• Kittengineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    For me the difference is in refusing to serve someone because how they were born vs the choices they make.

    Totally ok with the later, but the laws are supposed to prevent the former. Just like it being illegal to discriminate against someone just because they are black or white or Asian or whatever.

    • someguy3@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Tattoos are a choice, would you be denied services because you have a tattoo? Or I don’t serve women wearing pants, because I think they should only wear dresses.

      Obviously I disagree, but I also want to point out that many conservatives think being gay or trans is a choice.

      • Kittengineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        And they’d be wrong. Being gay is a choice as much as being straight is.

        I’m always quick to point out if someone believes being gay is a choice, they are admitting THEY actively are choosing not to be gay everyday… that they actually could find the same sex attractive but choose not to.

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

          Sure, but to the religious right, they think they are right in that sexuality is a choice, and also that they are never wrong.

        • someguy3@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Of course they’re wrong, but that’s what they think and that’s how they will discriminate. Well they to discriminate based on what you’re born as too so it really doesn’t matter. But they think it’s a choice, yes often because they are bi and to them it’s a choice to act on it, so they project.

    • root_beer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      A lot of the people who discriminate against the lgbtq+ community absolutely believe that sexual orientation is a choice, and I’d wager that includes the justices who ruled in favor of the web designer.

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

      I agree with you. Isn’t race specifically a protected class with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment specifically? Political ideology or beliefs are not protected, unless violence is utilized. Please correct me if I am wrong.

        • Yendor@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          For employment purposes, it is. Court precedents have affirmed that discriminating against someone based on sexual orientation is a form of sex-based discrimination which is illegal under Title VII.

          But creative works (like baking a cake or building a website) are protected by the constitution as free speech. You can’t compel someone to perform a creative work against their own beliefs.

          That’s why you’re allowed to refuse to build a website for a gay couples wedding, but you can’t refuse to change their tyres.

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

            I think you mean for a hypothetical website that was never ordered and certainly never order by the straight man the website sited. The court just ruled on two cases that were effectively made up. As the loan company also didn’t have any issue with debt forgiveness, and the state “filed for them” to “create” an injured party. it is past time to pit enough people on the bench that One president can’t fuck the legal system up for 6 peoples lifetimes.

          • Kittengineer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s great and all, but I personally don’t think that is right for fair.

            Imagine a baker saying they don’t want to bake a wedding cake because of an interracial couple or for black people. I get the law is different, I’m saying personally I don’t agree with that law and think that’s a load of shit.

            • emperorbenguin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The problem is you’re wrong though, because legally you have to look at the lowest common denominator.

              Imagine you are a baker and someone wants you to bake a nazi cake? Would you want to? Hell no, but saying that a producer is required by law to perform any creative production asked of by the client means that you as a Jewish gay person (hypothetically) would be forced to bake that nazi cake.

              Similarly, it doesn’t really matter what’s “right” it doesn’t change that for some people, lgbt issues are considered religious sin, and they feel like they would be committing a religious sin in baking a pride cake. Now are they loony? Yeah they are. But it doesn’t change that you cannot force someone to artistically create something against their will. ESPECIALLY when you can just go to another baker who will.

              • Kittengineer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Again I draw the line on discrimination based on how a person was born vs their decisions.

                Bakers can say no to nazis, democrats, republicans, tattoos, whatever.

                But bakers being able to say no just because how you are born: white, black, male, female, gay, straight… that’s horse shit.

                Why would argue that’s ok or morally correct or fair?

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

                  The problem is that while it is obvious to you that sexual orientation is a matter of birth and not choice, it isn’t to, to be honest, the vast majority of people on this planet.

                  And also, just to put things in perspective, even the science isn’t fully convinced. Most evidence tells us it’s something from birth, and my personal life anecdote tells me I’m bisexual since the day I was born, but truthfully we don’t have any hard evidence to prove it, since it is nearly impossible to prove.

                  This is why it has to be included with the rest.

                  • venia_sil@vlemmy.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    This, and not to mention the science changes.

                    The color of the skin might be something you are “born as”, but as Michael Jackson proved you can certainly change it. Does it mean it is a choice, and not “something that you are”? What happens once CRISPR becomes commonplace?

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

                  It’s a fine line, but it comes down to this: it’s not OK for the baker to refuse to bake a cake for someone in a protected class.

                  However, it’s also not OK for someone in a protected class to compel speech from the baker.

                  Ask the baker to bake a plain cake with no messaging on it: the baker can’t refuse on the basis of any protected attributes, like the customer’s race, etc.

                  Ask the baker to decorate the cake with a “happy pride day” message? Only if the baker agrees to that expression. You can’t compel speech.

                  It works the other way too: you can’t compel the baker to write something they disagree with if they don’t want to. It’s clear why a baker would be within their rights to refuse a “I’m glad all the Jews died” message on the cake. The baker is within their rights to decline any expression they don’t like. And that’s the way it should be.

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

        It’s the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects from discrimination from any of the following: race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Basically anything else is fair game, as far as I understand.