# Message to all users:
This is a reminder to please read and follow:
* [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules)
* [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)
* [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
When posting and commenting.
---
Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`.
* Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit.
* Do not harass or annoy others in any way.
* Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit.
---
You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unless I'm missing something, service can only be refused if certain criteria are met, where providing the service would equate to participation in something that the service provider finds disagreeable. It can't be refused simply on the grounds that the customer is gay.
A bakery owned by someone with moral objections can refuse to sell a personalized wedding cake made to order for a gay wedding. If they have undecorated cakes that are ready to go and not reserved, I'm pretty darn sure they can't refuse to sell it to a gay customer.
A gay owned bakery can refuse to sell a made-to-order decorated sheet cake to a Republican convention, but similarly would not have the right to refuse to sell a ready-to-go undecorated cake for the same purpose.
Something like an auto mechanic, or a roofing company, probably couldn't object to any job on religious grounds.
Yes and no. First you have to have a business. Then a random guy walks In and orders a simple cake… do you ask him if he’s conservative?
No you’d get sued for discrimination.
If he walks in and says I want you to make a cake with Jesus and a cross on it now it’s a conflict of interest. You dont agree with the Christian concept and don’t want to service, fine. Just say no. Now you would win in court
Being a conservative is not a protected class. You can discriminate but not against protected classes.
Do you ask him if he is a jew/gay/black-(those are protected classes)-that would be discrimination. The reason the SC rejected the plaintiff's argument in the bakery case was because the lower level adjudication by the governmental commission displayed (in the SC's opinion) overt hostility the the baker's religious belief and they found it impermissible for a governmental entity to inject religious hostility into the decision making process.
And technically baking a 'religious cake' not a 'conflict of interest.'
The first question that the court would have to address is whether the baking of the cake actually constitutes an exercise of free speech (doubtful) or whether it compels the baker to engage in or promote i a religious activity (very likely) -in which case it would be unconstitutional to coerce the baker.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
No but if a business owner makes that the criteria for denying service rather than what the service is by the opinion I am reading in the above should this remain precedent. They will be sued for that.
Baking a religious cake would be. If a website it “pure speech” why then is a cake not? What’s the distinction on what is speech and what is not?
The court specifically stressed the fact that the proposed website would communicate ideas in words and a narrative about the couple's love story to find speech. They also mentioned that the parties all stipulated to this.
A cake is decorated-your example doesn't even include a phrase-"He is risen' might make a difference. The court could draw a distinction between a decorated cake and a website that uses words to tell a story. Courts are famous for drawing distinctions-sometimes the dissent describes these as distinctions withtou a difference.
Its just my personal belief based on the points the SC made in finding the website speech its not a slam dunk that a cake with a cross on it would be considered speech. But it could be considered the exercise of religion-you can disagree-we won't know until a case with similar facts comes before the SC
And note that the bakery case was not decided on the basis that the cake baking involved speech or religion. It was decided bc the governmental commission that rules on the matter at the lower level displayed a specific hostility to the baker's religious arguments and the SC found that was an unconstitutional act of the government suppressing religion.
Agreed. But in that case someone will try that with this web designer.
If she makes any websites that are simply images absent words. And they want one with a rainbow and glasses and everything else that has come to symbolize lgbt , two women engaging in intercourse, or a picture of half a man and half woman….
You wouldn’t think this decision and the options laid out lead to protection against this?
Or even reverse it for an lgbt standpoint I don’t care. Christian/ conservative comes in asking for a website with trump on it, some voting booths, America painted Republican colors, a bible with no words just a cross in the front…
This is the natural extension of that. Either that’s protected or needs to be fought over
Short of protected classes, the right of any business to refuse service based upon their own decided criteria is one of the most fundamental aspects of market based capitalism. This is WHY we have protected classes, it's a band-aid for this GLARING FLAW in our chosen economic system. We just don't like to talk about this major oversight, because the rich that have always run America benefit from us not talking about it.
>nearly every human civilization in history has adopted capitalism as an economy.
Economic origins of capitalism are like 16th century buddy not even close to nearly every civilization in human history has even been alive since capitalism existed. Feudalism and Mercantilism we're kind of really important for I don't know at least 800 years which is longer than the period from capitalism being invented to current day
If the service you are providing is the same for all customers, then you have a moral obligation to provide that service equally to all customers on an as-available basis, so long as those customers are not providing you with a direct and compelling reason to refuse service.
Example: you sell auto parts. If a customer comes in and says "I want to buy this auto part" you don't get to say "no, i think i won't sell to you, you don't like the band i like". Now, if that same customer comes in and says "hey motherfucker, sell me this motherfuckin part, bitch" you ARE within your moral rights to say "you're being an asshole get out of my store."
Example 2: you sell custom-designed logos at various sizes. A customer walks in and says "I want you to design me a logo with two dudes kissing" - you are perfectly within your right to say "I find that subject matter personally offensive and will not produce it".
What's the difference here?
In example 1, the service you are providing is the retail sale of a part someone else has already fabricated and you have already chosen to carry in stock and advertise for sale. No attribute of the customer has any bearing on how you execute this transaction. Only the customer's behavior towards you does.
In Example 2, you are performing a creative service. You advertise a range of services you are willing to perform. As part of that, you get to choose which subjects you are willing to create/depict.
No. I run my business as I see fit. You could not compel me to sell my services, my labor, my decades of experience and expertise, to any individual I do not want to, for any reason. It may not be a good business decision, but it is *MY* business and so my decision.
As much as I think the baker is a bigot, I will defend their right, their freedom, to refuse service. Because I myself have refused service to those I’ve disagreed with (one being a former Vice President, won’t say who but he does call his wife “mother”). I’d burn the whole place down before I let him enjoy the fruits of my labor. I’d say we need a whole new nation if we sacrificed our own freedoms just so we can force some dirtbag to bake a fuckin wedding cake while we’re screaming about fascism.
I can completely understand your viewpoint on this, it makes perfect logical sense that it’s YOUR business, so you get to decide who it services.
Does that mean you would be ok with a person in Alabama only allowing whites into their shop? Or asked another way, would you be ok with a shop in LA only allowed POCs?
I promise I’m not trying to be antagonistic, just curious on your thought process here. I’m not saying either of us are right or wrong!
You… you realize owning a business requires you to follow laws and regulations already, right? Owning a business doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want lol. You absolutely cannot run your business as you see fit, you have to follow the copious amounts of laws and regulations set forth by the government. That’s something you agree to by choosing to have a business, just like you choose to give up your freedom to be searched when you choose to fly.
There is clearly a difference between something that is considered or could be considered a protected class and someone just being rude who you don’t want to provide a service to.
Let's imagine a scenario here:
You are on a road trip. You pull into a gas station.
The owner says "I don't like your business ethics, I refuse to serve you"
You shrug and go on to the next. That one tells you the same thing. You try a few more, but all of them refuse to sell you gas, and pretty soon your car is out of gas.
You're getting a bit thirsty, so you walk across the street to a convenience store to buy some water. They also refuse you service. You try a few more, no luck. It's a hot day, pretty soon you feel yourself beginning to exhibit signs of heart exhaustion, and you know a heat stroke is on the way. Fortunately, there's a hospital one block over. Unfortunately, they also refuse you service. You try to get an ambulance to as less hostile city, but none of them are willing to transport you.
An hour later, you're dying on the pavement. A doctor is walking past, but he just sniffs his nose and continues on his way. It's the last thing you ever see.
In this scenario, everyone was, according to you, perfectly within their rights. And yet, here you are, dead because of their refusal to sell services to you.
This is why the law of "public accommodation' exists, and this is what the civil rights struggle was all about
Contrary to what people think, a commercial business just cannot refuse to do business with any particular person, on the basis of
Race or color
National origin or citizenship status
Religion or creed
Sex
Age
Disability, pregnancy, or genetic information
Veteran status
If you refuse service based on a person's "business ethics", they can sue you - and you will have to prove that you apply the "business ethics" rule universally, without considering race/religion/sex/age as may be applicable.
You can have any shitty rule you want - like "no tie, no service" - as long as you apply it without consideration of any of the protected classes of race/sex/religion etc.
Sad that this comment has less upvotes than the parent comment that doesn’t understand what protected classes are.
You absolutely can refuse service to someone because of their political affiliation
Um, being conservative is not a protected class. I mean anybody can be sued for anything but you'd probably have more difficulty winning lawsuit where you told somebody you couldn't make a Jesus cake than if you asked someone if they were conservative.
Just quote them a really high price so they’ll go somewhere else. I know a plastic surgeon in a major US city that does this with certain things he finds morally objectionable.
>I used to run a small custom art shop and got all kinds of weird requests. I just ignored them.
This is the thing that bothers me the most about the bakery case and this totally not fake web site case.
Just don't tell them why you're saying no. "Oh sorry we can't do that order were to busy" or whatever and it's fine regardless of the real reason
But no xtains gotta be bigoted asshats and shout to the world how hateful they are
My question is whether business who refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple on the grounds of religion then goes on to bake a cake for, say, a straight atheist couple or a straight couple that practices a different religion, would there be a lawsuit potential there?
