Would it surprise you to know that literally that exact same argument was used against Black people to resist integration, and indeed, the same Civil Rights Act of 1964 I linked? That it wasn’t because the person was Black, but because the business owner had a religious belief that was incompatible with service? That they shouldn’t be compelled to provide a service they disagreed with? It is as spurious then as it was now.
The reason your example is bad is because membership in the KKK is not a protected class, not because businesses are not required to provide equal access. Businesses are in fact barred from discriminating against protected classes and must provide them equal access (in general). Except, of course, if the Supreme Court likes the protected class in question less than they do the “free speech” of another class.
So, yes indeed, the government can and does force people to do what they want.
They will make an exception if you’re a Christian apparently, however.
Reread what I just wrote. “The developer just declined creating something that they don’t agree with” is literally exactly the same justification people used to resist integration and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was discrimination then and it is discrimination now. There is no difference between your two examples except in your own mind. Certainly there is no difference before the law. (Except if the creator of the cupcake is Christian, apparently.)
Yeah, realistically anyone who is creating websites for a living shouldn’t give a fuck about who they are creating it for. The KKK is a terrible example because that is 1. a hate group and 2. a group you join on your own volition. A business could take the same stance against anyone wearing BLM apparel, as that is a group you join on your own volition. Being a certain race or sexuality is not something you join on your own volition, you are a member of that category because of a trait you inherently have not because you decided to join a group.
Well said. Religion also gets included in that, which I think is much squishier in terms of “traits you inherently have,” but we definitely live in this world.
You still aren’t allowed to blanket discriminate against LGBTQ or any other protected class. You are allowed to refuse to express certain messages, even if the customer is in a protected class.
For example, suppose you are from Kosovo and a Serbian asks you to make a website that says “Kosovo is forever part of Serbia”. If you refuse, according to this ruling you cannot be punished for violating the civil rights of Serbians. However, you still aren’t allowed to hang a “No Serbians” sign on the door to your business.
You’re correct, I just think there’s a difference between creating a website for someone else that expresses a message and expressing the message yourself. I would hope the economic consequences of drawing such weird delineations hurt the web designers who decide to pick and choose like this, it’s an odd hill to die on.
But they didn’t refuse anything. The woman who drummed up this case made it up. Stewart, the guy who supposedly requested it, is a web designer AND not even gay.
You aren’t understanding what happened here.
They didn’t flat out refuse service because the customer was gay, they refused to create something that they didn’t agree with.
Do you really think LGBT devs would be forced to design a website for the KKK? If so you don’t live in the real world.
You can’t force people to do what you want.
Oh no, I understand.
Would it surprise you to know that literally that exact same argument was used against Black people to resist integration, and indeed, the same Civil Rights Act of 1964 I linked? That it wasn’t because the person was Black, but because the business owner had a religious belief that was incompatible with service? That they shouldn’t be compelled to provide a service they disagreed with? It is as spurious then as it was now.
The reason your example is bad is because membership in the KKK is not a protected class, not because businesses are not required to provide equal access. Businesses are in fact barred from discriminating against protected classes and must provide them equal access (in general). Except, of course, if the Supreme Court likes the protected class in question less than they do the “free speech” of another class.
So, yes indeed, the government can and does force people to do what they want.
They will make an exception if you’re a Christian apparently, however.
By your own words, you still aren’t getting it.
You keep comparing it to businesses not serving black people, which is discrimination 100%.
That’s not what happened here. The gay customers weren’t denied service. The developer just declined creating something that they don’t agree with.
Here are some examples to make it easy for you.
I’m selling cupcakes and refuse to sell to a gay couple. - illegal
I’m selling cupcakes and a gay couple wants custom made cupcakes with rainbows and unicorns, but I don’t like unicorns so I decline. - legal
Reread what I just wrote. “The developer just declined creating something that they don’t agree with” is literally exactly the same justification people used to resist integration and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was discrimination then and it is discrimination now. There is no difference between your two examples except in your own mind. Certainly there is no difference before the law. (Except if the creator of the cupcake is Christian, apparently.)
Yeah, realistically anyone who is creating websites for a living shouldn’t give a fuck about who they are creating it for. The KKK is a terrible example because that is 1. a hate group and 2. a group you join on your own volition. A business could take the same stance against anyone wearing BLM apparel, as that is a group you join on your own volition. Being a certain race or sexuality is not something you join on your own volition, you are a member of that category because of a trait you inherently have not because you decided to join a group.
Well said. Religion also gets included in that, which I think is much squishier in terms of “traits you inherently have,” but we definitely live in this world.
Yes, definitely less applicable to being a trait you inherently have. Religion is sort of its own thing- protected in the Bill of Rights accordingly.
You still aren’t allowed to blanket discriminate against LGBTQ or any other protected class. You are allowed to refuse to express certain messages, even if the customer is in a protected class.
For example, suppose you are from Kosovo and a Serbian asks you to make a website that says “Kosovo is forever part of Serbia”. If you refuse, according to this ruling you cannot be punished for violating the civil rights of Serbians. However, you still aren’t allowed to hang a “No Serbians” sign on the door to your business.
You’re correct, I just think there’s a difference between creating a website for someone else that expresses a message and expressing the message yourself. I would hope the economic consequences of drawing such weird delineations hurt the web designers who decide to pick and choose like this, it’s an odd hill to die on.
I’m sorry, if you can’t see the difference than I won’t waste my time engaging with you.
But they didn’t refuse anything. The woman who drummed up this case made it up. Stewart, the guy who supposedly requested it, is a web designer AND not even gay.
The KKK isn’t a protected class though, whereas sexuality and gender are