7 ms·

This is very interesting to me: On one side, I agree with the principle of free speech and my first thought was Why cant she decide who does she want to do bus

This is very interesting to me: On one side, I agree with the principle of free speech and my first thought was Why cant she decide who does she want to do business with? (Having to work on force on something you dont want to seems like slavery). On the other hand, this reminds me of the old signs that said "we dont serve Mexicans and black people. Dogs are welcomed " which were pretty bad. Should someone be forced to work on something he doesn't want to due to her (wrong) beliefs?

johnnyApplePRNG 5y ago
It's perfectly fine to refuse work. It's highly illegal to refuse work on the grounds that you "don't work for gays" or similar. That implies hatred towards a group of people. And it's generally just a shitty thing to do. If you don't want to do something for any reason, just be professional about your refusal and you won't get into messes like this.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- leephillips 5y ago
  ‘She is “willing to work with all people regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender’ This is not a case of “don’t work for gays.” You’re overlooking a distinction that is important to the case.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    It’s a case of “don’t work for gays on wedding websites”. A distinction without a difference.
    - dahfizz 5y ago
      I think the difference in a legal sense is huge. It is about compelling service vs compelling speech. If the gay couple wanted a website to showcase pictures of their dog and the web designer didn't take the job because the clients were gay - the supreme court never would have taken that case. It's just discrimination. If a straight couple wanted to build a pro-lgbt website and the web designer refused, the case would fundamentally be the same. It's an issue about compelling speech.
      - jakelazaroff 5y ago
        I mentioned this in another comment, but I don’t think the designer should be compelled to make a website. I think she should be disallowed from making wedding websites if her policy for that category is “don’t work for gays”. Discrimination prevented, no speech compelled.
        dahfizz 5y ago
        > I think she should be disallowed from making wedding websites if her policy for that category is “don’t work for gays”. The issue is that she (reportedly) will happily work for gays, just not in order to produce pro-gay content. So it's not a question of "are you willing to work for <protected class>", it's "are you willing to create whatever content someone might want?"
        jakelazaroff 5y ago
        This isn’t “whatever content someone might want”, though. It’s a specific service she provides (to some people). From the petition: > Artist Lorie Smith is a website designer who creates original, online content consistent with her faith. She plans to (1) design wedding websites promoting her understanding of marriage, and (2) post a statement explaining that she can only speak messages consistent with her faith.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      It’s a pretty critical difference to, for example, the billion+ Muslims in the world whose religion has very specific things to say about what “marriage” is, means, and is for: https://www.alislam.org/book/pathway-to-paradise/islamic-marriage-system/ https://www.alislam.org/book/pathway-to-paradise/islamic-mar...
  - amanzi 5y ago
    The distinction is that she'll "work for gays as long as they're not getting married". Still a shitty thing to do, so the parent commenter's point still stands.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  This brings up an interesting thought I had while reading this. Let's hypothetically take this to an extreme, take off the veneer. Let's say John hates some group of people. Let's disregard whether that group is defined by mutable or immutable characteristics. Does John have a right to hate those people? Does he have a right to express that hatred in a non violent, non coercive way? And if so, what does that entail? Is it about speech? Is making a painting speech? A website? What about making a cocktail? And why is it limited to speech, just because of the letter of the law? Does one have the right to associate with whom they please, and do business with whom they please?
  - ykevinator2 5y ago
    If the business doesn't consume tax funded common infrastructure or services like garbage, yes.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      I didn't say a business, I said John. And let's suppose John puts his garbage on the curb and pays a monthly trash pickup fee with his water bill.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      So by that logic—everyone benefits from tax funded military and police services, so the government can compel people to do whatever the government wants.
Veedrac 5y ago
Your example suggests a fairly obvious line to draw; that a person should not be compelled to speech that they do not agree with, but that they may still be compelled to action that does not reasonably count as speech. As a less emotional example, a person may be compelled pay taxes, but may not be compelled to say that they endorse taxes.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  That is an elegant solution which feels impossible to implement. How do you draw a line around what is "speech" and what is not? It could be argued that paying your taxes is speech - it is an action expressing support of your government.
  - Veedrac 5y ago
    It'll hardly be the fuzziest line that the courts have to draw. They'll come up with a set of general principles to help decide which side of the line cases lie on, and then mediate the ambiguous cases. Some examples might be, is is the action communicative?, is this a specific expression of the author's beliefs or just a specific sale of that expression to a disfavoured party?, is there a specific conflict between the providers' action and that providers' beliefs? Laws are not programs and you should not expect them to be written precisely over the full generality of possible inputs. A good suggestion can be one that merely makes the right outcomes clearer, not just one that makes law a matter of rote. Pretty much every law ever written can be dismissed if you count there being some ambiguity as a reason for dismissal.
leephillips 5y ago
There is an important distinction that you are blurring. On the one hand, we don’t (any more) tolerate places of public accommodation from excluding people based on certain categories, such as race. Because permitting that exclusion leads to injustice and makes life difficult for the excluded groups. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean we automatically want to force people to do lengthy, bespoke work that offends their beliefs, even if we might not agree with those beliefs.
- cool_dude85 5y ago
  I'm no legal scholar, but I'm not sure if the public accommodation part is true. Can a web designer refuse to accept black clients today? I assumed this was more or less a settled issue on the race side.
- bastawhiz 5y ago
  > On the other hand, that doesn’t mean we automatically want to force people to do lengthy, bespoke work that offends their beliefs, even if we might not agree with those beliefs. I think their comment still applies. Do you still think the web developer should have the right to deny service based on the race or sex of the client, if that's what they were claiming offended their beliefs? If every wedding photographer denied a couple service because they are two men, doesn't that "make life difficult for the excluded group"?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
KerrAvon 5y ago
The signs nailed to Tucker Carlson’s door aside, the line should be clear: private citizens should be able to refuse service for any stated reason (and they get to accept the social consequences as well if other people don’t like their refusal); government officials cannot refuse service. This should not be difficult. The case in question may be more nuanced than this — TFA is paywalled.
- ykevinator2 5y ago
  Yeah but they're using common roads and sewage.
azth 5y ago
Race and sexual orientation are two very different things.
- bastawhiz 5y ago
  They are, but they are also two characteristics that folks don't have any choice about.
  - azth 5y ago
    False. Even if for the sake of argument people didn't have a choice over their sexuality, they do definitely have a choice in not engaging in same sex relationships. Just like someone with violent tendencies chooses not to go killing others and take anger management lessons.
    - dwaltrip 5y ago
      What is wrong with being gay? What specific harm do they cause?
      - azth 5y ago
        You're already assuming a conclusion with that question. Does everything have to be about apparent or obvious harm to be prohibited? Secondly, if we were to prove harm, would it deter you? The secular West has adopted the philosophy of "everything goes as long as it doesn't harm me", which falls apart at scrutiny. This philosophy has also invaded their Christian population, which is why you see they caved to pressure.
        subsection1h 5y ago
        azth 5y ago
        That's not me. I suggest you remove that link from your comment as you're doxxing people. I'll be reporting your post.
heavyset_go 5y ago
> Having to work on force on something you dont want to seems like slavery If that's the case, then many, if not most, workers in the US are slaves, too.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Xeoncross 5y ago
Those aren't really comparable. This lady isn't against working with a certain class of people, just creating a certain type of content. That's drastically different than denying all service based on the client (and in your example, displaying a terrible sign to insult them).
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Change the sign to "No interracial couples" and their point still stands. People, including business owners and judges[1], would cite their religious belief that races were not meant to mix and would refuse service to interracial couples. [1] https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5513&context=flr https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=55...
  - Xeoncross 5y ago
    No, again, it's not refusing all service, it's refusing to create certain content.