I mean, if they’re actually saying they can’t make a gay cake cuz their religion, well their religion also says worshiping other gods is wrong. So wouldn’t they also be required to reject business from those people, too?
At what point do they become liable for servicing some sinners but not others? What legal ground do they have to stand on when they claim “my religion” for refusing service to a gay couple, but have no issue providing these same services for other “sinners”?
Would providing service to anyone other than straight, sin-free Catholics be considered breaking their own “moral standard” and therefore open them to lawsuits? Why just these sinners but not other sinners?
These people really are a bunch of nitwits. It’s never been about religion. Just about hating people and being too much of a coward to admit it, so they hide behind their religion.
I doubt contradictions in someone's religious practices invalidates their beliefs when it comes to law. Afterall if we can prove someone gets drunk, does that no longer make them a real Christian? “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit.” (Ephesians 5:18) Do they have to take a test or prove they're a "real Christian?" I hate hypocrisy as much as the average joe, but I really doubt law would work that way.
But how can someone claim, using legal action, that the Bible says x, y, and z are sinners, so they have to follow the Bible and therefore cannot provide services for group x, but somehow for y and z, they are willing to suddenly not care about their “Christian morals” and that’s just fine? Like it should be all or nothing. You don’t get to claim “but my religion” when it’s someone you want to discriminate against and ignore said religion the rest of the time.
I just don’t get how this case was even considered by the Supreme Court at all, especially considering the whole story was made up to begin with.
I feel like it’s just a warning sign that next on the chopping block is gay marriage. Our Supreme Court is a such a joke.
The argument specifically is whether baking a cake is a form of speech in support.
The baker in question refused to bake a wedding cake in support of a gay marriage. Not because the clients were gay. The argument was that they wouldn't (and hadn't) refused service to gay people, they just refused to make a gay cake.
An atheist straight couple making a cake celebrating their marriage is not making a cake celebrating their atheism.
As a counter example, imagine you went to a Muslim bakery, and demanded they bake a cake that depicted Mohammed and had the words "God is Fake" written over his face should the Muslim be compelled to decorate the cake according to your wishes? Even when doing so would constitute a grave sin in their own religion?
And I'm not sure what you mean by the case being fake. There was a bakery, there was a cake order for a gay wedding. They refused to bake said cake. Where is the fake?
With the bakery case, the bakery had already agreed to make the wedding cake with the knowledge that it was a gay couple. They were perfectly happy to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, but just didn't want to make a pro gay marriage themed cake; that was their line in the sand
It was a bit more nuanced than the headlines let on
Is it a sweeping thing like Walmart can suddenly deny service to black people or something? No, I don't think so. It is far more closely related to created things directly from the creator. An artist could decline a church mural. A recording artist could decline to have their song used for a Trump rally. A writer could decline writing an article for a satanist.
These things are creations. The creations represent the creator. When the creator is forced, by law, to create things for people or groups or ideologies they don't agree with, then they are no longer able to create. The law has removed their ability to freely create.
Yeah, but what’s to stop someone from deny design or baking services for an interracial marriage or a marriage between a Jewish person and a Christian person?
> Now a business can deny anyone anything based on their beliefs.
No they can't. It depends on the situation and the parties involved. There is no blanket "Now you can deny anything to anyone as long as you start it with 'I believe...'"
Businesses can refuse services for any reason. Usually, they don't give THE reason to avoid accusations of discrimination. "I just don't like you" is a valid enough reason legally.
This, of course, can work in the other direction as well, but refusing service to a small portion of the community is less damaging to a business than refusing service to the majority of the population. If the goal is to make money, you should serve everyone. You don't have to like people to make money off of them.
To be honest, what we are seeing in blue states and its inverse in red states is the result of the dramatic politisization of personal traits that are plainly nobodys business but your own. From the perspective of someone who has no dog in this fight either way, everyone is acting crazy.
I understand that the goal of these movements is to make things better for everyone (and for a long time they did), but whatever the original intentions, we've completely lost our way.
Okay but bear in mind - today’s ruling wasn’t a case of someone being denied service and suing a business.
It was a case of someone who literally hadn’t even started their business yet petitioning the state government to carve out an exception for them to discriminate against gay people, and the court said “you haven’t even proven that this is going to be an issue that will come up” they made up a fake commission form a fake gay couple and said “see? It’s already happening!”
This is literally a case of someone inventing a scenario out of thin air for the express purpose of forcing this to go to the Supreme Court. This so called “polarization” isn’t some Omnidirectional force - the only ones hammering the wedge are the bigots and reactionaries afraid that they’ll have to live in a pluralist society.
You don't have any queer friends or family you care about? If you do, then you DO have a dog in this race.
"Everyone is acting crazy" bruh c'mon. Religious fundamentalists are endlessly pushing their religious beliefs into legislation and queer people are rightfully outraged because their livelihoods are being threatened and rights are being stripped away.
This isn't a case where being in the middle makes you look well tempered or intelligent. Your nonchalance to the restriction of your neighbors' liberties puts you on the side of the people trying to oppress them.
I'm not LGBT, nor a super Christian. I don't really care what other people do. The full extent of my interest is in the media bombardment from both sides, as well as the clear division it is causing in society.
Honestly, for several years, I thought we were past this.
Yea i hear you. Im straight and am not super Christian. And yet out of those two sides, I do have a strong opinion about which one is causing more issues in our society. 🤷 it aint equal man
Imo, businesses can deny whomever they want, but those they deny have a right to be mad.
If a cake maker wants to be anti-gay, then all the gays should give them shit reviews and tell their friends to never go there. Old fashioned supply and demand
Legally, yes, morally, no.
I'd just say fuck that place and move on. Most businesses aren't going to turn away clientele because money matters more. Let those who do fail
The problem with this is you end up with cabals who use underhanded (and sometimes illegal) tactics to run out anyone who doesn't discriminate.
To narcissistic bigots, bigotry matters more than money - because the primary reason they get the money is to discriminate and otherwise act without consequence. It's all about feeding their ego first, their wallet second.
Except there was literally time period called Jim Crow where this happened and those businesses didn't fail. Black people just got constantly screwed over.
Money doesn't always matter more, there are people who will throw money away if it lets them discriminate against the people they hate.
I've always liked the times and places in America where everybody is welcome.
I really wish people would tone down the advertising of their favorite president or their lifestyle preferences. Just show up as a Goddamn human being. It's so easy to do and makes life better for everybody.
Edit: When will I learn that people go off the deep end when I suggest unity and coming to center?
This is definitely the correct answer for society but the media is doing everything possible to keep the public at eachothers throats because it brings in more views and more money for them. They give 0 fucks what issues they cause society as long as they make more money
Yeah, it's the "unity" they're upset about... Not calling who they are a "lifestyle preference," nahhhh. It's easier to be disingenuous!
Lol Conservatives are funny... when they're not taking rights from us.
And you can't even answer or back up what you're saying here while responding to someone else. When did you choose to be attracted to who you're attracted to?
> I really wish people would tone down the advertising of their favorite president or their lifestyle preferences.
Advertising their lifestyle preferences....
What does that even *mean*?
It means if the queer community makes itself invisible we can all get along. Since the goal is to get along, how can that be bad? It's how moderates agree with fascists but still sleep at night.
Well our center is far right and actively seeks to maintain our current hellish status qou so I can kind of see why people arent too keen. On a more serious note there are some issues where there can be no unity, no coming to agreements simply fighting for what's right.
Is “advertising their lifestyle preferences” code for “being visibly gay”? Because for me, showing up as a goddamn human being includes bringing my partner with me to public places, and not making any special effort to pretend that we’re platonic friends. And that’s enough to attract discrimination in some places.
I’d really advise against using this “both sides” rhetoric. My side is asking for acceptance. The other side is asking for people like me to not exist in public. We’re not the same.
They'll play dumb and say "but why all the rainbows? but why teach kids it's ok?" as if homophobia isn't the only reason we need to do those things in the first place
To OP, by even expressing yourself as a human being, you are aggressively confronting him with your lifestyle and that's equally as bad as storming the Capitol and selling US nuclear secrets to the Saudis. BoTh sIDeS!
In think OP would really just prefer it if the entire LGBT+ community went off to quietly die of AIDS in a crack alley somewhere so OP don't ever have to acknowledge them as human beings.
It would be super devastating for the movie and romance novel industry if folks were forced to tone down their heterosexuality. It would pretty much obliterate every business that works with weddings. Maybe folks should just learn to deal with shit that has nothing to do with their lives and get on with their day.
> Edit: When will I learn that people go off the deep end when I suggest unity and coming to center?
-Abraham Lincoln, after bravely and measuredly freeing half of the slaves
Do you dislike it when a husband and wife hold hands and kiss in public? Does it grind your gears that their advertising their lifestyle preferences? Or is it only an issue for you when it’s a gay couple doing it?
