3 ms·

I don’t think its an unpopular opinion, but I think the issue here is that there is a lot of nuance. Should someone be forced to officiate a same-sex wedding o

I don’t think its an unpopular opinion, but I think the issue here is that there is a lot of nuance. Should someone be forced to officiate a same-sex wedding or build a website is different from should that person be forced to rent an apartment to a same sex couple which is different from should a cashier be forced to provide service at the register to a same-sex couple. The law provides distinction between speech and conduct, and that’s the main topic in this court case. Conduct can’t discriminate, but speech can. Eg. You can say mean things about a certain race, but you can’t refuse them service because if it. So professional services… is that conduct or speech? The Colorado law in question said that business is conduct not speech, and thats really what is at the root of this case. What is the line? Is baking a cake speech? Is building a website? What about being a grocery store cashier? > Obviously, it gets murky when it comes to innate characteristics like race What about innate characteristics like sexuality?

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
This is a good explanation of the subtleties involved in this. - Alice wants to publish a website about how the moon is made out of cheese but Alice is bad at web design. - Bob is good at web design and wants to sell his design services. - Bob is discriminatory in how clients are accepted: he doesn't want people to make claims that the moon is made out of cheese. - Alice is rejected. I don't think Bob is really wrong in this hypothetical specifically because people who believe certain things about the moon aren't a class protected by law from discrimination. However, when Alice is trying to make a website about her marriage to her future wife: - Bob is discriminatory in how clients are accepted: he doesn't want people to announce or advertise their same-sex marriages. Seems like this is discrimination against a protected class. Personally, I don't buy the argument that Bob's speech is compelled because it's not his speech (not his website). (Not that the above comment makes this argument, just that it appears to be the prevailing argument in favor of this person's decision.)
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  > Seems like this is discrimination against a protected class. The other nuance is the Colorado recognizes this protected class but not the federal government (or Supreme Court). > Personally, I don't buy the argument that Bob's speech is compelled What about if bob was gay and Alice was working for an anti-gay Church? If I was bob I wouldn’t want to participate in such business.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Churches generally have exceptional carve-outs in what discriminatory actions they can take. As such, comparing churches and commercial establishments isn't an apples to apples comparison.
    - vineyardmike 4y ago
      The church is the client in this example, not the discriminator, but you can replace it simply with an individual who holds and shares their religious views.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    > What about if bob was gay and Alice was working for an anti-gay Church? If I was bob I wouldn’t want to participate in such business. This is a good point that I should have considered more. (Not that it really matters but I do try to catch my biases before expressing them.) I was thinking about this more yesterday and this morning and eventually reversed my conclusion because of this argument.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago

This is a good explanation of the subtleties involved in this. - Alice wants to publish a website about how the moon is made out of cheese but Alice is bad at web design. - Bob is good at web design and wants to sell his design services. - Bob is discriminatory in how clients are accepted: he doesn't want people to make claims that the moon is made out of cheese. - Alice is rejected. I don't think Bob is really wrong in this hypothetical specifically because people who believe certain things about the moon aren't a class protected by law from discrimination. However, when Alice is trying to make a website about her marriage to her future wife: - Bob is discriminatory in how clients are accepted: he doesn't want people to announce or advertise their same-sex marriages. Seems like this is discrimination against a protected class. Personally, I don't buy the argument that Bob's speech is compelled because it's not his speech (not his website). (Not that the above comment makes this argument, just that it appears to be the prevailing argument in favor of this person's decision.)

vineyardmike 4y ago
> Seems like this is discrimination against a protected class. The other nuance is the Colorado recognizes this protected class but not the federal government (or Supreme Court). > Personally, I don't buy the argument that Bob's speech is compelled What about if bob was gay and Alice was working for an anti-gay Church? If I was bob I wouldn’t want to participate in such business.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Churches generally have exceptional carve-outs in what discriminatory actions they can take. As such, comparing churches and commercial establishments isn't an apples to apples comparison.
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    The church is the client in this example, not the discriminator, but you can replace it simply with an individual who holds and shares their religious views.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  > What about if bob was gay and Alice was working for an anti-gay Church? If I was bob I wouldn’t want to participate in such business. This is a good point that I should have considered more. (Not that it really matters but I do try to catch my biases before expressing them.) I was thinking about this more yesterday and this morning and eventually reversed my conclusion because of this argument.