Do you believe identity was the issue, & not the message?
I don't.
But in the case of a priest marrying a couple, then identity
would be the issue. That would be a different case.
I expect more general application than websites.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
SCOTUS rules website designer does not have to design for a gay couple.
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
I don't.
But in the case of a priest marrying a couple, then identity
would be the issue. That would be a different case.
I don't know. That's why I'm asking whether this ruling could protect identity-based discrimination.
Because marriage is inexorably linked to sexual orientation. Most other services are unrelated to the client's sexual orientation.
Such as? This is the area that worries me most: I have no idea how far this could reach or how much discrimination it could allow.
It doesn't appear to.
But I'm not all that familiar with it yet.
Cake shops, billboards, & other providers
of services with a message.
In law there is a principle about self-caused harm, and that a person who causes their own harm can't hold another liable. Where it comes to bigotry I would assert that is self-harm since it is the self's anti-gay attitudes that make performing work for gays intolerable. As a result gays (who are just who they are) are harmed, and anti-discrimination laws are deemed powerless to protect the marginalized.
An artist should be free to take (or turn down) any commission for any reason.
It's denial of essential services that becomes a problem (art not being an essential service). Granted, we already deny essential services in this country too. Exhibit A - health care.
It's denial of essential services that becomes a problem (art not being an essential service). Granted, we already deny essential services in this country too. Exhibit A - health care.
Billboards could also be a major issue, because that means those with the power to advertise and provide visibility to ideas and campaigns could enforce their views on clients or curate the messages they want others to spread.
Sure, if this is limited to art, I agree. I'm just not confident it will be limited to that, though.
Neither am I. We shall see.
On the plus side, in my experience the LGBTQ+ space has a ton of creatives that do amazing work. Lost business to bigots means more for supporting our awesome communities.
That could be a problem.
Do you think that compelling speech one
finds offensive is also a problem.
Neither am I. We shall see.
On the plus side, in my experience the LGBTQ+ space has a ton of creatives that do amazing work. Lost business to bigots means more for supporting our awesome communities.
Good point. I also think a fundamentalist-majority SCOTUS was bound to happen sooner or later, and any problematic rulings (not necessarily this one; I'm speaking generally) will further expose the flaws in the current system as well as highlight the need for reform. It's unfortunate that they happened, but I think the most important thing for those with power and influence to do right now is to work on preventing further harm and fixing the problems that allowed this to happen in the first place (e.g., by enshrining reproductive rights and same-sex marriage in the Constitution via amendments).
That's too context-dependent for me to give a general answer. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.
If sometimes it's a problem,
then it's a problem.
Analogy....
The draft isn't a problem for
all, but it's a problem because
some oppose service.
I think this can be a fine line. My mom was an artist and doing partraits was an intimate thing. She was a typical artist who was rather open minded and tolerant. I could see her have a problem with taking a commission that shows some disturbing image, like a murder. But if a man wanted a portrait of him wearing a dress she wouldn't reject it.
Web designers aren't artists. It takes a certain creativity but that tends to be a matter of function, not interpretation.
I disagree. Some people abuse asylum laws by lying about belonging to a persecuted minority, but this doesn't mean asylum laws are a problem.
Context matters a lot there.
I see it as a problem because it denies free choice of how one spends a portion of their life. Even if every single person in a country agreed with the draft, I would still oppose it as a matter of principle.
Someone made a point that it is not a matter that there are other options for the prejudiced to go, but that they were denied service at all that causes harm that is no longer protected from.Neither am I. We shall see.
On the plus side, in my experience the LGBTQ+ space has a ton of creatives that do amazing work. Lost business to bigots means more for supporting our awesome communities.
So it comes down to what category of citizens are protected, is it those who have natural properties, or the prejudiced? The prejudiced are hiding their attitudes behind religious values. But religious values are optional, whereas being gay is not, yet the options are being protected and not the natural. That is a serious failure in this ruling.
"Fundamentalist"? They're all Catholics and Jews accept for one or two liberal Protestants.
And those proposed amendments will never happen. They won't get enough states to back it.
I don't see being Catholic as mutually exclusive with being fundamentalist or at least heavily partisan. Their stances on multiple issues also seem to me to bear this out.
I don't know about never, but the US definitely seems too divided for enough states to agree on such amendments anytime soon.
In my opinion, it doesn't cast the world's wealthiest and most powerful country in a great light that its states can't agree on protecting basic rights and freedoms (e.g., same-sex marriage) that are already enshrined in most of the developed world.
Whether or not a web designer is an artist depends on what components they are developing - in most cases I'd definitely categorize them as artists. Having done web design in the past myself, the main part of it I wouldn't categorize as art is the back-end programming, but these days there are tools that build all of that for you so you focus instead on the design (aka, art and aesthetic) elements. I'm fine with it being up to each artist what they do or don't want to commission. The particulars of this case are unfortunate in that they involve bigotry, though. I have a hard time understanding rejecting a commission for having something to do with homosexuality, but then again, what I think isn't what matters for that artist.
Yeah, it's not an optimal situation all around. Some level of discrimination is an inevitable consequence of diversity, so the challenge is what guidelines are (or aren't) built into law to serve as a check and balance.
No, they are not. Not for those who hold them. I cannot just suddenly stop being a Druid, F1fan. That's not how it works.
They're just conservative. Fundamentalism has no meaning in a Catholic context. It's not like Protestantism. Protestant fundamentalism has more in common with movements like Salafism, than anything you find in Catholicism. Just trying to clarify.
It's more that the liberalism of the coastal states doesn't represent the entire country, but a lot of them like to think it does. The process to amend the Constitution is a democratic one that most of the states must support and they simply will never get the red states to enshrine such things in the Constitution.