I can´t believe I actually have to say this but here it comes: Everyone should be free to choose the things they do and don´t do. Nobody should be forced by law to do things they don´t want to do. This goes for LGBTQ+ people just as it goes for photographers and all other humans in this world. I support human rights 100%, which obviously especially includes discriminated minorities like LGBTQ+. However, I have to say that the framing in the article and it´s title, are edgy af and sound like based on an extremist, culture warrior ideology, instead of rational thinking and common sense.
“I don’t want to treat black people or LGBTQ like human beings.” – like that? Or how about signs on businesses “No Gays” or “No Hispanics”. Does this apply to government entities and their employees? How about it enough people don’t want to drink out of the same public fountain as black people, should we then bring back segregated fountains since everyone has a right to drink from fountains?
Sorry, but showing bigotry cannot be accepted by a tolerant society because it breaks the one tenet of such a society: be tolerant.
The thing you’re ignoring is that being rejected by businesses is harmful to those being rejected. And moreover public businesses discriminating is a great way to fracture society and uphold a culture of bigotry and discrimination that then bleeds into every other area. If your religion teaches you to be a bigoted asshole then you need a different religion.
If you run a business, you don’t have a right to discriminate against whole groups of people.
So in your example Black people have no right to a service if the location does not wish to serve them? If the next closest location is a days drive away so be it? Maybe they just need to go live closer to those services?
Not true. Title II of Civil Rights Act (1964) prohibits discrimination in public accomodations (such as hotels and restaurants or other establishments that serve the public), as affirmed by the Supreme Court to be enforceable in for example Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. (1964).
An atheist living in Saudi Arabia absolutely has the right to walk into the public square and shout that god does not exist. They just have to be willing to accept the consequences of execution as a result.
Stating a fact of physical ability does not contribute any additional information in a discussion about legality.
You absolutely do not have the right to post a sign like “No Hispanics” at your restaurant, under current US law (Civil Rights Act of 1964). You do not have to wait for an actual hispanic person to show up and be refused service to be liable - the presence of the sign alone is already in violation and can get you fined or imprisoned. You cannot claim “This sign is just for decoration as an expression of my 1st Amendment rights, we would never actually enforce it.” In this way, the Civil Rights Act already does abridge your right to write any sign you want, ironically in direct contradiction to the “Congress shall make no law” language of the 1st Amendment.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
And yet, it seems legal to not serve someone based on religious beliefs as well as sex, based on the numerous times it has happened. Why is that ok but not the other? I mean, i know it’s not really ok, but it’s still allowed to happen.
That’s the Supreme Court for ya! Their judgements do tend to meander and sometimes flip over the years, especially recently. You are probably refering to Masterpiece Cakeshop (2017) decision being different from the civil rights era cases, like say Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. (1968) where the defendant who did not want to serve black customers at his BBQ restaurants unsuccessfully argued that “the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever.” It is still enlightening to read the actual court decisions and the justifications used to arrive at one conclusion or another, and especially their explanations for how the current case is different from all the other cases decided before. After a while though it does start to look as if you could argue for any point of view whatsoever if you argued hard enough.
Putting up a discriminatory sign is public structural discrimination and already illegal afaik, so it does not work as an example in this context of private individual discrimination. In reality it is not possible to force a homophobe person to become tolerant, no matter how many laws you make against discrimination. The only way that really helps is education and a social development towards more tolerance. Forcing christian fundamentalists to work with gay people, despite they absolutely refuse it, is not the way but would only create even more social tension and hate.
Yeah no. Replace gay with with black and you have your answer . There was a civil rights era fought over this exact discrimination. The sctous is currently full of political hacks.
They just took away our right not to be discriminated against and not a peep out of anyone. All those people, for years, fighting for civil rights. Gone. It’s the frog in the pot strategy but I doubt the religious will wait long to use this.
Soon we will hear about waitresses and barbers not wanting to do their job because muh religion gave them an excuse to discriminate
In theory I agree with you but at the same time it seems incredibly naive to me to think laws that force homophobes to work with gay people against their will, are going to fix discrimination, to be honest that would even create additional problems imo. How do you even want to put that in practice? Force the photographer at gunpoint to take nice pictures on a gay wedding? i don think that would be practicable. Maybe fining the photographer if he is stupid enough to be honest about why he refuses a job? Well, from now on he will just say his schedule is full when a gay person calls. I just can imagine any realistic way this would work tbh.
Of course open and structural discrimination needs to be outlawed, like having signs that say “No blacks” or “No gays” but the issue of individual discrimination can not be solved by the law, it can only change through real social development towards a tolerant society, sorry USA but that is how it looks.
Nope. As I understand it works like this- if you have a business you agree to offer your services to and serve everyone. You don’t get to pick and choose who you serve. Otherwise get sued and close. Now they can always come up with some BS reason why they don’t want to do the job. They just can’t refuse to because a client is LGBT.
To the people trying to justify this: tell it to all the black people who suffered through segregation at white owned cafeterias.
Yes, obviously it is, that was never in question from my side though. However the question remains how far laws can help with discrimination. As you know racial discrimination is illegal in the USA for some decades now. So how is the situation today? Did those laws fix racism? Sure people can put up discriminatory signs anymore but in fact the USA is still one of the most racist societies on the planet, until this day. So obviously laws can help only to a certain degree. I think laws can help with public and structural/institutional discrimination pretty well but they can not fix individual discrimination. So obviously, there is a limit to how far we can get in fixing this problem just by making more laws. What laws can not change is how people feel and think, only real social development towards more tolerance, based on proper education can do that imo.
Sure, obviously you should have the right to do so, if that´s what you want to do. That is exactly what I meant to express when I wrote “Everyone should be free to choose”. Apologies if I did somehow not express that clearly enough in my first comment.
Nobody should be forced by law to do things they don´t want to do.
That’s not going to work. There are many kinds of people, and some of the things they want to do or refuse to do are disruptive or dangerous.
That guy doesn’t want to take care of his home projects, and now toxic smoke is blowing into his neighbors houses. Are you going to just say “well he doesn’t want to deal with that, so the law can’t make him”? I hope not because that creates a shitty world for everyone.
So maybe you meant something different and more limited than what you wrote?
I think the implication in all personal freedom discussions is: freedom so long as it doesn’t unnecessarily harm others. You may have freedom of speech in America, but that doesn’t protect the right to falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
Sure it does. Notice i said unreasonable harm. There is a clear distinction between refusing to take someone’s wedding photo and providing someone with life saving care.
There are US Court cases that deal with this distinction.
Edit: i originally said unnecessarily as opposed to unreasonably… But the point still stands
So maybe you meant something different and more limited than what you wrote?
No, just more limited than your interpretation. I never meant to imply that “Nobody should be forced by law to do things they don´t want to do.” should cancel out all of people’s personal responsibilities. Nobody who offers a service is responsible to offer that service to everyone imo. Imagine a gay person working in any field, could be forced by law, to provide their service to neo-nazis and you might see how pointless your approach is in practice.
Glad we agree that we don’t want an unbounded freedom from responsibility.
But I mean if you don’t force people to serve the entire public you risk some presumably unwanted consequences. Should a whole grocery chain be able to say no blacks? What if it’s the only one in the town? Should realtors be allowed to refuse to sell houses to non whites? What if that means all the black people get forced into one part of town, and coincidentally that part has shitty services and other unwanted traits?
Is the rule “as long as there’s alternatives it’s ok”? Separate but equal was already decided to be unequal.
On the other hand, I do want to be able to refuse service to Nazis. Maybe the key is naziism is wholly something you choose. But I also don’t want people to be able to refuse service to, like, union members.
There’s no universal “anti social behavior” metric, unfortunately, I don’t think.