johnnyApplePRNG 5y ago

It's perfectly fine to refuse work. It's highly illegal to refuse work on the grounds that you "don't work for gays" or similar. That implies hatred towards a group of people. And it's generally just a shitty thing to do. If you don't want to do something for any reason, just be professional about your refusal and you won't get into messes like this.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
leephillips 5y ago
‘She is “willing to work with all people regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender’ This is not a case of “don’t work for gays.” You’re overlooking a distinction that is important to the case.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  It’s a case of “don’t work for gays on wedding websites”. A distinction without a difference.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    I think the difference in a legal sense is huge. It is about compelling service vs compelling speech. If the gay couple wanted a website to showcase pictures of their dog and the web designer didn't take the job because the clients were gay - the supreme court never would have taken that case. It's just discrimination. If a straight couple wanted to build a pro-lgbt website and the web designer refused, the case would fundamentally be the same. It's an issue about compelling speech.
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      I mentioned this in another comment, but I don’t think the designer should be compelled to make a website. I think she should be disallowed from making wedding websites if her policy for that category is “don’t work for gays”. Discrimination prevented, no speech compelled.
      - dahfizz 5y ago
        > I think she should be disallowed from making wedding websites if her policy for that category is “don’t work for gays”. The issue is that she (reportedly) will happily work for gays, just not in order to produce pro-gay content. So it's not a question of "are you willing to work for <protected class>", it's "are you willing to create whatever content someone might want?"
        jakelazaroff 5y ago
        This isn’t “whatever content someone might want”, though. It’s a specific service she provides (to some people). From the petition: > Artist Lorie Smith is a website designer who creates original, online content consistent with her faith. She plans to (1) design wedding websites promoting her understanding of marriage, and (2) post a statement explaining that she can only speak messages consistent with her faith.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    It’s a pretty critical difference to, for example, the billion+ Muslims in the world whose religion has very specific things to say about what “marriage” is, means, and is for: https://www.alislam.org/book/pathway-to-paradise/islamic-marriage-system/ https://www.alislam.org/book/pathway-to-paradise/islamic-mar...
- amanzi 5y ago
  The distinction is that she'll "work for gays as long as they're not getting married". Still a shitty thing to do, so the parent commenter's point still stands.
betwixthewires 5y ago
This brings up an interesting thought I had while reading this. Let's hypothetically take this to an extreme, take off the veneer. Let's say John hates some group of people. Let's disregard whether that group is defined by mutable or immutable characteristics. Does John have a right to hate those people? Does he have a right to express that hatred in a non violent, non coercive way? And if so, what does that entail? Is it about speech? Is making a painting speech? A website? What about making a cocktail? And why is it limited to speech, just because of the letter of the law? Does one have the right to associate with whom they please, and do business with whom they please?
- ykevinator2 5y ago
  If the business doesn't consume tax funded common infrastructure or services like garbage, yes.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    I didn't say a business, I said John. And let's suppose John puts his garbage on the curb and pays a monthly trash pickup fee with his water bill.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    So by that logic—everyone benefits from tax funded military and police services, so the government can compel people to do whatever the government wants.

