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.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Generic-Disposable@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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.