6 ms·

I don't think the business owner should be able to turn away clients because of the clients' sexual orientation. However, I do not think the business owner shou

by umvi 5y ago

I don't think the business owner should be able to turn away clients because of the clients' sexual orientation. However, I do not think the business owner should be forced to make content they find immoral, either. If we generalize this problem, it basically distills down to: If you are a web designer and a <protected class> commissions you to make a website glorifying <something you personally find to be immoral>, are you allowed to refuse the job on grounds that you don't want to use your skills to promote something you personally find immoral (though you would be happy to make them other content you don't object to)? Or should you be forced by law to make the website in order to not discriminate against <protected class>?

jakelazaroff 5y ago
A third solution: if, in doing a thing, you feel you absolutely must discriminate against a protected class, then don’t do that thing for anyone. Discrimination prevented and speech not compelled.
- _clhx 5y ago
  Right. I won't make a Nazi website for anyone. If I just make Nazi websites for black people, and refuse to make a Nazi website for some people, it isn't the Nazi website - it is the person that I disagree with.
  - umvi 5y ago
    This still isn't the same though. It would be more like if I own a pancake shop and I make pancakes in the shape of a man and a woman kissing. Then a gay couple walks in and orders pancakes in the shape of two men kissing and I refuse on the grounds that it is not on the menu because I object to the content. I tell them they are free to buy pancakes of a man and a woman kissing if they so choose. How is that discrimination? They aren't being asked to leave, and they are free to buy the heterosexual kissing pancakes if they want to, just like everyone else. I am not refusing the client, just their particular bespoke request. This is a highly contrived example, but it could be about anything, not just sexual orientation. A black guy walks into a white guy's barber shop and asks for a bespoke African haircut. The white barber refuses on the grounds that he doesn't think he would do a good job since he has never done one before and doesn't intend to learn how to do those types of haircuts. The barber doesn't tell the black guy to leave, but he tells him to pick a different haircut. Is this discrimination? Should the barber be compelled to perform the haircut he doesn't want to do against his will? What if he then does a bad job? Is that a hate crime?
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      The issue with these analogies is that while the creation of the wedding website is indeed a bespoke request, "wedding website" in general is a pretty well-defined category. And the thing about weddings is that you're usually in the market for your own. It's not like a gay couple would be fine to get a website for a straight wedding instead — if you won't design a website for a gay wedding, you are excluding those clients. Is the barber analogy apt? Not really. White and Black haircuts are generally considered different "categories", and offering one does not generally confer an expectation to offer the other. Is the pancake analogy apt? Not really. A pancake of "people kissing" is substitutable. It might not be the first choice for a gay couple, but there's no intrinsic reason they couldn't get a pancake with a flower on it instead. Now, if you were offering portraits of couples kissing, and you refused to do gay couples, that would be analogous — they're not going to get a portrait of a different couple, so this policy essentially means you don't accept gay customers.
      - umvi 5y ago
        In my opinion, the lesser of two evils in this case is not compelling business owners to perform services they object to. The US has a capitalist economy - if there is money to be made building gay wedding websites, then someone will almost certainly fill that niche and out-compete those who don't. Going the compulsory route is going to lead to decreased religious freedoms and increased social discord between the secular and religious demographics of the country, IMO.
        jakelazaroff 5y ago