Veedrac 5y ago

Your example suggests a fairly obvious line to draw; that a person should not be compelled to speech that they do not agree with, but that they may still be compelled to action that does not reasonably count as speech. As a less emotional example, a person may be compelled pay taxes, but may not be compelled to say that they endorse taxes.

dahfizz 5y ago
That is an elegant solution which feels impossible to implement. How do you draw a line around what is "speech" and what is not? It could be argued that paying your taxes is speech - it is an action expressing support of your government.
- Veedrac 5y ago
  It'll hardly be the fuzziest line that the courts have to draw. They'll come up with a set of general principles to help decide which side of the line cases lie on, and then mediate the ambiguous cases. Some examples might be, is is the action communicative?, is this a specific expression of the author's beliefs or just a specific sale of that expression to a disfavoured party?, is there a specific conflict between the providers' action and that providers' beliefs? Laws are not programs and you should not expect them to be written precisely over the full generality of possible inputs. A good suggestion can be one that merely makes the right outcomes clearer, not just one that makes law a matter of rote. Pretty much every law ever written can be dismissed if you count there being some ambiguity as a reason for dismissal.

leephillips 5y ago

There is an important distinction that you are blurring. On the one hand, we don’t (any more) tolerate places of public accommodation from excluding people based on certain categories, such as race. Because permitting that exclusion leads to injustice and makes life difficult for the excluded groups. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean we automatically want to force people to do lengthy, bespoke work that offends their beliefs, even if we might not agree with those beliefs.

cool_dude85 5y ago
I'm no legal scholar, but I'm not sure if the public accommodation part is true. Can a web designer refuse to accept black clients today? I assumed this was more or less a settled issue on the race side.
bastawhiz 5y ago
> On the other hand, that doesn’t mean we automatically want to force people to do lengthy, bespoke work that offends their beliefs, even if we might not agree with those beliefs. I think their comment still applies. Do you still think the web developer should have the right to deny service based on the race or sex of the client, if that's what they were claiming offended their beliefs? If every wedding photographer denied a couple service because they are two men, doesn't that "make life difficult for the excluded group"?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

KerrAvon 5y ago

The signs nailed to Tucker Carlson’s door aside, the line should be clear: private citizens should be able to refuse service for any stated reason (and they get to accept the social consequences as well if other people don’t like their refusal); government officials cannot refuse service. This should not be difficult. The case in question may be more nuanced than this — TFA is paywalled.

ykevinator2 5y ago
Yeah but they're using common roads and sewage.

azth 5y ago

Race and sexual orientation are two very different things.

bastawhiz 5y ago
They are, but they are also two characteristics that folks don't have any choice about.
- azth 5y ago
  False. Even if for the sake of argument people didn't have a choice over their sexuality, they do definitely have a choice in not engaging in same sex relationships. Just like someone with violent tendencies chooses not to go killing others and take anger management lessons.
  - dwaltrip 5y ago
    What is wrong with being gay? What specific harm do they cause?
    - azth 5y ago
      You're already assuming a conclusion with that question. Does everything have to be about apparent or obvious harm to be prohibited? Secondly, if we were to prove harm, would it deter you? The secular West has adopted the philosophy of "everything goes as long as it doesn't harm me", which falls apart at scrutiny. This philosophy has also invaded their Christian population, which is why you see they caved to pressure.
      - subsection1h 5y ago
        azth 5y ago
        That's not me. I suggest you remove that link from your comment as you're doxxing people. I'll be reporting your post.

heavyset_go 5y ago

> Having to work on force on something you dont want to seems like slavery If that's the case, then many, if not most, workers in the US are slaves, too.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Xeoncross 5y ago

Those aren't really comparable. This lady isn't against working with a certain class of people, just creating a certain type of content. That's drastically different than denying all service based on the client (and in your example, displaying a terrible sign to insult them).

heavyset_go 5y ago
Change the sign to "No interracial couples" and their point still stands. People, including business owners and judges[1], would cite their religious belief that races were not meant to mix and would refuse service to interracial couples. [1] https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5513&context=flr https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=55...
- Xeoncross 5y ago
  No, again, it's not refusing all service, it's refusing to create certain content.