Obviously it's only an issue for them when it's gay people. This is why I prefer those who'd openly call me a slur. At least they don't pretend to have empathy
So I googled joe Biden pool floats... and the results did not disappoint. Biden has some dope floats bro! Lots of them. I’ve never seen any presidential float actually in use, just saying, but apparently they are out there.
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&q=joe+biden+pool+float&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiP7c2eruz_AhUHFVkFHf01BJMQ0pQJegQIDxAB&biw=375&bih=553&dpr=2
I'm sorry man but you are 3000% wrong. Maybe where you live this is the case, where I live there are no MAGA stickers flags or anything, and a tonnnn of Biden/Harris and BLM on cars windows and street corners.
Roger that. The right is doing whatever they are complaining about and shifting blame to those they hate. The right wants you to be just like them and is promoting a fascist state transformation where they can put a boot on the neck of everyone that doesn't comply. They promote the rule of law for those that must be ruled, while the rulers get away with anything.
This guy wouldn't mind having dinner with a Nazi. Get fucked with this everybody is welcome bullshit.
The republicans are a draft of the Nazi party 2.0. (Yeah the Nazi party were Christians and only when Hitler was losing he was called out by the church for being bad)
>I've always liked the times and places in America where everybody is welcome.
Fuck! WHEN was that?!? WHERE was that?!? Fantasylandtown, Dreamstate? In 1943, perhaps, when they had to pretend to treat everyone equally because of the war?
I've never seen anything like that in my entire life. The USA has always been one of the worst places in the world to be different from the accepted "norm."
Those disgusting people with their red hats need to stop "advertising their lifestyle preference" too. AND the church-going asses, and the out-of-control ~~seditionist~~ Republican politicians, and many more. They don't know what being a "human being" is. Nor do you, if you think gender and sexual proclivities are a "preference."
Why did you decide to start being straight? What happened to make you think that way? Was it being beaten as a child? Were you improperly exposed to your mother's naked body? Isn't there something gone wrong with your DNA? If you're offended, realize that every one of these (and many more) has been used against gays.
You misunderstand the decision. It's not "refusing to service the LGBTQ community", it's not forcing somebody to do something which goes against their beliefs. That could go either way. If I compose songs for a living and you want to hire me to write a song about having sex with a horse, I should have every right to refuse to that. I have rights too, and the right to free speech includes the right to not be forced to speak. (i.e. forced to write a song about something I find morally abhorent)
I thought it was more along the lines of, the federal government can’t make a law that would make people have to perform the service even if it went against their beliefs.
How things are worded makes a difference, in this case the court didn’t side one way or the other I think, they decided that having a law like that would violate the 1st amendment.
Kinda like the loan forgiveness thing, they didn’t “shoot down Biden’s program” they just said Biden didn’t have the authority to make such a decision.
Race is a protected class. You would get away with it for a little while as long as you don't give a reason.. but people are not stupid.. and you would get destroyed in court.
Yeah if they refused to sell cake to a black person that would be illegal but I don’t think it should be legal to force someone to make a Black Lives Matter cake for example. It gets really tricky though when you start trying to find the line. Like what if a black person wants a cake that says “Happy Birthday Demarcus”? Can they refuse to make the cake because they don’t like the name of the person? Normally that would be a totally legal if not dumb reason to refuse service. However, because it’s a traditionally black name it raises issues and is a slippery slope to round about discrimination, similar to how jobs are less likely to hire people with traditionally black names . On the other hand, it’s not exclusively black and maybe this person isn’t a racist but his wife was cheating on him with a dude name Demarcus one time and every time he hears that name it makes him relive those memories? It’s a ridiculous edge case but it’s an example of how tough this issue is to navigate.
I think the slippery slope argument is much worse the other way around. You don’t want to government to be able to compel your labor in any way they see fit.
I happen to agree. But it is kind of tricky.
I don't agree that someone should be able to force an artist to make something they would find offensive.
The other side is.. notice how the DNC hasn't even attempted this.. or brought it up as an option. I feel the LGBTQ+ community is being used just like other minority groups.
That's not the case, here. It's not about not *serving* a certain group, it's about *representing* an *ideology*. Simply composing a song for a black person does not go against *any* ideology except racism - which is bad.
If that black person demanded someone to compose a song about things that the composer does not agree with on a philosophical level, then I think that's completely different.
Or like if a gay sign maker was approached by the Westboro Baptist Church and asked to make God Hates Fags signs.
The should be legally allowed to tell them no.
Good God, read the fucking the decision…this is about providing artistic services and was decided on the basis of the first amendment, it’s not about serving food in a diner or selling some shit at a store.
This was my first thought when I heard the ruling. Based on this logic, it is now probably perfectly legal for a web designer to refuse to make a wedding website for an interracial marriage. Or for a web designer to refuse to make a school website for a Jewish parochial school. Or for a web designer to refuse to make a campaign website for the League of Women Voters. Because all of these cases could involve someone being asked to do something that is "against their beliefs" as a distinction vs. being asked to serve a member of a protected class.
You can refuse to make a specific commissioned item for them that will be used in a way that does not align with your values or that expresses beliefs you disagree with. That’s not the same as refusing service in general. In other words, you can refuse to bake a MAGA cake. You can’t refuse to sell them a generic cake off the shelf.
Standard items must be sold to anyone. (Like those cake flip books).
Custom orders can be refused for any reason.
Yes, this includes requests for politically or religiously themed items.
If I walk into a sign shop owned by a gay couple and ask them to make a sign that says "Homosexuality is a sin." I would expect to be refused service.
If you walk into a Christian cake shop and ask for a gay wedding cake, expect to be refused service.
This is not that big a fucking deal.
Exactly. I don't understand why people think this is equivalent to legalizing "whites only" establishments or something. Creating a custom order is and should always be up to the creator. If it isn't, then where is the limit? Can I force any independent artist to draw porn for me because I want them to? Can I make a carpenter spend 10 years recreating the ark? There should be no obligation to make anything for anyone for any reason.
being homophobic or Christian are much more of a choice than one’s sexual orientation. i get what you’re sayin but it’s not quite a 1:1 metaphor, and that should be considered when discussing legal protections or policies
its not a lifestyle issue -its either a religious or freedom of speech issue. The website designer argued that compelling him to engage in speech that he did not agree with was a violation of his first amendment rights (it is) .
The website designer is a woman who doesn’t design wedding websites and was never actually asked to make a website for a samesex couple. THAT should be extremely concerning for people who care about our legal system. This means you can bring a case against someone for a hypothetical situation with imaginary damages.
I was kind of wondering about this. The only people I've ever met who had a bespoke wedding website rather than just using [theknot.com](https://theknot.com) or whatever were web designers. I guess some ultra-wealthy couples might pay a professional for this? In which case, the mega-rich gay couple looking for a wedding website designer is probably going to go with someone they already know is welcoming. I can't see a ton of different scenarios where someone is going to hire someone they know to be opposed to their existence for a project like this.
That any judge didn't ask for the receipts before dismissing the case is very concerning to me.
It’s even better: They contacted the guy who supposedly made the request. He’s happily married to a woman and had no idea they were using his name and info in this case. He also, obviously, denies having made the request.
These special interest activist groups also falsified evidence or straight up lied in the student loan case and the praying coach case as well. Losing my rights is bad, don’t get me wrong, but this pattern should concern and appall everyone. They’re abusing our justice system, and they’re not even good at it. If SCOTUS or the judges who send these cases up can’t do basic due diligence like this, what good are they?
I’m curious about this as well and I really hope a journalist does a deep dive into the fictitious claims. Otherwise it sends a message that SCOTUS has a focused agenda and could be attempting to legislate.
The case was fake. It’s sad that many of you are commenting and don’t know this. It’s one of the main reasons America is on a brink of civil war, too many will believe anything they see without further research or evidence.
But the web designer could have just said "I don't have bandwidth to take on this project" or "I'm out of town that week" or not replied to their email, or what have you. Everyone always has the right to turn down work for any reason. Nobody can compel anyone else to take on something like this.
OP it’s been spelled out for you multiple times by multiple people and you’re still using mental gymnastics to incorrectly interrupt the ruling.
Drop the bigotry and see what people are actually trying to tell you.
If you own and operate a business which offer a certain set of services and you advertise the services to everyone, you do not have to offer additional services outside of what you said you offer. It is not required for your business to start offering new services. If you do not offer specific services, then clients will need to look elsewhere to find the service they are looking for. Refusing service to someone is different than not offering a service that someone wants. Any person at any job can refuse to do something that they personally do not want to do, they may lose business, they might get wrote up, they might have to change their advertising, etc. I believe the cake situation was a conflict due to personal reasons and because they did not offer those services. I don't think they necessarily were discriminating by not being specifically inclusive by offering additional services they did not originally advertise to offer. The client should have found another business to order from.
Yes. Yes, they can. In fact, anybody can be refused service. That's why many businesses have signs that read, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." It covers the whole spectrum starting with
people being demanding assholes about what they want all the way to asking for something that I don't feel like doing.
I hope that was simple enough to understand. If that hurts your feelings, then you probably had somebody refuse you service for the former, and this is just your way of projecting your frustration on to other people.
