3 ms·
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 o
by 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 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.