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.
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.
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.