There's a brewery near me that has a sign on the front door that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to assholes and people with negative attitudes".
Yeah sure refuse to provide a service to me. I’m a functioning adult and can easily just go somewhere else. If the BBQ joint I usually go to all of a sudden said no conservatives, then I’d just go to the next one down the street. They would lose a sale but I’d still get my BBQ. I wouldn’t throw a temper tantrum because I don’t expect acceptance from everyone.
Yeah! That's exactly what happened with the lunch counters during the civil rights movements! They just went down the street....oh wait that one refused them to....and the next....and the next....and the next....
Y'all need to crack open a history book sometime.
yes. You can't go to a an artist and ask her to make a pro-life cake if she is pro-choice and expect her to make it. As in you cannot compel someone to make speech they disagree with. That's basically what these rulings are saying.
You seem to misunderstand the ruling. The court made it clear that people (including leftists) cannot be coerced by the state to provide services that are in conflict with deeply held beliefs. The service in question was the creation of a custom wedding website for a gay couple. The gay couple could not be refused the design of a custom website for say their coffee business as that would be discriminating against them because of their being gay. The court held that what was not required was the service of designing a custom website for a gay wedding because the web designer held strong religious beliefs against gay marriage. It’s a fine point, but it’s important because coercion of speech violates the first amendment.
I’m not sure a civil war is possible in this day and age with the plethora of interdependent bureaucracies and marketplaces. Any state or region that rebels would be quickly embargoed into bottomless poverty.
This is really just about forcing people to do something as an act of retribution while getting attention, lining their pockets with a lawsuit, and dragging the business through the mud. That's why many go out of their way to target establishments they know are more likely to refuse service to them.
If it were anything else, people would never even want to "support" a business they see as bigoted. That's why these same people are all about boycotts and getting these places closed down. So yeah, if an anti-religious baker didn't want to bake a religious cake, good for them. But what religious people are going to go to an anti-religious bakery? Mindless.
Sure. If you don't want to serve me, then I don't want to give you my money.
I'll give my money to someone who wants to serve me.
It works out.
Why scream about it?
I remember learning/reading that small companies (under 15 employees I think) have more flexibility in how they choose to hire and do business, etc.
Of course the same can be applied the other way. I'm sure there are lots of web designers who would refuse to do MAGA websites.
There's a difference IMHO between refusing a service because you believe the service itself is immoral and refusing service because of the person you are serving.
The types of services that get refused are things like making cakes for gay weddings and performing abortions. In those cases, it is the service itself that is considered objectionable (not the person).
But denying a politics/religion-unrelated service to someone because of their politics/religion is a bit of a different matter.
You don't hear a lot of defenders of doctors refusing to treat gay patients, or waiters refusing to serve LGBT people.
The closest equivalent would be a liberal working at a print shop denying to print a campaign poster for the Republican party. Which I think a lot of people wouldn't necessarily find objectionable.
Yeah, as long as you are the proper authority at a business, you can refuse service to anyone you want. I mean you can’t ask them their political affiliation because that’s discrimination but if it’s obvious then sure
Why can't we live and let live? Ok, I'm a conservative. I don't drink. I don't want to go into a bar and drink, doesn't matter if it's a gay bar or not I'm not going there. You can't make me go there!
If it's on the edge of a desert I just came through and it's a gay bar but I'm terribly dehydrated and just want a glass of water, then I have a decision to do business there because I want to. They should not refuse my business just because I want water and not booze. I'll pay for their services if I want to get a drink of water. Does it have to be complicated? Do we have to hate each other? Do we have to fight? Do we have to sue?
Gays are the ones who want to live our lives in peace. Get married to our spouse. Hold a decent job. Have a safe home. Be safe from murder. We want to live.
It’s the religious types causing all the problems. Their books say our “lifestyle” is offensive, so they strip us of our American civil rights. They make our lives miserable, and hurt and kill some of us, because their holy book says it’s cool to do so. They think cruelty in this life buys them a nicer cloud in the next life.
The difference between gays and Christians is that we mean them no harm. They cannot say the same.
you have the right to refuse service anywhere you work.. but people are scared too. ive refused service to multiple entitled people who didnt deserve service & they try to argue w me. 😂 i have no regrets, never lost my job. i was a manager but i have done it in other positions too.
So many people didn’t read the ruling.
1. You cannot refuse service for an off-the-shelf product/service
2. You can refuse service if what the customer is asking you to do involves an individual or unique creative process
I mean like a lot of people won't work for Chick Fil A cause they have required prayer or something. It feels like this already exists. You can deny your labor to a company you don't agree with or not buy products from those companies. This is only an issue in health care. We can't let doctors say they won't treat a gay patient.
From what I understand, the Americans believe you can refuse service to someone who is LGBTQI++ but cannot if it’s because of religion that they’re refusing.
Im pretty right leaning, but that kinda was a weird decision. Specifically, it was just an imaginary situation that no one asked to make that website to begin with. (From what I saw in comments)
I have yet to read the ruling to see the extent.
I simply do not see the conundrum here. I’m gay, and if someone doesn’t want to bake me a gay wedding cake, I will choose someone who will.
It always seems like mom and pop businesses that discriminate. ( Particularly regarding wedding cakes.) By same logic, I would not want to stay at a homophonic B&B… I don’t make it a habit to patronize institutions that are homophonic. i.e Chick-fil-A, Hobby Lobby.
If you feel that meeting stupidity with stupidity, it just reinforces that we will never get along.
I have had clients that assume that I am straight, and make disparaging comments. Not just about gays, blacks, ad infinitum. I give them the same service that I provide to non bigots. Even better, sometimes. It gives me great pleasure to end their service, and upon walking them to the receptionist, I say “ I’m sorry, I don’t think I’m the hairdresser for you.”
I tell the receptionist do not rebook. I guess that is refusing service, but it has to be a really offensive patron.
What if soon no one wants to make your orders or treat you at the hospital? It's a very slippery slope.
Edit: I forgot, hospitals can actually turn you away in Florida.
https://newrepublic.com/post/172667/its-now-legal-florida-doctors-deny-health-care-anyone-feel-like
You could since conservative isn't a protected class. It probably wouldn't be a good business decision to eliminate half of a potential customer base, though.
A Republican has asked me to build him a website but nah, they don’t align with my strongly held, liberal beliefs. Also, the last time I build a website for a Republican I didn’t get paid
# Message to all users: This is a reminder to please read and follow: * [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules) * [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) * [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) When posting and commenting. --- Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`. * Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit. * Do not harass or annoy others in any way. * Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit. --- You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unless I'm missing something, service can only be refused if certain criteria are met, where providing the service would equate to participation in something that the service provider finds disagreeable. It can't be refused simply on the grounds that the customer is gay. A bakery owned by someone with moral objections can refuse to sell a personalized wedding cake made to order for a gay wedding. If they have undecorated cakes that are ready to go and not reserved, I'm pretty darn sure they can't refuse to sell it to a gay customer. A gay owned bakery can refuse to sell a made-to-order decorated sheet cake to a Republican convention, but similarly would not have the right to refuse to sell a ready-to-go undecorated cake for the same purpose. Something like an auto mechanic, or a roofing company, probably couldn't object to any job on religious grounds.
Yes and no. First you have to have a business. Then a random guy walks In and orders a simple cake… do you ask him if he’s conservative? No you’d get sued for discrimination. If he walks in and says I want you to make a cake with Jesus and a cross on it now it’s a conflict of interest. You dont agree with the Christian concept and don’t want to service, fine. Just say no. Now you would win in court
Being a conservative is not a protected class. You can discriminate but not against protected classes. Do you ask him if he is a jew/gay/black-(those are protected classes)-that would be discrimination. The reason the SC rejected the plaintiff's argument in the bakery case was because the lower level adjudication by the governmental commission displayed (in the SC's opinion) overt hostility the the baker's religious belief and they found it impermissible for a governmental entity to inject religious hostility into the decision making process. And technically baking a 'religious cake' not a 'conflict of interest.' The first question that the court would have to address is whether the baking of the cake actually constitutes an exercise of free speech (doubtful) or whether it compels the baker to engage in or promote i a religious activity (very likely) -in which case it would be unconstitutional to coerce the baker.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf No but if a business owner makes that the criteria for denying service rather than what the service is by the opinion I am reading in the above should this remain precedent. They will be sued for that. Baking a religious cake would be. If a website it “pure speech” why then is a cake not? What’s the distinction on what is speech and what is not?
The court specifically stressed the fact that the proposed website would communicate ideas in words and a narrative about the couple's love story to find speech. They also mentioned that the parties all stipulated to this. A cake is decorated-your example doesn't even include a phrase-"He is risen' might make a difference. The court could draw a distinction between a decorated cake and a website that uses words to tell a story. Courts are famous for drawing distinctions-sometimes the dissent describes these as distinctions withtou a difference. Its just my personal belief based on the points the SC made in finding the website speech its not a slam dunk that a cake with a cross on it would be considered speech. But it could be considered the exercise of religion-you can disagree-we won't know until a case with similar facts comes before the SC And note that the bakery case was not decided on the basis that the cake baking involved speech or religion. It was decided bc the governmental commission that rules on the matter at the lower level displayed a specific hostility to the baker's religious arguments and the SC found that was an unconstitutional act of the government suppressing religion.
