3 ms·

Interesting. I can't say whether the judges' decision is a good legal theory, but it seems like, in practice, trying to enforce equal access to buying creative

Interesting. I can't say whether the judges' decision is a good legal theory, but it seems like, in practice, trying to enforce equal access to buying creative goods is a total non-starter. If I sell lots of identical goods, it's totally clear what the law is entitling prospective customers to buy. But if I make and sell creative works, I'm naturally making something different for each client. How could anyone decide whether the work I do on one project is "equivalent" to the work done on another, or if a completed workpiece is up to my "usual standard", or even whether I put in "the same amount of effort" for this client as I did for a different client, when by definition each project is one-of-a-kind?

smorgusofborg 5y ago
Why is that different than any other service? I knew a lot of people who behaved immaturely in their first service job with someone they thought was a good victim, and when they were called out their boss had to work to make it right. I don't really get the argument in a business context for this level of "religious tolerance". If you are building to suit, you are at best an artisan and we compel artisans to do all sorts of things since the first building fell down. If you are Amish unemployment shouldn't compel you to work as an electrician and that might leave you shoveling poo. If your convictions are real, where is the problem?