• 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    270
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    This was always legal. I’m an attorney, I do not represent any Trump supporters. If a client says something favorable about trump, they are no longer my client. They are just too stupid, judgement too poor, don’t understand difference between reality and fantasy. They make the absolute worst clients.

    • Zyansheep@vlemmy.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure about discrimination against customers based on ideology, but I’m pretty sure you can’t discriminate against customers based on protected class (sex, race, orientation, etc.) What this supreme court case does (IIUC) is that companies are now allowed to not provide services to protected classes if those services constitute speech. So if you are a restaurant owner, or a hotel, you still can’t refuse a gay couple, if you are a cake designer, you can’t refuse to make a cake, but you can refuse to do anything remotely gay-related to that cake, if you are a web designer, you can refuse to make something altogether because the government can’t restrict or compel speech (and graphic design is speech).

        • obviouspornalt@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Baking the cake is definitely not speech ( although I appreciate your point about this Court interpreting it that way).

          However, decorating the cake could reasonably be construed as speech, especially if there is text, logos, etc in the decoration.

          • Chocrates@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Gotcha, yeah I agree. I personally don’t think a website designer building something for a client is either. But we live in a dystopia right now. Hope you are doing well this evening.

        • Zyansheep@vlemmy.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think that was the majority opinion’s goal, they think the line between what is speech and what isn’t should be spelled out more minutely with more legal precedent rather than what we had before where all speech in relation to selling a service was regulated under anti-discrimination statutes.

      • vortic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Money is speech, right? Does that make the ramifications of this decision go a lot farther? I don’t see how yet, but it seems like this ruling may have broad impacts when people start getting creative with it…

        • Zyansheep@vlemmy.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, Roe v Wade set a precedent, which was then reverted ~50 years later, so I’m not sure how much precedents apply to the supreme court (it definitely applies to lower courts tho)

        • Belgdore@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is how common law everywhere that England colonized works. It’s not endemic to the US.

    • axtualdave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If they’re trump supporters… they probably wouldn’t be paying you anyway.

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah. Many of them have stumbled their way into money. Lots of trade people and small businesses, which makes up my typical clientele, others are sons and daughters of second or third generation union humps. Many grew up with one working parent being able to provide and that union parent has one or two pensions and is still hustling jobs. So, many of them can afford a lawyer. They are unfailingly whiney babies who are an awful combination of privileged existence and self agrandizement. I blame social media for validating their most half-baked ideas and emotional reactions.

        • axtualdave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m sure they can afford a lawyer. I was more referring to the link between being a Trump supporter and Trump’s own … habit of not paying his lawyers.