Businesses can discriminate against their customers? Alright then...

minimar@lemmy.world to Malicious Compliance@lemmy.world – 2116 points –
334

Transcription for the blind: Storefront with two paper signs taped to the window. Left sign says "Since the supreme court had ruled that businesses can discriminate...NO SALES TO TRUMP SUPPORTERS. Right sign says "We only sell to churches that fly the pride flag" and has an illustrated image of a pride flag and a church.

-Transcription done by a human volunteer. Let me know how I can do better.

Thank you, I'm not blind but I appreciate you helping out others

1 more...

This was always legal. I'm an attorney, I do not represent any Trump supporters. If a client says something favorable about trump, they are no longer my client. They are just too stupid, judgement too poor, don't understand difference between reality and fantasy. They make the absolute worst clients.

I'm not sure about discrimination against customers based on ideology, but I'm pretty sure you can't discriminate against customers based on protected class (sex, race, orientation, etc.) What this supreme court case does (IIUC) is that companies are now allowed to not provide services to protected classes if those services constitute speech. So if you are a restaurant owner, or a hotel, you still can't refuse a gay couple, if you are a cake designer, you can't refuse to make a cake, but you can refuse to do anything remotely gay-related to that cake, if you are a web designer, you can refuse to make something altogether because the government can't restrict or compel speech (and graphic design is speech).

The problem is it is vague imo. Baking a cake could be speech to this court

I think that was the majority opinion's goal, they think the line between what is speech and what isn't should be spelled out more minutely with more legal precedent rather than what we had before where all speech in relation to selling a service was regulated under anti-discrimination statutes.

Money is speech, right? Does that make the ramifications of this decision go a lot farther? I don't see how yet, but it seems like this ruling may have broad impacts when people start getting creative with it...

Bold assuming the corrupted six ever used anything close to consistency to inform their rulings.

I mean, there's one thing that's pretty consistent: they'll do whatever their wealthy backers want them to do.

This is a problem with the US legal system. Every decision is a precedent, no matter how specific it is.

Well, Roe v Wade set a precedent, which was then reverted ~50 years later, so I'm not sure how much precedents apply to the supreme court (it definitely applies to lower courts tho)

This is how common law everywhere that England colonized works. It’s not endemic to the US.

If they're trump supporters... they probably wouldn't be paying you anyway.

Nah. Many of them have stumbled their way into money. Lots of trade people and small businesses, which makes up my typical clientele, others are sons and daughters of second or third generation union humps. Many grew up with one working parent being able to provide and that union parent has one or two pensions and is still hustling jobs. So, many of them can afford a lawyer. They are unfailingly whiney babies who are an awful combination of privileged existence and self agrandizement. I blame social media for validating their most half-baked ideas and emotional reactions.

I'm sure they can afford a lawyer. I was more referring to the link between being a Trump supporter and Trump's own ... habit of not paying his lawyers.

I mean, yeah, at that point they're just a big fat liability.

1 more...

Quick side note: you are within your rights to refuse service based on political affiliation full stop -- it's not protected under the equal protections clause.

That being said, the issue is not about denying service full-stop, but the right to refuse expression of values you find to be wrong. Believe it or not, these cases are important for everyone and guarantees that the state can't force you to create messaging in support of (i.e. endorse, which is a form of speech) something you disagree with.

It's not granting the right to discriminate. It's protecting your first amendment right to not be compelled to engage in speech you disagree with.

For example, say I go to a bakery run by devout Muslims and request a cake that depicts a cross with the phrase "only through Jesus may you find eternal life" underneath. That baker may be uncomfortable with the idea of creating that design as it not only goes against their own sincerely held beliefs, but may conflict with some negative views they may hold of Christians or Jesus (or even the particular denomination of the customer).

That Muslim baker has every right to refuse the design of the cake on free speech grounds. Religion is a protected class in the equal protections clause, so the Christian may feel like they're being discriminated against, but it's the message (which is considered to be speech) and not the individual being a Christian causing the issue.

That Muslim baker cannot blanket-refuse any Christians from buying any cakes. If that Christian customer instead asks for a blank cake that they'll decorate themselves, the baker must sell it to them or else they are violating the equal protections clause. In that case, service is being refused based on the traits of the customer rather than on the particular message being expressed on the cake.

It's silly and I think people would be better off just accepting the work and taking the money. If I was aware of a business that made cakes, websites, whatever -- but refused certain designs based on their personal views, I would simply discontinue any further support of them. I'd prefer a business who puts their own shit aside and serves whomever wants to pay them.. but to compel them to suck it up and either compromise on their views or close up shop is directly contradictory to one of the most important rights we recognize here -- to speak freely and without cohersion from the state.

The business owner isn't doing anything wrong with their signs, but they're completely missing the point of the decision and comes off as a bit silly.

What you described was not the actual outcome of the ruling.

The wedding website designer did not give them a website with no mention of being gay, that they could fill in themselves. The website designer was allowed to fully refuse them any kind of website at all. Just like refusing a blank wedding cake because the couple is gay.

The justification of the decision was not in good faith. It stepped away over the bounds of protecting against compelled speech. And they deserve to feel the consequences.

If the wedding designer has a "blank wedding site" package premade and refused to sell it to them then I don't think that's right. But if all of the websites are bespoke designs where the designer must create something for the couple, it's fuzzy.

Personally, I don't know. There is, and should be, a line between personal life and work life. But depending on what you do for a living, the line can be a thin one or a thick one.

For example, if I churn out hundreds of identical 3D printed characters and sell them at an open-air market, I shouldn't be allowed to single out a customer and refuse business just because I don't like the look of them. But if I'm a graphic artist, I shouldn't be compelled to draw something that I find objectionable. Eg: I might be a woman who has been sexually abused in the past, and someone wants a sexually graphic depictions of a sexual assault (like the Guns 'N' Roses "Appetite for Destruction" cover).

Those examples are easy to comprehend because they're extremes. The difficulty in interpreting the outcome of the case is trying to bring the examples closer to the center.

Can you refuse to sell handpainted greetings to someone you don't like? No. It doesn't matter that it's a creative endeavour. If you created the product without coercion, and are now selling them at a stall in your local town, it's not ok to refuse a simple transaction because you don't like the buyer. What if you also offer a service of writing a message in fancy calligraphy on the inside? Can you refuse to write something you find objectionable? I think so.

I don't think it comes down to who your customer is. I think it comes down to what you're being asked to do.

Edit: lol, what a typo. Thanks swype keyboard!

