His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.

  • Sanyanov@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nobody seems to be asking the main question: why would LGBT+ couples want to hire an open homophobe to take their wedding pictures to begin with?

    • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like framing the issue like this kinda dangerous. If a single entity (in this case, a business) is allowed to discriminate against a protected class, then are all businesses that provide that service allowed to discriminate against said class?

      It seems as though they would be. That gets us back to a version of the Jim Crow South pretty quickly. How are LGBTQ+ folks supposed to exist as equal members in a society if entire segments of that society are legally allowed to close themselves off? What happens when a business that controls major segments of more important service sectors makes a similar decision (for example, say the only Level 1 trauma center in a city is in a privately-owned, religiously-affiliated medical center that now has a legal precedent to say they won’t serve LGBTQ+ patients for religious reasons)?

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I feel like framing the issue like this kinda dangerous. If a single entity (in this case, a business) is allowed to discriminate against a protected class, then are all businesses that provide that service allowed to discriminate against said class?

        I think the issue lies in the different measures of protected class, and the layers of law between State and Federal. US law is needlessly complicated and full of holes.

        The Civil Rights Act provides protections for employees against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin under Title VII. Title II covers inter-state commerce and protects against discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin - but not sex.

        Beyond this, states are supposed to make their own laws. However, the Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis undermines this, as the court ruled that the 1st Amendment and free speech overrules any discrimination law the state makes. Thus, provided you avoid Title II by only doing business within the state, it would be possible to argue that you can discriminate against any protected classes, so long as that class isn’t protected by other Federal legislation (eg the Americans with Disabilities Act provides extensive coverage for those with disabilities).

      • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can take anything and make it horrifying if you want. It’s either a slippery slope or reductio ad absurdum.

        This is a photographer that wanted to decline a customer, nothing more or less.

        A business should be able to decide the kind of services it provides. If I don’t want to bake a gigantic 5’ swastika cake I shouldn’t have to.

        At the end of the day capitalism protects everyone against excessive descrimination - business that reject people get less money, fewer reviews, will grow slower, etc. If that business rejects your business someone else will provide it. If nobody serves a community, there’s a business opportunity waiting. Etc.

        I don’t know how delusional you need to be to assume it could EVER be possible that somehow every business would just refuse to serve a population because of X characteristic.

        • ZzyzxRoad@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know how delusional you need to be to assume it could EVER be possible that somehow every business would just refuse to serve a population because of X characteristic

          But they just said it: the Jim Crow south. This isn’t some crazy delusional scenario. It’s literally already happened, and it was not even a hundred years ago. When schools were integrated there were mobs of white housewives yelling racial slurs at little children because they were black. This is real shit that’s gone on for more of America’s history than not.

          Don’t skip history class, everybody. But I guess if conservative judges get their way we’ll probably lose that too.

            • Saxoboneless@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Good point, must not have been that bad, supreme court could really bring that one back with zero consequences, huh?

              • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                What? What are you even talking about?

                Nobody wants racial segregation except the ignorant racists, who deserve the economic damage caused by being ignorant racists.

                Forcing an ignorant racist to serve people they hate will accomplish nothing, and certainly won’t help their ignorance or racism.

                Daryl Davis is pretty vocal about the way he deradicalized KKK members, I recommend looking into him. Spoiler: the secret is shared interests (music) and normal conversation, just getting to know each other.