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

  • Adramis@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Show me someone saying “This is fine”, and I’ll show you someone who has the privilege to not fear whether they’re going to be blocked out of society for the crime of…existing. This is only the first step to “All businesses, including businesses required for life, can discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals”. Y’all are unhinged.

    Obligatory:

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

      It’s not a step, they literally are allowed to discriminate, under US law.

      First off, the only protection US law gives is towards “sex”, not “sexual orientation”. The right to gay marriage isn’t about sexual orientation, rather the 14th amendment merely states that the law must treat all citizens equally. The state cannot refuse to hear a civil suit filed by a black man, and the state cannot refuse the marriage of gay people. It only applies to the government (as well as those contracted by the government per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act).

      Second, US law only considers sex a protected class in matters of employment. Title II of the Civil Rights Act governs inter-state commerce only, and only grants protections against discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. It does not cover sex/gender, and does not cover sexual orientation, and only applies when the business involves a significant number of customers from out of state or products whose supply chains involve other states.

      The way it’s supposed to work is that states can set their own laws on the matter. However, states must set their laws within the bounds of the Constitution. What happened with 303 Creative v. Elenis is that the Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment right to free speech supercedes any law the state makes, thus, unless Federal law says discrimination is illegal then it is a-ok in law.

      As it is, there is no federal law protecting against discrimination for sexual orientation specifically, and discrimination based on sex is only protected in matters involving employment.

      US law is shiiiiiiiite. I wouldn’t hold my breath for a Republican Congress, too busy fingering their own assholes, to actually make some proper legislation.

    • UnspecificGravity@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Should a Jewish photographer be required to work the klan themed wedding of Baron Trump to the reanimated corpse of Eva Braun? Just because they were asked to?

      A single proprietor business should be allowed to deny any job that they aren’t comfortable working, just like any employee of a company could refuse to work such a job.

      I don’t like bigots either, but requiring a photographer to work at whatever event wants to hire them is absurd. You don’t lose all right to autonomy just because you offer a service, least of all a service that provides nothing that anyone actually needs.