Someone else compared being gay to being racist, and now you're comparing being gay to sexual assault.

These are disingenuous comparisons at best, dangerously homophobic at worst.

WAT. I was giving extreme examples to illustrate that personal opinions sometimes have zero effect on your work, and sometimes they really really affect your work. And I specifically called out the fact that they were extreme examples:

Those examples are easy to comprehend because they’re extremes.

How the hell was that comparing being gay to sexual assault? How come you didn't use the other example and accuse me of comparing being gay to 3d printing?

A sensible and reasonable analogy would be interracial marriage.

Should racist wedding business owners be able to refuse serving interracial marriages, on the basis of they don't believe in interracial marriage?

1 more...

In theory yes, but what's going to happen now, is 2 obviously gay men will go to that Muslim baker and ask for blank cake they will decorate themselves and Muslim will ask them to leave.

And if that was the case and they wanted to pursue their legal options, they could sue the baker.

They could. And theyll probably have too. The problem with this law is it really sets the tone and reinforces peoples shitty views.

I definitely agree that stupid people are stupid, and they will either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstand the ruling and skew it to their messed up views. It doesn’t make SCOTUS wrong in this case though.

So can the wedding website designer be sued for not selling them a generic wedding website with no mention of them being gay, that they could fill in themselves?

From my understanding, that would be a different case entirely. So yeah, they could be sued.

This sets out my own thoughts on the situation as well. Thanks for posting.

This is the best take I’ve seen in this thread so far. It’s an issue of compelled speech, not of this or that demographic or ideology of the client or service. I’m not trying to dog whistle here, I hate that any business would exercise this in a hateful way, but another example of the reverse would be compelling a black-owned bakery to write an awful racist message on a cake. Obviously no person should be compelled to say what they don’t believe, regardless of the level of asshattery they dabble in.

A lot of shitty analogies abound.

How about these ones:

Is it ok to refuse service to a mixed race couple getting married?

Is it ok to refuse service to a couple, both of whom are black who are getting married?

I think these examples are much closer to the analogies people are coming up with in this thread. Or do you think being gay is an ideology? Is being gay a religion? Is being gay like being a racist?

Or is being gay something that a person is born as? If so isn't this a lot like being refused service because of race?

The question THIS LAW interacts with is the CONTENT of the message. If you’re providing tables for a wedding this law wouldn’t protect you. If you were asked to write something specific for the wedding and the content of the request is antithetical to your beliefs, this law would protect you, if you could show that. Not a lawyer, but that’s how I read it.

Now. Is it “right” to do so? I would say in absolutely no universe. It’s morally wrong, it undermines our liberal society, and I have no tolerance for it. My point is that this particular law isn’t about whether someone is a Christian, their race, or sexuality. This decision wouldn’t protect me from writing some basic software for a nazi (others might) but it DOES protect me from building a website supporting them, or writing prose related to nazism, or anything else which would be CLEARLY against what I believe. Please DON’T read that I’m saying that being a nazi is the same as being homosexual, it isn’t, I’m not, fuck nazis.

To get back to your question: as I read this decision, a cake maker could potentially be compelled to make a cake for an interracial couple, but they might not be compelled to make a cake with something like “interracial is the only way to go”

This all sounds like the staff using religion as an excuse to discriminate against gay people. Doesn't seem all that Christian to me, and in fact it seems like they're taking Our Lord's Name in vain by using it to justify their hateful actions.

But maybe they don't follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and don't follow the Commandments. Even if that's the case, the business is responsible for ensuring that customers aren't discriminated against by staff. If the business owners aren't up to meeting that standard, then they shouldn't be trying to run a business.

You’re right, and it doesn’t to me either, and I feel that it’s wrong, and I wouldn’t go and get a cake made with someone I know does this. I also think that you and I would agree on more than not. I’ll also add that I don’t have a dog in the religion debate here. But I still feel very strongly that in a free society it is their right not not be compelled to write something which directly contradicts their belief. I’ll need to think about this more in general, I might end up changing my mind on it, but at least for right now the right to not have to say something you don’t believe feels important to me. Let me ask you this, if an atheist baker were asked to write “Jesus is Lord” on a cake and said no, would you take issue with that? I wouldn’t; I’d argue that is a very clean first amendment right, and an important part of living in a liberal society. I also would go as far as to say that isn’t even intolerance from the atheist, it’s simply them believing something.

To your second point, while I agree that a business owner should not discriminate against a particular demographic, I’m not sure I’d go all out on any time someone says this they’re discriminating. Every religion and value system has prohibitions, and few of them are aligned. It’s possible to respectfully decline to do something as it directly contradicts your beliefs. Now if your beliefs are discriminatory, that’s a different and more complex question entirely. I’m not sure what to think about that case.

To me there needs to be a distinction between a business and a person. Sure maybe a person can't be compelled to do something against their beliefs, but a business can't claim to have beliefs and therefore can be compelled to do whatever the law requires.

And claiming religious beliefs isn't a card you can lay down anytime you want to get out of your responsibilities. I mean if I claim that paying taxes is against my religious beliefs do you think the government shouldn't be able to compel me to pay taxes simply because it's against my religious beliefs?

There's always an element of common sense judgement needed in the law which is why the people that do that are called Judges. So if in our best judgement these people simply don't like gay people and in our judgement they're just using religion as a way to trick people into thinking they're motives are based in religion and not based off on their prejudice, then what is the decision? To go along with their trickery that's using religion as an excuse? Or just tell them their arguments about religion is bullshitt and they have to get over their dislike of gay people and follow the law?

The problem here is members of Supreme court are willing to abdicate their responsibility to use judgement and go along with the obvious trickery because they share the baker's dislike for gay people.

I think that I agree with you in general on your first point. A business isn't a person, it doesn't have a religion, it can't have an opinion on people. But we're talking about a small business. If someone is running a web design company, they don't have a huge staff, they're just one person, so their individual convictions are at play, don't you think?

The example you give in your second point isn't quite congruent with this case, taxes are not speech. We're talking about speech. Now I have a personal conviction that the USA shouldn't be spending nearly so much on the military, but unfortunately for me, my taxes, and many people around the world, I don't have a say in the matter. If someone said something like "I don't want to pay this tax because it's being spent on something antithetical to my religious belief" even there, it's not speech.

I don't think it makes sense to compare being gay to being racist.

Alright I’m sorry, I don’t either. Which is actually why I pointed out specifically that I hate that anyone would use this in a hateful way. I’m surprised you think that I do think that it’s the same. Is there something in my comment which indicates that I believe that?

