3 ms·

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 peo

by 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.

by olliej 3y ago

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.