321
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Psychlops@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Such an unbelievable ruling, but this is really the best possible response. If conservatives thought they were persecuted before…

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

Honestly i would expect that a webdesigner would not wanna put up with my bullshit way earlier.

Understandable, have a nice day. but no we wanna make a scene.

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

For me the difference is in refusing to serve someone because how they were born vs the choices they make.

Totally ok with the later, but the laws are supposed to prevent the former. Just like it being illegal to discriminate against someone just because they are black or white or Asian or whatever.

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

I agree with you. Isn't race specifically a protected class with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment specifically? Political ideology or beliefs are not protected, unless violence is utilized. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[-] 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] root_beer@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

A lot of the people who discriminate against the lgbtq+ community absolutely believe that sexual orientation is a choice, and I’d wager that includes the justices who ruled in favor of the web designer.

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

I don't have an issue with any of this. Private Business owners can sell their products or services to whoever they want. Don't see what the big deal is. If you don't like it, there's plenty more competition willing to take your money.

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, historically that didn't work out great for everyone. There's a reason if you open a public business in the United States you are expected to serve the public.

[-] HunterBidensLapDog@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

Now that #SupremeCourt says we can discriminate, I'm trying to figure out what to tag content. #NoMAGA #NoRepublicans #QueerOnly #NoBreeders #NoChristians

My understanding is that businesses can refuse services which conflict with their beliefs, morals, etc, not broadly refuse to serve people

So you can't refuse someone for being a MAGA clown, but you could refuse to print MAGA shirts for a customer

[-] PillowTalk420@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I feel like this whole thing is simply just a clarification on what was already the case. Like, a baker can't just refuse a gay person for being gay. But they could refuse to make that gay person a huge dick shaped cake because, presumably, they would also refuse to make a huge dick shaped cake for a straight woman as well. The reason the customer wants the dick cake is irrelevant; merely that the cake is a dick.

It's close to that but not quite - a dick cake is a dick cake, but a wedding cake with a man and woman couple vs. a wedding cake with a man and man couple is treated differently

So, this is treating representing gay marriage as if it is unethical and vulgar which is clearly discriminatory

The law still doesn't permit the shop owner to blanket refuse service to someone who is gay (or MAGA), but fully allows them to descriminate against gay people exercising the same freedoms non-gays have, like getting married

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

I don't have an issue with any of this. Private Business owners can sell their products or services to whoever they want. Don't see what the big deal is. If you don't like it, there's plenty more competition willing to take your money.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
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