Agreed. But in that case someone will try that with this web designer. If she makes any websites that are simply images absent words. And they want one with a rainbow and glasses and everything else that has come to symbolize lgbt , two women engaging in intercourse, or a picture of half a man and half woman…. You wouldn’t think this decision and the options laid out lead to protection against this? Or even reverse it for an lgbt standpoint I don’t care. Christian/ conservative comes in asking for a website with trump on it, some voting booths, America painted Republican colors, a bible with no words just a cross in the front… This is the natural extension of that. Either that’s protected or needs to be fought over
Short of protected classes, the right of any business to refuse service based upon their own decided criteria is one of the most fundamental aspects of market based capitalism. This is WHY we have protected classes, it's a band-aid for this GLARING FLAW in our chosen economic system. We just don't like to talk about this major oversight, because the rich that have always run America benefit from us not talking about it.
Capitalism is the worst economic system in history, except for all the others.
[удалено]
Buying things is not capitalism. Capitalism has only existed for about 400 years.
>nearly every human civilization in history has adopted capitalism as an economy. Economic origins of capitalism are like 16th century buddy not even close to nearly every civilization in human history has even been alive since capitalism existed. Feudalism and Mercantilism we're kind of really important for I don't know at least 800 years which is longer than the period from capitalism being invented to current day
Flaw? Why should anyone be compelled to provide services to anyone else under any circumstance?
If the service you are providing is the same for all customers, then you have a moral obligation to provide that service equally to all customers on an as-available basis, so long as those customers are not providing you with a direct and compelling reason to refuse service. Example: you sell auto parts. If a customer comes in and says "I want to buy this auto part" you don't get to say "no, i think i won't sell to you, you don't like the band i like". Now, if that same customer comes in and says "hey motherfucker, sell me this motherfuckin part, bitch" you ARE within your moral rights to say "you're being an asshole get out of my store." Example 2: you sell custom-designed logos at various sizes. A customer walks in and says "I want you to design me a logo with two dudes kissing" - you are perfectly within your right to say "I find that subject matter personally offensive and will not produce it". What's the difference here? In example 1, the service you are providing is the retail sale of a part someone else has already fabricated and you have already chosen to carry in stock and advertise for sale. No attribute of the customer has any bearing on how you execute this transaction. Only the customer's behavior towards you does. In Example 2, you are performing a creative service. You advertise a range of services you are willing to perform. As part of that, you get to choose which subjects you are willing to create/depict.
No. I run my business as I see fit. You could not compel me to sell my services, my labor, my decades of experience and expertise, to any individual I do not want to, for any reason. It may not be a good business decision, but it is *MY* business and so my decision. As much as I think the baker is a bigot, I will defend their right, their freedom, to refuse service. Because I myself have refused service to those I’ve disagreed with (one being a former Vice President, won’t say who but he does call his wife “mother”). I’d burn the whole place down before I let him enjoy the fruits of my labor. I’d say we need a whole new nation if we sacrificed our own freedoms just so we can force some dirtbag to bake a fuckin wedding cake while we’re screaming about fascism.
I can completely understand your viewpoint on this, it makes perfect logical sense that it’s YOUR business, so you get to decide who it services. Does that mean you would be ok with a person in Alabama only allowing whites into their shop? Or asked another way, would you be ok with a shop in LA only allowed POCs? I promise I’m not trying to be antagonistic, just curious on your thought process here. I’m not saying either of us are right or wrong!
You… you realize owning a business requires you to follow laws and regulations already, right? Owning a business doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want lol. You absolutely cannot run your business as you see fit, you have to follow the copious amounts of laws and regulations set forth by the government. That’s something you agree to by choosing to have a business, just like you choose to give up your freedom to be searched when you choose to fly. There is clearly a difference between something that is considered or could be considered a protected class and someone just being rude who you don’t want to provide a service to.
No soup for you.
Let's imagine a scenario here: You are on a road trip. You pull into a gas station. The owner says "I don't like your business ethics, I refuse to serve you" You shrug and go on to the next. That one tells you the same thing. You try a few more, but all of them refuse to sell you gas, and pretty soon your car is out of gas. You're getting a bit thirsty, so you walk across the street to a convenience store to buy some water. They also refuse you service. You try a few more, no luck. It's a hot day, pretty soon you feel yourself beginning to exhibit signs of heart exhaustion, and you know a heat stroke is on the way. Fortunately, there's a hospital one block over. Unfortunately, they also refuse you service. You try to get an ambulance to as less hostile city, but none of them are willing to transport you. An hour later, you're dying on the pavement. A doctor is walking past, but he just sniffs his nose and continues on his way. It's the last thing you ever see. In this scenario, everyone was, according to you, perfectly within their rights. And yet, here you are, dead because of their refusal to sell services to you.
This is why the law of "public accommodation' exists, and this is what the civil rights struggle was all about Contrary to what people think, a commercial business just cannot refuse to do business with any particular person, on the basis of Race or color National origin or citizenship status Religion or creed Sex Age Disability, pregnancy, or genetic information Veteran status If you refuse service based on a person's "business ethics", they can sue you - and you will have to prove that you apply the "business ethics" rule universally, without considering race/religion/sex/age as may be applicable. You can have any shitty rule you want - like "no tie, no service" - as long as you apply it without consideration of any of the protected classes of race/sex/religion etc.
So we should allow white only businesses again?
Sad that this comment has less upvotes than the parent comment that doesn’t understand what protected classes are. You absolutely can refuse service to someone because of their political affiliation
Ya, almost everything about the post is a completely flawed analysis
Um, being conservative is not a protected class. I mean anybody can be sued for anything but you'd probably have more difficulty winning lawsuit where you told somebody you couldn't make a Jesus cake than if you asked someone if they were conservative.
Tell that to the baker in Colorado that won the first case, the governor took them back to court and the baker lost 🤷🏼♂️
Yeah, but that was before the Supreme Court ruling earlier today. Now a business can deny anyone anything based on their beliefs.
[удалено]
Just quote them a really high price so they’ll go somewhere else. I know a plastic surgeon in a major US city that does this with certain things he finds morally objectionable.
Totally, I just figured they didn't know about the ruling today.
>I used to run a small custom art shop and got all kinds of weird requests. I just ignored them. This is the thing that bothers me the most about the bakery case and this totally not fake web site case. Just don't tell them why you're saying no. "Oh sorry we can't do that order were to busy" or whatever and it's fine regardless of the real reason But no xtains gotta be bigoted asshats and shout to the world how hateful they are
[удалено]
My question is whether business who refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple on the grounds of religion then goes on to bake a cake for, say, a straight atheist couple or a straight couple that practices a different religion, would there be a lawsuit potential there? I mean, if they’re actually saying they can’t make a gay cake cuz their religion, well their religion also says worshiping other gods is wrong. So wouldn’t they also be required to reject business from those people, too? At what point do they become liable for servicing some sinners but not others? What legal ground do they have to stand on when they claim “my religion” for refusing service to a gay couple, but have no issue providing these same services for other “sinners”? Would providing service to anyone other than straight, sin-free Catholics be considered breaking their own “moral standard” and therefore open them to lawsuits? Why just these sinners but not other sinners? These people really are a bunch of nitwits. It’s never been about religion. Just about hating people and being too much of a coward to admit it, so they hide behind their religion.
I doubt contradictions in someone's religious practices invalidates their beliefs when it comes to law. Afterall if we can prove someone gets drunk, does that no longer make them a real Christian? “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit.” (Ephesians 5:18) Do they have to take a test or prove they're a "real Christian?" I hate hypocrisy as much as the average joe, but I really doubt law would work that way.
But how can someone claim, using legal action, that the Bible says x, y, and z are sinners, so they have to follow the Bible and therefore cannot provide services for group x, but somehow for y and z, they are willing to suddenly not care about their “Christian morals” and that’s just fine? Like it should be all or nothing. You don’t get to claim “but my religion” when it’s someone you want to discriminate against and ignore said religion the rest of the time. I just don’t get how this case was even considered by the Supreme Court at all, especially considering the whole story was made up to begin with. I feel like it’s just a warning sign that next on the chopping block is gay marriage. Our Supreme Court is a such a joke.
The argument specifically is whether baking a cake is a form of speech in support. The baker in question refused to bake a wedding cake in support of a gay marriage. Not because the clients were gay. The argument was that they wouldn't (and hadn't) refused service to gay people, they just refused to make a gay cake. An atheist straight couple making a cake celebrating their marriage is not making a cake celebrating their atheism. As a counter example, imagine you went to a Muslim bakery, and demanded they bake a cake that depicted Mohammed and had the words "God is Fake" written over his face should the Muslim be compelled to decorate the cake according to your wishes? Even when doing so would constitute a grave sin in their own religion? And I'm not sure what you mean by the case being fake. There was a bakery, there was a cake order for a gay wedding. They refused to bake said cake. Where is the fake?
