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

  • darq@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    And how do you differentiate between this and say, a shop, or a doctor? Do LGBT people not “have the right to the labour” of those services?

    I disagree with that framing entirely. But I’m curious to know how you would differentiate.

    • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d say it’s the business model.

      Not defending the practices or arguing in defense of bigotry, just offering an explanation.

      If it’s a business model like a store where you come in and buy things with prices on them, that’s open to everyone equally.

      If it’s a business where you sit down individually with each client and work out custom goods and services and pricing, then it’s less “owner sells things” and more “clients contract owner for XYZ”, and at that point, I’d tend to agree that it’s a two way street, that both parties must agree to terms.

      At that point, both sides have the option to simply not agree and not enter into a contract, for any reason. Just because one may disagree with one party’s decision to not enter that agreement doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have that option.

      What if it was a photographer who didn’t want to be hired to photograph a Trump rally, a pro-life protest, or something else they felt strongly against like a (peaceful, lawful) far right event?

      I don’t think in those cases that a photographer should have no choice because the organizers are paying the money, so likewise, in this case, I don’t feel like it’s fair to force the photographer to cover an event they have a strong moral objection to, simply because that’s their business.

      Again, I’m not arguing that I agree with the photographer or that their position isn’t bigoted, just offering a distinction.

      • mommykink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think your comment can be summed up more succinctly with “independent contractors have more discretion to choose their clients or projects than businesses that serve the public.” And I agree with you

          • mommykink@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            For the same reason that I don’t believe gay couples should be legally forced to accept services from a MAGA photographer. A private contract in this situation is just that, a contract. Both parties have the power to set whatever terms and conditions that they want.

            For example, imagine a black couple wanted a photographer for a family event and said something along the lines of “we’d like to support members of the black community by hiring an independent black photographer.” If a white photographer saw this and sued, everyone would (rightfully) react negatively to him trying to force a private party to break the conditions they set for their private contract.

            • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              But a MAGA supporter is not the same characteristic as being LGQTB. They are not equivalent. Some countries have protected classes which I think is best. Political affiliation is not protected. Sexual orientation is. A protected class is saying that infringing the freedoms of others based on these characteristics is a great threat to freedom. The country needs to explicitly state it won’t tolerate it, because it will erode the freedom far greater than not allowing it. You can discriminate against someone based on choices they make, but not on inherent characteristics they have.

              Likewise saying you are hiring a black photographer isn’t the same as saying you’re not hiring a white photographer. The distinction is important. You’re not saying you exclude a person based on an inherent/protected characteristic. The exclusion can be inferred but it doesn’t actually mean the exclusion exists. You can say you will hire a black photographer does not mean you won’t consider or hire any other. But saying you will not hire a white photographer does concretely state your exclusion which shouldn’t be a factor in business in any free Democratic country.

              I would think this is a choice that doesn’t have a right answer. All choices suck. You infringe on someone regardless of choice. But saying that I think the choice with least harm is choosing to have protected classes that can’t be infringed on vs allowing people to disallow people access to services based on these protected classes. I would prefer a person who feels they will infringe on those rights to not choose to be in the market offering services where they can discriminate based on sex, race, sexual orientation or other traits that should be protected. But if they feel they don’t want to serve plumbers or Democrats or movie producers all the power to them

                • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Tricky one isn’t it. Its arguable that religion is a choice and isn’t inherent. But I think religion is an outlier because of historical reasons. The persecution of individuals in states where one religious sect is dominate is well known throughout history. Making the caveat for religious reason maybe preceded any of the modern protected classes and was just grandfathered in but for good reason. Just guessing though. I think its definitely an outlier though.

                  • cricket98@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Would you tell people being persecuted for their religion that they aren’t valid because they have a choice not to believe it?

      • HenchmanNumber3@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m not saying I disagree with your position, but being a Trump supporter or anti-choice is a choice, whereas being LGBTQ isn’t, so the comparison isn’t of equal demographic descriptors.

        • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I disagree with your appraisal but as an example that splits your uprights: let’s say the photographer in question is a member of a demographic that is or was persecuted in some way and those trying to hire them are members of the persecuting demographic.

          A Ukrainian photographer being asked to cover a family event for a family of Russians. Even if nobody involved has anything to do with the war, the situation could very likely make the photographer uncomfortable, and I don’t think that most people would fault the photographer for passing on the opportunity.

          A black photographer being asked to cover a wedding being held on the grounds of a former Southern plantation is another case where I feel that the photographer would be understandably uncomfortable and the photographer would be completely justified in declining.

          Even something like, say, an artist who is the daughter of Filipino parents who were subjected to horrific treatment during the japanese occupation during ww2, and now she’s being approached by a Japanese patron to commission her for a piece. While there’s a good chance that the artist may not be affected by her family’s history and be able to create the commission without any issue, I also feel that if that’s not the case, and the dynamic makes her uncomfortable, she would be completely within her rights to simply decline.

          There’s even the possibility of the effects of real trauma being unjustly applied: the black photographer who was assaulted by a white person and now simply doesn’t want to work events for white people (or vice versa). The female SA victim who won’t work with men.

          Simply flipping the party who has a condition they can’t change seems (to me at least) to change the dynamic. Having non-choice conditions on both sides changes the dynamic even more.

          As such, I feel that the only fair situation is one in which the business contact is understood to be a two party contract, with both sides having full agency over their decision about whether to enter into the agreement for any reason. It’s different when it’s like a shop owner or something, where the entire transaction takes a minute and the goods and services they provide are open to the public in general.

          But in the cases I’m talking about, I see the business models and getting comparable to valves or switches in a system. Some valves are “always open” except in specific circumstances: the main water valve, the valve from the pipes into your toilet tank, etc. and they’re just left open outside of specific special circumstances. Others are “always closed” outside of special circumstances: the bypass for a filter, or a drainage valve, or even the knobs on the sink which are only open when you’re actually using it. I see storefronts as “always open” valves, providing their services to the public in general unless they’re closed. In contrast, contract workers are “always closed” valves, not working by default, and their valve of work only opens when they agree to it. And in that business model, they should be free to keep that valve closed for any reason, regardless of whether it’s a good or shitty reason to anyone else.

          While you or I may not particularly like or approve of one party or the other’s reasoning for opting out of a contract, I do believe it should be their decision.

          • HenchmanNumber3@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Did you respond to the wrong comment? If not, you read a lot into what little I said and much I wouldn’t have said, had I said more.

      • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This isn’t about defining a business model. It’s about defining discrimination and protected groups. By your logic above, the photographer could charge a black couple more than a white one. I know that’s not what you mean, but it would be the potential result of how that law would be interpreted.

        At the end of the day, a Trump rally is not a protected group, so a business can say no. Just like a shop proprietor can refuse business to said rally goers, but not to a protected group.

        • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          By your logic above, the photographer could charge a black couple more than a white one. I know that’s not what you mean, but it would be the potential result of how that law would be interpreted.

          No that is part of what I mean. And it is about defining a business model.

          They absolutely could do that. You and I may not like that, but they should absolutely have the discretion to do that, when they’re negotiating individual terms with individual clients.

          If the photographer was a black woman who’d been sexually assaulted by a white male police officer, should she be legally compelled to provide her services to a retirement party for a white male police chief, regardless of whether or causes her significant trauma?

          What if instead it’s someone who was raised Catholic then eventually left the church with some hard feelings when they married an atheist…and now they’re being asked by the church to cover a fundraiser event the church is putting on? Or even just a Catholic family having a confirmation or something and they want the photographer to document the occasion?

          I’m not saying that I personally wouldn’t do these events or that I feel the person’s objection may be legitimate or not, my point is that it doesn’t matter what I think, and that a freelancer should always have the right to not enter into a contract for any reason. Sure, that freedom could be used in ways that allow them to express their bigotry, but I feel that’s a possibility which is an acceptable cost/risk in return for the freedom of these freelancers to choose how to do business.

          Just my opinion and you’re free to disagree!

          • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            They absolutely could do that. You and I may not like that, but they should absolutely have the discretion to do that, when they’re negotiating individual terms with individual clients.

            No, they can’t. They cannot simply because they are a protected class. If there other reasons, they can.

            If the photographer was a black woman who’d been sexually assaulted by a white male police officer, should she be legally compelled to provide her services to a retirement party for a white male police chief, regardless of whether or causes her significant trauma?

            Not because he is white. But yes because he is a police chief, or just about any other reason.

            What if instead it’s someone who was raised Catholic then eventually left the church with some hard feelings when they married an atheist…and now they’re being asked by the church to cover a fundraiser event the church is putting on? Or even just a Catholic family having a confirmation or something and they want the photographer to document the occasion?

            She could decline because its a church, a business, but not because a client has a religion.

            … my point is that it doesn’t matter what I think, and that a freelancer should always have the right to not enter into a contract for any reason. Sure, that freedom could be used in ways that allow them to express their bigotry, but I feel that’s a possibility which is an acceptable cost/risk in return for the freedom of these freelancers to choose how to do business.

            The rest of the paragraph is what you think. It is not what the majority think, and that is why laws exist as they do, because the majority voted for them.

            Just my opinion and you’re free to disagree!

            I do disagree, and so does the law, excluding OPs post and thus why this is relevant and important to understand. You’re still trying to frame this as a business model, but it’s about protected classes.

      • darq@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it’s a business where you sit down individually with each client and work out custom goods and services and pricing, then it’s less “owner sells things” and more “clients contract owner for XYZ”, and at that point, I’d tend to agree that it’s a two way street, that both parties must agree to terms.

        Healthcare falls into this quite easily.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So I agree with you, but food for thought as I was mulling this over: what about someone building a deck? I shouldn’t discriminate who I build a deck for based on color or orientationn because building that deck doesn’t expose me to anything I object to (I’m using “I” universally here - I’m queer positive and don’t build decks). But like if I’m a boudoir photographer who is squicked by queer sexuality I ought to be able to decline a shoot.

        So I don’t know that the line is just a one on one service. That’s not quite there, but it’s close. I recognize the need to protect folks from being forced to witness or participate in things they object to, but I also recognize the need to protect minority groups from being excluded from the benefits of society.

        I also think it would do people good to get over themselves and be exposed to things they find uncomfortable and grow as a person, but I recognize that isn’t anything that can be forced on someone.

        • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah I agree that it doesn’t seem to be a firm hard line, but maybe that’s a good thing. And honestly, to me it’s one of those things that, from a purely economic standpoint, it’s just opening up that opportunity to competitors.

          So you don’t wanna photo gay weddings? That’s cool, someone else will.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Gig worker versus someone providing a service to the general public. A wedding photographer is not on the job until you both accept the terms and sign a contract.

      Besides, do you really want a wedding photographer that doesn’t want to be there and has to be legally forced?

    • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’d say anything that could be considered as creative, and isn’t necessary for life.

      That said, I’d rather non-essential creatives be allowed to discriminate. Who wants a closeted homophobe photographing their wedding? I’d rather a non-professional friend do it with their cell phone.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Should they also be allowed to have a whites only business? Because I’m pretty sure they legally can’t discriminate that way. It’s only okay if someone is LGBT+.

        • devz0r@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No. But he should be able to reject creating something that says “whites only” or “straights only”.

          Example:

          Denying a “white power” photo session - should be legal

          Denying taking senior photos because the client is white - should not be legal

          Denying professional headshots because the client is gay - should not be legal

          Denying a “gay pride” photo session - should be legal (though you’re an asshole if you do it IMO)

          But the thing is, don’t even give a reason. You don’t have to take every job, and you don’t have to say why. If you make the stand to not take a certain job because of political reasons, you are bringing negative attention on yourself

        • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The difference is in the business model.

          If they’re working individual jobs on a freelance, case by case, contract-based model, then they can do whatever they want as far as signing a contract to do work or not signing a contract to do work with whomever they wish.

