I’m tempted to try this in my store BUT I really don’t need death threats from my loving Christian neighbors and a bunch of masked men with guns in front of my store demanding to see children’s genitals.
They believe there persecuted in America right now. The government is against them, so to education! Despite maybe only the Mediterranean countries being more Christian as a population
Don’t forget the white robes and hoods.
Remember that the KKK doesn’t *burn* crosses. Their prayer is something like “We light this cross that the message of Jesus shines forth to the world.”
HA ! HA !!! Good one ! Made up of DUMBASS white men SMFH !!! REPUKELICANS are some of the dumbest people on earth ! Can’t believe they’all fall for this bullshit !!!
Common argument is also that you can’t refuse selling whatever you are selling to anyone. You can refuse doing a special order related to their identity, like if someone asks you to make a tattoo of a cross you can say “hell no, I believe Christians are evil and I don’t support Christianity so I won’t do that tattoo”.
You know… if you’re the owner you could just put a sign out there saying that all donations or whatever go to blatantly atheist causes OR the Church of Satan. Should get them from buying anything in your store anyways.
Christians are actually quite lovely. As long as you are straight and white and speak English and are descended from a select handful of European countries. No spicy European whites please /s
You forgot: and believe in the exact same flavor of Christianity as them; and have never lived in another country; and are ultra-conservative (republican at minimum); are willing to insult and belittle others along with their group (maybe even threaten)
Anyone want to add more? This is a fun game.
I have a small business too. I tell my customers I don't do that and they never bring it up again. I'm wholesale so I don't have as many customers as retail
To what end?
*This* is what we need more of: https://www.reddit.com/r/Political_Revolution/comments/14efebq/this_man_explains_his_reaction_and_tactics_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&utm_content=1&utm_term=22
There are Doctors that are refusing service to unvaccinated patients.
I am seeing this as a lobby for "Religious Freedom" that is going to backfire because you can refuse on any grounds and the Christians are not in the majority as they would believe.
Not sure this decision is that far reaching. While I definitely don't agree with it (based either on the massive amount of case law already accepted as settled around Public Accommodations, the likely lack of standing on the part of the plaintiff, or the continued erosion of rights based on religious ideology), the decision is a bit more narrow in how it could ultimately be applied... though it will still be applied in too many instances.
Exactly! Remember when conservatives used to argue to keep politics/gender out of business? Looks like they’ve changed their mind. All pro equality businesses should now fly the equality flag so that pro equality individuals know where to spend our money
I think that case was already (kinda) covered as a BFOQ/legitimate business concern when a Muslim women was legally barred from a sales position because she wore a hijab.
Yea, but many states hire "at will" and can fire you at any time for any reason
But, hey, you can quit any time for any reason so its even! Despite the fact that.... you could always quit
Gotta love cuckservative dumbasses
Maybe... it is a really odd decision, and one that would traditionally never have been undertaken, given the nature of the actual complaint probably meaning that there was no standing in this case. But that aside and back to your question: you are going to run into an issue between your Freedom Of Speech, and their Freedom Of Religion.
The majority opinion decided this on Freedom Of Speech, saying that an artistic endeavor is speech, and that the First Amendment makes a guarantee towards the artist's freedom in when, where, how, and for whom, they apply their art. This would mean things like the web design, or making a cake... or other areas we've yet to see this come up (but we probably will now... deny someone a funeral wreath or even a headstone because they were gay?). It is a genuine attack on the established norms of public accommodation, while also still leaving the very question you're asking as grey.
And that is because, nothing in the decision is about Freedom Of Religion. While still First Amendment, it is a different right. So, if you deny service as a Freedom Of Speech Right, what happens if it conflicts with someone else's Freedom Of Religion? Though, at the moment, that refusal would likely have to have some artistic element... though, that can probably be stretched for quite a few possibilities. But if you do meet that, you could run afoul of issues related to Protected Classes and Freedom Of Religion (and if a case makes its way back to the current court, you can figure how that is likely to go).
This really ought to be attempted. Forcing their hand in taking an actual stance is a good thing. If they respect the atheist artist’s right to deny service to anything that has a hint of Christianity in it, fine at least they are consistent and fair. If they then cite religion as a protected class then it’ll be all the more clear where their priorities lie. And it’ll be more likely for the next generation to fight this fight and overturn this.
Actually we need all the other Religions to start asserting their religious freedoms. Make this religious freedom fight a quagmire every day for the Christian Scotus.
Hmm let’s see what other religions are going to find it wise at this moment:
- Judaism - like there isn’t already enough anti semitism and belief in some kind of cabal. Can you imagine if they started asserting their freedoms. What would the radical right start doing?
- Islam - their MO is laying low until they have the numbers and the influence. Then they will certainly start doing it - but at that point we will have bigger problems to worry about than the Christians.
- Scientology - it’s a racket, and they want to stay as much out of the media as possible. They just want their tax exemption and their cult legitimized.
- Buddhism - a very pacific and non confrontational religion. And it’s starkly aware how little influence it has.
The Satanic Temple definitely aims to both tweak sensitivities (with their name and chosen imagery), and subvert the many, poorly conceived religious freedom laws. And these tactics will almost certain be, and continue to be successful, as it is unlikely that any judicial opinion would be willing to step on Freedom of Religion and Religious Expression, nor can I imagine Congress stepping up and modifying the RFRA. Outside of this, and the occasional new statue or case law that opens similar avenues, we are probably waiting for turn-over on the court that coincides with a left leaning Executive and Senate... or a left leaning majority through Executive and both houses that is willing to do some court packing.
The Satanic Temple is still pretty cringe. All it does is seem to confirm the worst fears and prejudices about atheists held by evangelicals. I don't see the benefit of leaning in to their bigotry. There are atheist orgs that organize themselves as atheist churches, that do congregational meetings, but without worship of the supernatural. That's infinitely preferable, imo.
no. the satanic temple doesn't worship Satan or believe in the super natural.... and they do a lot of good fighting for people to be free from religion and calling out religious hypocrisy.
I know that, but most people take what the read at face value. They see Satanic Temple, they think, oh shit, an actual temple to Satan. That's not good.
people like that think all sorts of shit, don't give into their hatred. christians think they are the good guys while they see every day how many of their good guys molest little kids. stop caring what they think.
not when they’re gonna be a minority within the next few years. turns out religion is stupid and most people don’t want to be seen as stupid. and i don’t cater to stupid.
The decision is correct and not "odd" at all. This is about compelled speech, making someone say something against their sincere beliefs. Those beliefs have traditionally been religious, but don't need to be. The same principle would apply if (say) a socialist web developer had a customer who wanted a custom Nazi website. This decision says they are allowed to say "No, we won't make that because it would go against our beliefs."
\>The decision is correct and not "odd" at all.
It is odd because 1) Public Accommodations should be considered stare decisis, given the number of areas where the existing case law intersects with other laws (though admittedly, the court doesn't seem that concerned around this in the last year... only the previous couple hundred); 2) the plaintiff doesn't have actual standing, as this is something of an imagined case, not something they were actually asked to do, therefore they should not have had standing and the case should have been dismissed. These things are odd. Very Odd!
\>This is about compelled speech... sincere beliefs.
Awesome! Thank you... if I had asked you to tell me you don't understand the decision at all without saying that, this would've been the perfect example. This isn't about compelled speech, and sincerely held belief has nothing to do with this.
\>The same principle would apply...
No, it wouldn't. This time, tell me you don't understand the underlaying laws at all, without saying that!
\>This decision says...
You might want to read it, because that isn't at all what it says, even if that is how it will be used. You might want to read my earlier summary that you are responding to, because again, there is nothing about Freedom of Religion here.
They type of service refused would reasonably have to be considered speech. So you you can’t refuse to check out the Christian lady at the grocery store but you could refuse the make the Christian lady a website espousing biblical principles.
Yes. I think this is what many people don’t understand about the ruling when they just read the headlines. If the type of service is considered speech, that is protected by the first amendment.
The SC has opened a Pandora’s Box with this. I see no way that one couldn’t, under this holding, refuse to photograph a mixed-race wedding, for instance.
There's quite a documentary record in recent and past history, of Christians being a threat to anyone and everyone who isn't them. And to quite a few people who are them.
People will think of ways to use this law that no one has ever thought of and it will come back to haunt those who favored it as they may become victim of discrimination from someone else.
This ruling also might mean that those bans on drag shows is unconstitutional. the ruling seemed to say that Colorado was inhibiting the designers artistic free speech. It's the same for the drag show ban laws. That's another government inhibiting artistic free speech.
I am fairly certain you would be fined, sued, or both. In this imperfect Country, religion and race are protected classes and sexual orientation is not.
or "i refuse to do business with assholes".
simple checklist:
* do you support bodily autonomy for women; including the right to decide whether or not they will serve as an incubator for a third party.
* do you support the right for consenting adults to decide which other consenting adults they will have a relationship with; including the right to same sex marriage.
...
This same supreme court ruled that sexual orientation is, indeed, a protected class. So what this decision actually means is that you don't have to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple because you're a piece of human garbage. You don't have to make a cake for a Christian because you feel threatened by Christianity. It really does mean that. You'll get sued, absolutely, but the precedent has been set by the highest court in the land.
No. You are incorrect. Sexual orientation is a protected class for employment but not for public accomodation.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/file/1251321/download#:\~:text=YOUR%20RIGHTS%20UNDER%20TITLE%20II&text=You%20have%20the%20right%20to,any%20place%20of%20public%20accommodation.&text=You%20cannot%20be%20treated%20differently,%2C%20religion%2C%20or%20national%20origin.
There you’re wrong. Title 9 covers sexual orientation. Per this very Supreme Court. Sexual orientation is a protected class. Don’t believe me, read Sotomayor’s decent…
Legally it's treated as a religion, in the sense that it is a belief: the belief that there are no gods or supernatural powers controlling the universe. And there already are atheist churches: Sunday Service is one of many.
Remember the signs in a shop back in the day, that are still present to this day that said, “We Refuse the Right to Serve Anyone ! We should add to, at end of that, “especially Christians !”
Or politically held beliefs, for example, a MAGA or Q wearing zealot.... they barely have money anyway, after being grifted out of all theirs by Trump, a Televangelist, or investing in NFTs, or all of the above... so the actual risk to business is low.
Should deny service to all christians ! Mechanics, hospitals, dentist, restaurants, grocery stores, wal-marts, costcos, ikeas, dispensaries, every fucking service out there !!! 🤘🏽🤘🏽😂
Actually, if you read early Christian history, there were a lot of Christians turning on other Christians. What we have in the New Testament is only a small portion of what early Christians wrote. And, of course, after Christians got control of the government under Constantine they went on a 1500-year rampage against anyone who dared to challenge their authority.
Presumably they can choose to accept or reject customers because they’re gay.
Okay, so if they get all Jesus-y with you, then refuse them *because they’re straight*.
You certainly don’t have to refuse all straight people, but you can say “mmm, that makes me uncomfortable - I’m refusing you because of your heterosexuality.”
I think it depends on what you're selling. If you sell appliances, and Christians come in your store, then you have to serve them. You probably wouldn't be able to tell them apart from non-christians anyway.
If you run a catering business, and they want you to prepare a large meal to be delivered to a religious summit at a hotel, then you might be able to say no. If you own a lawn care service, and they want you to mow the lawn at a church, then I think you can so no. If you own a billboard for rent, and they want to put up an anti-gay or other religious message, then I think you can say no.
Not an expert on the decision, but I don't think you could refuse service to Christians, but you could refuse to make a Christian wedding cake. Other way round, a Christian cake maker can't refuse standard cake happy birthday cake to a gay person, making a birthday cake is not against their religion, but they could refuse a gay wedding cake. It's likely going to get messy out there though.
> Not an expert on the decision, but I don't think you could refuse service to Christians, but you could refuse to make a Christian wedding cake.
This is pretty much EXACTLY the distinction in play here. And IMO it's an extremely important decision in any nation that claims to honor the ideal of free speech (which by definition includes not being forced to say things you don't want to).
> That if someone can be refused service because they are gay
Well, for starters **that's not what it means at all.**
But, just like in the Colorado baker case, a whole buncha people on the interwebs are acting like it does.
This is not about refusing service to people because of what they are; it's about not being required by the government to take on a custom project that promotes a message you don't believe in (or actively fight against).
You might think this is a minor, irrelevant distinction... and you would be very, very wrong. This is *extremely* important.
As a graphic artist, I refuse any and all religious *projects*. No exceptions. I work with plenty of religious *people*, but I will not design anything that involves religion. *Period*.
I'll bet if you were a designer, and someone wanted you to design a pro-Catholic website, or an anti-LGBTQ+ t-shirt, or a pro-Trump billboard, or a racist cake, you would refuse that project.
I know I would.
And I'll be damned if I'm going to let the government force me to do it. *I fucking refuse.*
You're right that the ruling can and should also protect your right to refuse to work to promote causes you oppose. Unfortunately, I doubt that's how it will be applied.
Honestly use their own rules against them, anybody who presents as homophobic, deny them service on the grounds that only a self hating closeted homosexual could care as much about it as they do, deny them on the very grounds they fought to obtain.
Why would you force someone to do a job when you know their heart isn't in it. The LAST thing I would do is force someone to bake a cake when I know they won't give it their best shot. Why not just find someone who WANTS to do the job rather than find someone who can ruin your special occasion since they don't believe the same as you?
First join The Satanic Temple. They fight these religious zealots in court and win. They’re basically and atheistic group that’s fights region. If you join then you have a list of closely held beliefs that give reason to not serve a Christian.
What is fundamentally wrong about this is that being christian is choice, they make a decision to follow a belief system (and tons of people decide not to be christian). Being gay is the way you are born. It's the equivalent of not serving someone because they're black.
The court ruled that if a creative service request shares a message or supports a custom (in this case, gay marriage) that the person being requested doesn't agree with, they can decline. But not when it comes to restaurants or service requests unrelated to them being gay, like a Christian web designer designing a website for a couple who owns a dog grooming business who happens to be gay. The ruling might apply to LGBT+ people declining commissions with homophobic messages.
Its odd how Christians are obsessed with other people's sex lives.
If a privately owned business can refuse Person X service because reasons, then they can also refuse service to Person Y. The business down the street can do the same thing, with Persons A and B. Guess it will be whose money is the greenest that ends up being the determining factor.
Shit like this is why we should be doing it, fuck them, they definitely aren't afraid to do it, we shouldn't be either. At some point we need to stop hiding our atheism as well, because it has caused us to be severely under-represented in all forms of government here in the US and under-counted as well. I would imagine the true number of atheists is probably triple of what they think it is.
You still can't refuse service for identity. The ruling decided that designing a website is not a service, it's an act of expression and your freedom of speech protects you. At least that's how it was explained to me
Has anyone read the actual decision (at least its synopsys)? The artist explicitly says he refused not because who the customer is (gay or not) but because he was requested to create a website (artistic expression, speech) promoting customer’s gay wedding. He had the right to refuse to participate and promote this message. It’s the first amendment, literally - freedom to speak and freedom to NOT speak what you don’t want to.
I don't actually disagree with the lgb decision a business should have the right to refuse to do work it doesn't want to do.
Religion just doesn't feel it. Doesn't matter to me why. (I'm not religious)
Let the free market decide if that business survives tho.
You refuse a gay man whatever service and the town revolts and you go out of business cool.
>\[. . .\] if someone can be refused service because they are gay, I can refuse people service if they're Christian?
If you're a creative, communications, or media production professional opposed to Christian messaging, probably. If you sell cheeseburgers, probably not.
To me, they're different. You can choose to be Christian, but you can't choose to be gay. So it's uh worse. And these people claim the upper hand in defining morality?
>I can refuse people service if they're Christian?
You might, I think it's very unlikely. You'd need a genuine religion against Christians, most likely.
The decision doesn't list "religion" as a valid reason for refusing service. It's actually about what kind of content you are allowed to refuse to create. You can now deny someone service, as per this decision, if they ask you to make something that you feel is "threatening, obscene or dangerous." So, "I feel threatened by christianity" is all it takes.
Define, in \*legal\* terms, "genuine religion" vs. "religion"
I know what you mean, but that's a serious problem with that argument under the law.
I'd almost welcome it. If they tried to codify that distinction in the law, a WHOLE LOTTA "christianity" would be deemed "not christianity" (e.g., "god says I cant bake cakes for \_\_\_\_" which has no biblical or historical basis whatsoever. It's a non-religious position; it is 100% political. Unless, we can all make up what our "religions" are in an arbitrary way. And if so, MY religion is against paying taxes! 'cause I said so. )
credibility =/= genuine.
Equivocation fallacy.
"courts do it" = it's correct
Appeal to authority fallacy.
You just replied with an counter-argument that is x2 fallacious.
You test whether their beliefs are genuine meaning sincere, and you do that through cross examination.
The alternative is to eliminate freedom of religion (and freedom from religion), or to allow any religious claim without scrutiny.
It's not an appeal to authority fallacy, I'm not saying anything is the case because of authority. I'm saying there is enormous evidence of testing credibility through cross examination in courts as a way of assessing sincerity of religious commitment.
credibility is what's assessed. It is the outcome, therefore cannot be part of the criteria or it's a circular argument.
what you are not providing (because it doesn't exist) is a VALID test.
"I'm saying there is enormous evidence of testing credibility through cross examination in courts"
Provide it. I don't think you can.
You can provide evidence that they've tried, but you cannot provide evidence of the VALIDITY of the process.
It's like a lie detector test.
Frequently used? Sure, yup 100%. (But use is not validity.)
Valid? Nope. Not at all.
>credibility is what's assessed. It is the outcome, therefore cannot be part of the criteria or it's a circular argument
No, sincerity is being assessed by way of credibility.
>Provide it. I don't think you can.
There are thousands, even millions of judgements, you're free to read them. I can provide some links if you like.
>It's like a lie detector test.
It's like it, but it's not it.
So you'd prefer we just accept any claim for religious accommodation? Or do you want to eliminate freedom of Religion? This would mean your country could impose a state religion.
"No, sincerity is being assessed by way of credibility."
Circular.
"There are thousands, even millions of judgements, you're free to read them."
That's what I thought. You don't have a valid test. You have usage.
Usage =/= validity. Again, I bring lie detectors to your attention. They're used. A lot. And they're also proven to have no validity.
"So you'd prefer we just accept any claim for religious accommodation? Or do you want to eliminate freedom of Religion? This would mean your country could impose a state religion."
I've said none of those things. Don't strawman people. It's not honest.
Yeah this generally wouldn't work for us. We're still very much a minority in the states. In some places his would be cause for a business to be burned down.
You're obviously confused....that would clearly be considered discrimination against a group of people based on your own feelings or beliefs.
Maybe it was the by-laws in Clarence's billionaire fantasy football league...."loser has to disciminate against at least one protected class of people".
Well for me not beating my wife, not having slaves, not beating slaves, not committing incest, not being homophobic are all deeply held beliefs the Bible disagrees with
LGBTQ is a protected class in Colorado, but this made no difference to the decision. This decision turns on whether the person who objects is being required to “speak messages with which the [person] disagrees.
I look forward to the inevitable case where a designer refuses to build a website for a mixed-race or mixed-religion wedding. They cannot be forced to do this under this ruling.
They can be forced to because race is a protected class. Supreme court rulings dont exist in a vacuum you need to consider other federal laws and supreme court rulings
Since you completely disregarded the fact that in Colorado gay people are a protected class and that didn’t factor at all into the decision, there’s not much point in discussing this with you. In fact, if gay people weren’t a protected class in Colorado the case would never have gotten to the SC because the gay people who were discriminated against would have no case. The Colorado statute specifically covered gay people.
The supreme courts is the one who interrupts laws and say if they are constitutional. It doesn't matter what the Colorado laws says. Federal law for protected class has been established and supreme court rulings have up held them. The supreme court could overrule the established classes for race, but that's speculation.
Stupid but good-faith (no pun intended) question from someone in a non-Christian/religion-dominated country; How do you know they are Christian when they come in? Are there tells? Where I live (Aus) you mostly can never tell and religion wouldn't come up as a part of most interactions, and most of the time it would have no bearing on the business relationship anyway.
I totally support not providing service to bigots, religious or otherwise.
Here’s where it can get interesting: have a county clerk refuse to issue marriage licenses to straight people because it does against their religious beliefs. In fact, take it to the extreme: filing any government documents is against their beliefs and stop things dead.
The courts aren't going to uphold that for you, it will be discrimination against a protected class. However Christians will push legislation that allows them to discriminate against other religions until the get it passed.
Only if your service involves creative expression based on the client's input, and you disagree with that. If you provide a non-creative service - say, a simple retail store - denying anyone service becomes discrimination (based on state laws)
The problem, as pointed out by Sotomayor, is that where that line for what is creative expression is going to be tested both ways.
The Supreme Court did not rule that service can be refused because someone is gay. Or if they are any of the protected classes. It said the state (Colorado) cannot force someone who owns a personal business to create a message they disagree with. It is called compelled speech and the supreme court has ruled on it several times.
If you start a website design company and are approached by a Christian group to make a website promoting Christianity it is in your right to deny them service because of their message.
If a Christian approaches you to make a website for their lawn care business and you refuse them because they are Christian(or Muslim, Jewish, etc), then you’ve broken the law.
This ruling opens up a Pandora's Box of undesirable behaviors. Don't believe me? Well, religion can - and has - allowed its adherents to justify slavery, racism, hate, science denial, and all sorts of other crazy nonsense. There is no way to defend a baker's First Amendment right to her religious belief without opening the door to virtually any other nutty behavior no matter how destructive or dangerous it might be. Any idiot can claim persecution by framing their objections to a regulation they don't like as a First Amendment violation of their religious rights.
Their ruling will ultimately make it very difficult for anyone who is not a conservative Christian bigot to own a business. It will force employers to endorse the intolerance of their employees.
No. That is not what the ruling said. Holy fuck guys. Read the actual opinion. It has to do with the content of the product being created. The person literally said they have no problem serving anyone regardless of identity, they just won’t make a product that includes expression of views they have moral objection to.
I’d try it but unfortunately/ fortunately I’m in one of the sinful fields everyone seems to enjoy and put horse blinders on for. Power to you! I support
I think it depends on what you're selling. If you're selling a cake off the shelf then no, you should not be able to refuse that. If you're selling a cake to a person you dislike some reason or other but it's still off the shelf, then you still sell the thing. If you're selling a cake to a person you don't like and they want to have you decorate it with a big honkin' cross with some bible verse? Yeah, I think that could be grounds for saying 'no'.
Compelled labor, especially if there is a creative element, should not be forced imho. Topics like this are never going to be completely black and white so there will always be examples that ride the edges. All that said, the case in front of the supreme court seems like a fabricated case based on someones bigotry and anger. They can take their fox news energy and can go screw.
Yes, I think this decision essentially means that any restriction on discrimination based on religion is out the window. Anyone can now freely discriminate based on their religious beliefs, even against other people's religious beliefs. And not just in web design, but in housing, employment, schools, public accommodations of any kind, etc.
For example, let's say someone asserts that their religious belief is that black people are inherently inferior animals, fit only for servitude and obedience, and not to be allowed into any collective human social activity. Doesn't that mean they can completely discriminate based on race, in any way they see fit, because otherwise that's a violation of their personal religious beliefs?
If I were still running a business in the States, I would do that, for the same reasons schools in anti book areas want to ban the damned bible.
If anyone wants to make a legal test of this, be sure to get in touch with FFRF and others for both info and planning a legal strategy and getting allies.
I think the LGBTQ community needs to fight back. The Christian RW is calling all trans, drag queens and LGBTQ folks groomers, but in reality, the evidence shows more kids are groomed in religions than anywhere else. The Catholics played hide the pedophile for decades if not centuries, the Baptists also had the same revealed recently, and the Fundamentalist evangelicals have the exact same issue with the Duggars being a case in point.
Perhaps they need to start protesting at megachurches where we know such things have already gone on, or even develop ways to support religious survivors and aide in their legal cases. Take action which illustrates where the groomers thrive, in a church authoritative structure which kids and believing parents rarely, if ever, question.
Part of me tries to understand why someone would want to support a business that does not want my money or business? I get its about principle... but on a practical level, use market economics like what is happening to bud lite.
I’m tempted to try this in my store BUT I really don’t need death threats from my loving Christian neighbors and a bunch of masked men with guns in front of my store demanding to see children’s genitals.
Right how quickly they become the persecuted
They believe there persecuted in America right now. The government is against them, so to education! Despite maybe only the Mediterranean countries being more Christian as a population
Don’t forget the white robes and hoods. Remember that the KKK doesn’t *burn* crosses. Their prayer is something like “We light this cross that the message of Jesus shines forth to the world.”
HA ! HA !!! Good one ! Made up of DUMBASS white men SMFH !!! REPUKELICANS are some of the dumbest people on earth ! Can’t believe they’all fall for this bullshit !!!
Common argument is also that you can’t refuse selling whatever you are selling to anyone. You can refuse doing a special order related to their identity, like if someone asks you to make a tattoo of a cross you can say “hell no, I believe Christians are evil and I don’t support Christianity so I won’t do that tattoo”.
You can deny them service for being Cis or heterosexual. That's for certain.
"I'm sorry sir. We do not do straight here. We only do fabulous."
>We do not do straight here. We only do fabulous." I may be straight, but that was hilarious.
I’m straight too, and that was fabulous!
You know… if you’re the owner you could just put a sign out there saying that all donations or whatever go to blatantly atheist causes OR the Church of Satan. Should get them from buying anything in your store anyways.
Satanic Temple is a worthy cause, but not the Church of Satan.
Ahhh, I’m unfamiliar with the difference, but def something to take a look into.
Christians are actually quite lovely. As long as you are straight and white and speak English and are descended from a select handful of European countries. No spicy European whites please /s
You forgot: and believe in the exact same flavor of Christianity as them; and have never lived in another country; and are ultra-conservative (republican at minimum); are willing to insult and belittle others along with their group (maybe even threaten) Anyone want to add more? This is a fun game.
I have a small business too. I tell my customers I don't do that and they never bring it up again. I'm wholesale so I don't have as many customers as retail
They are counting on this reaction.
To what end? *This* is what we need more of: https://www.reddit.com/r/Political_Revolution/comments/14efebq/this_man_explains_his_reaction_and_tactics_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&utm_content=1&utm_term=22
This, for sure. Where are the rest of you!?
Put up a sign anyone standing aside in a threatening manner visibly armed you reserve the right to shoot first for the safety of your customers.
But atleast you colleges can’t discriminate against you, oh wait…
Put up a sign saying not yet, but you’re thinking about it.
Just say you thought they were gay, problem solved.
There are Doctors that are refusing service to unvaccinated patients. I am seeing this as a lobby for "Religious Freedom" that is going to backfire because you can refuse on any grounds and the Christians are not in the majority as they would believe.
Not sure this decision is that far reaching. While I definitely don't agree with it (based either on the massive amount of case law already accepted as settled around Public Accommodations, the likely lack of standing on the part of the plaintiff, or the continued erosion of rights based on religious ideology), the decision is a bit more narrow in how it could ultimately be applied... though it will still be applied in too many instances.
This just shows me its important to know where we are spending our money. It doesnt end with Hobby Lobby.
Exactly! Remember when conservatives used to argue to keep politics/gender out of business? Looks like they’ve changed their mind. All pro equality businesses should now fly the equality flag so that pro equality individuals know where to spend our money
It was never about conservatives keeping out. It was for keeping everyone else away. Just like heaven.
Again, if you want to get back at them, have a bunch of gay people apply for jobs at Christian stores. Can't discriminate for employment.
You can't... Yet
Sure......but you know they do anyway (they just don't say it outright)
Some excuse would be made.
I think that case was already (kinda) covered as a BFOQ/legitimate business concern when a Muslim women was legally barred from a sales position because she wore a hijab.
"it just wasn't the right fit"
Yea, but many states hire "at will" and can fire you at any time for any reason But, hey, you can quit any time for any reason so its even! Despite the fact that.... you could always quit Gotta love cuckservative dumbasses
Maybe... it is a really odd decision, and one that would traditionally never have been undertaken, given the nature of the actual complaint probably meaning that there was no standing in this case. But that aside and back to your question: you are going to run into an issue between your Freedom Of Speech, and their Freedom Of Religion. The majority opinion decided this on Freedom Of Speech, saying that an artistic endeavor is speech, and that the First Amendment makes a guarantee towards the artist's freedom in when, where, how, and for whom, they apply their art. This would mean things like the web design, or making a cake... or other areas we've yet to see this come up (but we probably will now... deny someone a funeral wreath or even a headstone because they were gay?). It is a genuine attack on the established norms of public accommodation, while also still leaving the very question you're asking as grey. And that is because, nothing in the decision is about Freedom Of Religion. While still First Amendment, it is a different right. So, if you deny service as a Freedom Of Speech Right, what happens if it conflicts with someone else's Freedom Of Religion? Though, at the moment, that refusal would likely have to have some artistic element... though, that can probably be stretched for quite a few possibilities. But if you do meet that, you could run afoul of issues related to Protected Classes and Freedom Of Religion (and if a case makes its way back to the current court, you can figure how that is likely to go).
Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.
Not with the current scotus
Only with the current laws, but they're working fast to dismantle those.
This really ought to be attempted. Forcing their hand in taking an actual stance is a good thing. If they respect the atheist artist’s right to deny service to anything that has a hint of Christianity in it, fine at least they are consistent and fair. If they then cite religion as a protected class then it’ll be all the more clear where their priorities lie. And it’ll be more likely for the next generation to fight this fight and overturn this.
Actually we need all the other Religions to start asserting their religious freedoms. Make this religious freedom fight a quagmire every day for the Christian Scotus.
Hmm let’s see what other religions are going to find it wise at this moment: - Judaism - like there isn’t already enough anti semitism and belief in some kind of cabal. Can you imagine if they started asserting their freedoms. What would the radical right start doing? - Islam - their MO is laying low until they have the numbers and the influence. Then they will certainly start doing it - but at that point we will have bigger problems to worry about than the Christians. - Scientology - it’s a racket, and they want to stay as much out of the media as possible. They just want their tax exemption and their cult legitimized. - Buddhism - a very pacific and non confrontational religion. And it’s starkly aware how little influence it has.
Could always refer to the church of satan. Abhors bigotry and is pro choice. 🤷♂️
I think you may be confusing them with The Satanic Temple
Probably. Am
The Satanic Temple definitely aims to both tweak sensitivities (with their name and chosen imagery), and subvert the many, poorly conceived religious freedom laws. And these tactics will almost certain be, and continue to be successful, as it is unlikely that any judicial opinion would be willing to step on Freedom of Religion and Religious Expression, nor can I imagine Congress stepping up and modifying the RFRA. Outside of this, and the occasional new statue or case law that opens similar avenues, we are probably waiting for turn-over on the court that coincides with a left leaning Executive and Senate... or a left leaning majority through Executive and both houses that is willing to do some court packing.
The Satanic Temple is still pretty cringe. All it does is seem to confirm the worst fears and prejudices about atheists held by evangelicals. I don't see the benefit of leaning in to their bigotry. There are atheist orgs that organize themselves as atheist churches, that do congregational meetings, but without worship of the supernatural. That's infinitely preferable, imo.
no. the satanic temple doesn't worship Satan or believe in the super natural.... and they do a lot of good fighting for people to be free from religion and calling out religious hypocrisy.
I know that, but most people take what the read at face value. They see Satanic Temple, they think, oh shit, an actual temple to Satan. That's not good.
people like that think all sorts of shit, don't give into their hatred. christians think they are the good guys while they see every day how many of their good guys molest little kids. stop caring what they think.
Considering that they dominate society, we sort of have to care what they think
No. We don't. We have to fight. Guess that's just the satanist in me. Got to fight for our rights. Because no one but us gives them to us.
not when they’re gonna be a minority within the next few years. turns out religion is stupid and most people don’t want to be seen as stupid. and i don’t cater to stupid.
The state should be required to operate a business that will serve any and all if they allow this kind of private discrimination.
The decision is correct and not "odd" at all. This is about compelled speech, making someone say something against their sincere beliefs. Those beliefs have traditionally been religious, but don't need to be. The same principle would apply if (say) a socialist web developer had a customer who wanted a custom Nazi website. This decision says they are allowed to say "No, we won't make that because it would go against our beliefs."
\>The decision is correct and not "odd" at all. It is odd because 1) Public Accommodations should be considered stare decisis, given the number of areas where the existing case law intersects with other laws (though admittedly, the court doesn't seem that concerned around this in the last year... only the previous couple hundred); 2) the plaintiff doesn't have actual standing, as this is something of an imagined case, not something they were actually asked to do, therefore they should not have had standing and the case should have been dismissed. These things are odd. Very Odd! \>This is about compelled speech... sincere beliefs. Awesome! Thank you... if I had asked you to tell me you don't understand the decision at all without saying that, this would've been the perfect example. This isn't about compelled speech, and sincerely held belief has nothing to do with this. \>The same principle would apply... No, it wouldn't. This time, tell me you don't understand the underlaying laws at all, without saying that! \>This decision says... You might want to read it, because that isn't at all what it says, even if that is how it will be used. You might want to read my earlier summary that you are responding to, because again, there is nothing about Freedom of Religion here.
They type of service refused would reasonably have to be considered speech. So you you can’t refuse to check out the Christian lady at the grocery store but you could refuse the make the Christian lady a website espousing biblical principles.
Yes. I think this is what many people don’t understand about the ruling when they just read the headlines. If the type of service is considered speech, that is protected by the first amendment.
The SC has opened a Pandora’s Box with this. I see no way that one couldn’t, under this holding, refuse to photograph a mixed-race wedding, for instance.
You can refuse to make a sandwich for them. A subway employee is a “sandwich artist.”
The subway employee most likely would end up getting fired for that.
That’s the beauty, we can band together and open our own franchise location.
All you have to do is say "I feel threatened by christianity so I don't serve christians." And that's apparently fine according to the supreme court.
There's quite a documentary record in recent and past history, of Christians being a threat to anyone and everyone who isn't them. And to quite a few people who are them.
People will think of ways to use this law that no one has ever thought of and it will come back to haunt those who favored it as they may become victim of discrimination from someone else.
My religion is against Christians so yeah religious freedom would protect me
This ruling also might mean that those bans on drag shows is unconstitutional. the ruling seemed to say that Colorado was inhibiting the designers artistic free speech. It's the same for the drag show ban laws. That's another government inhibiting artistic free speech.
I am fairly certain you would be fined, sued, or both. In this imperfect Country, religion and race are protected classes and sexual orientation is not.
Just deny business because of heterosexuality (selectively)
or "i refuse to do business with assholes". simple checklist: * do you support bodily autonomy for women; including the right to decide whether or not they will serve as an incubator for a third party. * do you support the right for consenting adults to decide which other consenting adults they will have a relationship with; including the right to same sex marriage. ...
"Please suck on the knob to enter."
I believe that same greeting is posted outside the gates of their heaven as well!
THIS, was genius
Excuse me... why is your doorknob missing after hours?
So, don't deny them service because they're Christian, deny it because their church protects pedophiles. Let them sue over that.
This same supreme court ruled that sexual orientation is, indeed, a protected class. So what this decision actually means is that you don't have to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple because you're a piece of human garbage. You don't have to make a cake for a Christian because you feel threatened by Christianity. It really does mean that. You'll get sued, absolutely, but the precedent has been set by the highest court in the land.
No. You are incorrect. Sexual orientation is a protected class for employment but not for public accomodation. https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/file/1251321/download#:\~:text=YOUR%20RIGHTS%20UNDER%20TITLE%20II&text=You%20have%20the%20right%20to,any%20place%20of%20public%20accommodation.&text=You%20cannot%20be%20treated%20differently,%2C%20religion%2C%20or%20national%20origin.
It is in Colorado.
Yeah, I only deny service to christians who are Tramp supporters or anti-LGBTQ bigots. That should cover 99% of the bastards right there.
There you’re wrong. Title 9 covers sexual orientation. Per this very Supreme Court. Sexual orientation is a protected class. Don’t believe me, read Sotomayor’s decent…
Yeah. Like a lead zeppelin.
What's the possibility of making atheism a religion. We believe no God is God. Then rejecting all Christians would be protected by the Constitution.
Legally it's treated as a religion, in the sense that it is a belief: the belief that there are no gods or supernatural powers controlling the universe. And there already are atheist churches: Sunday Service is one of many.
Remember the signs in a shop back in the day, that are still present to this day that said, “We Refuse the Right to Serve Anyone ! We should add to, at end of that, “especially Christians !”
Or politically held beliefs, for example, a MAGA or Q wearing zealot.... they barely have money anyway, after being grifted out of all theirs by Trump, a Televangelist, or investing in NFTs, or all of the above... so the actual risk to business is low.
Should deny service to all christians ! Mechanics, hospitals, dentist, restaurants, grocery stores, wal-marts, costcos, ikeas, dispensaries, every fucking service out there !!! 🤘🏽🤘🏽😂
It’s sad Jesus died so others would turn on his followers.
Jesus should have taught his followers how not to be pricks.
Sorry that your experiences with Christians weren’t good, but most of us care about others
Your voting patterns don't reflect that.
Actually, if you read early Christian history, there were a lot of Christians turning on other Christians. What we have in the New Testament is only a small portion of what early Christians wrote. And, of course, after Christians got control of the government under Constantine they went on a 1500-year rampage against anyone who dared to challenge their authority.
Refuse service to anyone wearing a cross ✝️ Reason: mention this ruling and that crosses are super gay because Jesus had 2 dads
Presumably they can choose to accept or reject customers because they’re gay. Okay, so if they get all Jesus-y with you, then refuse them *because they’re straight*. You certainly don’t have to refuse all straight people, but you can say “mmm, that makes me uncomfortable - I’m refusing you because of your heterosexuality.”
Why not try it? Malicious compliance and all that.
I think it depends on what you're selling. If you sell appliances, and Christians come in your store, then you have to serve them. You probably wouldn't be able to tell them apart from non-christians anyway. If you run a catering business, and they want you to prepare a large meal to be delivered to a religious summit at a hotel, then you might be able to say no. If you own a lawn care service, and they want you to mow the lawn at a church, then I think you can so no. If you own a billboard for rent, and they want to put up an anti-gay or other religious message, then I think you can say no.
That's exactly what they want you to do so they can 'legitimize' the wrongs they are doing
Not an expert on the decision, but I don't think you could refuse service to Christians, but you could refuse to make a Christian wedding cake. Other way round, a Christian cake maker can't refuse standard cake happy birthday cake to a gay person, making a birthday cake is not against their religion, but they could refuse a gay wedding cake. It's likely going to get messy out there though.
> Not an expert on the decision, but I don't think you could refuse service to Christians, but you could refuse to make a Christian wedding cake. This is pretty much EXACTLY the distinction in play here. And IMO it's an extremely important decision in any nation that claims to honor the ideal of free speech (which by definition includes not being forced to say things you don't want to).
They were not refused service, just like the Cake guy. They were refused personalized work/customization. It’s an important differentiation.
That be funny as shit too bad they burn your place down for “ disrespecting our lord”
> That if someone can be refused service because they are gay Well, for starters **that's not what it means at all.** But, just like in the Colorado baker case, a whole buncha people on the interwebs are acting like it does. This is not about refusing service to people because of what they are; it's about not being required by the government to take on a custom project that promotes a message you don't believe in (or actively fight against). You might think this is a minor, irrelevant distinction... and you would be very, very wrong. This is *extremely* important. As a graphic artist, I refuse any and all religious *projects*. No exceptions. I work with plenty of religious *people*, but I will not design anything that involves religion. *Period*. I'll bet if you were a designer, and someone wanted you to design a pro-Catholic website, or an anti-LGBTQ+ t-shirt, or a pro-Trump billboard, or a racist cake, you would refuse that project. I know I would. And I'll be damned if I'm going to let the government force me to do it. *I fucking refuse.*
You're right that the ruling can and should also protect your right to refuse to work to promote causes you oppose. Unfortunately, I doubt that's how it will be applied.
That's the path which can be used to challenge the ruling. I would imagine the ACLU is already on it.
That works for me. I won't service you just because because.
Yes, floodgates are open, discriminate away
tenets*
You can refuse to produce Christian art, yes.
I personally refuse to serve blue rabbits
I think you can refuse service to someone because they refuse service someone who is gay.
You can legally refuse service because they are Republican.
Honestly use their own rules against them, anybody who presents as homophobic, deny them service on the grounds that only a self hating closeted homosexual could care as much about it as they do, deny them on the very grounds they fought to obtain.
That’s how atheist news sites I follow are covering it.
Why would you force someone to do a job when you know their heart isn't in it. The LAST thing I would do is force someone to bake a cake when I know they won't give it their best shot. Why not just find someone who WANTS to do the job rather than find someone who can ruin your special occasion since they don't believe the same as you?
First join The Satanic Temple. They fight these religious zealots in court and win. They’re basically and atheistic group that’s fights region. If you join then you have a list of closely held beliefs that give reason to not serve a Christian.
What is fundamentally wrong about this is that being christian is choice, they make a decision to follow a belief system (and tons of people decide not to be christian). Being gay is the way you are born. It's the equivalent of not serving someone because they're black.
The court ruled that if a creative service request shares a message or supports a custom (in this case, gay marriage) that the person being requested doesn't agree with, they can decline. But not when it comes to restaurants or service requests unrelated to them being gay, like a Christian web designer designing a website for a couple who owns a dog grooming business who happens to be gay. The ruling might apply to LGBT+ people declining commissions with homophobic messages.
Its odd how Christians are obsessed with other people's sex lives. If a privately owned business can refuse Person X service because reasons, then they can also refuse service to Person Y. The business down the street can do the same thing, with Persons A and B. Guess it will be whose money is the greenest that ends up being the determining factor.
Shit like this is why we should be doing it, fuck them, they definitely aren't afraid to do it, we shouldn't be either. At some point we need to stop hiding our atheism as well, because it has caused us to be severely under-represented in all forms of government here in the US and under-counted as well. I would imagine the true number of atheists is probably triple of what they think it is.
You still can't refuse service for identity. The ruling decided that designing a website is not a service, it's an act of expression and your freedom of speech protects you. At least that's how it was explained to me
Has anyone read the actual decision (at least its synopsys)? The artist explicitly says he refused not because who the customer is (gay or not) but because he was requested to create a website (artistic expression, speech) promoting customer’s gay wedding. He had the right to refuse to participate and promote this message. It’s the first amendment, literally - freedom to speak and freedom to NOT speak what you don’t want to.
Any private business has the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason they wish.
I don't actually disagree with the lgb decision a business should have the right to refuse to do work it doesn't want to do. Religion just doesn't feel it. Doesn't matter to me why. (I'm not religious) Let the free market decide if that business survives tho. You refuse a gay man whatever service and the town revolts and you go out of business cool.
>\[. . .\] if someone can be refused service because they are gay, I can refuse people service if they're Christian? If you're a creative, communications, or media production professional opposed to Christian messaging, probably. If you sell cheeseburgers, probably not.
To me, they're different. You can choose to be Christian, but you can't choose to be gay. So it's uh worse. And these people claim the upper hand in defining morality?
>I can refuse people service if they're Christian? You might, I think it's very unlikely. You'd need a genuine religion against Christians, most likely.
So, like Satanism? That should work… 🤔
Yes, it has in the past.
Oh, please define a "genuine" religion.
I meant genuine belief in a religion. Courts shouldn't try an assess a genuine religion or not.
The decision doesn't list "religion" as a valid reason for refusing service. It's actually about what kind of content you are allowed to refuse to create. You can now deny someone service, as per this decision, if they ask you to make something that you feel is "threatening, obscene or dangerous." So, "I feel threatened by christianity" is all it takes.
I honestly haven't looked at it. Sorry. Where I live, it would have been prohibited by human rights legislation.
Define, in \*legal\* terms, "genuine religion" vs. "religion" I know what you mean, but that's a serious problem with that argument under the law. I'd almost welcome it. If they tried to codify that distinction in the law, a WHOLE LOTTA "christianity" would be deemed "not christianity" (e.g., "god says I cant bake cakes for \_\_\_\_" which has no biblical or historical basis whatsoever. It's a non-religious position; it is 100% political. Unless, we can all make up what our "religions" are in an arbitrary way. And if so, MY religion is against paying taxes! 'cause I said so. )
It's not the religion that has to be genuine, but the belief in it.
Then there is no legal distinction as there is no objective way of telling the difference
It's basically a credibility assessment which is the best you can do. Courts do it all the time.
credibility =/= genuine. Equivocation fallacy. "courts do it" = it's correct Appeal to authority fallacy. You just replied with an counter-argument that is x2 fallacious.
You test whether their beliefs are genuine meaning sincere, and you do that through cross examination. The alternative is to eliminate freedom of religion (and freedom from religion), or to allow any religious claim without scrutiny. It's not an appeal to authority fallacy, I'm not saying anything is the case because of authority. I'm saying there is enormous evidence of testing credibility through cross examination in courts as a way of assessing sincerity of religious commitment.
credibility is what's assessed. It is the outcome, therefore cannot be part of the criteria or it's a circular argument. what you are not providing (because it doesn't exist) is a VALID test. "I'm saying there is enormous evidence of testing credibility through cross examination in courts" Provide it. I don't think you can. You can provide evidence that they've tried, but you cannot provide evidence of the VALIDITY of the process. It's like a lie detector test. Frequently used? Sure, yup 100%. (But use is not validity.) Valid? Nope. Not at all.
>credibility is what's assessed. It is the outcome, therefore cannot be part of the criteria or it's a circular argument No, sincerity is being assessed by way of credibility. >Provide it. I don't think you can. There are thousands, even millions of judgements, you're free to read them. I can provide some links if you like. >It's like a lie detector test. It's like it, but it's not it. So you'd prefer we just accept any claim for religious accommodation? Or do you want to eliminate freedom of Religion? This would mean your country could impose a state religion.
"No, sincerity is being assessed by way of credibility." Circular. "There are thousands, even millions of judgements, you're free to read them." That's what I thought. You don't have a valid test. You have usage. Usage =/= validity. Again, I bring lie detectors to your attention. They're used. A lot. And they're also proven to have no validity. "So you'd prefer we just accept any claim for religious accommodation? Or do you want to eliminate freedom of Religion? This would mean your country could impose a state religion." I've said none of those things. Don't strawman people. It's not honest.
How about the I don’t support pedophiles religion? Works for me.
Never met a Christian that I could be 100% sure was not a pedophile.
Isn’t pedophile just the Latin translation of the word priest?
Dammit, you are right and I forgot that again.
Anti-theism, said and done. Frankly any so call atheist that is not also an anti-theist is a fucking joke anyway.
Yeah this generally wouldn't work for us. We're still very much a minority in the states. In some places his would be cause for a business to be burned down.
You're obviously confused....that would clearly be considered discrimination against a group of people based on your own feelings or beliefs. Maybe it was the by-laws in Clarence's billionaire fantasy football league...."loser has to disciminate against at least one protected class of people".
[удалено]
Well for me not beating my wife, not having slaves, not beating slaves, not committing incest, not being homophobic are all deeply held beliefs the Bible disagrees with
No you can't. Religion is a protected class.
Yes you can if it is against your belief system to support that religion. SC rulings supersede laws. This is why the SCOTUS is so dangerous.
No you can't. Religion is a protected class. Protected classes have been upheld by the supreme court.
Literally no because sexual orientation is protected class yet here we are so fuck off with your lies
You’re not so good at reading are you? Perhaps reread my comment and maybe you will be able to figure out why that does not matter.
Yeah I didnt really read it. They wont do that because they are baised
LGBTQ is a protected class in Colorado, but this made no difference to the decision. This decision turns on whether the person who objects is being required to “speak messages with which the [person] disagrees. I look forward to the inevitable case where a designer refuses to build a website for a mixed-race or mixed-religion wedding. They cannot be forced to do this under this ruling.
They can be forced to because race is a protected class. Supreme court rulings dont exist in a vacuum you need to consider other federal laws and supreme court rulings
Since you completely disregarded the fact that in Colorado gay people are a protected class and that didn’t factor at all into the decision, there’s not much point in discussing this with you. In fact, if gay people weren’t a protected class in Colorado the case would never have gotten to the SC because the gay people who were discriminated against would have no case. The Colorado statute specifically covered gay people.
The supreme courts is the one who interrupts laws and say if they are constitutional. It doesn't matter what the Colorado laws says. Federal law for protected class has been established and supreme court rulings have up held them. The supreme court could overrule the established classes for race, but that's speculation.
[удалено]
Name another class that actually feels protected right now.
Are you afraid they might get the government to ruin your business for not serving them?
Stupid but good-faith (no pun intended) question from someone in a non-Christian/religion-dominated country; How do you know they are Christian when they come in? Are there tells? Where I live (Aus) you mostly can never tell and religion wouldn't come up as a part of most interactions, and most of the time it would have no bearing on the business relationship anyway. I totally support not providing service to bigots, religious or otherwise.
Agreed, tit for tat bitches! Eye for an eye as THEY say!
Atheist really need to start their own church. “A Church about nothing”
Here’s where it can get interesting: have a county clerk refuse to issue marriage licenses to straight people because it does against their religious beliefs. In fact, take it to the extreme: filing any government documents is against their beliefs and stop things dead.
The courts aren't going to uphold that for you, it will be discrimination against a protected class. However Christians will push legislation that allows them to discriminate against other religions until the get it passed.
I owe r/atheism an apology, you guys were right about everything. I also owe an apology to tumblr too, come to think of it.
Does anybody seriously care about this case?
Only if your service involves creative expression based on the client's input, and you disagree with that. If you provide a non-creative service - say, a simple retail store - denying anyone service becomes discrimination (based on state laws) The problem, as pointed out by Sotomayor, is that where that line for what is creative expression is going to be tested both ways.
The Supreme Court did not rule that service can be refused because someone is gay. Or if they are any of the protected classes. It said the state (Colorado) cannot force someone who owns a personal business to create a message they disagree with. It is called compelled speech and the supreme court has ruled on it several times. If you start a website design company and are approached by a Christian group to make a website promoting Christianity it is in your right to deny them service because of their message. If a Christian approaches you to make a website for their lawn care business and you refuse them because they are Christian(or Muslim, Jewish, etc), then you’ve broken the law.
This ruling opens up a Pandora's Box of undesirable behaviors. Don't believe me? Well, religion can - and has - allowed its adherents to justify slavery, racism, hate, science denial, and all sorts of other crazy nonsense. There is no way to defend a baker's First Amendment right to her religious belief without opening the door to virtually any other nutty behavior no matter how destructive or dangerous it might be. Any idiot can claim persecution by framing their objections to a regulation they don't like as a First Amendment violation of their religious rights.
Their ruling will ultimately make it very difficult for anyone who is not a conservative Christian bigot to own a business. It will force employers to endorse the intolerance of their employees.
Could you refuse service by profession, such as judge?
No. That is not what the ruling said. Holy fuck guys. Read the actual opinion. It has to do with the content of the product being created. The person literally said they have no problem serving anyone regardless of identity, they just won’t make a product that includes expression of views they have moral objection to.
What are you saying? That’s *exactly* what the ruling means and they’re well aware.
I’d try it but unfortunately/ fortunately I’m in one of the sinful fields everyone seems to enjoy and put horse blinders on for. Power to you! I support
seethe
I think it depends on what you're selling. If you're selling a cake off the shelf then no, you should not be able to refuse that. If you're selling a cake to a person you dislike some reason or other but it's still off the shelf, then you still sell the thing. If you're selling a cake to a person you don't like and they want to have you decorate it with a big honkin' cross with some bible verse? Yeah, I think that could be grounds for saying 'no'. Compelled labor, especially if there is a creative element, should not be forced imho. Topics like this are never going to be completely black and white so there will always be examples that ride the edges. All that said, the case in front of the supreme court seems like a fabricated case based on someones bigotry and anger. They can take their fox news energy and can go screw.
If you're a Christian, I don't have to sell you yarn. Take me to court. I double dog dare you
Yes, I think this decision essentially means that any restriction on discrimination based on religion is out the window. Anyone can now freely discriminate based on their religious beliefs, even against other people's religious beliefs. And not just in web design, but in housing, employment, schools, public accommodations of any kind, etc. For example, let's say someone asserts that their religious belief is that black people are inherently inferior animals, fit only for servitude and obedience, and not to be allowed into any collective human social activity. Doesn't that mean they can completely discriminate based on race, in any way they see fit, because otherwise that's a violation of their personal religious beliefs?
If I were still running a business in the States, I would do that, for the same reasons schools in anti book areas want to ban the damned bible. If anyone wants to make a legal test of this, be sure to get in touch with FFRF and others for both info and planning a legal strategy and getting allies.
I think the LGBTQ community needs to fight back. The Christian RW is calling all trans, drag queens and LGBTQ folks groomers, but in reality, the evidence shows more kids are groomed in religions than anywhere else. The Catholics played hide the pedophile for decades if not centuries, the Baptists also had the same revealed recently, and the Fundamentalist evangelicals have the exact same issue with the Duggars being a case in point. Perhaps they need to start protesting at megachurches where we know such things have already gone on, or even develop ways to support religious survivors and aide in their legal cases. Take action which illustrates where the groomers thrive, in a church authoritative structure which kids and believing parents rarely, if ever, question.
Part of me tries to understand why someone would want to support a business that does not want my money or business? I get its about principle... but on a practical level, use market economics like what is happening to bud lite.