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

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

  • @[email protected]
    9•1 year ago

    Nobody should be forced by law to do things they don´t want to do.

    That’s not going to work. There are many kinds of people, and some of the things they want to do or refuse to do are disruptive or dangerous.

    That guy doesn’t want to take care of his home projects, and now toxic smoke is blowing into his neighbors houses. Are you going to just say “well he doesn’t want to deal with that, so the law can’t make him”? I hope not because that creates a shitty world for everyone.

    So maybe you meant something different and more limited than what you wrote?

    • @MJKee9
      7•1 year ago

      I think the implication in all personal freedom discussions is: freedom so long as it doesn’t unnecessarily harm others. You may have freedom of speech in America, but that doesn’t protect the right to falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

        • @MJKee9
          0•1 year ago

          Sure it does. Notice i said unreasonable harm. There is a clear distinction between refusing to take someone’s wedding photo and providing someone with life saving care.

          There are US Court cases that deal with this distinction.

          Edit: i originally said unnecessarily as opposed to unreasonably… But the point still stands

      • @[email protected]
        1•1 year ago

        Glad we agree that we don’t want an unbounded freedom from responsibility.

        But I mean if you don’t force people to serve the entire public you risk some presumably unwanted consequences. Should a whole grocery chain be able to say no blacks? What if it’s the only one in the town? Should realtors be allowed to refuse to sell houses to non whites? What if that means all the black people get forced into one part of town, and coincidentally that part has shitty services and other unwanted traits?

        Is the rule “as long as there’s alternatives it’s ok”? Separate but equal was already decided to be unequal.

        On the other hand, I do want to be able to refuse service to Nazis. Maybe the key is naziism is wholly something you choose. But I also don’t want people to be able to refuse service to, like, union members.

        There’s no universal “anti social behavior” metric, unfortunately, I don’t think.