But I mean if you don’t force people to serve the entire public you risk some presumably unwanted consequences. Should a whole grocery chain be able to say no blacks? What if it’s the only one in the town? Should realtors be allowed to refuse to sell houses to non whites? What if that means all the black people get forced into one part of town, and coincidentally that part has shitty services and other unwanted traits?
Those are examples of public, structural discrimination, which imo is the kind of discrimination that is manageable with laws pretty well. However there is also the kind of individual, private discrimination that can not really be solved by the law. I think it absolutely should be illegal for a company to openly discriminate a group, let’s say by putting up a “No XY” sign and officially not serving XY. However, I also see the limits of how much such laws can do in practice. For example despite such a law being in place, a company could easily still not serve XY -just inofficially- and simply claim a full schedule whenever XY people show up/call, without the law being able to do anything about it. That is why I think laws are not enough and in the end a real social change is necessary to end these types of unjust discrimination.
Is the rule “as long as there’s alternatives it’s ok”? Separate but equal was already decided to be unequal.
Discrimination based on inherent traits is unjust af and therefore can never be “okay”.
On the other hand, I do want to be able to refuse service to Nazis.
I feel the same
Maybe the key is naziism is wholly something you choose. But I also don’t want people to be able to refuse service to, like, union members.
It’s not a simple topic, right? On one hand, I would want it to be legal to put up a “we don serve Nazis” sign, on the other hand, one could argue that someone who was born into a Nazi family and was constantly spoon fed the ideology from the beginning, never really had a chance to not become a Nazi.
There’s no universal “anti social behavior” metric, unfortunately, I don’t think.
In the end I think only education that leads to the understanding that people who are different from you are not your enemies, can help the problem.
While I agree with you in theory, the problem is that this Christian photographer likely has screamed cAnCeL CuLtUrE at some point when someone denied them access to something, like during the pandemic when businesses required masks.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
I can´t believe I actually have to say this but here it comes: Everyone should be free to choose the things they do and don´t do. Nobody should be forced by law to do things they don´t want to do. This goes for LGBTQ+ people just as it goes for photographers and all other humans in this world. I support human rights 100%, which obviously especially includes discriminated minorities like LGBTQ+. However, I have to say that the framing in the article and it´s title, are edgy af and sound like based on an extremist, culture warrior ideology, instead of rational thinking and common sense.
“I don’t want to treat black people or LGBTQ like human beings.” – like that? Or how about signs on businesses “No Gays” or “No Hispanics”. Does this apply to government entities and their employees? How about it enough people don’t want to drink out of the same public fountain as black people, should we then bring back segregated fountains since everyone has a right to drink from fountains?
Sorry, but showing bigotry cannot be accepted by a tolerant society because it breaks the one tenet of such a society: be tolerant.
The thing you’re ignoring is that being rejected by businesses is harmful to those being rejected. And moreover public businesses discriminating is a great way to fracture society and uphold a culture of bigotry and discrimination that then bleeds into every other area. If your religion teaches you to be a bigoted asshole then you need a different religion.
If you run a business, you don’t have a right to discriminate against whole groups of people.
They absolutely have the right to post such things(first amendment). They just have to be willing to accept any consequences as a result.
So in your example Black people have no right to a service if the location does not wish to serve them? If the next closest location is a days drive away so be it? Maybe they just need to go live closer to those services?
Yes. As a business owner they can refuse business to anyone. They also have to deal with any fallout as a result of such a racist policy.
There should be some class of protections, maybe some civil code of rights or something…
Unfortunately, i think these only pertain to hiring of individuals.
Not true. Title II of Civil Rights Act (1964) prohibits discrimination in public accomodations (such as hotels and restaurants or other establishments that serve the public), as affirmed by the Supreme Court to be enforceable in for example Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. (1964).
I’m happy to be proven wrong. I just don’t understand why they seem so lenient when there’s discrimination regarding religion or sexual orientation.
An atheist living in Saudi Arabia absolutely has the right to walk into the public square and shout that god does not exist. They just have to be willing to accept the consequences of execution as a result.
Stating a fact of physical ability does not contribute any additional information in a discussion about legality.