        We've been down that road before. The Jim Crow south is a perfect example of what happens if you don't compel business owners to not discriminate. It doesn't prevent social discord, it just hides it — in the words of MLK, "a negative peace which is the absence of tension" rather than "a positive peace which is the presence of justice". Anyway, in my original reply to you I mentioned a solution that prevents discrimination without compelling speech. If you feel you must discriminate in providing a service, then you can't provide that service.
- Xeoncross 5y ago
  The problem is, how many jobs can you name that couldn't be used to discriminate against a protected class? I think the previous commenter's point is correct.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    This is a First Amendment case, which means it’s specifically about jobs that count as “speech”. It’s very unambiguously illegal for a plumber or an accountant to have a “no gay clients” policy. That said — even within this case, that argument falls flat. The crux of the defense is “it’s not that I wouldn’t take on gay clients, I just won't make a wedding website for them.” Cool, so just don’t make wedding websites. There are plenty of other kinds of websites people will pay you to make. Leave the wedding sites to designers who won’t discriminate against gay people.
    - Xeoncross 5y ago
      No, it doesn't work that way. No mater what kind of website (forum, web app, social network, wedding, etc..) she probably doesn't want to make a certain type of content. It is the same for any person. There is a topic for each of us that we want no part of 'supporting' even if we have no problem serving people who do support it. Making a website collecting donations for Trump. Making a website supporting Israel. Making a website for a pride parade. Making a website supporting/condemning Hong Kong/BLM/OWS movements. Doesn't mater what you put for X, everyone has limits on what they are comfortable supporting. That is a separate issue from who you provide service to.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - dahfizz 5y ago
      I think the legal system ought to prioritize principles over practicality. We could replace the first amendment with "just don't say anything controversial". We could replace the right to privacy with "just don't have anything you want to hide". It's important to define our rights and freedoms. The question of whether we want customers to be able to compell speech is an important one.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
threatofrain 5y ago
If a business owner discriminates on the basis of sex, ethnicity, race, or religion, Americans consider it a big deal if not a constitutional problem. But a gay business owner cannot discriminate against the very religious groups who seek to exclude gay people from their institutions or services. Gay people do not even galvanize around such political positions as, say, banning Christian marriage or Christian adoption, or supporting the firing of Christian employees.
- slibhb 5y ago
  > But a gay business owner cannot discriminate against the very religious groups who seek to exclude gay people from their institutions or services It's illegal to refuse service to a Christian on the grounds of his religion but it's not illegal for a painter to refuse to paint a mural if he finds its message (which may be religious) revolting.
- umvi 5y ago
  So you are saying a gay web designer should not be able to refuse a job from a fundamentalist Christian wanting a fundamentalist Christian website (the content of which the gay web designer objects to)?
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    That's already the law, and in a way which is permanent enough not to imagine other scenarios of what "ought" be.
    - akvadrako 5y ago
      Deciding this question is what the court case is about. So it's debateable if it's already the law.
      - threatofrain 5y ago
        The question before the court is the opposite one you are thinking of. Whether people can discriminate against Christians is not under debate.
a_shovel 5y ago
I think the specific action is relevant here. It's overly reductive to call it "glorifying something you personally find to be immoral." The question is closer to, "Is it discrimination to refuse to make a work that portrays a protected class positively?"

