational thought on my part. But I just know that if I personally went to get a website built and the dev said no I personally don’t think that middle aged men with beards and receding hairlines should be allowed to have websites I’d just call them an asshole and move on with my day. And yet I’d probably try to make a huge deal if it was Amazon. Like I said..I know it’s irrational. But I feel like it’s one of those “scale” things to me. Like how Twitter can be seen as censoring free speech but I personally can’t, because they’re essentially a public forum (thanks previous hn commenters for pointing that out to me in the past)

chomp 5y ago
I think what makes this one tricky is that it combines public accommodation with free speech. I believe that you should not be allowed to refuse service based on identity. However, I feel that you should be able to refuse to be compelled to create speech for someone if you don’t agree with it, especially in an expressive field like web design. I think where she potentially messed up is by refusing them as clients (denying public accommodation) based on the idea that she didn’t like their content. Intermingling the two situations exposed her to legal trouble. There’s no reason she couldn’t have accepted them as clients, with the stipulation that she does not work on this particular request. It sounds silly but it could have deflected the lawsuit.
rich_sasha 5y ago
Perhaps a differentiator is, what alternative the clients-to-be have. If Amazon denies them access, that’s a huge market out of their reach. If an airline denies to sell tickets, that’s seriously infringing in someone’s right to move around. If a cake maker in one town says “no”, presumably there’s lots of other cake makers around. Still not a fully satisfactory predicate but maybe explains some of the variance.

chomp 5y ago

I think what makes this one tricky is that it combines public accommodation with free speech. I believe that you should not be allowed to refuse service based on identity. However, I feel that you should be able to refuse to be compelled to create speech for someone if you don’t agree with it, especially in an expressive field like web design. I think where she potentially messed up is by refusing them as clients (denying public accommodation) based on the idea that she didn’t like their content. Intermingling the two situations exposed her to legal trouble. There’s no reason she couldn’t have accepted them as clients, with the stipulation that she does not work on this particular request. It sounds silly but it could have deflected the lawsuit.

rich_sasha 5y ago

Perhaps a differentiator is, what alternative the clients-to-be have. If Amazon denies them access, that’s a huge market out of their reach. If an airline denies to sell tickets, that’s seriously infringing in someone’s right to move around. If a cake maker in one town says “no”, presumably there’s lots of other cake makers around. Still not a fully satisfactory predicate but maybe explains some of the variance.