6 ms·

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

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.
        umvi 5y ago
        I disagree this is the same road as Jim Crow. Jim Crow was refusing service based on color of skin. This is refusing service based on type of service. > 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. In my opinion, that solution is a slippery slope that will quickly infringe on religious freedom. Soon: "Pastors/priests/bishops/etc. are no longer allowed to perform weddings unless they also perform gay weddings (against their beliefs). After all, if you feel you must discriminate in providing a service, then you can't provide that service." So then you'd have lots of pastors refusing to perform any marriages to avoid doing something against their beliefs, which, in turn, would vindicate all the people opposed to gay marriage who were worried gay marriage would "infringe on the religious sanctity of marriage". Religious freedom down, social discord up.
  - odonnellryan 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure the issue is that they won't make a wedding website for a gay couple. In your example they would still serve them, just not the exact product that you want. Making a website for a gay couple and a straight couple requires the same sets of skills... In both of your examples, the set of skills is different. Baking a cake for a gay couple and a straight couple... same skills...
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]

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.
      - umvi 5y ago
        I disagree this is the same road as Jim Crow. Jim Crow was refusing service based on color of skin. This is refusing service based on type of service. > 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. In my opinion, that solution is a slippery slope that will quickly infringe on religious freedom. Soon: "Pastors/priests/bishops/etc. are no longer allowed to perform weddings unless they also perform gay weddings (against their beliefs). After all, if you feel you must discriminate in providing a service, then you can't provide that service." So then you'd have lots of pastors refusing to perform any marriages to avoid doing something against their beliefs, which, in turn, would vindicate all the people opposed to gay marriage who were worried gay marriage would "infringe on the religious sanctity of marriage". Religious freedom down, social discord up.
- odonnellryan 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure the issue is that they won't make a wedding website for a gay couple. In your example they would still serve them, just not the exact product that you want. Making a website for a gay couple and a straight couple requires the same sets of skills... In both of your examples, the set of skills is different. Baking a cake for a gay couple and a straight couple... same skills...

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]