You reached for a completely non sequitur analogy.

compelling a black-owned bakery to write an awful racist message on a cake

It's not at all like that. If you're in the business of making cakes, and if you make cakes that have people's names on them for their weddings, and then you refuse a cake that looks like all the other cakes to a couple because you don't approve of which two consenting adults want their names on the goddamn cake because you just think exactly only one peen should be named in their relationship, that is just bigoted bullshit, and yes, this free country should stamp that shit out and not apologize for it, and we should all burn sparklers and celebrate that this free country offers us all the same freedom to buy a cake from the already-putting-peoples-names-on-wedding-cakes baker. There is no analog there for hateful messages on cakes whatsoever.

Edit: And if I missed your point entirely, I apologize. I'm not trying to be combative with anyone, but I am trying to stop what seems like people rationalizing this situation as having anything to do with free speech. I emphatically believe that it is a shitty excuse to apologize for a clearly biased agenda from the people who wormed their way into the US Supreme Court.

Yeah sorry, a couple of people sound like they think I meant that, I must not have articulated myself well.

If this decision protects that cake maker from doing so, then I would worry about it. Imagining EVERY cake were the same, obviously that would be wrong. I’m just trying to say that it seems like the law has more to do with the content of the message. If a couple wanted a cake saying “only gay sex” or something similarly funny, or a straight couple wanted a cake saying “all gays are bad”, I would feel that while we don’t need to be tolerant of the former business person, or the latter client, neither business person should be compelled to write the message on the cake. In the former case, they should be compelled to make a blank or similar cake with no message, simply not compelled to write the message.

Again, I’m not a legal expert so if I’m misreading the decision, that’s a different story.

Only state actors can violate the equal protection clause of the us constitution. The Muslim bakery example doesn't implicate the federal equal protection clause.

"If that Christian customer instead asks for a blank cake that they'll decorate themselves, the baker must sell it to them or else they are violating the equal protections clause."

This is an issue too though. The only person who can enforce the requirement that the Muslim Baker sell the cake is the government and the only way the government can force someone to work is through force. What you end up with is the government using threat of force to require someone to work. Which is slavery at its core. Anyone should have the right to refuse work if they don't want to.

That's not what equal protections meant though. It just meant you can't refuse to serve a customer based on their protected statuses like religion or sexual orientation.

If a church calls you to order a cake but you were planning to take time off work for a while, you could still say no. It was only a problem if you say "no, I don't bake cakes for Christians". That's not slavery. You can stop working, nobody was forcing you. Just that when you do work, you can't discriminate.

"If that Christian customer instead asks for a blank cake that they'll decorate themselves, the baker must sell it to them or else they are violating the equal protections clause."

This is an issue too though. The only person who can enforce the requirement that the Muslim Baker sell the cake is the government and the only way the government can force someone to work is through force. What you end up with is the government using threat of force to require someone to work. Which is slavery at its core. Anyone should have the right to refuse work if they don't want to.

Nope, because then you have people saying "I won't sell to blacks, if you force me sell them things I made it's slavery". And they aren't being forced to work, they are being forced to operate under the parameters our society agreed to (via lawmaking). The baker can quit, he's not forced to work there. The shop owner can close up shop, he's not forced to run that business. But if the owner wants to run that business they have to follow the laws of the land which say you will serve the public, and that means all of the public.

A Baker should be able to refuse to bake a cake he doesn't want to make. He shouldn't even have to give a reason. Anything less than that is by definition forced labor.

1 more...

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason! :D

Especially racist sexist homophobic chud dipshit fascist bootlickers.

To be fair if I see a sign saying they support Trump, GOP, or anti-LGBT I keep walking on by. I have seen many places that say if you are a bigot, sexist, or racist you are not welcome here. Those are the places I spend my money at.

Exactly. A Trump sign at a business guarantees that business won't get my money now or in the future.

There's a large grocery store chain here that the owner was at the Jan 6th insurrection. A lot of people, including myself, refuse to shop there now.

Was it Publix? I know the owner’s a huge supporter of conservative causes— really hope she’s not also an insurrectionist. (Asking bc I’m trying to avoid giving business to Walgreens, and just started sending prescriptions to Publix instead.)

I stopped going to a dentist because her office looked like Trump campaign headquarters. Signs and shit everywhere. She otherwise seemed nice and competent but hell no.

There's a pizza place in a town near me that has "Make Pizza Great Again" permanently painted on their sign in huge letters. Needless to say, they will never get my business.

There's a place near me that I was planning on eating at. Then I saw they had a "Back the Bleu" burger. They won't get my business.

Don't forget the "Jesus fish" on their logo.

I'm from out west, so it was a very foreign concept for me when I visited my sister in Arkansas and saw a lot of "Christian Family Auto" type places with Jesus swag trying to win over business.

1 more...

For me the difference is in refusing to serve someone because how they were born vs the choices they make.

Totally ok with the later, but the laws are supposed to prevent the former. Just like it being illegal to discriminate against someone just because they are black or white or Asian or whatever.

Tattoos are a choice, would you be denied services because you have a tattoo? Or I don't serve women wearing pants, because I think they should only wear dresses.

Obviously I disagree, but I also want to point out that many conservatives think being gay or trans is a choice.

And they’d be wrong. Being gay is a choice as much as being straight is.

I’m always quick to point out if someone believes being gay is a choice, they are admitting THEY actively are choosing not to be gay everyday… that they actually could find the same sex attractive but choose not to.

Of course they're wrong, but that's what they think and that's how they will discriminate. Well they to discriminate based on what you're born as too so it really doesn't matter. But they think it's a choice, yes often because they are bi and to them it's a choice to act on it, so they project.

Sure, but to the religious right, they think they are right in that sexuality is a choice, and also that they are never wrong.

I agree with you. Isn't race specifically a protected class with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment specifically? Political ideology or beliefs are not protected, unless violence is utilized. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Correct. The point is sexual orientation should be protected like race.

For employment purposes, it is. Court precedents have affirmed that discriminating against someone based on sexual orientation is a form of sex-based discrimination which is illegal under Title VII.

But creative works (like baking a cake or building a website) are protected by the constitution as free speech. You can’t compel someone to perform a creative work against their own beliefs.

That’s why you’re allowed to refuse to build a website for a gay couples wedding, but you can’t refuse to change their tyres.

That’s great and all, but I personally don’t think that is right for fair.

Imagine a baker saying they don’t want to bake a wedding cake because of an interracial couple or for black people. I get the law is different, I’m saying personally I don’t agree with that law and think that’s a load of shit.

