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.
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.