The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a web designer can refuse to create websites for same-sex weddings on religious grounds. The case involved a Colorado web designer named Lorie Smith, who refused to create a website for a same-sex couple’s wedding. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, alleging that Smith’s refusal violated their civil rights.
If you refuse to make the same product for someone because they’re gay, that should be illegal.
If you refuse to make a product because it’s gay, that should be within your rights. However much of a terrible person that makes you.
If a Christian asked me to make a Christian website, I’d say no and that should be within my rights. If a Christian asked me to make a hobby photography website similar to one I made for someone else, I should not be allowed to refuse on the grounds that they are Christian.
Weddings aren’t gay; it’s just a wedding in which the people involved are gay. Refusing to make a wedding website solely because the people getting married are gay is exactly what you claim should be illegal.
Another good SCOTUS ruling.
What about the web designers civil rights? It doesn’t seem right to force someone to perform work that is at odds with their religious beliefs.
While I disagree with the web designer, the same-sex couple is free to find another developer.
What if instead of a web designer, it’s a grocery store? And it’s the only grocery store in town?
Still a good ruling?
deleted by creator
That would be because it implicitly leads to instantaneous segregation of some kind. The idea is nice, but it never goes well.
Don’t like X at your restaurant? There are other restaurants. What about when none of them will serve you either, because it’s a small town and the owners are all friends? Can’t eat takeout if you’re the wrong ethnicity now?
What if the career you’re trying to break into is a hard one and they have other candidates that fit the company better, despite being far less qualified (they are straight)? There are laws in place against this, but they’re the same ones that got affirmative action overturned because it was ruled that favoring against the majority was still oppression. That could logically make it to the floor if the first one did.
Naturally, this would extend to education. It is their strongly held belief that they shouldn’t have to teach and learn alongside others whose ideals or status they disagree with. Disruptive to the atmosphere. They can always just…set up schools specifically for them, if they’re bothered.
deleted by creator
The idea is supposed to be applied in narrow scopes, in this case it’s intended for protected classes. It’s supposed to bar discrimination against “what” someone is (race, sex, orientation, etc.), not what they believe. So it wouldn’t be applicable to the examples you gave.
I agree that it’s a difficult balance to strike, but it may be worth the risk. I think we could ask a similar question from the other side as well, e.g. “When do we call it ‘segregation’ and where do we draw that line?”