          The reasons might be shitty sometimes, but that’s not enough of a reason to compel all freelancers to do work they don’t want to.

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

        So you’re saying minorities don’t have a right to anything but the bare essentials?

        Or are you saying the right of bigoted business owners to discriminate trumps the right of individuals to be treated equally?

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is mixing a drink creative?

        Is hairstyling creative?

        Is designing landscapes creative?

        Is putting shingles on a house creative?

        Is doing electrical work creative?

        What type of work that requires some level of skill and design specific to the project not creative?

        Why don’t minorities deserve the right to hire the same businesses as everyone else?

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’d say anything that could be considered as creative

        This is basically how it’s handled. In the Masterpiece Cake case it wasn’t about selling the couple “just” a cake. If they’d wanted one out of the case the Shop was legally required to sell them one. They wanted a custom cake and that falls under “creative” which changes the rules.

        The United States has long held that artistic expression, basically creative work, is protected under the 1st Amendment as a type of speech and the Government cannot compel speech without extreme need and even then it can only do it narrowly and temporarily.

        What we really have with these is a collision between individual rights. Is it fair for the Government to abrogate the 1st Amendment Right of one person by compelling them to speak (create art) in order to satisfy the 14th Amendment Right of another person?

        It may seem obvious but consider the controversy around Piss Christ. It was art and was thus subject to 1st Amendment protections and without those protections it would have been removed.

        So not allowing art, creative work, 1st Amendment Protections would cause a pile of other problems. There is no perfect solutions when rights collide, there are only trade-offs.

        • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes. I mean… if someone thinks it’s okay to force a minority to create racist content, their opinion isn’t worth a reply. And logically, that’s essentially what is being said when someone wants to force someone to create to spec something they don’t agree with.

    • Steve@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not saying this is a perfect analogy, but consider housing. If you are renting or selling real estate, you can not discriminate based on protected classes. However, if you are renting a room with shared spaces, you can deny applicants for any reason.

    • devz0r@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the difference comes down to creative outlets. Just like with the “create a website for same-sex weddings”. I also feel a photographer should be able to deny a Trump themed wedding or cake. But if it’s a general service or product offered to everyone, you shouldn’t be able to deny a person just for being gay or black or anything protected. I don’t know if I’m elaborating my thoughts about it well but do you get where I’m coming from?

      • jacaw@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        A wedding photographer offers their services to everyone having weddings. If that photographer refuses to photograph same-sex weddings, is that not the same as denying service to someone over their sexuality?

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The United States has long held that creative work, art basically, is a form of Speech and protected under the 1st Amendment. This means that compelling art is the same compelling speech and boy howdy are there a bunch of laws around that, laws that society really needs to have.

          So it’s a collision between rights:

          On the one side we have the Photographer and their Constitutional Claims to not be compelled to create art (speak) and their right to not do something that is against their religion.

          On the other side we have a LGBTQ person and their Constitutional Claim to not be denied services as a member of a protected class.

          We currently draw the line by protecting the right to not be compelled to speak. In practical terms this means that buying a standard per-packaged Good or Service cannot be denied to people in a protected class. If a member of that protected class wants to purchase a Good or Service that would require creative input then the seller can refuse.

          It becomes more clear if you create a scenario where someone in a protected class wants something distasteful. Let say that this Nazi here is gay and getting married to this Nazi here. They roll into one of these fine bakeries in New York and demand a custom cake in the shape of Hitler standing on a base that says “Blood and Soil” with little red fondant swastikas between each letter.

          They also need a wedding photographer but their Hitler Themed wedding has a 7’ tall statute of the guy standing underneath a banner that says “Arbeit Macht Frei” and they really want a shot of the two of them standing next to that statue in their finest Hugo Boss tuxedo’s while they both kiss Hitler’s cheeks.

          So how does Society decide this mess? Do we force the Jewish bakery to make that cake because the buyers are minorities and gay? Do we force the photographer to take those pictures? Would YOU want to be forced to do either of those?

          I sure as hell wouldn’t because what they want is deeply and personally offensive. This is why we protect against compelled speech.

        • devz0r@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You make a good point and I thought the same thing after I made my initial comments. Another one I thought about was what if a person truly strongly believed in segregation, even maybe it being a part of their religion. Does that mean it’s ok for them to deny black people? That makes me deeply uncomfortable to put it lightly; I don’t think that is justifiable.

          At the same time, there is something very personal about creative pursuits. Graphic artists can reject any idea and they don’t have to justify it. And this is something that is custom made for each customer. If the artist isn’t interested, and even is morally opposed to performing the work, even if they were legally required to do it, is it going to be their best work? Can they be penalized for deliberately doing a terrible job? I don’t know

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

            I think this issue is why we have protected classes and why sexual orientation/preference/gender should be one.

            When you say “graphic artists can reject any idea and they don’t have to justify it” the implication is that they can reject it for any reason which is not strictly true.

            “I don’t feel like it” is a perfectly valid reason.

            “I don’t like Black people” is not.

            A photographer can choose not to do a job because they don’t feel like it, but not because it’s for a Black person or a Jewish person.

            The issue here that is being overlooked in a lot of the discussion (but definitely is not being overlooked by the Supreme Court) is that LGBTQ people are not a protected class. Every time one of these cases pans out it sets another precedent that will be used to keep it that way.

            It’s not the same as being forced to photograph a Trump rally or campaign photos. A far more apt comparison imo is race. Most people would agree that a business (any business) should not be able to exclude someone based on their race.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      One is and artistic and expressive occupation. Stitching up a gay person wouldn’t be perceived as a form of statement. But being required to produce work in the traditional style of a wedding photographer could be perceived as issuing a statement in support of the event.

      If you sold signs, you shouldn’t be able to decline someone a blank sign just because they are LGBT. But you shouldn’t be required to design one that carried a pro LGBT (or any other kind) of message.

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

        I see where you are going with that, and I follow. But what about when we get into healthcare that can be perceived as queer-specific?

        Say, when a doctor refuses to do proper STD screenings for a gay man, refuses to prescribe PrEP or PEP, or refuses to authorize checks on hormone levels?

        All taken from experiences me and my friends have had, by the way.

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wouldn’t consider screenings or prescribing countermeasures to people who suspect exposure to medical threats particularly artistic or expressive. All those seem like pretty normal things for any sexually active adult to ask for regardless of sexuality.

          Additionally those should be confidential so I don’t see them as a form of compelled speech.

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Take something you strongly disagree with. Let’s say a certain political party and their agenda. Republicans, Democrats, Nazis, a radical independent, doesn’t matter what, just one you disagree with.

      You’ve decided to provide a private service as an individual. Let’s say, event planning.

      A political party approaches you to host their biggest rally yet. On enquiring, what it’s about, you find out it’s the one you disagree with.

      Should you be made to? Are you denying rights by declining your services to them, or are you exercising your own by choosing to stand by your beliefs?

      Your beliefs will of course outrage some people that have opposing ones, but they are yours and they should be protected no matter what they are or how wild or somber they are. It is only when you actively start harming people or directly denying human rights is when it becomes an issue… But you host events, you don’t control water, shelter, justice, health, or food to societies. So unless that’s somehow happening—and boy would that have been a regulatory fuck up—you have the freedom to not host events for things that go against what you believe, and we protect that even if people disagree with them.

      You can’t make someone do things against their beliefs, just as you wouldn’t want to be made to do things against your own. That’s called hypocrisy and double standards. We respect this by disagreeing with someone’s beliefs, but we don’t strip them from people and force our own on them, just because we disagree.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can’t make someone do things against their beliefs, just as you wouldn’t want to be made to do things against your own.

        In the US, the civil rights legislation forces racists to serve black people and that is great.

      • darq@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is a fundamental difference between immutable traits, such as race, gender, sexuality, and physical ability, and political beliefs. So your comparison to “something you strongly disagree with” is not fitting analogy.

        Your beliefs will of course outrage some people that have opposing ones, but they are yours and they should be protected no matter what they are or how wild or somber they are.

        We aren’t talking about “beliefs”. We’re talking about actions. Discrimination is an action.

        It is only when you actively start harming people or directly denying human rights is when it becomes an issue…

        And denying people goods and services based on who they are is harming them. So it is an issue.

        You can’t make someone do things against their beliefs, just as you wouldn’t want to be made to do things against your own.

        We can and we do, all the time. That’s part of living in society.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Being a member of a protected class is not some kind of trump card you can play to get whatever you want from whomever you want it.

          Let’s say that this Nazi here is gay and getting married to this Nazi here. They roll into one of these fine bakeries in New York and demand a custom cake in the shape of Hitler standing on a base that says “Blood and Soil” with little red fondant swastikas between each letter.

          For a wedding venue they’d like to have this excellent location and catering company.

          They also need a wedding photographer and their Hitler Themed wedding has a 7’ tall statute of the guy standing underneath a banner that says “Arbeit Macht Frei” and they really want a shot of the two of them standing next to that statue in their finest Hugo Boss tuxedo’s while they both kiss Hitler’s cheeks. They plan to stop by Stak Studios tomorrow and talk to them about it.

          And denying people goods and services based on who they are is harming them.

          How are you feeling about your statement right now?

          • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re confusing ideology with identity.

            Being a member of a protected class is not some kind of trump card you can play to get whatever you want from whomever you want it.

            Which is equivalent to saying you want to bring back “whites only” or “no gays” signs and whatever else. No thanks.

            And let’s be clear. We aren’t actually talking about getting “whatever” from “whomever.” We are talking about people who are members of a group (not by choice) having the right to expect the same treatment as others from a business open to the public.

            On the other hand, you have stated, essentially, bigoted owners of businesses open to the public can deny business to anyone who holds this proverbial membership card you mention.

          • darq@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Being a member of a protected class is not some kind of trump card you can play to get whatever you want from whomever you want it.

            Never said it was.

            The rest of your comment is similarly meaningless. You must have misunderstood me. The service would, and could, be denied because they are asking for a Nazi-themed service. Being a Nazi is a choice, not an immutable trait, nor a protected class.

            Nowhere have I said that gay people shouldn’t be denied service for any reason, only that they shouldn’t be denied service because they’re gay.

            How are you feeling about your statement right now?

            Exactly the same as before you made your utterly irrelevant comment.

        • saltesc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The thing’s you say are very authoritarian. The disregard for individual thoughts and freedoms is honestly scary. You can’t even differentiate private venture with public service. I suspect you discriminate against others all of the time, but it’s fine since it’s coming from you and your side of things, never questioning if you’re the bad person or not.

          It slowly gets worse and worse each time you type. That last part is just flat out disgusting to say.

          The Handmaiden’s Tale didn’t get 8.4 on iMDB because people can’t wait for that future enough.

            • saltesc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Heh. Thank you. My point and case for anti-libertarian rests on that response perfectly.

              And I appreciate you taking your time to state you’re wasting your time. Best your words and outlook rest here than elsewhere. We’re trying to progress as a species so, in a way, this is unintentionally helping.

                • saltesc@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You’ve been addressed and deemed anti-liberal as what you’ve said is in direct opposition of the protection of people’s freedoms and beliefs. You in fact went on to nonchalantly say that’s fine and that you can take people’s beliefs from them and replace them, which is literally within definition of authoritatianism—the polar opposite of liberalism.

                  Are you simple?

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

                    You’ve been addressed and deemed anti-liberal as what you’ve said is in direct opposition of the protection of people’s freedoms and beliefs.

                    More idiotic accusations, no substance.

                    You in fact went on to nonchalantly say that’s fine and that you can take people’s beliefs from them and replace them

                    What? I’ve said nothing of the sort.

                    Stop arguing with people you have imagined.

                    Yawn.

      • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re right, but that’s an unpopular take in this hive mind.

        Lemmy folk can’t handle reality that contradicts their ideals.

        • saltesc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This feels like it should be Libertarian 101. Thought the communities were left here, but apparently they just say that to feel good.