4 ms·

It's disturbing to me that we need the supreme court's opinion on whether or not a person can refuse work.

by injb 3y ago

bell-cot 3y ago
It's supposedly a mere slip slope from there to every restaurant and grocer in town refusing to sell food to members of $Disadvantaged_Group, causing them to die of starvation. (No, in the actual context, I don't think this ruling is very sensible.)
- infamouscow 3y ago
  I'd be curious if the people worried about this slippery slope were equally worried about something similar happening with COVID vaccine cards.
  - spondylosaurus 3y ago
    The Venn diagram of people concerned about discrimination against marginalized groups and people concerned about being asked to get inoculated against an endemic virus is two discrete circles. Also funny how the COVID vaccine card thing never seemed to pan out anyway. I can't remember the last time someone asked me for proof of vaccination...
    - kashunstva 3y ago
      > an endemic virus But COVID-19 wasn’t endemic at the time that proof-of-vaccination requirements were commonplace. An endemic infectious disease has stable low-level incidence within a defined population. Nothing about the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic when such restrictions were in place fits that description. In any case, I was asked many times for proof of vaccination; but I don’t live in the U.S. so possibly the implementation compliance differed.
    - jdlshore 3y ago
      Asking for proof of vaccination was common here in Portland, toward the NR of the epidemic, when restaurants and venues were opening back up.
  - olliej 3y ago
    Ah, I see you're using the false equivalency argument. Should it be considered illegal discrimination to not allow drunks to drive? Should it be considered illegal discrimination to not allow someone with HIV from donating blood? Should it be considered illegal discrimination for a hospital to require licensed doctors?
    - infamouscow 3y ago
      Incorrectly identifying logical fallacies doesn't answer my question. The path arriving to the outcomes is different, but the outcomes are the same. My question is what, exactly, is the distinction because I struggle to see one. More concretely, if someone took a COVID vaccine and had a terrible allergic reaction, doctors will strongly advise against further vaccination. Should that person's immutable physical traits justify discrimination against them?
      - olliej 3y ago
        > More concretely, if someone took a COVID vaccine and had a terrible allergic reaction, doctors will strongly advise against further vaccination. Should that person's immutable physical traits justify discrimination against them? Are there safety concerns? then yes. We don't let people with epilepsy drive, despite that being an immutable characteristic.
        infamouscow 3y ago
        I think there is a lot of nuance about safety and we probably disagree on the specifics, but I appreciate and thank you for answering and helping elucidate my understanding :)
- mindslight 3y ago
  No, it's not a slippery slope. The fundamental concept that our society needs to recover from the corporatist memory hole is that there are drastic differences between various sizes and legal structures of businesses. It's been overwritten by this simplistic distinction of "government xor business", when in reality things like large corporations are closer in functioning and effects to government than they are to individuals. If this particular web design business is a few people and they are all individually refusing to do a certain job, then I'd say this is pretty sensible decision. Whereas if this is a business with many employees (some who likely would do the job), then it would have been sensible to prevent the owners/managers from imposing their personal whims onto the whole group.
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    (I get the sense that you skimmed my response too quickly to notice the second word.)
    - mindslight 3y ago
      Half that. Half because referencing that other people think it's a slippery slope (even though you seemingly disagree), is also helping to propagate the fallacy of ignoring quantitative differences. When I said "our society" needs to recover it, I mean the legal system as well. As things stand, I can imagine Walmart in court a decade from now arguing that their desire to discriminate is really just a manifestation of the Waltons' individual liberty. Concretely, Citizens United was straight up wrong - a business entity formed by government charter is decidedly not the same as an unincorporated group of people, nor does it preclude the individuals comprising that business from exercising their rights individually apart from that entity. Yet here we are.
      - bell-cot 3y ago
        (Ah. Good thing that I didn't reference Flat Earthers, folks who believe Elvis is still alive, or the army of 8-legged pink polar bears who secretly operate Bernie Sanders' network of brain control space laser satellites, eh?)
gochi 3y ago
I don't see how their opinion being needed is ever disturbing. That's what they exist for. Another example was to determine if we lose constitutional rights when entering a school. Perhaps the way you are framing it is providing a lot of the shock. We can position anything as "the only correct opinion to hold" through effective framing. Hence why things eventually end up in SC.