by umvi 5y ago

jakelazaroff 5y ago

A third solution: if, in doing a thing, you feel you absolutely must discriminate against a protected class, then don’t do that thing for anyone. Discrimination prevented and speech not compelled.

_clhx 5y ago
Right. I won't make a Nazi website for anyone. If I just make Nazi websites for black people, and refuse to make a Nazi website for some people, it isn't the Nazi website - it is the person that I disagree with.
- umvi 5y ago
  This still isn't the same though. It would be more like if I own a pancake shop and I make pancakes in the shape of a man and a woman kissing. Then a gay couple walks in and orders pancakes in the shape of two men kissing and I refuse on the grounds that it is not on the menu because I object to the content. I tell them they are free to buy pancakes of a man and a woman kissing if they so choose. How is that discrimination? They aren't being asked to leave, and they are free to buy the heterosexual kissing pancakes if they want to, just like everyone else. I am not refusing the client, just their particular bespoke request. This is a highly contrived example, but it could be about anything, not just sexual orientation. A black guy walks into a white guy's barber shop and asks for a bespoke African haircut. The white barber refuses on the grounds that he doesn't think he would do a good job since he has never done one before and doesn't intend to learn how to do those types of haircuts. The barber doesn't tell the black guy to leave, but he tells him to pick a different haircut. Is this discrimination? Should the barber be compelled to perform the haircut he doesn't want to do against his will? What if he then does a bad job? Is that a hate crime?
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    The issue with these analogies is that while the creation of the wedding website is indeed a bespoke request, "wedding website" in general is a pretty well-defined category. And the thing about weddings is that you're usually in the market for your own. It's not like a gay couple would be fine to get a website for a straight wedding instead — if you won't design a website for a gay wedding, you are excluding those clients. Is the barber analogy apt? Not really. White and Black haircuts are generally considered different "categories", and offering one does not generally confer an expectation to offer the other. Is the pancake analogy apt? Not really. A pancake of "people kissing" is substitutable. It might not be the first choice for a gay couple, but there's no intrinsic reason they couldn't get a pancake with a flower on it instead. Now, if you were offering portraits of couples kissing, and you refused to do gay couples, that would be analogous — they're not going to get a portrait of a different couple, so this policy essentially means you don't accept gay customers.
    - umvi 5y ago
      In my opinion, the lesser of two evils in this case is not compelling business owners to perform services they object to. The US has a capitalist economy - if there is money to be made building gay wedding websites, then someone will almost certainly fill that niche and out-compete those who don't. Going the compulsory route is going to lead to decreased religious freedoms and increased social discord between the secular and religious demographics of the country, IMO.
      - jakelazaroff 5y ago
        We've been down that road before. The Jim Crow south is a perfect example of what happens if you don't compel business owners to not discriminate. It doesn't prevent social discord, it just hides it — in the words of MLK, "a negative peace which is the absence of tension" rather than "a positive peace which is the presence of justice". Anyway, in my original reply to you I mentioned a solution that prevents discrimination without compelling speech. If you feel you must discriminate in providing a service, then you can't provide that service.
Xeoncross 5y ago
The problem is, how many jobs can you name that couldn't be used to discriminate against a protected class? I think the previous commenter's point is correct.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  This is a First Amendment case, which means it’s specifically about jobs that count as “speech”. It’s very unambiguously illegal for a plumber or an accountant to have a “no gay clients” policy. That said — even within this case, that argument falls flat. The crux of the defense is “it’s not that I wouldn’t take on gay clients, I just won't make a wedding website for them.” Cool, so just don’t make wedding websites. There are plenty of other kinds of websites people will pay you to make. Leave the wedding sites to designers who won’t discriminate against gay people.
  - Xeoncross 5y ago
    No, it doesn't work that way. No mater what kind of website (forum, web app, social network, wedding, etc..) she probably doesn't want to make a certain type of content. It is the same for any person. There is a topic for each of us that we want no part of 'supporting' even if we have no problem serving people who do support it. Making a website collecting donations for Trump. Making a website supporting Israel. Making a website for a pride parade. Making a website supporting/condemning Hong Kong/BLM/OWS movements. Doesn't mater what you put for X, everyone has limits on what they are comfortable supporting. That is a separate issue from who you provide service to.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    I think the legal system ought to prioritize principles over practicality. We could replace the first amendment with "just don't say anything controversial". We could replace the right to privacy with "just don't have anything you want to hide". It's important to define our rights and freedoms. The question of whether we want customers to be able to compell speech is an important one.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

threatofrain 5y ago

If a business owner discriminates on the basis of sex, ethnicity, race, or religion, Americans consider it a big deal if not a constitutional problem. But a gay business owner cannot discriminate against the very religious groups who seek to exclude gay people from their institutions or services. Gay people do not even galvanize around such political positions as, say, banning Christian marriage or Christian adoption, or supporting the firing of Christian employees.

slibhb 5y ago
> But a gay business owner cannot discriminate against the very religious groups who seek to exclude gay people from their institutions or services It's illegal to refuse service to a Christian on the grounds of his religion but it's not illegal for a painter to refuse to paint a mural if he finds its message (which may be religious) revolting.
umvi 5y ago
So you are saying a gay web designer should not be able to refuse a job from a fundamentalist Christian wanting a fundamentalist Christian website (the content of which the gay web designer objects to)?
- threatofrain 5y ago
  That's already the law, and in a way which is permanent enough not to imagine other scenarios of what "ought" be.
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    Deciding this question is what the court case is about. So it's debateable if it's already the law.
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      The question before the court is the opposite one you are thinking of. Whether people can discriminate against Christians is not under debate.

a_shovel 5y ago

I think the specific action is relevant here. It's overly reductive to call it "glorifying something you personally find to be immoral." The question is closer to, "Is it discrimination to refuse to make a work that portrays a protected class positively?"