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.
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.
So it’s now legal to have a “WHITES ONLY” or a “STRAIGHTS ONLY” sign on your door?
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.
@BraveSirZaphod There’s never been any risk of that. Being a Neo-Nazi isn’t a protected class. Sexual orientation is.
Why not? Why isn’t a sign an expression of free speech?
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.