- injb 3y ago
  I'm not attempting to frame it as "the only correct opinion to hold", just mine. The reason it's disturbing to me is that the supreme court is the last resort. In order for a case to get there, someone very powerful needs to really insist that you can or can't or must do the thing, whatever that may be.
  - anon373839 3y ago
    Anyone is entitled to keep appealing a case until they hit the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only hears the case if it contains issues they find interesting or worthy of exploration. There was a famous case where a guy appealed a parking ticket all the way: the court declined to hear the case, but did write a per curiam scolding him for wasting their time. Here, the underlying claim was paper-thin and apparently fake, but the appeals present interesting legal issues.
alach11 3y ago
Do you not feel like it’s a complicated issue? We have laws to prevent people from refusing work/service to certain protected classes. I can’t refuse to let you buy a beer at my bar because you’re Black. So there’s definitely some nuance on what counts as a protected class vs. what counts as speech/service.
- olliej 3y ago
  Happily now you can - as long as you have a sincerely held belief that black people are bad.
- valianteffort 3y ago
  I don't think it's fair to compel people to do things they don't want to do. If someone does run their business like your example, let society decide whether to continue supporting them. The government should not be able to force people to work.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    > it's fair to compel people to do things they don't want to do But that is what underpins the concept of business. A set of restrictions on what activities a business can do and how they interact with society. To get shocked when society wants to prevent discrimination seems odd.
  - bob-09 3y ago
    > I don't think it's fair to compel people to do things they don't want to do. That reads to me as "I don't think laws are fair and people should be able to do whatever they want to do." I don't want to pay taxes, I don't want to pay my bills, and I don't want to have to wait to be sober to drive, but I do it all anyways because the law compels me.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I think it comes down to what you think the purpose of the law should be. Some people believe the purpose of the law should be to prevent people from physically hurting or stealing from one another. It should only be able to stop you from doing those things, and not force you to do other things.
olliej 3y ago
Um. The ruling isn't "can I serve this person" it's "can I discriminate against them. The SC ruling says that if you have a sincerely held belief the black people are evil you can refuse to serve black people. Or you can refuse to serve any group if you have a sincere belief against them: different ethnic groups, different religions, different versions of the same religion, gender, etc.
- echelon 3y ago
  As an LGBT person who grew up in a religious family in the south, I think this ruling is fine. We have a right to choose who we work for. If an evangelical doesn't want to do wedding services for LGBT folks, realize that the street goes both ways. Would you want to design something for a conservative that wants a God, hunting, and football themed wedding cake? What if, perhaps as a joke or perhaps in serious earnestness, they put Ephesians 5:22-33 on their registry? If you did web design consultancy, would you take on a Republican political candidate as a client? What if their website espouses gun rights and is anti-abortion?
  - GoodJokes 3y ago
    [dead]
  - olliej 3y ago
    are you seriously equating one person's existence to another person's beliefs? By your line of reasoning a doctor could refuse to treat you because they don't agree with your "lifestyle". This isn't hypothetical: it was a widespread approach of doctors for decades. It's truly amazing how conservatives will argue refusing to serve a nazi because of their beliefs is an assault on freedom but also demand the right to deny service to people simply because they exist.
    - doublerebel 3y ago
      As someone who also grew up on both sides — your doctor example is a uniquely American problem, because America has not decided that health care is a human right. The conversation changes when health care is a human right and employment is by choice — as demonstrated by almost every 1st world country excluding the USA — then the question is about the business. The continuing challenge is what is a right and what is protected free action for an individual, and when an individual is acting as a representative of a corporation, what should change? I think these are very important questions. The power that the decision has at scale (individual, corporation, government) is relevant.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]

It's disturbing to me that we need the supreme court's opinion on whether or not a person can refuse work.

by injb 3y ago

It's disturbing to me that we need the supreme court's opinion on whether or not a person can refuse work.