The problem is you're wrong though, because legally you have to look at the lowest common denominator.

Imagine you are a baker and someone wants you to bake a nazi cake? Would you want to? Hell no, but saying that a producer is required by law to perform any creative production asked of by the client means that you as a Jewish gay person (hypothetically) would be forced to bake that nazi cake.

Similarly, it doesn't really matter what's "right" it doesn't change that for some people, lgbt issues are considered religious sin, and they feel like they would be committing a religious sin in baking a pride cake. Now are they loony? Yeah they are. But it doesn't change that you cannot force someone to artistically create something against their will. ESPECIALLY when you can just go to another baker who will.

Again I draw the line on discrimination based on how a person was born vs their decisions.

Bakers can say no to nazis, democrats, republicans, tattoos, whatever.

But bakers being able to say no just because how you are born: white, black, male, female, gay, straight… that’s horse shit.

Why would argue that’s ok or morally correct or fair?

The problem is that while it is obvious to you that sexual orientation is a matter of birth and not choice, it isn't to, to be honest, the vast majority of people on this planet.

And also, just to put things in perspective, even the science isn't fully convinced. Most evidence tells us it's something from birth, and my personal life anecdote tells me I'm bisexual since the day I was born, but truthfully we don't have any hard evidence to prove it, since it is nearly impossible to prove.

This is why it has to be included with the rest.

This, and not to mention the science changes.

The color of the skin might be something you are "born as", but as Michael Jackson proved you can certainly change it. Does it mean it is a choice, and not "something that you are"? What happens once CRISPR becomes commonplace?

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...

I think you mean for a hypothetical website that was never ordered and certainly never order by the straight man the website sited. The court just ruled on two cases that were effectively made up. As the loan company also didn't have any issue with debt forgiveness, and the state "filed for them" to "create" an injured party. it is past time to pit enough people on the bench that One president can't fuck the legal system up for 6 peoples lifetimes.

1 more...
1 more...

It's the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects from discrimination from any of the following: race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Basically anything else is fair game, as far as I understand.

1 more...

A lot of the people who discriminate against the lgbtq+ community absolutely believe that sexual orientation is a choice, and I’d wager that includes the justices who ruled in favor of the web designer.

1 more...

That's something that I could get behind.

Hypocrite

Lol not even remotely

Uh yes. Example: What was all that flak when bakery's denied service to lesbian couples. What is next deny service to whites? Hate is going full circle, hence the hypocrisy. Shit like that is only giving ammunition to the othersides.

We did a case study on this in college. The bakery didn't refuse service to them, they told the couple that they were more than welcome to pick any of the predesigned cakes they had, but the bakery wouldn't make a pride specific cake.

Ok fair enough, thank you. That is not much better in regards to the bakery. It also makes this store all the worse though. Discrimination is never the answer, although many here seem to think it is. Faith in humanity is certainly not restored. Let go of the anger Padawans.

I don't think you know what the word hypocrite means.

Striving for equality and acceptance by promoting hate towards others beliefs. Yes, I'd say that is hypocritical. What word would you use to describe them?

Hate towards beiefs is fine, and I think you'd even agree with that. Would you agree it's bad to believe that a subset groups of people should be removed from the world? I would hope you agree that that is a bad belief and doesn't need to be accepted.

But it's also missing the point. Being gay isn't a belief, it's just the way someone is - just like race, just like gender. It's not a belief like a political stance is.

They're two different things and it's not hypocritical to treat them differently.

Hate the belief not the believer.

:-)

This is just code for bigotry. I don't have the mood necessary for politely explaining it so I won't.

Yes, I know the phrase "hate the sin not the sinner" is just code for christian hate. I was riffing off of that to put it back on them along with the theme of the OP.

Yes, I know the phrase "hate the sin not the sinner" is just code for christian hate. I was riffing off of that to put it back on them along with the theme of the OP.

You could always do this. But you'd be a damn idiot to antagonize half a potential customer base but ... Well that's one way to run a business.

I may be misinformed - but I was led to believe this is a book shop and therefore unlikely to lose many customers

the potential customers that would already point their finger at you screaming "shame" if they saw you do business with people they dislike? Good riddance.

Depending on where they're based it could be much less than half

Nowhere close to half of Americans are Trump supporters.

Even if you go by voting numbers in the only election he actually won (and even that wasn't by popular vote), it WAS closer to ⅓, and that was SEVEN YEARS AGO. I'd wager quite a few who called themself a supporter back then have changed their minds since. They're just not speaking up about it, and so the perception is skewed.

Half? Yeah right! Even if they were half the nation - which they aren't - it's gonna be like 90% in some areas and 10% in others.

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.

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

Important distinction.

Very important distinction.

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

It’s a huge difference and nobody seems to understand it.

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.

Except I'm real and their god isn't.

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

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?

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.

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

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

Just replace "Gay" with "Black" and see how awesome it sounds.

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.

Democrats have real difficulties with "gotchas" that the people they're "targeting" outright agree with.

Well within their right. A business can serve whoever the fuck it wants. You don't like it, don't shop there.

This is a bad take. When we, society, allow you to register as a business, we form an agreement. Part of that agreement is that you follow certain rules. We make those rules to better society.

Some rules are things like pay taxes, or don't sell outdated food. Some rules are there to make sure anyone can shop there, without discussion.

Those rules are important because it's very possible for a small number of business owners to make a group of people's lives very difficult, especially out in rural areas where people don't have a lot of options.

For a concrete example, let's say Pfizer cures cancer. Do you want them to be able to say they won't sell to Christians? You can't just "go elsewhere". But now this is allowed.

The much more dangerous part of this ruling is that the supreme Court ruled on a case where there was no standing. A lot of people don't realize that having standing is one of the cornerstones of our legal structure. Now, in theory, any idiot could sue for any dreamed up scenario and have a much better chance of winning in court.

Society needs to codify these rules into law though otherwise bad actors break those rules. When a right wing activist supreme court removes these protections, people get hurt. But, a store like this isnt doing this to hurt people, it's to make a statement that the far-rights own discrimination can backfire on them. It's a form of protest and a statement, not true bigotry. Its like using the flying spaghetti monster tactic to push legislation to be more strict on religion. These people are trying ro show that regulation on business to prevent denying goods and services is important for everyone, not just minorities the the right hates.

I think I'm confused. I'm pretty sure the court case that the supreme Court just ruled on proved the opposite.

I think I'm confused. I'm pretty sure the court case that the supreme Court just ruled on proved the opposite.

