1 yr. ago • 50%

US top court deals blow to LGBTQ rights in web designer case

www.aljazeera.com US top court deals blow to LGBTQ rights in web designer case

Supreme Court sides with business owner who refused to provide services for same-sex wedding, citing freedom of speech.

World News @beehaw.org US top court deals blow to LGBTQ rights in web designer case

26 comments

So as a queer person, does this mean I can choose not to service Christians at my business?

Because somehow I doubt the Supreme Court would back me up there.

2
- It confuses me religion (an unscientific idea) is even a protected class versus an immutable characteristic like skin color, gender, sexuality, disability etc.
  
  1
  
  Religious privilege is getting an invite to the meeting where this stuff was decided
  
  1
  
  It's a security blanket that large blocks of society have yet to grow out of, unfortunately. Like trying to phase a toddler out of their binky, suggesting laying it aside is likely to result in tantrums.
  
  0
- I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is it would depend on what kind of business you're in and what kind of services the Christian customers asked for. You could say "I do websites for weddings, but not Christian weddings" for example.
  
  As I understand it, this ruling still wouldn't necessarily protect broader discrimination like "I own an ice cream shop, but I won't sell ice cream to certain people"; whether the people you're refusing to sell to are Christian, gay, etc...
  
  0
  
  Thank you. So many people don’t understand what happened and think the Supreme Court made it legal to discriminate against gay people.
  
  -1
- It means that if a Christian asks you to design a website with messages that violate your religious beliefs then you can refuse. If I as a satanist believe that a woman's right to abortion is sacred then I can refuse to design a website with an anti-abortion message. I can't simply refuse to design a website for a Christian. Not saying I agree with the ruling, just explaining what it means.
  
  0
  
  The ruling says you don't have to design a website that violates any sincerely held beliefs, not just religious beliefs.
  
  So if you are gay and a Catholic asked you to design a website promoting "Marriage is for one man and one woman", you can refuse. Before the ruling, you might have been found to be discriminating against Catholics.
  
  1
  
  Curious, why don’t you agree with the ruling?
  
  -2
- Your response to hate is more hate?
  
  I seem to have upset the blue haired weirdos. Plz stay on Reddit.
  
  -2
  
  Whoa, calm down there! It's definitely not hate. I love all Christian people. I just disagree with their lifestyle. How can they force me to support the messed-up things they do? You're getting dangerously close to treading on my constitutional right of free speech, my friend!
  
  2
  
  I think they're more just pointing out how this ruling isn't fair because of the fact that it doesn't go both ways.
  
  1
sides with business owner who refused to provide services for same-sex wedding, citing freedom of speech.

Um, “freedom of speech” would be to say that you don't support same-sex marriage, but refusal to provide a service based on the fact that you don't agree with same-sex marriage seems like flat out discrimination.

1

You've viewed 26 comments.