It means that if a Christian asks you to design a website with messages that violate your religious beliefs then you can refuse. If I as a satanist believe that a woman’s right to abortion is sacred then I can refuse to design a website with an anti-abortion message. I can’t simply refuse to design a website for a Christian. Not saying I agree with the ruling, just explaining what it means.
The ruling says you don’t have to design a website that violates any sincerely held beliefs, not just religious beliefs.
So if you are gay and a Catholic asked you to design a website promoting “Marriage is for one man and one woman”, you can refuse. Before the ruling, you might have been found to be discriminating against Catholics.
No, the case was decided based on freedom of speech, not freedom of religion. Your reason for discrimination doesn’t need to be religious at all.
The Supreme Court just gave the go-ahead to racists to discriminate against anybody that they want. They don’t need to cite a religious reason to do so.
The whole idea of some things being protected and some not is very wrong. Rights should be a wildcard. That’s the right of private discrimination as ancaps see it.
There are two rights that the courts have traditionally protected, the right to say (or not say) what you want, and the right to be free of discrimination.
In this case, the two rights were in conflict. The court decided that the first one takes precedence.
That’s to be free of discrimination by the state, which usually will treat your obligations independently of your rights.
While private discrimination is always something in the grey area. By private discrimination I mean both a banner saying “<any grouping at all> are not welcome here” and having face control (something quite normal for night clubs, and you’ll also pick your tenants if you rent out).
It’s not really a gray area. The Civil Rights Act explicitly prohibits discrimination against protected class by most businesses that are open to the public, like stores, restaurants, bars, and hotels.
If you’re not a part of a protected class, or your particular business is not covered by the Civil Rights Act, then you are free to discriminate.
So to take your example, if a bar said “Irish not welcome here” then they would absolutely be violating the law.
The main change recently is that certain businesses that produce original expression, such as web designers, can no longer be covered by the Civil Rights Act because the court thought this would conflict with the First Amendment.
The whole idea of arbitrarily chosen protected classes means that it’s really really a gray area. It wouldn’t be, if the difference could be formulated logically.
The Civil Rights Act
Has nothing to do with what I’m talking about, just like any other piece of paper voted for. I’m talking about law being logically consistent without resorting to protected classes, special categories of population etc.
The main change recently is that certain businesses that produce original expression, such as web designers, can no longer be covered by the Civil Rights Act because the court thought this would conflict with the First Amendment.
And this is a good thing. I mean, there would be many other similar cases before that change. It’s just that they could be ignored before.
Now, my idea of private discrimination is not “you walk into a restaurant, sit down, then a garcon says they don’t serve your kind here”. If a business presents itself like open to public in general, it should be, and otherwise it would be creating dishonest expenses for people thinking they could rely on it while they couldn’t, and this would mean compensations of various damages, both direct and moral. But there should be an option for a business to signal clearly that they deal with only specific categories of population (with those categories unambiguously defined).
Funnily enough, this (because if we leave a loophole of “deciding for each individual customer at the moment of making a deal”, everybody is going to use it) breaks night clubs with their face control without breaking racist shops. But seems right for me.
I get that, but if they’d ruled differently, I don’t think you’d be happier. Imagine being a website designer and the state is going to sue you unless you agree to make a wedding website for a fundamentalist Christian couple who believe interracial marriage is a sin.
To test the logic of the decision I tried replacing “gay couple” with “interracial couple”. If I, as a website designer, felt that miscegenation was a sin I should I be permitted to deny service to an interracial couple wishing to marry? The answer to me is clearly no … the notion would be preposterous.
To test the logic of the decision I tried replacing “gay couple” with “interracial couple”. If I, as a website designer, felt that miscegenation was a sin I should I be permitted to deny service to an interracial couple wishing to marry? The answer to me is clearly no … the notion would be preposterous.
It means that if a Christian asks you to design a website with messages that violate your religious beliefs then you can refuse. If I as a satanist believe that a woman’s right to abortion is sacred then I can refuse to design a website with an anti-abortion message. I can’t simply refuse to design a website for a Christian. Not saying I agree with the ruling, just explaining what it means.
The ruling says you don’t have to design a website that violates any sincerely held beliefs, not just religious beliefs.
So if you are gay and a Catholic asked you to design a website promoting “Marriage is for one man and one woman”, you can refuse. Before the ruling, you might have been found to be discriminating against Catholics.
No, the case was decided based on freedom of speech, not freedom of religion. Your reason for discrimination doesn’t need to be religious at all.
The Supreme Court just gave the go-ahead to racists to discriminate against anybody that they want. They don’t need to cite a religious reason to do so.
The whole idea of some things being protected and some not is very wrong. Rights should be a wildcard. That’s the right of private discrimination as ancaps see it.
There are two rights that the courts have traditionally protected, the right to say (or not say) what you want, and the right to be free of discrimination.
In this case, the two rights were in conflict. The court decided that the first one takes precedence.
That’s to be free of discrimination by the state, which usually will treat your obligations independently of your rights.
While private discrimination is always something in the grey area. By private discrimination I mean both a banner saying “<any grouping at all> are not welcome here” and having face control (something quite normal for night clubs, and you’ll also pick your tenants if you rent out).
It’s not really a gray area. The Civil Rights Act explicitly prohibits discrimination against protected class by most businesses that are open to the public, like stores, restaurants, bars, and hotels.
If you’re not a part of a protected class, or your particular business is not covered by the Civil Rights Act, then you are free to discriminate.
So to take your example, if a bar said “Irish not welcome here” then they would absolutely be violating the law.
The main change recently is that certain businesses that produce original expression, such as web designers, can no longer be covered by the Civil Rights Act because the court thought this would conflict with the First Amendment.
The whole idea of arbitrarily chosen protected classes means that it’s really really a gray area. It wouldn’t be, if the difference could be formulated logically.
Has nothing to do with what I’m talking about, just like any other piece of paper voted for. I’m talking about law being logically consistent without resorting to protected classes, special categories of population etc.
And this is a good thing. I mean, there would be many other similar cases before that change. It’s just that they could be ignored before.
Now, my idea of private discrimination is not “you walk into a restaurant, sit down, then a garcon says they don’t serve your kind here”. If a business presents itself like open to public in general, it should be, and otherwise it would be creating dishonest expenses for people thinking they could rely on it while they couldn’t, and this would mean compensations of various damages, both direct and moral. But there should be an option for a business to signal clearly that they deal with only specific categories of population (with those categories unambiguously defined).
Funnily enough, this (because if we leave a loophole of “deciding for each individual customer at the moment of making a deal”, everybody is going to use it) breaks night clubs with their face control without breaking racist shops. But seems right for me.
Curious, why don’t you agree with the ruling?
Because it’s a shit ruling that says discriminating against people is a form of speech. At least that’s why I think it’s a horrible ruling.
I get that, but if they’d ruled differently, I don’t think you’d be happier. Imagine being a website designer and the state is going to sue you unless you agree to make a wedding website for a fundamentalist Christian couple who believe interracial marriage is a sin.
That’s not what it says.
To test the logic of the decision I tried replacing “gay couple” with “interracial couple”. If I, as a website designer, felt that miscegenation was a sin I should I be permitted to deny service to an interracial couple wishing to marry? The answer to me is clearly no … the notion would be preposterous.
To test the logic of the decision I tried replacing “gay couple” with “interracial couple”. If I, as a website designer, felt that miscegenation was a sin I should I be permitted to deny service to an interracial couple wishing to marry? The answer to me is clearly no … the notion would be preposterous.