You're right in that the current state of the country does not actually reflect the ideals it professes to be based on, and this Supreme Court ruling is proof of that.

There are already regulations on discrimination. You cannot be discriminated against for your religious beliefs. However, Pfizer could choose not to service rapists. In which case, want the cure for cancer? Don't rape. Having the option to not service someone based on their actions is very different than not servicing them because of who they are. If someone is being a dick to your employees, you should have the right to kick them out. Based on what you're saying, you think no matter how much of an asshole they are, the employees should put up with it and be their personal assistant.

All fun and games until you can't find anywhere to shop or buy anything.

You want to act like it's the odd shop and you can just go next door, but just look at history. Really, take an objective look at history.

Based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they cannot discriminate for any reason that is a protected status. However, they can makeup any reason for not serving them. That means some racist asshole could say they aren't serving the black customer because they were rude or some other made up shit. Thankfully, your political stance is not a protected status.

Well they could do that a few times. But if someone really wanted to press the issue I am sure they could use the pattern of behavior to establish that he is indeed kicking out due to race.

Right. The various Civil Rights Acts in establishing proteted classes in placed of public accommodation and associated case law created a standard whereby there does not need to be, for example, an explicit "No blacks!" sign out front. A demonstrated pattern of refusing to serve black customers was sufficient to run afoul of the laws.

In fact, the discriminatory effect doesn't even need to be intentional. If the end result of a policy results in a discriminatory result, it too is a violation of the law. For instance, where I grew up down south, whenever you went indoors you took your hat off. It's respectful and such. Imagine a dining establishment that turned this custom into a steadfast rule -- no one is seated while wearing a hat. Seems reasonable right? Everyone is treated the same! Until you refuse to serve a Sikh customer because they refuse to remove their turban. Now you're discriminating against someone because of their religion, and there's no overarching reason (safety, health, etc.) that a person can't eat and wear a turban at the same time.

The more I see news about the United States the less I'm surprised

There's a contradiction here. The Supreme Court ruled that Speech can't be compelled, not that you could bar certain people from a business. You could decline to decorate a cake with "MAGA", but not decline to sell a cake to a Republican, for example. What those signs are promoting is still illegal.

Forgive me, but I don't believe political affiliation is a protected class--protected classes are the only things people can't discriminate based on. So like, race, sex, religion are protected, but democrat/republican/green party aren't protected. Businesses can legally discriminate against non-protected classes. It's just usually a bad business strategy to turn customers away.

So you can simply refuse service in any business by refusing to speak to them.

Personally I think you should be able to decline any service to anyone for any reason. Anything less than that is government compelled work.

That just allows people to be overtly bigoted and crated an apartheid society. And we did have this: "no blacks", "no Irish"...

Well, that is what conservatives consider to be the peak of America.

"Make America Great Again" - "great" is when America was apartheid.

WAIT! NOT LIKE THAT THOUGH! IT WAS ONLY SUPPOSED TO KEEP THE GAYS OUT!

/s

But that's one way to do it. No churches, no religious people, no trump supporters, no republicans allowed at all. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

it's almost like a leopard ate their face. I have a relevant user name already., yay!!

This is the time when business should all be politicalised and I love it.

we need a religion that will make it so that you can't believe in Christianity, republicans, trump supporters, etc.. so that way we can claim it espouses our religious beliefs, just like that chucklefuck web designer said. This way we can be protected under this new ruling.

My brand of humanism forbids me from interacting with liars and proponents of bad faith. aka: don't feed the trolls. Christians citing the bible in bad faith; right wing nut-jobs citing the constitution in bad faith; SCOTUS citing religious persecution or reverse racism in bad faith..

We do, its atheism. "I don't believe in your belief, so gtfo"

Is Atheism considered an organized religion though? Sincerely asking because someone mention that yesterday and it got me thinking, would Atheism actually be protected under religious freedom laws?

That's kind of what the Satanic Temple is for. It's an atheist organization but fulfills the "requirements" of a religion so that it can be protected under the first amendment

People can do that now, but only for occupations that qualify as "speech". Owners of "public businesses" (i.e. places that you can walk in to) still aren't allowed to forbid entry to people arbitrarily.

Such an unbelievable ruling, but this is really the best possible response. If conservatives thought they were persecuted before…

Trump supporters often have manias of persecution. Wouldn't these signs feed it, though?

They'll find a way to feel persecuted regardless. So why not?

Meh, show them what real persecution is.

you're kinda proving their point with this kind of attitude

I will happily distance myself from a hateful person WAY before I distance myself from someone just for existing. Only one is an active choice.

If unreasonable exclusion of people is so harmless, these hateful people really shouldn't give a shit. I'll pick a happy person over a raging person any day.

your name is angry maple

I can also make it "Frank Beatrice". What's your point?

(Some weird things come from inside jokes that no one really needs to know)

Probably. But if they don't get it here, they'll find it elsewhere. We shouldn't change things to mollycoddle people who are constantly seeking a reason to be offended.

For all their complaining about safe spaces, they're the ones who seemingly need it the most.

Probably because reality is left-leaning.

Like their appeals to "basic biology", when actual basic biology is still trans-supportive.

They'd lose their little minds at the countless species that shift gender when necessitated by circumstance, not to mention the ones that generally propagate their line by mating with themselves. Don't even get me started about the evolutionary origins of "labyrinthine vaginas" or the necro proclivities of sea otters. 🤦🏼‍♂️

Simply put: a healthy reading habit is a great inoculation against idiocy. Critical thinking is invaluable.

edit: I'm not drawing a line between any of that, except to point out that a lack of knowledge is no foundation for loud opinions.

The problem is that these people are stupid by design. Republicans have been cutting funding for schools all over the country for a lot of years now. They need people to be dumb or they'd never vote for them.

They are fine with parthenogenesis though, apparently.

For real, though. I hope I'm alive to see the archaeological science tech improve to the point we can finally uncover the story about that mystery baby-daddy: was he a local, and that's why they left town? Maybe he was a traveling sandal salesman (there's a lot of foot washing in that book, just sayin'), and Joseph got wind he was spotted in Bethlehem? Somebody's got that ancient tea, and I wanna sip!

a lack of knowledge is no foundation for loud opinions

In my experience a lack of knowledge is the main foundation for loud opinions. Those who have more knowledge tend to be quieter, and more willing to rethink their opinions when presented with an opposing argument

Your statement falls into at least one of the many logical fallacies. Many species do many things that humans don't. Humans do many things that other species don't. It's a dishonest comparison. I don't necessarily disagree with your reasoning behind it, but there are better arguments to be made.

