Actually this is not true! The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did indeed force private businesses to act to end segregation:
The act outlawed segregation in businesses such as theaters, restaurants, and hotels. It banned discriminatory practices in employment and ended segregation in public places such as swimming pools, libraries, and public schools.
So yes, the government can and does literally force businesses to provide equal access to their services.
Of course, this doesn’t apply to websites because the Supreme Court appears to approve of some kinds of discrimination, but not others.
That was the my initial point. The Supreme Court is fine with discrimination against LGBTQ people. But you had better believe that if someone actually discriminated against white people or Christians, they would come down against it like a ton of bricks. Because this is not motivated by an ideological belief in the first amendment, but a conservative desire to roll back rights and access for minorities they dislike.
Would it surprise you to know that literally that exact same argument was used against Black people to resist integration, and indeed, the same Civil Rights Act of 1964 I linked? That it wasn’t because the person was Black, but because the business owner had a religious belief that was incompatible with service? That they shouldn’t be compelled to provide a service they disagreed with? It is as spurious then as it was now.
The reason your example is bad is because membership in the KKK is not a protected class, not because businesses are not required to provide equal access. Businesses are in fact barred from discriminating against protected classes and must provide them equal access (in general). Except, of course, if the Supreme Court likes the protected class in question less than they do the “free speech” of another class.
So, yes indeed, the government can and does force people to do what they want.
They will make an exception if you’re a Christian apparently, however.
Reread what I just wrote. “The developer just declined creating something that they don’t agree with” is literally exactly the same justification people used to resist integration and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was discrimination then and it is discrimination now. There is no difference between your two examples except in your own mind. Certainly there is no difference before the law. (Except if the creator of the cupcake is Christian, apparently.)
Yeah, realistically anyone who is creating websites for a living shouldn’t give a fuck about who they are creating it for. The KKK is a terrible example because that is 1. a hate group and 2. a group you join on your own volition. A business could take the same stance against anyone wearing BLM apparel, as that is a group you join on your own volition. Being a certain race or sexuality is not something you join on your own volition, you are a member of that category because of a trait you inherently have not because you decided to join a group.
Well said. Religion also gets included in that, which I think is much squishier in terms of “traits you inherently have,” but we definitely live in this world.
But they didn’t refuse anything. The woman who drummed up this case made it up. Stewart, the guy who supposedly requested it, is a web designer AND not even gay.
Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Same way nobody can force someone to build them a website.
Actually this is not true! The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did indeed force private businesses to act to end segregation:
So yes, the government can and does literally force businesses to provide equal access to their services.
Of course, this doesn’t apply to websites because the Supreme Court appears to approve of some kinds of discrimination, but not others.
That was the my initial point. The Supreme Court is fine with discrimination against LGBTQ people. But you had better believe that if someone actually discriminated against white people or Christians, they would come down against it like a ton of bricks. Because this is not motivated by an ideological belief in the first amendment, but a conservative desire to roll back rights and access for minorities they dislike.
You aren’t understanding what happened here.
They didn’t flat out refuse service because the customer was gay, they refused to create something that they didn’t agree with.
Do you really think LGBT devs would be forced to design a website for the KKK? If so you don’t live in the real world.
You can’t force people to do what you want.
Oh no, I understand.
Would it surprise you to know that literally that exact same argument was used against Black people to resist integration, and indeed, the same Civil Rights Act of 1964 I linked? That it wasn’t because the person was Black, but because the business owner had a religious belief that was incompatible with service? That they shouldn’t be compelled to provide a service they disagreed with? It is as spurious then as it was now.
The reason your example is bad is because membership in the KKK is not a protected class, not because businesses are not required to provide equal access. Businesses are in fact barred from discriminating against protected classes and must provide them equal access (in general). Except, of course, if the Supreme Court likes the protected class in question less than they do the “free speech” of another class.
So, yes indeed, the government can and does force people to do what they want.
They will make an exception if you’re a Christian apparently, however.
By your own words, you still aren’t getting it.
You keep comparing it to businesses not serving black people, which is discrimination 100%.
That’s not what happened here. The gay customers weren’t denied service. The developer just declined creating something that they don’t agree with.
Here are some examples to make it easy for you.
I’m selling cupcakes and refuse to sell to a gay couple. - illegal
I’m selling cupcakes and a gay couple wants custom made cupcakes with rainbows and unicorns, but I don’t like unicorns so I decline. - legal
Reread what I just wrote. “The developer just declined creating something that they don’t agree with” is literally exactly the same justification people used to resist integration and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was discrimination then and it is discrimination now. There is no difference between your two examples except in your own mind. Certainly there is no difference before the law. (Except if the creator of the cupcake is Christian, apparently.)
I’m sorry, if you can’t see the difference than I won’t waste my time engaging with you.
Yeah, realistically anyone who is creating websites for a living shouldn’t give a fuck about who they are creating it for. The KKK is a terrible example because that is 1. a hate group and 2. a group you join on your own volition. A business could take the same stance against anyone wearing BLM apparel, as that is a group you join on your own volition. Being a certain race or sexuality is not something you join on your own volition, you are a member of that category because of a trait you inherently have not because you decided to join a group.
Well said. Religion also gets included in that, which I think is much squishier in terms of “traits you inherently have,” but we definitely live in this world.
But they didn’t refuse anything. The woman who drummed up this case made it up. Stewart, the guy who supposedly requested it, is a web designer AND not even gay.
People go out of their way to be victims
The KKK isn’t a protected class though, whereas sexuality and gender are
I see it didn’t take very long for lemmy to become just as smooth brained as reddit.
deleted by creator