this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
458 points (94.0% liked)

News

23300 readers
3423 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sanyanov@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Nobody seems to be asking the main question: why would LGBT+ couples want to hire an open homophobe to take their wedding pictures to begin with?

[–] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I feel like framing the issue like this kinda dangerous. If a single entity (in this case, a business) is allowed to discriminate against a protected class, then are all businesses that provide that service allowed to discriminate against said class?

It seems as though they would be. That gets us back to a version of the Jim Crow South pretty quickly. How are LGBTQ+ folks supposed to exist as equal members in a society if entire segments of that society are legally allowed to close themselves off? What happens when a business that controls major segments of more important service sectors makes a similar decision (for example, say the only Level 1 trauma center in a city is in a privately-owned, religiously-affiliated medical center that now has a legal precedent to say they won't serve LGBTQ+ patients for religious reasons)?

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

I feel like framing the issue like this kinda dangerous. If a single entity (in this case, a business) is allowed to discriminate against a protected class, then are all businesses that provide that service allowed to discriminate against said class?

I think the issue lies in the different measures of protected class, and the layers of law between State and Federal. US law is needlessly complicated and full of holes.

The Civil Rights Act provides protections for employees against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin under Title VII. Title II covers inter-state commerce and protects against discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin - but not sex.

Beyond this, states are supposed to make their own laws. However, the Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis undermines this, as the court ruled that the 1st Amendment and free speech overrules any discrimination law the state makes. Thus, provided you avoid Title II by only doing business within the state, it would be possible to argue that you can discriminate against any protected classes, so long as that class isn't protected by other Federal legislation (eg the Americans with Disabilities Act provides extensive coverage for those with disabilities).

[–] Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You can take anything and make it horrifying if you want. It's either a slippery slope or reductio ad absurdum.

This is a photographer that wanted to decline a customer, nothing more or less.

A business should be able to decide the kind of services it provides. If I don't want to bake a gigantic 5' swastika cake I shouldn't have to.

At the end of the day capitalism protects everyone against excessive descrimination - business that reject people get less money, fewer reviews, will grow slower, etc. If that business rejects your business someone else will provide it. If nobody serves a community, there's a business opportunity waiting. Etc.

I don't know how delusional you need to be to assume it could EVER be possible that somehow every business would just refuse to serve a population because of X characteristic.

[–] ZzyzxRoad@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know how delusional you need to be to assume it could EVER be possible that somehow every business would just refuse to serve a population because of X characteristic

But they just said it: the Jim Crow south. This isn't some crazy delusional scenario. It's literally already happened, and it was not even a hundred years ago. When schools were integrated there were mobs of white housewives yelling racial slurs at little children because they were black. This is real shit that's gone on for more of America's history than not.

Don't skip history class, everybody. But I guess if conservative judges get their way we'll probably lose that too.

[–] Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

Jim Crow laws didn't mean that no business served black Americans. Don't skip history class, everybody.

[–] Saxoboneless@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good point, must not have been that bad, supreme court could really bring that one back with zero consequences, huh?

[–] Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

What? What are you even talking about?

Nobody wants racial segregation except the ignorant racists, who deserve the economic damage caused by being ignorant racists.

Forcing an ignorant racist to serve people they hate will accomplish nothing, and certainly won't help their ignorance or racism.

Daryl Davis is pretty vocal about the way he deradicalized KKK members, I recommend looking into him. Spoiler: the secret is shared interests (music) and normal conversation, just getting to know each other.

[–] Sparlock@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago
[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Same reason black people wanted to eat at the whites only lunch counters.

[–] stella@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think that's a 1:1 comparison.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Why not? Equality is equality.

[–] Dempf@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 year ago

In 303 Creative v. Elenis the answer is: the couple was manufactured. No LGBT+ couple tried to hire them. The man named in court docs who supposedly tried to hire 303 Creative first heard about the case when reporters contacted him shortly before the Supreme Court released their decision. He has been happily married (to a woman) for a long time, and had no need for a wedding website.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 8 points 1 year ago

I doubt it starts that way, probably more like a Google search for "wedding photographers near me", a few names pop up, you go there, start signing paperwork and getting signed up, and then when you put down your two names, they look at you with disgust and tell you to get out of their shop, interrupting your thoughts about normal stuff like marriage licenses.

So then you take your shaken fiancé from the store, and look for other wedding photographers, and probably learn that there are far more Christian photographers than you thought, and not many that would preside over a fairly mundane marriage, save for the fact its just two guys instead of a guy and a gal.