I stated the amendment pertaining to my comment.
You absolutely do not have the right to post a sign like “No Hispanics” at your restaurant, under current US law (Civil Rights Act of 1964). You do not have to wait for an actual hispanic person to show up and be refused service to be liable - the presence of the sign alone is already in violation and can get you fined or imprisoned. You cannot claim “This sign is just for decoration as an expression of my 1st Amendment rights, we would never actually enforce it.” In this way, the Civil Rights Act already does abridge your right to write any sign you want, ironically in direct contradiction to the “Congress shall make no law” language of the 1st Amendment.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
And yet, it seems legal to not serve someone based on religious beliefs as well as sex, based on the numerous times it has happened. Why is that ok but not the other? I mean, i know it’s not really ok, but it’s still allowed to happen.
That’s the Supreme Court for ya! Their judgements do tend to meander and sometimes flip over the years, especially recently. You are probably refering to Masterpiece Cakeshop (2017) decision being different from the civil rights era cases, like say Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. (1968) where the defendant who did not want to serve black customers at his BBQ restaurants unsuccessfully argued that “the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever.” It is still enlightening to read the actual court decisions and the justifications used to arrive at one conclusion or another, and especially their explanations for how the current case is different from all the other cases decided before. After a while though it does start to look as if you could argue for any point of view whatsoever if you argued hard enough.
So they can post the sign as long as it’s just decoration? The fuck are you talking about?
Explain to me how the first amendment pertains at all to refusing service to people based on race or sexual orientation.
Putting up a discriminatory sign is public structural discrimination and already illegal afaik, so it does not work as an example in this context of private individual discrimination. In reality it is not possible to force a homophobe person to become tolerant, no matter how many laws you make against discrimination. The only way that really helps is education and a social development towards more tolerance. Forcing christian fundamentalists to work with gay people, despite they absolutely refuse it, is not the way but would only create even more social tension and hate.
Yeah no. Replace gay with with black and you have your answer . There was a civil rights era fought over this exact discrimination. The sctous is currently full of political hacks.
They just took away our right not to be discriminated against and not a peep out of anyone. All those people, for years, fighting for civil rights. Gone. It’s the frog in the pot strategy but I doubt the religious will wait long to use this.
Soon we will hear about waitresses and barbers not wanting to do their job because muh religion gave them an excuse to discriminate
In theory I agree with you but at the same time it seems incredibly naive to me to think laws that force homophobes to work with gay people against their will, are going to fix discrimination, to be honest that would even create additional problems imo. How do you even want to put that in practice? Force the photographer at gunpoint to take nice pictures on a gay wedding? i don think that would be practicable. Maybe fining the photographer if he is stupid enough to be honest about why he refuses a job? Well, from now on he will just say his schedule is full when a gay person calls. I just can imagine any realistic way this would work tbh.
Of course open and structural discrimination needs to be outlawed, like having signs that say “No blacks” or “No gays” but the issue of individual discrimination can not be solved by the law, it can only change through real social development towards a tolerant society, sorry USA but that is how it looks.
Nope. As I understand it works like this- if you have a business you agree to offer your services to and serve everyone. You don’t get to pick and choose who you serve. Otherwise get sued and close. Now they can always come up with some BS reason why they don’t want to do the job. They just can’t refuse to because a client is LGBT.
To the people trying to justify this: tell it to all the black people who suffered through segregation at white owned cafeterias.
Do your feet still touch the ground when you walk?
I lived in Tennessee and I’ve seen how hateful they can be. This is discrimination pure and simple.
Yes, obviously it is, that was never in question from my side though. However the question remains how far laws can help with discrimination. As you know racial discrimination is illegal in the USA for some decades now. So how is the situation today? Did those laws fix racism? Sure people can put up discriminatory signs anymore but in fact the USA is still one of the most racist societies on the planet, until this day. So obviously laws can help only to a certain degree. I think laws can help with public and structural/institutional discrimination pretty well but they can not fix individual discrimination. So obviously, there is a limit to how far we can get in fixing this problem just by making more laws. What laws can not change is how people feel and think, only real social development towards more tolerance, based on proper education can do that imo.
