The justices settled a question left open in 2018: whether businesses open to the public and engaged in expression may refuse to serve customers based on religious convictions.
It opens the door for people to discriminate against other protected categories of people.
Don’t like gays, don’t serve them.
Don’t Chinese people, don’t serve them.
Don’t like people over 50 or under 30, don’t serve them.
Don’t like women, don’t serve them.
Don’t like me because I’m a veteran, don’t serve me.
Basically any protected class can now be discriminated against if it aligns with your strongly held beliefs.
Bunch of originalist bullshit is what it really is.
I get where you’re coming from, but if some business wants to discriminate against me, they can discriminate themselves all the way to bankruptcy. I’d prefer that rather than them being legally forced to do shitty work for me because they’re dicks.
I get what you’re saying, but I still don’t think we should be forcing biggots to do business with people. Let the biggots be flagged as biggots, so we all know which business to avoid.
Alternatively, we force them to do business with those people, and they do a shit job without revealing the reason.
Consider this in the context of a required service.
What if the doctor refused service because you were queer? How about lawyers?
Cakes and web design are used as the examples to make the problem seem less severe. It can and will extend much farther than what this ruling is based on.
But those are wildly different types of services. Are you saying that this court case makes it so that doctors can refuse service to homosexuals now?
It was my understanding that the nature of the business (ie, not a required service) and amount of available alternatives was a factor into why they should be allowed to refuse service.
It opens the door for people to discriminate against other protected categories of people.
Don’t like gays, don’t serve them. Don’t Chinese people, don’t serve them. Don’t like people over 50 or under 30, don’t serve them. Don’t like women, don’t serve them. Don’t like me because I’m a veteran, don’t serve me.
Basically any protected class can now be discriminated against if it aligns with your strongly held beliefs.
Bunch of originalist bullshit is what it really is.
I get where you’re coming from, but if some business wants to discriminate against me, they can discriminate themselves all the way to bankruptcy. I’d prefer that rather than them being legally forced to do shitty work for me because they’re dicks.
I get what you’re saying, but I still don’t think we should be forcing biggots to do business with people. Let the biggots be flagged as biggots, so we all know which business to avoid.
Alternatively, we force them to do business with those people, and they do a shit job without revealing the reason.
Consider this in the context of a required service.
What if the doctor refused service because you were queer? How about lawyers?
Cakes and web design are used as the examples to make the problem seem less severe. It can and will extend much farther than what this ruling is based on.
But those are wildly different types of services. Are you saying that this court case makes it so that doctors can refuse service to homosexuals now?
It was my understanding that the nature of the business (ie, not a required service) and amount of available alternatives was a factor into why they should be allowed to refuse service.