It's supposedly a mere slip slope from there to every restaurant and grocer in town refusing to sell food to members of $Disadvantaged_Group, causing them to die of starvation. (No, in the actual context, I don't think this ruling is very sensible.)

infamouscow 3y ago
I'd be curious if the people worried about this slippery slope were equally worried about something similar happening with COVID vaccine cards.
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  The Venn diagram of people concerned about discrimination against marginalized groups and people concerned about being asked to get inoculated against an endemic virus is two discrete circles. Also funny how the COVID vaccine card thing never seemed to pan out anyway. I can't remember the last time someone asked me for proof of vaccination...
  - kashunstva 3y ago
    > an endemic virus But COVID-19 wasn’t endemic at the time that proof-of-vaccination requirements were commonplace. An endemic infectious disease has stable low-level incidence within a defined population. Nothing about the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic when such restrictions were in place fits that description. In any case, I was asked many times for proof of vaccination; but I don’t live in the U.S. so possibly the implementation compliance differed.
  - jdlshore 3y ago
    Asking for proof of vaccination was common here in Portland, toward the NR of the epidemic, when restaurants and venues were opening back up.
- olliej 3y ago
  Ah, I see you're using the false equivalency argument. Should it be considered illegal discrimination to not allow drunks to drive? Should it be considered illegal discrimination to not allow someone with HIV from donating blood? Should it be considered illegal discrimination for a hospital to require licensed doctors?
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    Incorrectly identifying logical fallacies doesn't answer my question. The path arriving to the outcomes is different, but the outcomes are the same. My question is what, exactly, is the distinction because I struggle to see one. More concretely, if someone took a COVID vaccine and had a terrible allergic reaction, doctors will strongly advise against further vaccination. Should that person's immutable physical traits justify discrimination against them?
    - olliej 3y ago
      > More concretely, if someone took a COVID vaccine and had a terrible allergic reaction, doctors will strongly advise against further vaccination. Should that person's immutable physical traits justify discrimination against them? Are there safety concerns? then yes. We don't let people with epilepsy drive, despite that being an immutable characteristic.
      - infamouscow 3y ago
        I think there is a lot of nuance about safety and we probably disagree on the specifics, but I appreciate and thank you for answering and helping elucidate my understanding :)
mindslight 3y ago
No, it's not a slippery slope. The fundamental concept that our society needs to recover from the corporatist memory hole is that there are drastic differences between various sizes and legal structures of businesses. It's been overwritten by this simplistic distinction of "government xor business", when in reality things like large corporations are closer in functioning and effects to government than they are to individuals. If this particular web design business is a few people and they are all individually refusing to do a certain job, then I'd say this is pretty sensible decision. Whereas if this is a business with many employees (some who likely would do the job), then it would have been sensible to prevent the owners/managers from imposing their personal whims onto the whole group.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  (I get the sense that you skimmed my response too quickly to notice the second word.)
  - mindslight 3y ago
    Half that. Half because referencing that other people think it's a slippery slope (even though you seemingly disagree), is also helping to propagate the fallacy of ignoring quantitative differences. When I said "our society" needs to recover it, I mean the legal system as well. As things stand, I can imagine Walmart in court a decade from now arguing that their desire to discriminate is really just a manifestation of the Waltons' individual liberty. Concretely, Citizens United was straight up wrong - a business entity formed by government charter is decidedly not the same as an unincorporated group of people, nor does it preclude the individuals comprising that business from exercising their rights individually apart from that entity. Yet here we are.
    - bell-cot 3y ago
      (Ah. Good thing that I didn't reference Flat Earthers, folks who believe Elvis is still alive, or the army of 8-legged pink polar bears who secretly operate Bernie Sanders' network of brain control space laser satellites, eh?)

