Christian photographer wins right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples
Christian photographer wins right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples
His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case...
His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.
You're viewing a single thread.
No one should be forced to participate in something they disagree with. Whenever I'm trying to figure out if denial of service is reasonable, I imagine it with nazis. For example wedding cakes. If a gay couple goes to a bakery for a wedding cake, they should absolutely be able to purchase a standard wedding cake, and it's none of the baker's business what they use it for. But the baker should not be forced to decorate in a specifically gay way (like a topper with a pair of men). If a gross couple wants to have a nazi wedding, they should absolutely be able to purchase a standard wedding cake, and it's none of the baker's business what they use it for. But the baker should not be forced to pipe a swastika on it.
If it's reasonable for a photographer to feel uncomfortable working a nazi wedding, it's reasonable for one to feel uncomfortable working a gay wedding.
Obviously there's an enormous difference between being gay and being a nazi. I'm not equating those things. I'm equating the feeling of repulsion and discomfort of the one providing the service.
You're also equating the cause of the feeling of repulsion.
You're repulsed by Nazis because Nazis are evil.
Why are you repulsed by gay people? Hate. Yes, even if disguised behind "religious reasons."
Regardless, I'm not saying that we must force the photographer to "work while being repulsed" (and I wouldn't want anyone on my wedding day that I know is repulsed by it anyway, but I digress.) I'm saying that we must continue peeling off that core of a hateful onion that is religion and bigotry until nothing is left.
And having said that: don't want to deal with "the gays"? Don't start a business in a place where gay people are protected. I'd say this ruling is in the wrong.
Also, I believe the photographer should be able to reject a job due to its type of content. Hear me out. Gay wedding? Yes. Gay wedding with a dildo theme? Nah. Straight wedding? Yes. Straight wedding with a cat killing theme? Nah.
I'm not sure if you're using the general "you" or the specific "you" so I just want to clarify that I am bisexual and not at all repulsed by LGBT people.
You make a good argument in your last paragraph. Photography is a more difficult situation to judge than the cake thing, but I feel like the photographer is often such an integral part of the wedding, that it's more of a participatory service, and my argument is about not making people participate in something they find unsavory.
The ruling is absolutely not wrong.
You can't force someone to do something they don't want to do. Full stop. Whether they don't want to do it for good, bad, racist, homophobic etc reasons, is irrelevant.
No matter how much you support peace, love and happiness, you can't start telling others what they can and can't do. You have the right to refuse service for whatever reason.
how many years ago did people make this argument to refuse to serve black people?
Genetics are understood to account up to 40% of gay men's sexual identities. Why should we allow businesses to make exceptions on a potentially genetic basis?
You can't force someone to do something they don't want to do. Full stop.
If you are a business serving the public, yes you the fuck can.
Whether they don't want to do it for good, bad, racist, homophobic etc reasons, is irrelevant.
We had an entire Civil Rights Act about it. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
Read a fucking book.
Not we, you Yankee dog
Lmaooooo you're comparing two dudes kissing to a genocidal, white supremacist disctatorship. Get real.
Rhetoric must not be one of your strengths.
He's comparing people that most of us wouldn't want to work with (Nazis) with people this photographer doesn't want to work with.
Stay in school.
Those aren't the same situations. You're allowed to discriminate against Nazis or people who own a ficus, but not gays. It's not an arbitrary line, it's a legally well defined distinction.
In both cases you don't want to offer those people a service because of hatred. You're allowed to hate people and discriminate against them for a variety of reasons. As a society we've legally decided that it's not acceptable to hate (insofar as it leads to discrimination) for many reasons innate to a person (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc...). That's the line.
I'm not talking about what the law allows. I'm talking about what I think the law should allow. Laws are written by people after discussing what they think should be allowed, they are not immutable facts of nature.
As you can see in my other responses below, I think the line should be drawn between businesses being required to provide the same products and services to everyone, but not requiring the provider to engage in participatory behavior.
And thankfully for pretty much all minorities, this law represents sounds ethical principles and the desires of the general population, and not your desires to treat gays and blacks the same as Nazis as long as you hate them enough.
I'm pretty sure you choose to be a hateful spiteful Nazi. You don't choose to be gay. There's a HUGE difference. It is a bad faith argument to equate holding hateful views and opinions to being born different. With that reasoning, the feeling of discomfort when an owner sees a black person or an Asian person is acceptable grounds to deny services to them.
I didnt equate hateful opinions to being born different. In my example, the business is not allowed to discriminate against gay people by denying them the same products and services that they provide to straight people, anymore than they could discriminate against people of color by denying them the same products and services they provide to white people. My scenario is about forcing businesses to actively participate in * behaviors* they find deplorable.
I would also say if the bakery won't put a gay topper on a cake, they can't put a specifically straight topper on either.
So what you're advocating is for everyone to get the same cake for all occasions and decorate it as they can in private? A gay couple should never be able to buy a cake with a topper, just a cake in public? Hide their shameful lifestyles? A boy shouldn't be able to buy a strawberry pink cake because that would be unnatural
anymore than they could discriminate against people of color by denying them the same products and services they provide to white people
That just never seems to work out right, judging by historical evidence, does it? Wouldn't it help if there were... Laws to protect from that?
I would also say if the bakery won't put a gay topper on a cake, they can't put a specifically straight topper on either.
How would that ever be enforced?
The point is: if you find proving a service to a gay person as deplorable as someone advocating for racial superiority or genocide, you should be forced to rethink your line of business
You have taken my comments and turned them into an extreme that they do not support.
Saying individual retailers should have the right not to sell a topper is not the same as saying no retailers should sell toppers.
Saying an individual service provider should not have to participate in an activity is not remotely saying anyone should have to hide themselves from public.
If the bakery sells pink cakes, by the actual argument I made, a boy should be able to buy the cake the same as any other customer. I do not appreciate you attributing to me arguments that not only did I not make, but are the exact opposite of what I said.
Edit: stray letter.