The way it works is if you don’t want to serve everyone you shut down. Period.
Yeah, right …
Then rejecting a Christian should be perfectly legal. Soery mate, O don’t serve christians because I’m atheist.
Sure, obviously you should have the right to do so, if that´s what you want to do. That is exactly what I meant to express when I wrote “Everyone should be free to choose”. Apologies if I did somehow not express that clearly enough in my first comment.
You did they’re just taking it personally.
deleted by creator
That’s totally fine. You shouldn’t be forced to work with people you don’t want to work with.
That’s not going to work. There are many kinds of people, and some of the things they want to do or refuse to do are disruptive or dangerous.
That guy doesn’t want to take care of his home projects, and now toxic smoke is blowing into his neighbors houses. Are you going to just say “well he doesn’t want to deal with that, so the law can’t make him”? I hope not because that creates a shitty world for everyone.
So maybe you meant something different and more limited than what you wrote?
I think the implication in all personal freedom discussions is: freedom so long as it doesn’t unnecessarily harm others. You may have freedom of speech in America, but that doesn’t protect the right to falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
Sure, but that brings us right back to “does refusing service to someone harm them?”
Sure it does. Notice i said unreasonable harm. There is a clear distinction between refusing to take someone’s wedding photo and providing someone with life saving care.
There are US Court cases that deal with this distinction.
Edit: i originally said unnecessarily as opposed to unreasonably… But the point still stands
No, just more limited than your interpretation. I never meant to imply that “Nobody should be forced by law to do things they don´t want to do.” should cancel out all of people’s personal responsibilities. Nobody who offers a service is responsible to offer that service to everyone imo. Imagine a gay person working in any field, could be forced by law, to provide their service to neo-nazis and you might see how pointless your approach is in practice.
Glad we agree that we don’t want an unbounded freedom from responsibility.
But I mean if you don’t force people to serve the entire public you risk some presumably unwanted consequences. Should a whole grocery chain be able to say no blacks? What if it’s the only one in the town? Should realtors be allowed to refuse to sell houses to non whites? What if that means all the black people get forced into one part of town, and coincidentally that part has shitty services and other unwanted traits?
Is the rule “as long as there’s alternatives it’s ok”? Separate but equal was already decided to be unequal.
On the other hand, I do want to be able to refuse service to Nazis. Maybe the key is naziism is wholly something you choose. But I also don’t want people to be able to refuse service to, like, union members.
There’s no universal “anti social behavior” metric, unfortunately, I don’t think.
Those are examples of public, structural discrimination, which imo is the kind of discrimination that is manageable with laws pretty well. However there is also the kind of individual, private discrimination that can not really be solved by the law. I think it absolutely should be illegal for a company to openly discriminate a group, let’s say by putting up a “No XY” sign and officially not serving XY. However, I also see the limits of how much such laws can do in practice. For example despite such a law being in place, a company could easily still not serve XY -just inofficially- and simply claim a full schedule whenever XY people show up/call, without the law being able to do anything about it. That is why I think laws are not enough and in the end a real social change is necessary to end these types of unjust discrimination.
Discrimination based on inherent traits is unjust af and therefore can never be “okay”.
I feel the same
Maybe the key is naziism is wholly something you choose. But I also don’t want people to be able to refuse service to, like, union members.
It’s not a simple topic, right? On one hand, I would want it to be legal to put up a “we don serve Nazis” sign, on the other hand, one could argue that someone who was born into a Nazi family and was constantly spoon fed the ideology from the beginning, never really had a chance to not become a Nazi.
In the end I think only education that leads to the understanding that people who are different from you are not your enemies, can help the problem.
While I agree with you in theory, the problem is that this Christian photographer likely has screamed cAnCeL CuLtUrE at some point when someone denied them access to something, like during the pandemic when businesses required masks.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."