Politics

1025 readers

2 users here now

@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.

founded 1 year ago

Supreme Court Backs Web Designer Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So it's now legal to have a "WHITES ONLY" or a "STRAIGHTS ONLY" sign on your door?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't love this ruling, but that's very much not what it's saying, no. The fundamental point is that businesses that are substantially creative in nature cannot be compelled to produce speech they strongly disagree with. The case was litigates as a free speech case, not a civil rights one.

It's important to note that this was examining a state law, so it does depend on the state, but in Colorado for instance, a bar could still absolutely not have a "No Blacks" sign. However, a racist graphic designer could refuse a request to design a logo for a Black Lives Matter group, though they could not necessarily refuse a non-political request from a client that happens to be Black. On the flip side, this ruling also protects a graphic designer from being compelled to produce a Neo-Nazi design, for instance.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

On the flip side, this ruling also protects a graphic designer from being compelled to produce a Neo-Nazi design, for instance.

@BraveSirZaphod There's never been any risk of that. Being a Neo-Nazi isn't a protected class. Sexual orientation is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's important to note that this was examining a state law, so it does depend on the state, but in Colorado for instance, a bar could still absolutely not have a "No Blacks" sign.

Why not? Why isn't a sign an expression of free speech?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The ruling specifically applies to the production of speech. A sign making company could refuse to make a "Whites Only" sign, for instance, without that being an example of discrimination against white people, per the logic of this ruling.