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.
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.
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.