5 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt’s a case of “don’t work for gays on wedding websites”. A distinction without a difference.
- dahfizz 5y agoI 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 agoI 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 agoThis 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 agoIt’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...
- jakelazaroff 5y agoIf I am gay and I’m in the market for a wedding website, there is zero difference to me whether your policy is “don’t make wedding websites for gay people” or “don’t make websites for gay people”. You might be willing to make a website for my business or my portfolio, but that doesn’t matter because I don’t need that. Whatever your reasoning, the impact is exactly the same: your policy, as designed, excludes me as a customer. The article also says that the issue will be limited to the “Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment”, so in a legal sense I think the fact that someone might make such a policy because of their religion is irrelevant in this case.
- rayiner 5y agoThe customer’s viewpoint isn’t the only one that matters. If you’re a Muslim who believes what the Prophet—the one who exemplifies the perfect man—said to be true, then what you’re being asked to create makes a big difference. While the Supreme Court will address this on First Amendment grounds, that doesn’t mean religion is irrelevant. Speech is deeply intertwined with religion. There is a long history of forcing people to engage in speech contrary to their religious beliefs as a way to attack and destroy the religion.
- sofixa 5y ago
- jakelazaroff 5y agoThere is also a history way of using religion as a pretext to discriminate against people. I know plenty of Muslims who don’t harbor any negative views of homosexuality, for instance; it’s certainly not a required tenet. And if we’re discussing this in moral rather than legal terms, I actually do think the customer’s viewpoint is the only one that matters.
- amanzi 5y agoThe 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 agoThis 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 agoIf the business doesn't consume tax funded common infrastructure or services like garbage, yes.
- betwixthewires 5y agoI 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 agoSo by that logic—everyone benefits from tax funded military and police services, so the government can compel people to do whatever the government wants.