I can't imagine owning a business and actively promoting your willing to give up sales because of some random person's beliefs.

I fully understand consumers not shopping at a store that puts up signs you disagree with, you can just go to another one.

Nothing wrong in believing in and supporting the good things. I just think I'd not agitate customers if it were my business.

That's the ridiculous thing about this entire case. This was a web designer and bigot who made websites for married couples. There were no homosexual couples asking the designer to make them a wedding website. She had one fake web request, and the Illegitimate Court said she had a right to discriminate against imaginary people.

This opens the floodgates to the rest of the bigots who want to protest the existence of people they hate by denying them services.

This case is bullshit, as you already stated. The problem is that the purpose of it is to lay the groundwork for medical professionals to deny service to "ungodly" people.

Haven't there already been state-level cases that allow this? I swear I saw something about this out of Tennessee.

Actually! There was no website. It was all made up.

Thanks for the link. I just read the article. So the Supreme Court made an all-encompassing ruling based on a lawsuit filed over an easily-verifiable-as-fabricated story. It would be bizarro shit if we didn't already know the court's just doing exactly what they were put there to do. It's completely fucked up.

Thanks for pointing that out! It's the most obvious psy-op yet and people still aren't catching on.

I'm actually surprised, I thought the reason they were reluctant to endorse the so-called Independent State Legislature Theory because they didn't want to erode their already fragile credibility in light of the seemingly endless corruption scandals. Then they go and basically ignore the entire concept of standing and make a ruling based on literally nothing! I think I need to reexamine how smart I think they are...

I’m actually surprised, I thought the reason they were reluctant to endorse the so-called Independent State Legislature Theory because they didn’t want to erode their already fragile credibility in light of the seemingly endless corruption scandals.

An argument I've seen to explain this decision was that it detracted from the judiciary's influence/power by instead empowering state legislatures. Take that as you will, but I wouldn't put it past them.

I guess? But like, if the Independent State Legislature of California decided to go along with the decision and become the People's Republic of California then the Court could just say "no but not like that tho" and then ban California from doing that. They must still care somewhat about credibility/legitimacy, but I guess they just couldn't help themselves when the chance to attack The Gays was available.

She*, and she stole a real (straight, married, with children) man's identity to use as hypothetical. The whole thing should be absolutely thrown out by a higher court - the court of the people.

Also, what happens if a scotus judge is assassinated? Like for real, what if a terrorist straight up murders one? If it's the president, the vice president takes over, and if them.... There's like a power list for that. But, what about a scotus? Does the standing president just get to pick one again? Or is there a list of rank? Or is it like monarchy where the judge has a written will or a say over who replaces them? Goddamn; why do we even have this shitty system.

Thanks, fixed.

Scotus judges won't be assassinated because the violent terrorists support them.

While I don't believe there has ever been a SC Judge assassinated, all vacancies are to be filled by the President and approved by the Senate.

More realistically though, the wealthiest Republican party donors pick the SC, and have been doing so for the better part of the last few decades now.

Nobody else has a real say, and whenever somebody attempts to regain control for the people, the propaganda machine starts a'hummin', and we all start going at each other's throats again.

Can you imagine having principles that are more important than profitability?

There are zero "principles" involved in that sign. It's one ass trying to piss off other asses.

You don't actually know that, though to be fair, an actually principled stance would be to refuse to serve all Republicans and not specifically Trump supporters. In some ways Trump is becoming the lesser evil of the Party when compared to some of the other monsters running against him.

Some people have principles beyond "make money."

Have you read the other comments here? Every left leaning person responding is saying the same thing as the sign only against Trump supporters.

That is the underlying difference, what is more important: morals or a buck.

But if you're a trump supporter you don't get to have either which is just confusing.

Wtf are you talking about... Inflation is through the roof on everything since Biden came into office. Grocery bill has doubled, gas has doubled and my paycheck looks worse thanks to all of the money he's sending to Ukraine so he can launder it back to himself and his buddies. As far as morals go any man who inappropriately touches and sniffs every young girl in arms reach doesn't have any. Either you're in severe denial of who Biden is or you know but refuse to accept it. We know who Trump is and we know he's not perfect, but he helped out this country and ALL of its people more than any president since JFK.

I can’t imagine owning a business and actively promoting your willing to give up sales because of some random person’s beliefs.

Read the rest of this thread. Some sort of TDS here.

Yeah - I have no idea why all these stupid libruls are angry at the 10s of millions of traitorous dipshits who voted for a traitorous dipshit who did everything he could to ruin the country. Must be TDS.

Now that #SupremeCourt says we can discriminate, I'm trying to figure out what to tag content. #NoMAGA #NoRepublicans #QueerOnly #NoBreeders #NoChristians

My understanding is that businesses can refuse services which conflict with their beliefs, morals, etc, not broadly refuse to serve people

So you can't refuse someone for being a MAGA clown, but you could refuse to print MAGA shirts for a customer

I feel like this whole thing is simply just a clarification on what was already the case. Like, a baker can't just refuse a gay person for being gay. But they could refuse to make that gay person a huge dick shaped cake because, presumably, they would also refuse to make a huge dick shaped cake for a straight woman as well. The reason the customer wants the dick cake is irrelevant; merely that the cake is a dick.

It's close to that but not quite - a dick cake is a dick cake, but a wedding cake with a man and woman couple vs. a wedding cake with a man and man couple is treated differently

So, this is treating representing gay marriage as if it is unethical and vulgar which is clearly discriminatory

The law still doesn't permit the shop owner to blanket refuse service to someone who is gay (or MAGA), but fully allows them to descriminate against gay people exercising the same freedoms non-gays have, like getting married

Yeah it's a new decision that's just a thin veil over hate. I wouldn't try to apply any logic to it.

But I do have a sincere belief that Christian Right MAGA Trump Supporters should be force-fed Ivermectin, have forced bleach injections, and be denied medical treatment for what they claim is non-existent Covid because I have a strong moral objection to their existence. That's not within my power.

But I do work in government and I'm going to quiet-quit any work that benefits Christian Right MAGA Trump supporters because the Supreme Court says my beliefs, morals, etc., allow me to refuse to serve them.

I get it as a way of making a statement that needs to be made, but I'm not a fan of countering discrimination with discrimination. Makes me wonder if something more along the lines of requiring people to make a proper|positive stand before serving them could be a better approach? In this case, for instance, "we will serve only those who will affirm that they believe that all people are valid and equal regardless of their gender identity, sexual preference, race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status." And, before you serve them make them acknowledge and agree to the statement.

European here so it may not be clear to me, but I thought discriminating against religious movements like the church or trump supporters is still illegal. Correct?

Political affiliation is not protected, religious affiliation is. It's true that the Right has been doing their level best to politicise their religious feelings into public life, so that barring Trump supporters effectively excludes Evangelicals and a majority of Catholics. This may not be their desired outcome, but perhaps they shouldn't have tied their religious sentiment to political causes.

A slight majority of Catholics supported Biden over Trump, actually. Probably because Biden is Catholic; a slight majority supported Trump over Clinton.

Religions are protected classes under the constitution, political groups are not. Free speech is also protected. The combination of these factors means that weather the shop keeper in OPs photo is breaking the law is entirely dependant on how you interpret the constitution, which is what the supreme court is supposed to do.

I think the shop in question could get in trouble over the church statement if they are not doing something "free speech" related, that is the only way the new ruling applies. Though what the free speech bit means is gonna depend on what the fedsoc six want, and they will steer it to the GOP always.

Political affiliation is not a protected class. You are permitted to discriminate based on politics. Religious affiliation is a protected class. You cannot discriminate solely on the basis of religion... Until now.

Conservatives love to discriminate, but their new rulings are also making it easier to discriminate against them.

Yeah, religion is a protected class, so while they can probably refuse trump supporters the sign about churches is probably illegal. If this is some type of store that makes customized products then they can refuse to customize anything in ways they don't agree with, but it's totally illegal to refuse service just based on who the customer is

@Alexmitter @minimar The Supreme Court has just ruled that "expressive" businesses can discriminate against their customers. They did not pin down what "expressive" means.

The court opinion is 70 pages long, they define it multiple times. One example is: "All manner of speech—from “pictures, films, paintings, drawings, and engravings,” to “oral utterance and the printed word”—qualify for the First Amendment’s protections; no less can hold true when it comes to speech like Ms. Smith’s conveyed over the Internet"

Essentially it's already been established that the government can't enforce rules on what products someone makes, but can enforce who they sell that product to (not disallowing protected classes). The state of Colorado was arguing that making websites was a standard product that could be modified to be sold to anyone, while ms Smith was arguing that each website was a unique product that had freedom of speech. The only thing the court decided was that websites should be considered speech, so they fell under the same rules that have already applied to paintings and songs, instead of the rules that apply to groceries and car sales

@bric When you talk to a customer to sell them a car that speech is a unique product tailored to the customer

Sure, And the employee has full freedom of speech to say what they want during that sales pitch. They can't be required to say anything they disagree with during the sales pitch. But they are required to sell the car to a gay customer just like they would to a straight customer

@bric You can't sell a car without a sales pitch though

If we're looking at the pitch itself as the product though, then the employee has freedom of speech to control what's in the sales pitch, but not who the sales pitch goes to. The court ruling allows sellers to discriminate the content of their product, not to discriminate the recipient. so they wouldn't have to give some sort of "gay sales pitch", but they would have to give a sales pitch to gay customers.

It's complicated and the implications and scope are not entirely clear.

The court stated that creative works such as web design qualify as a form of speech, and that the first amendment does not allow the government to use law to force creators to speak any message — especially one with which they disagree. Essentially, any business with something that might be considered speech as its product or service may be free to discriminate against protected classes. We aren't sure how far this will extend in practice, but I expect many will test it.

In this case of this post, it depends on what is being sold.

Edit: wrote this before my coffee and thus neglected to point out what replies said: political affiliation is not a protected class in America and these signs are a bit misleading. See replies.

I am not a lawyer.

These signs are surely in response to the recent US Supreme Court ruling which allowed a website designer to refuse to make websites for same-sex weddings.

First, churches are religious; Trump supporters are political, and not religious. In the US, religion is a "protected class", but political alignment is not. But traditionally, political alignment or part affiliation is not discriminated against, even if it is federall legal to do so. (Various states may have their own clauses making political alignment a protected class in certain contexts, I'm not sure.) Also important to this discussion is that sexual preference is not a protected class federally, although I know that many states have enshrined protection for sexual preference in their own state laws.

If a case were brought about discrimination against Trump supporters because of these signs, in a jurisdiction where politics was not a protected class, I should expect that that case would fail, under current law. But just like SCOTUS is highly political right now, lower courts are, too, especially lower federal courts. It's anybody's guess as to whether a given judge would actually adhere to existing case law.

For the religious side of these signs, it gets interesting. As above, SCOTUS has ruled that a religious business owner can discriminate against customers based on the business owner's "religious disagreement" with a position held by the customer, presumably where that disagreement does not overlap with a protected class.

And there's the rub. Religion is a protected class, so it should be prohibited to discriminate against someone for their religious position. This, however, really tips the scales in favor of the religious: the religious business owner can discriminate on the basis of their own religious belief, but no one can discriminate against them because of that same religious belief. To me, this seems to tread very heavily on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...

"Congress," in this context, has been interpreted by the courts to mean more generally "the government," at any level. The recent SCOTUS ruling gives a religious business owner the right to discriminate on the basis of their religion, but the right of other people to discriminate against that business owner on the exact same basis remains prohibited. Again, I am not a lawyer, but that seems to be clearly in opposition to the Establishment Clause.

All of this is interesting, but none of it is cause for concern.

What is cause for concern is the foundation of Obergefell, which made same sex marriage legal in all of the US. That basis is that the only difference between opposite sex and same sex marriages is the sex of one of the people in the couple. An argument I recall from the time was that prohibiting same sex marriage is unconstitutional, because to do so would be discriminating against someone on the basis of sex - which is a protected class. However, that does not appear to have been mentioned in the court's ruling.

No matter the reason, if it is unconstitutional to discriminate against same sex couples in the context of their getting married in the first place, it should stand to reason that it would be unconstitutional to discriminate against those same sex couples in any other context. Reason does not appear to be this court's strong suit; they have decided that the rights of religious people to discriminate on the basis of their personal and individual beliefs "trumps" (pun intended) the rights of people (religious or not) to not be discriminated against.

This is a "canary in a coal mine" to overturn all manner of previous courts' rulings: Obergefell (same sex marriage), Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage), Griswold (access to contraception), Lawrence v Texas (legalization of homosexuality), and certainly others.

Again, all of this seems to prioritize religion, which is in clear opposition of the Establishment Clause.

I love that you mentioned the trump cult as a religious movement.

Honestly i would expect that a webdesigner would not wanna put up with my bullshit way earlier.

