The justices settled a question left open in 2018: whether businesses open to the public and engaged in expression may refuse to serve customers based on religious convictions.
I get what you’re saying, but I still don’t think we should be forcing bigots to do business with people. Let the bigots be flagged as bigots, so we all know which business to avoid.
Alternatively, we force them to do business with those people, and they do a shit job without revealing the reason.
Consider this in the context of a required service.
What if the doctor refused service because you were queer? How about lawyers?
Cakes and web design are used as the examples to make the problem seem less severe. It can and will extend much farther than what this ruling is based on.
But those are wildly different types of services. Are you saying that this court case makes it so that doctors can refuse service to homosexuals now?
It was my understanding that the nature of the business (ie, not a required service) and amount of available alternatives was a factor into why they should be allowed to refuse service.
It’s just an example of a necessary service. Keep in mind, many of those service providers require a decade of education, professional experience, and licensure before being allowed to practice. Sure, a website designer can say “nuh uh” and you can go on living. But if a doctor or lawyer, both necessary and in short supply, both say “nuh uh” then you could literally wind up dead or in jail.
I get what you’re saying, but I still don’t think we should be forcing bigots to do business with people. Let the bigots be flagged as bigots, so we all know which business to avoid.
Alternatively, we force them to do business with those people, and they do a shit job without revealing the reason.
Consider this in the context of a required service.
What if the doctor refused service because you were queer? How about lawyers?
Cakes and web design are used as the examples to make the problem seem less severe. It can and will extend much farther than what this ruling is based on.
But those are wildly different types of services. Are you saying that this court case makes it so that doctors can refuse service to homosexuals now?
It was my understanding that the nature of the business (ie, not a required service) and amount of available alternatives was a factor into why they should be allowed to refuse service.
It’s just an example of a necessary service. Keep in mind, many of those service providers require a decade of education, professional experience, and licensure before being allowed to practice. Sure, a website designer can say “nuh uh” and you can go on living. But if a doctor or lawyer, both necessary and in short supply, both say “nuh uh” then you could literally wind up dead or in jail.
“Let the Free Market decide! After all, it put a stop to Jim Crow!
Oh. Wait. “
Alternatively, we don’t humour their bullshit and massively fine and/or jail them until their disgusting hatred isn’t worth pursuing for them.
I know I’m in the minority in this thread. I’ll just say that I don’t think you can punish the bigotry out of people. But they can and do change.
You mean like with Chick Fil A when everyone was gonna stop going there becauae the owners were bigots?
Hmm, I don’t remember Chick Fil A refusing to serve gay people.