gochi 3y ago

I don't see how their opinion being needed is ever disturbing. That's what they exist for. Another example was to determine if we lose constitutional rights when entering a school. Perhaps the way you are framing it is providing a lot of the shock. We can position anything as "the only correct opinion to hold" through effective framing. Hence why things eventually end up in SC.

injb 3y ago
I'm not attempting to frame it as "the only correct opinion to hold", just mine. The reason it's disturbing to me is that the supreme court is the last resort. In order for a case to get there, someone very powerful needs to really insist that you can or can't or must do the thing, whatever that may be.
- anon373839 3y ago
  Anyone is entitled to keep appealing a case until they hit the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only hears the case if it contains issues they find interesting or worthy of exploration. There was a famous case where a guy appealed a parking ticket all the way: the court declined to hear the case, but did write a per curiam scolding him for wasting their time. Here, the underlying claim was paper-thin and apparently fake, but the appeals present interesting legal issues.

alach11 3y ago

Do you not feel like it’s a complicated issue? We have laws to prevent people from refusing work/service to certain protected classes. I can’t refuse to let you buy a beer at my bar because you’re Black. So there’s definitely some nuance on what counts as a protected class vs. what counts as speech/service.

olliej 3y ago
Happily now you can - as long as you have a sincerely held belief that black people are bad.
valianteffort 3y ago
I don't think it's fair to compel people to do things they don't want to do. If someone does run their business like your example, let society decide whether to continue supporting them. The government should not be able to force people to work.
- threeseed 3y ago
  > it's fair to compel people to do things they don't want to do But that is what underpins the concept of business. A set of restrictions on what activities a business can do and how they interact with society. To get shocked when society wants to prevent discrimination seems odd.
- bob-09 3y ago
  > I don't think it's fair to compel people to do things they don't want to do. That reads to me as "I don't think laws are fair and people should be able to do whatever they want to do." I don't want to pay taxes, I don't want to pay my bills, and I don't want to have to wait to be sober to drive, but I do it all anyways because the law compels me.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think it comes down to what you think the purpose of the law should be. Some people believe the purpose of the law should be to prevent people from physically hurting or stealing from one another. It should only be able to stop you from doing those things, and not force you to do other things.

olliej 3y ago

Um. The ruling isn't "can I serve this person" it's "can I discriminate against them. The SC ruling says that if you have a sincerely held belief the black people are evil you can refuse to serve black people. Or you can refuse to serve any group if you have a sincere belief against them: different ethnic groups, different religions, different versions of the same religion, gender, etc.

echelon 3y ago
As an LGBT person who grew up in a religious family in the south, I think this ruling is fine. We have a right to choose who we work for. If an evangelical doesn't want to do wedding services for LGBT folks, realize that the street goes both ways. Would you want to design something for a conservative that wants a God, hunting, and football themed wedding cake? What if, perhaps as a joke or perhaps in serious earnestness, they put Ephesians 5:22-33 on their registry? If you did web design consultancy, would you take on a Republican political candidate as a client? What if their website espouses gun rights and is anti-abortion?
- GoodJokes 3y ago
  [dead]
- olliej 3y ago
  are you seriously equating one person's existence to another person's beliefs? By your line of reasoning a doctor could refuse to treat you because they don't agree with your "lifestyle". This isn't hypothetical: it was a widespread approach of doctors for decades. It's truly amazing how conservatives will argue refusing to serve a nazi because of their beliefs is an assault on freedom but also demand the right to deny service to people simply because they exist.
  - doublerebel 3y ago
    As someone who also grew up on both sides — your doctor example is a uniquely American problem, because America has not decided that health care is a human right. The conversation changes when health care is a human right and employment is by choice — as demonstrated by almost every 1st world country excluding the USA — then the question is about the business. The continuing challenge is what is a right and what is protected free action for an individual, and when an individual is acting as a representative of a corporation, what should change? I think these are very important questions. The power that the decision has at scale (individual, corporation, government) is relevant.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]