3 ms·
The opposition to this decision worry me. Do you really want to live in a world where you're forced to create stuff even if you don't want to? Like literally sp
by bluecalm 3y ago
The opposition to this decision worry me. Do you really want to live in a world where you're forced to create stuff even if you don't want to? Like literally spend a month of your life painting something you don't want to paint? Signing lyrics you don't want to sign? Creating art that is disturbing to you?
It's such an authoritarian position. It's not like refusing selling already made cakes to selected customers. It's about being forced to create something against your will.
Three liberal justices on the court right now are just blinded by the ideology. I have quite liberal views on social issues and disagree with conservatives on most issues but it's hard to see how one side is a reasonable one here and the other just pushes an agenda and that's not the agenda anyone valuing creative freedom should get behind.
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoIf you read the dissent they actually don't say that. They say that the website designer should have to serve gay customers, but she could still maintain control over the work. For example, she could require them to have a giant banner on the website that says "Gay Marriage is a Sin". So she is forced to serve those customers but she can choose the way in which she does so. So in practical consequences it kinda doesn't matter which side won. It's not like anyone would want to get such a website made anyway.
- gnicholas 3y agoWhere does the dissent say this? I searched for "banner", "control", and "sin" in the PDF but I couldn't find the bit you're referencing.
- systemvoltage 3y agoAmerican individualism is being eroded by progressives with a very strong, swift authoritarian whip. The same progressives that lobbied for individualism pre-2010. What the fuck happened?