Good ai human not robot

Good human

Thanks dude. You make the world a better place.

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

good bot human

you earned some headpats, good job

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).

...I feel like you've got some stories you could be sharing

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

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

And they learned it from watching Trump.

This guy laws

🤣

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.

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.

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.

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

Very well put

well put

"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.

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.

Wouldn't supplying Trump come under religious belief.

Trump support is a practically a cult.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Hypocrite

It is in some states.

Religion is also a protected class (re the pic)

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.

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.

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.

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.

No shoes, no shirts, no service. Also no cuts, no butts, no coconuts! Lol 😆

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Some people have principles beyond "make money."

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

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

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.

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

Back and forth bs? Please define

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!!!

We can discriminate against Republicans legally and with blessings.

https://www.scotusblog.com/...

A six-justice majority agreed that Colorado cannot enforce a state anti-discrimination law against a Christian website designer who does not want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples because doing so would violate her First Amendment right to free speech.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

Playing by different rules means the fascists win.

Yes, real discrimination from religious freaks who thinks LGBTQ folk shouldn’t exist is equally as bad as petty revenge to point out the reality of the bigotry they want

So protesting intolerance is "no better" than promoting intolerance. Got it. Both side, blah blah, or something.

You're not "us". You can pledge to be not 'childish' in your own, presumably libertarian store lol

This is the right answer but the frustration is so palpable at this point it doesn’t become the perspective often enough.

I think this is beyond passive lol. And this is the future the Supreme Court clearly wants 🤷‍♀️

It's not passive, this is very direct. I rather see this in a business than the opposite.

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.

Who the fuck even cares about bud light? Are you twelve?

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