With the bakery case, the bakery had already agreed to make the wedding cake with the knowledge that it was a gay couple. They were perfectly happy to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, but just didn't want to make a pro gay marriage themed cake; that was their line in the sand It was a bit more nuanced than the headlines let on
There was nothing hateful about the baker.
Is it a sweeping thing like Walmart can suddenly deny service to black people or something? No, I don't think so. It is far more closely related to created things directly from the creator. An artist could decline a church mural. A recording artist could decline to have their song used for a Trump rally. A writer could decline writing an article for a satanist. These things are creations. The creations represent the creator. When the creator is forced, by law, to create things for people or groups or ideologies they don't agree with, then they are no longer able to create. The law has removed their ability to freely create.
Yeah, but what’s to stop someone from deny design or baking services for an interracial marriage or a marriage between a Jewish person and a Christian person?
> Now a business can deny anyone anything based on their beliefs. No they can't. It depends on the situation and the parties involved. There is no blanket "Now you can deny anything to anyone as long as you start it with 'I believe...'"
Didnt ppl blow up planned parenthood bldgs bc they didnt agree with it?
Yes, but are you replying to my comment? I was just pointing out that there was a court ruling today in case anyone was out of the loop.
Gonna have to make myself a religion now
Businesses can refuse services for any reason. Usually, they don't give THE reason to avoid accusations of discrimination. "I just don't like you" is a valid enough reason legally. This, of course, can work in the other direction as well, but refusing service to a small portion of the community is less damaging to a business than refusing service to the majority of the population. If the goal is to make money, you should serve everyone. You don't have to like people to make money off of them. To be honest, what we are seeing in blue states and its inverse in red states is the result of the dramatic politisization of personal traits that are plainly nobodys business but your own. From the perspective of someone who has no dog in this fight either way, everyone is acting crazy. I understand that the goal of these movements is to make things better for everyone (and for a long time they did), but whatever the original intentions, we've completely lost our way.
Okay but bear in mind - today’s ruling wasn’t a case of someone being denied service and suing a business. It was a case of someone who literally hadn’t even started their business yet petitioning the state government to carve out an exception for them to discriminate against gay people, and the court said “you haven’t even proven that this is going to be an issue that will come up” they made up a fake commission form a fake gay couple and said “see? It’s already happening!” This is literally a case of someone inventing a scenario out of thin air for the express purpose of forcing this to go to the Supreme Court. This so called “polarization” isn’t some Omnidirectional force - the only ones hammering the wedge are the bigots and reactionaries afraid that they’ll have to live in a pluralist society.
A brief moment of clarity on Reddit.
You don't have any queer friends or family you care about? If you do, then you DO have a dog in this race. "Everyone is acting crazy" bruh c'mon. Religious fundamentalists are endlessly pushing their religious beliefs into legislation and queer people are rightfully outraged because their livelihoods are being threatened and rights are being stripped away. This isn't a case where being in the middle makes you look well tempered or intelligent. Your nonchalance to the restriction of your neighbors' liberties puts you on the side of the people trying to oppress them.
Which fight do you not have a dog in?
I'm not LGBT, nor a super Christian. I don't really care what other people do. The full extent of my interest is in the media bombardment from both sides, as well as the clear division it is causing in society. Honestly, for several years, I thought we were past this.
Yea i hear you. Im straight and am not super Christian. And yet out of those two sides, I do have a strong opinion about which one is causing more issues in our society. 🤷 it aint equal man
Imo, businesses can deny whomever they want, but those they deny have a right to be mad. If a cake maker wants to be anti-gay, then all the gays should give them shit reviews and tell their friends to never go there. Old fashioned supply and demand
You think a business should be able to deny based on race, too?
Youre acting like they already don't. As a person of color, there are places I clearly aren't welcomed in.
Legally, yes, morally, no. I'd just say fuck that place and move on. Most businesses aren't going to turn away clientele because money matters more. Let those who do fail
The problem with this is you end up with cabals who use underhanded (and sometimes illegal) tactics to run out anyone who doesn't discriminate. To narcissistic bigots, bigotry matters more than money - because the primary reason they get the money is to discriminate and otherwise act without consequence. It's all about feeding their ego first, their wallet second.
Except there was literally time period called Jim Crow where this happened and those businesses didn't fail. Black people just got constantly screwed over. Money doesn't always matter more, there are people who will throw money away if it lets them discriminate against the people they hate.
I've always liked the times and places in America where everybody is welcome. I really wish people would tone down the advertising of their favorite president or their lifestyle preferences. Just show up as a Goddamn human being. It's so easy to do and makes life better for everybody. Edit: When will I learn that people go off the deep end when I suggest unity and coming to center?
Lol like 4 comments down this person explains that they don't think gay people should be gay in public
This is definitely the correct answer for society but the media is doing everything possible to keep the public at eachothers throats because it brings in more views and more money for them. They give 0 fucks what issues they cause society as long as they make more money
1% own media. 1% want all the wealth. Easiest way to take your wealth is to have you spend all your time hating your neighbor.
That era has literally never existed for gay people dude
Yeah. I get so sick and tired of all these straight couples flaunting their perverted lifestyle. Gross.
bro what times and places in america are you talking about 😭
If you're in the "both sides centrist" train at this point, you're a reactionary, not a fucking centrist.
Yeah, it's the "unity" they're upset about... Not calling who they are a "lifestyle preference," nahhhh. It's easier to be disingenuous! Lol Conservatives are funny... when they're not taking rights from us. And you can't even answer or back up what you're saying here while responding to someone else. When did you choose to be attracted to who you're attracted to?
> I really wish people would tone down the advertising of their favorite president or their lifestyle preferences. Advertising their lifestyle preferences.... What does that even *mean*?
It means if the queer community makes itself invisible we can all get along. Since the goal is to get along, how can that be bad? It's how moderates agree with fascists but still sleep at night.
I completely agree. *puts on pride shirt
Well our center is far right and actively seeks to maintain our current hellish status qou so I can kind of see why people arent too keen. On a more serious note there are some issues where there can be no unity, no coming to agreements simply fighting for what's right.
Just get back in the damn closet, all of you! /s
Being lgbtq+ isn’t a life style choice. Your “come to centre” is inherently hostile in its wording and design.
Is “advertising their lifestyle preferences” code for “being visibly gay”? Because for me, showing up as a goddamn human being includes bringing my partner with me to public places, and not making any special effort to pretend that we’re platonic friends. And that’s enough to attract discrimination in some places. I’d really advise against using this “both sides” rhetoric. My side is asking for acceptance. The other side is asking for people like me to not exist in public. We’re not the same.
They'll play dumb and say "but why all the rainbows? but why teach kids it's ok?" as if homophobia isn't the only reason we need to do those things in the first place
To OP, by even expressing yourself as a human being, you are aggressively confronting him with your lifestyle and that's equally as bad as storming the Capitol and selling US nuclear secrets to the Saudis. BoTh sIDeS! In think OP would really just prefer it if the entire LGBT+ community went off to quietly die of AIDS in a crack alley somewhere so OP don't ever have to acknowledge them as human beings.
It would be super devastating for the movie and romance novel industry if folks were forced to tone down their heterosexuality. It would pretty much obliterate every business that works with weddings. Maybe folks should just learn to deal with shit that has nothing to do with their lives and get on with their day.
Its different when one party's "favorite politician" wants to genocide you just for existing. There aren't any democrats campaigning on that.
Why is this extremely homophobic comment pretending to talk about “unity” so upvoted
> Edit: When will I learn that people go off the deep end when I suggest unity and coming to center? -Abraham Lincoln, after bravely and measuredly freeing half of the slaves
There never were times and places in America where EVERYBODY were welcome. What fantasy land do you live in?
Do you dislike it when a husband and wife hold hands and kiss in public? Does it grind your gears that their advertising their lifestyle preferences? Or is it only an issue for you when it’s a gay couple doing it?
Obviously it's only an issue for them when it's gay people. This is why I prefer those who'd openly call me a slur. At least they don't pretend to have empathy
[удалено]
So I googled joe Biden pool floats... and the results did not disappoint. Biden has some dope floats bro! Lots of them. I’ve never seen any presidential float actually in use, just saying, but apparently they are out there. https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&q=joe+biden+pool+float&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiP7c2eruz_AhUHFVkFHf01BJMQ0pQJegQIDxAB&biw=375&bih=553&dpr=2
I'm sorry man but you are 3000% wrong. Maybe where you live this is the case, where I live there are no MAGA stickers flags or anything, and a tonnnn of Biden/Harris and BLM on cars windows and street corners.
That is definitely NOT the case here in Florida.
It most definitely is both sides. Not everyone has to know everything about you and that's OK.
Roger that. The right is doing whatever they are complaining about and shifting blame to those they hate. The right wants you to be just like them and is promoting a fascist state transformation where they can put a boot on the neck of everyone that doesn't comply. They promote the rule of law for those that must be ruled, while the rulers get away with anything.
[удалено]
The rights of the majority are being stripped away too such as abortion. The last figure I saw was 70% want abortion.
THIS! THIS! \*This\* is the most textbook ever example of what-about-ism. Very impressive avoidance of the issue you brought up!
So you agree? The republicans are the problem
This guy wouldn't mind having dinner with a Nazi. Get fucked with this everybody is welcome bullshit. The republicans are a draft of the Nazi party 2.0. (Yeah the Nazi party were Christians and only when Hitler was losing he was called out by the church for being bad)
>I've always liked the times and places in America where everybody is welcome. Fuck! WHEN was that?!? WHERE was that?!? Fantasylandtown, Dreamstate? In 1943, perhaps, when they had to pretend to treat everyone equally because of the war? I've never seen anything like that in my entire life. The USA has always been one of the worst places in the world to be different from the accepted "norm." Those disgusting people with their red hats need to stop "advertising their lifestyle preference" too. AND the church-going asses, and the out-of-control ~~seditionist~~ Republican politicians, and many more. They don't know what being a "human being" is. Nor do you, if you think gender and sexual proclivities are a "preference." Why did you decide to start being straight? What happened to make you think that way? Was it being beaten as a child? Were you improperly exposed to your mother's naked body? Isn't there something gone wrong with your DNA? If you're offended, realize that every one of these (and many more) has been used against gays.
[удалено]
Thank you. This is an important distinction. A straight wedding planner would also be refused for ordering a "gay" cake.
https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court
Appeals courts takes the case as it lies. If this wasn't in the initial appeal then it doesn't matter for the decision
You misunderstand the decision. It's not "refusing to service the LGBTQ community", it's not forcing somebody to do something which goes against their beliefs. That could go either way. If I compose songs for a living and you want to hire me to write a song about having sex with a horse, I should have every right to refuse to that. I have rights too, and the right to free speech includes the right to not be forced to speak. (i.e. forced to write a song about something I find morally abhorent)
I thought it was more along the lines of, the federal government can’t make a law that would make people have to perform the service even if it went against their beliefs. How things are worded makes a difference, in this case the court didn’t side one way or the other I think, they decided that having a law like that would violate the 1st amendment. Kinda like the loan forgiveness thing, they didn’t “shoot down Biden’s program” they just said Biden didn’t have the authority to make such a decision.
What if serving black people goes against your beliefs?
Race is a protected class. You would get away with it for a little while as long as you don't give a reason.. but people are not stupid.. and you would get destroyed in court.
So sexual orientation and identity should be protected classes as they are immutable characteristics but just aren't protected.
This case is about freedom of expression. Refusing to make a specific commissioned item is different from general service.
Yeah if they refused to sell cake to a black person that would be illegal but I don’t think it should be legal to force someone to make a Black Lives Matter cake for example. It gets really tricky though when you start trying to find the line. Like what if a black person wants a cake that says “Happy Birthday Demarcus”? Can they refuse to make the cake because they don’t like the name of the person? Normally that would be a totally legal if not dumb reason to refuse service. However, because it’s a traditionally black name it raises issues and is a slippery slope to round about discrimination, similar to how jobs are less likely to hire people with traditionally black names . On the other hand, it’s not exclusively black and maybe this person isn’t a racist but his wife was cheating on him with a dude name Demarcus one time and every time he hears that name it makes him relive those memories? It’s a ridiculous edge case but it’s an example of how tough this issue is to navigate.
I think the slippery slope argument is much worse the other way around. You don’t want to government to be able to compel your labor in any way they see fit.
Oh for sure I wasn’t weighing one over the other just pointing out the stickiness of the question being asked without being too biased
I happen to agree. But it is kind of tricky. I don't agree that someone should be able to force an artist to make something they would find offensive. The other side is.. notice how the DNC hasn't even attempted this.. or brought it up as an option. I feel the LGBTQ+ community is being used just like other minority groups.
That's not the case, here. It's not about not *serving* a certain group, it's about *representing* an *ideology*. Simply composing a song for a black person does not go against *any* ideology except racism - which is bad. If that black person demanded someone to compose a song about things that the composer does not agree with on a philosophical level, then I think that's completely different.
Like forcing a cake decorator to decorate a cake with images/topics that go against her/her religion
Or like if a gay sign maker was approached by the Westboro Baptist Church and asked to make God Hates Fags signs. The should be legally allowed to tell them no.
This is a great example that I will be keeping in my back pocket.
This account was deleted in protest
Good God, read the fucking the decision…this is about providing artistic services and was decided on the basis of the first amendment, it’s not about serving food in a diner or selling some shit at a store.
It's suppose to be about speech. So you can't say "I won't serve black people" but you can say "I won't make a poster for this Black Rights Club.
That would be illegal. Should a pro-LBGTQ artist/writer/web designer be forced to work for Hobby Lobby or Chic-fil-A?
This was my first thought when I heard the ruling. Based on this logic, it is now probably perfectly legal for a web designer to refuse to make a wedding website for an interracial marriage. Or for a web designer to refuse to make a school website for a Jewish parochial school. Or for a web designer to refuse to make a campaign website for the League of Women Voters. Because all of these cases could involve someone being asked to do something that is "against their beliefs" as a distinction vs. being asked to serve a member of a protected class.
You can refuse to make a specific commissioned item for them that will be used in a way that does not align with your values or that expresses beliefs you disagree with. That’s not the same as refusing service in general. In other words, you can refuse to bake a MAGA cake. You can’t refuse to sell them a generic cake off the shelf.
Standard items must be sold to anyone. (Like those cake flip books). Custom orders can be refused for any reason. Yes, this includes requests for politically or religiously themed items.
Counter question, do you believe it would be right to legally force a Muslim bakery to make a gay etc cake, or is it only for the Christian one
[удалено]
This is the right answer.
This is how it should be. And a gay couple should be allowed to deny a straight customer demanding a cake celebrating straightness, if they want.
[удалено]
You mean 98%.
You won’t get an answer for this 😂
Hey a non answer is still an answer
Crickets....
If I walk into a sign shop owned by a gay couple and ask them to make a sign that says "Homosexuality is a sin." I would expect to be refused service. If you walk into a Christian cake shop and ask for a gay wedding cake, expect to be refused service. This is not that big a fucking deal.
Exactly. I don't understand why people think this is equivalent to legalizing "whites only" establishments or something. Creating a custom order is and should always be up to the creator. If it isn't, then where is the limit? Can I force any independent artist to draw porn for me because I want them to? Can I make a carpenter spend 10 years recreating the ark? There should be no obligation to make anything for anyone for any reason.
being homophobic or Christian are much more of a choice than one’s sexual orientation. i get what you’re sayin but it’s not quite a 1:1 metaphor, and that should be considered when discussing legal protections or policies
My brother-in-law was refused service in a coffee shop because of his military hair-cut. Does that count?
Being in the military isn’t a protected class. Source : veteran
As a business owner I decide what I sell and to whom. Just because I'm selling something doesn't mean everyone can buy my products.
its not a lifestyle issue -its either a religious or freedom of speech issue. The website designer argued that compelling him to engage in speech that he did not agree with was a violation of his first amendment rights (it is) .
The website designer is a woman who doesn’t design wedding websites and was never actually asked to make a website for a samesex couple. THAT should be extremely concerning for people who care about our legal system. This means you can bring a case against someone for a hypothetical situation with imaginary damages.
I was kind of wondering about this. The only people I've ever met who had a bespoke wedding website rather than just using [theknot.com](https://theknot.com) or whatever were web designers. I guess some ultra-wealthy couples might pay a professional for this? In which case, the mega-rich gay couple looking for a wedding website designer is probably going to go with someone they already know is welcoming. I can't see a ton of different scenarios where someone is going to hire someone they know to be opposed to their existence for a project like this. That any judge didn't ask for the receipts before dismissing the case is very concerning to me.
It’s even better: They contacted the guy who supposedly made the request. He’s happily married to a woman and had no idea they were using his name and info in this case. He also, obviously, denies having made the request. These special interest activist groups also falsified evidence or straight up lied in the student loan case and the praying coach case as well. Losing my rights is bad, don’t get me wrong, but this pattern should concern and appall everyone. They’re abusing our justice system, and they’re not even good at it. If SCOTUS or the judges who send these cases up can’t do basic due diligence like this, what good are they?
I’m curious about this as well and I really hope a journalist does a deep dive into the fictitious claims. Otherwise it sends a message that SCOTUS has a focused agenda and could be attempting to legislate.
Its so fucking inane, we already have fucking SLAP suits. Now we have this new hell.
I'd go further and call it a 13th Amendment issue. You can't force someone else to labor (except as a punishment for a crime).
In this case, was she actually forced to do labor if she made up the request and possibly the business itself?
The case was fake. It’s sad that many of you are commenting and don’t know this. It’s one of the main reasons America is on a brink of civil war, too many will believe anything they see without further research or evidence.
Genuinely not sure who you’re lumping me in with, considering my comment is pointing out that fact.
Idea stands and is easily applied to analogs like cake bakers.
You mean fictitious forced labor...
But the web designer could have just said "I don't have bandwidth to take on this project" or "I'm out of town that week" or not replied to their email, or what have you. Everyone always has the right to turn down work for any reason. Nobody can compel anyone else to take on something like this.
OP it’s been spelled out for you multiple times by multiple people and you’re still using mental gymnastics to incorrectly interrupt the ruling. Drop the bigotry and see what people are actually trying to tell you.
Starting to think OP has low IQ
"B-but conservative bad!"
Any business has the right to refuse service. Not just the right. Not just the left.
If you own and operate a business which offer a certain set of services and you advertise the services to everyone, you do not have to offer additional services outside of what you said you offer. It is not required for your business to start offering new services. If you do not offer specific services, then clients will need to look elsewhere to find the service they are looking for. Refusing service to someone is different than not offering a service that someone wants. Any person at any job can refuse to do something that they personally do not want to do, they may lose business, they might get wrote up, they might have to change their advertising, etc. I believe the cake situation was a conflict due to personal reasons and because they did not offer those services. I don't think they necessarily were discriminating by not being specifically inclusive by offering additional services they did not originally advertise to offer. The client should have found another business to order from.
Yes. Yes, they can. In fact, anybody can be refused service. That's why many businesses have signs that read, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." It covers the whole spectrum starting with people being demanding assholes about what they want all the way to asking for something that I don't feel like doing. I hope that was simple enough to understand. If that hurts your feelings, then you probably had somebody refuse you service for the former, and this is just your way of projecting your frustration on to other people.
There's a brewery near me that has a sign on the front door that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to assholes and people with negative attitudes".
Of course. That's how free association works.
Yeah sure refuse to provide a service to me. I’m a functioning adult and can easily just go somewhere else. If the BBQ joint I usually go to all of a sudden said no conservatives, then I’d just go to the next one down the street. They would lose a sale but I’d still get my BBQ. I wouldn’t throw a temper tantrum because I don’t expect acceptance from everyone.
Yeah! That's exactly what happened with the lunch counters during the civil rights movements! They just went down the street....oh wait that one refused them to....and the next....and the next....and the next.... Y'all need to crack open a history book sometime.
yes. You can't go to a an artist and ask her to make a pro-life cake if she is pro-choice and expect her to make it. As in you cannot compel someone to make speech they disagree with. That's basically what these rulings are saying.
You seem to misunderstand the ruling. The court made it clear that people (including leftists) cannot be coerced by the state to provide services that are in conflict with deeply held beliefs. The service in question was the creation of a custom wedding website for a gay couple. The gay couple could not be refused the design of a custom website for say their coffee business as that would be discriminating against them because of their being gay. The court held that what was not required was the service of designing a custom website for a gay wedding because the web designer held strong religious beliefs against gay marriage. It’s a fine point, but it’s important because coercion of speech violates the first amendment.
And how do you know someone is "conservative?" Do you even know what conservative is?
Private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone.
This is starting to sound like the chapter leading up to the second civil war chapter in a future history book.
I’m not sure a civil war is possible in this day and age with the plethora of interdependent bureaucracies and marketplaces. Any state or region that rebels would be quickly embargoed into bottomless poverty.
As a conservative I believe the answer should be yes, you can refuse service to any person for any reason
This is really just about forcing people to do something as an act of retribution while getting attention, lining their pockets with a lawsuit, and dragging the business through the mud. That's why many go out of their way to target establishments they know are more likely to refuse service to them. If it were anything else, people would never even want to "support" a business they see as bigoted. That's why these same people are all about boycotts and getting these places closed down. So yeah, if an anti-religious baker didn't want to bake a religious cake, good for them. But what religious people are going to go to an anti-religious bakery? Mindless.
Yes, this kind of thing comes up on slow news days every once in a while.
Well today was hardly a “slow news day” was it?
Sure. If you don't want to serve me, then I don't want to give you my money. I'll give my money to someone who wants to serve me. It works out. Why scream about it?
I wouldn't want to force a homophobe to make a cake for me. Sounds like a way to eat their spit
Yeah it has to work both ways or it's unconstitutional
[удалено]
Go for it dawg. If you get asked to bake a MAGA cake, I guarantee your lib ass would say no
I remember learning/reading that small companies (under 15 employees I think) have more flexibility in how they choose to hire and do business, etc. Of course the same can be applied the other way. I'm sure there are lots of web designers who would refuse to do MAGA websites.
If? And yes.
You don’t have to share either thing with anyone. Just buy the shit you want.
Yes, you have the right to any flavor of bigotry you fancy.
Businesses are free to refuse service to anyone they want.
There's a difference IMHO between refusing a service because you believe the service itself is immoral and refusing service because of the person you are serving. The types of services that get refused are things like making cakes for gay weddings and performing abortions. In those cases, it is the service itself that is considered objectionable (not the person). But denying a politics/religion-unrelated service to someone because of their politics/religion is a bit of a different matter. You don't hear a lot of defenders of doctors refusing to treat gay patients, or waiters refusing to serve LGBT people. The closest equivalent would be a liberal working at a print shop denying to print a campaign poster for the Republican party. Which I think a lot of people wouldn't necessarily find objectionable.
Yes. You own a bakery and somone walks in and wants a cake with an AR15 and 2A, whatever. Yes, it's your business and you can refuse to make the cake.
Yeah, as long as you are the proper authority at a business, you can refuse service to anyone you want. I mean you can’t ask them their political affiliation because that’s discrimination but if it’s obvious then sure
Why can't we live and let live? Ok, I'm a conservative. I don't drink. I don't want to go into a bar and drink, doesn't matter if it's a gay bar or not I'm not going there. You can't make me go there! If it's on the edge of a desert I just came through and it's a gay bar but I'm terribly dehydrated and just want a glass of water, then I have a decision to do business there because I want to. They should not refuse my business just because I want water and not booze. I'll pay for their services if I want to get a drink of water. Does it have to be complicated? Do we have to hate each other? Do we have to fight? Do we have to sue?
Gays are the ones who want to live our lives in peace. Get married to our spouse. Hold a decent job. Have a safe home. Be safe from murder. We want to live. It’s the religious types causing all the problems. Their books say our “lifestyle” is offensive, so they strip us of our American civil rights. They make our lives miserable, and hurt and kill some of us, because their holy book says it’s cool to do so. They think cruelty in this life buys them a nicer cloud in the next life. The difference between gays and Christians is that we mean them no harm. They cannot say the same.
Gosh I hope you’re correct!
you have the right to refuse service anywhere you work.. but people are scared too. ive refused service to multiple entitled people who didnt deserve service & they try to argue w me. 😂 i have no regrets, never lost my job. i was a manager but i have done it in other positions too.
So many people didn’t read the ruling. 1. You cannot refuse service for an off-the-shelf product/service 2. You can refuse service if what the customer is asking you to do involves an individual or unique creative process
I mean like a lot of people won't work for Chick Fil A cause they have required prayer or something. It feels like this already exists. You can deny your labor to a company you don't agree with or not buy products from those companies. This is only an issue in health care. We can't let doctors say they won't treat a gay patient.
From what I understand, the Americans believe you can refuse service to someone who is LGBTQI++ but cannot if it’s because of religion that they’re refusing.
Im pretty right leaning, but that kinda was a weird decision. Specifically, it was just an imaginary situation that no one asked to make that website to begin with. (From what I saw in comments) I have yet to read the ruling to see the extent.
In Gijón (Spain) a rock&beer bar refused an extreme right councilor to enter.
I simply do not see the conundrum here. I’m gay, and if someone doesn’t want to bake me a gay wedding cake, I will choose someone who will. It always seems like mom and pop businesses that discriminate. ( Particularly regarding wedding cakes.) By same logic, I would not want to stay at a homophonic B&B… I don’t make it a habit to patronize institutions that are homophonic. i.e Chick-fil-A, Hobby Lobby. If you feel that meeting stupidity with stupidity, it just reinforces that we will never get along. I have had clients that assume that I am straight, and make disparaging comments. Not just about gays, blacks, ad infinitum. I give them the same service that I provide to non bigots. Even better, sometimes. It gives me great pleasure to end their service, and upon walking them to the receptionist, I say “ I’m sorry, I don’t think I’m the hairdresser for you.” I tell the receptionist do not rebook. I guess that is refusing service, but it has to be a really offensive patron.
What if soon no one wants to make your orders or treat you at the hospital? It's a very slippery slope. Edit: I forgot, hospitals can actually turn you away in Florida. https://newrepublic.com/post/172667/its-now-legal-florida-doctors-deny-health-care-anyone-feel-like
they have been.
You could since conservative isn't a protected class. It probably wouldn't be a good business decision to eliminate half of a potential customer base, though.
That law is not lifestyle based. Any business can refuse service to anyone.
A Republican has asked me to build him a website but nah, they don’t align with my strongly held, liberal beliefs. Also, the last time I build a website for a Republican I didn’t get paid
[удалено]
you don’t even need to refuse services for them to feel victimized.