Understandable, have a nice day. but no we wanna make a scene.

Put up a No Whites signs in front of your businesses to really make some noise.

oh shit, that would do it for sure. Surely race is still protected no? If not, then I can see many a store in the south going back to the days of segregation

Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Pretty sure this racist, illegitimate court, knew what they were doing in ruling that religious beliefs override protected classes, including those in the Civil Rights act. The Klan is a religion after all.

I doubt many trump supporters are shopping there anyways. even if they are trump supporters, good luck trying to prove it before denying a sale. they dont walk around with it stamped on their forehead ;)

I'm pretty sure this is sarcasm, but my sarcasm radar has been right and truly fucked over the past 8 years.

1 more...

I feel like "no mask, no vaccination proof, no service" should make a comeback.

I'm out of the loop, what did the SCOTUS do now?

They basically said a business can discriminate. The case in question was by a bakery that didn’t want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. SCOTUS said that was ok.

The kicker is that the claims put forth in the lawsuit by the bakery may be based on lies. The man they claimed wanted the cake isn’t gay, is already married, never ordered from the bakery, and didn’t even know he was mentioned in the court case until a reporter contacted him for comment.

This case is a web designer for wedding websites, not a bakery. The bakery thing was several years ago now.

Both rulings cute the same fundamental precedent: "expressive works"/"expressive goods" — that is, services that entail some act of creative work and/or speech, generally in endorsement.

For example, to take a less-favorable position as an example, a web designer could under this ruling post as terms of their services that they do not design websites for anyone connected with a Baptist church, because designing websites for them would require the designer to write speech and create designs participating in what the designer considered bigoted. If a Baptist group sued on these grounds, and the government said "no, you must take them on as clients", the government would be coercing a particular kind of speech from this web designer — that is, the government would be forcing the web designer to, by court order, write that speech they see as clearly bigoted.

A grocery store could not, however, say "we won't sell groceries to anyone from a Baptist church", because selling someone a gallon of milk or whatever else off the store shelves does not involve participating in any of their speech. If a grocery store did so, and a Baptist group sued, and the government said "no, you must sell them groceries", the government is not coercing any sort of speech from the grocery store owner.

That's the crux of the issue here: not Jim-Crow "we don't sell groceries to coloreds" baseline discrimination against people, but instead trying to walk the line of not using lawsuits as a weapon to coerce someone to participate in some viewpoint.

I thought it was about designing a website not baking a cake

1 more...
1 more...

I'm out of the loop, what did the SCOTUS do now?

They allowed a company to discriminate against a gay customer for religious reasons, when they requested to make a website them. It's important to note that the supposed customer never actually contacted the company, is not gay and had been married to a woman for about 20 years. So this was all based on a lie

The court opinion wasn't based on any specific customer, if you read the SCOTUS opinion the website designer didn't even have a business designing websites, they were just challenging the law in case they decided to make a business that did.

1 more...
1 more...

Bad example. The cases where businesses could refuse service to a customer were due to religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Not liking Trump would not fall under that category. Not sure about the other example though.

In general though, I think this would be fine. As long as this business is not funded or supported by taxpayer money.

My personal religion requires me to refuse service to Trump supporters.

These "religious freedoms" cited are completely arbitrarily defined. Anyone can claim they have a religion with tenets that exclude specific groups of people or promote civil rights abuses. Having a religion that says "you must commit crime" does not actually give you the right within society to commit crime.

2 more...

That's kinda genius ngl, even tho I'm pretty sure it's only applies to creative professions

Ugh should have read "no sales to trump supporters or religious nutbags. Whoops those 2 are the same thing"

The more I see news about the United States the less I'm surprised

I'm personally offended by this, but...

  1. Regulating my emotions is my own problem and no one else's
  2. The business owner is well within their rights to do so.
    Just shop somewhere else.

I think this is ok. It’s how the market works. If you have enough people who agree with your stance, then you’ll survive, if not, you fail. Transversely, if you are trying to make a profitable business, you remove all roadblocks from a consumer who wants to do business with you.

No, given the preponderance of white owned businesses, the way that turns out is Jim crow. You think that some store in rural bumfuck will hurt with a sign saying "no blacks, jews or gays"?

Are you saying that minorities should not be protected?

Let them protect themselves. Don't come in with a white saviour complex and think that you're better than them

How are they supposed to pretext themselves? They are a minority. This means the other party is way bigger and therefore more powerfull

That's a very shallow way to look at it. First wrong: This isn't a numbers game. A party with more people won't necessarily win. Second wrong: Not all people who are not the minority are against the minority

ad for lgbt and lefty people then. they have decided their customer base.

edit: i'm not anti-lgbt just making an observation here.

Yes exactly. If Maga morons and anti lgbt people want to be able to discriminate, they should be ready to be discriminated upon.

I don't have an issue with any of this. Private Business owners can sell their products or services to whoever they want. Don't see what the big deal is. If you don't like it, there's plenty more competition willing to take your money.

I don't have an issue with any of this. Private Business owners can sell their products or services to whoever they want. Don't see what the big deal is. If you don't like it, there's plenty more competition willing to take your money.

Yeah, historically that didn't work out great for everyone. There's a reason if you open a public business in the United States you are expected to serve the public.

Nothing wrong with this. Their business their choice. Only time will tell if it was a good choice. depending where it is I dont think it will be. I think everyone is tired of the back and forth bs !

I defend free speech, even the shitty speech by bigoted assholes, but violating a person's civil rights is not protected by free speech.

Once you cross the line into preventing someone from doing a thing just because of who they are, that's no longer speech but action. And of course the rights of business owners to serve who they want to is a grey area, but that's what we have the courts for. Unfortunately, the current SCOTUS is so heavily politicized that it seems unable to adjudicate these issues impartially.

Cult 45 with their red hat dunce caps is definitely not tired of the back and forth. They don't give a shit as long as it OwNz ThE dEmZ!!!

4 more...

Not cool for either party.

Because "they go low we go high" has been working sooooo well.

Playing by different rules means the fascists win.

inb4 get woke go broke, rip their business. not a good look in the bud light era

BudLight was pandering and got called on it by everyone that was paying attention. "Go woke, go broke" is clearly not a trend, just look at Twitter and Elon doing the opposite and losing fuckloads of money.

Plus 2 things

One, they specifically called their main customers assholes, essentially. Not sure what they were expecting

And two, the product is the worst beer out there. Boycotting was a gift they can easily keep going. They're missing nothing by switching to another

Inbev did well out of it either way, the Bud Lite boycotters were idiots for this reason alone.