3 ms·

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

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.

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.