2253
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] HPTF@lemmy.world 80 points 1 year ago

Quick side note: you are within your rights to refuse service based on political affiliation full stop -- it's not protected under the equal protections clause.

That being said, the issue is not about denying service full-stop, but the right to refuse expression of values you find to be wrong. Believe it or not, these cases are important for everyone and guarantees that the state can't force you to create messaging in support of (i.e. endorse, which is a form of speech) something you disagree with.

It's not granting the right to discriminate. It's protecting your first amendment right to not be compelled to engage in speech you disagree with.

For example, say I go to a bakery run by devout Muslims and request a cake that depicts a cross with the phrase "only through Jesus may you find eternal life" underneath. That baker may be uncomfortable with the idea of creating that design as it not only goes against their own sincerely held beliefs, but may conflict with some negative views they may hold of Christians or Jesus (or even the particular denomination of the customer).

That Muslim baker has every right to refuse the design of the cake on free speech grounds. Religion is a protected class in the equal protections clause, so the Christian may feel like they're being discriminated against, but it's the message (which is considered to be speech) and not the individual being a Christian causing the issue.

That Muslim baker cannot blanket-refuse any Christians from buying any cakes. If that Christian customer instead asks for a blank cake that they'll decorate themselves, the baker must sell it to them or else they are violating the equal protections clause. In that case, service is being refused based on the traits of the customer rather than on the particular message being expressed on the cake.

It's silly and I think people would be better off just accepting the work and taking the money. If I was aware of a business that made cakes, websites, whatever -- but refused certain designs based on their personal views, I would simply discontinue any further support of them. I'd prefer a business who puts their own shit aside and serves whomever wants to pay them.. but to compel them to suck it up and either compromise on their views or close up shop is directly contradictory to one of the most important rights we recognize here -- to speak freely and without cohersion from the state.

The business owner isn't doing anything wrong with their signs, but they're completely missing the point of the decision and comes off as a bit silly.

[-] Arodg25@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

In theory yes, but what's going to happen now, is 2 obviously gay men will go to that Muslim baker and ask for blank cake they will decorate themselves and Muslim will ask them to leave.

[-] jmondi@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago

And if that was the case and they wanted to pursue their legal options, they could sue the baker.

[-] Arodg25@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

They could. And theyll probably have too. The problem with this law is it really sets the tone and reinforces peoples shitty views.

[-] jmondi@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago

I definitely agree that stupid people are stupid, and they will either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstand the ruling and skew it to their messed up views. It doesn’t make SCOTUS wrong in this case though.

[-] FaeDrifter@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

So can the wedding website designer be sued for not selling them a generic wedding website with no mention of them being gay, that they could fill in themselves?

[-] jmondi@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

From my understanding, that would be a different case entirely. So yeah, they could be sued.

load more comments (30 replies)
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
2253 points (94.9% liked)

Malicious Compliance

18048 readers
3 users here now

People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.

======

======

Also check out the following communities:

!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS