• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    271 year ago

    This isn’t really malicious compliance. This is the very foundation of the point made by the Supreme Court. You should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Anything less than that is the government engaging in violence to force you to work.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      361 year ago

      Not any reason though, the case didn’t change any of the protected classes like sex, religion, or sexual orientation. It just made it so a company can choose what “expressive work” they want to do, especially websites. So it’s legal to say you don’t want to make someone a custom website if you disagree with the contents of the website (ie a website that supports gay marriage), but it’s still illegal to refuse to make someone a website because the customer is gay. You can choose what you make, but you can’t choose who you sell it to

        • Zyansheep
          link
          fedilink
          English
          131 year ago

          Very important distinction.

          It’d be pretty bad if hotels or restaurants started restricting access based on sex or race!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        But I can see this embolden racists / homophobes. They are generally dumb, and will probably refuse to serve people citing this decision and will either end up in court or get away with it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 year ago

          I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Are you just disagreeing with the ruling, or something about my interpretation of it? To be clear, I’m not arguing for or against the ruling, just explaining what it means

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      221 year ago

      I mean - there are protected classes, right? You can’t say “no whites” or “no Jews”, I’m not a religious man - but where’s the line between a political ideology and a religious one?

      Or am I totally mistaken and this is completely permitted in the states?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        15
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That kind of discrimination is generally illegal, even after the recent supreme court case.

        What the ruling says is that some kinds of business, such as designing a website, decorating a cake, or writing a song, for example, are considered speech. In those cases the right of the designer/decorator/songwriter to control their speech takes precedence.

        However, this doesn’t mean you can kick someone out of your restaurant for being Jewish or refuse to make a non-marriage related website because a client is gay. It’s only cases where speech is involved.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        The difference is that you can’t choose your skin color, but you can’t choose your beliefs in a different way.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      121 year ago

      Not just any business. The decision was specfically about what they called ‘expressive activity’ such as graphic designers, artists, speechwriters, and movie directors.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        I don’t think it’s a smart decision. I think discriminating for any reason makes business sense nor will it win you any allies, but it should be legal. Anything less than that is the government forcing you to work.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -61 year ago

      Democrats have real difficulties with “gotchas” that the people they’re “targeting” outright agree with.