321
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Kittengineer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Correct. The point is sexual orientation should be protected like race.

[-] Yendor@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago

For employment purposes, it is. Court precedents have affirmed that discriminating against someone based on sexual orientation is a form of sex-based discrimination which is illegal under Title VII.

But creative works (like baking a cake or building a website) are protected by the constitution as free speech. You can’t compel someone to perform a creative work against their own beliefs.

That’s why you’re allowed to refuse to build a website for a gay couples wedding, but you can’t refuse to change their tyres.

[-] Kittengineer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

That’s great and all, but I personally don’t think that is right for fair.

Imagine a baker saying they don’t want to bake a wedding cake because of an interracial couple or for black people. I get the law is different, I’m saying personally I don’t agree with that law and think that’s a load of shit.

[-] emperorbenguin@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The problem is you're wrong though, because legally you have to look at the lowest common denominator.

Imagine you are a baker and someone wants you to bake a nazi cake? Would you want to? Hell no, but saying that a producer is required by law to perform any creative production asked of by the client means that you as a Jewish gay person (hypothetically) would be forced to bake that nazi cake.

Similarly, it doesn't really matter what's "right" it doesn't change that for some people, lgbt issues are considered religious sin, and they feel like they would be committing a religious sin in baking a pride cake. Now are they loony? Yeah they are. But it doesn't change that you cannot force someone to artistically create something against their will. ESPECIALLY when you can just go to another baker who will.

[-] Kittengineer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Again I draw the line on discrimination based on how a person was born vs their decisions.

Bakers can say no to nazis, democrats, republicans, tattoos, whatever.

But bakers being able to say no just because how you are born: white, black, male, female, gay, straight… that’s horse shit.

Why would argue that’s ok or morally correct or fair?

[-] emperorbenguin@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

The problem is that while it is obvious to you that sexual orientation is a matter of birth and not choice, it isn't to, to be honest, the vast majority of people on this planet.

And also, just to put things in perspective, even the science isn't fully convinced. Most evidence tells us it's something from birth, and my personal life anecdote tells me I'm bisexual since the day I was born, but truthfully we don't have any hard evidence to prove it, since it is nearly impossible to prove.

This is why it has to be included with the rest.

this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
321 points (94.7% liked)

Malicious Compliance

29 readers
1 users here now

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

======

======

Also check out the following communities:

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS