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

  • noride@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a single independent contractor performing a service considered to be bespoke skilled labor. He has no obligation to enter a work contract the same way I can’t force you to clean my gutters. A chow house on the other hand, serves the same food to everyone. There’s no contact to enter, only goods to be purchased.

      • noride@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not that I personally agree, but per the Supreme Court, probably.

        With that said, on what planet would a black person even want some racist bigot working on their teeth?? There’s a huge risk of him being a total piece of shit and doing a terrible or deliberately malicious job.

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

      Why is society obligated to allow a discriminatory business like this to exist?

      Why do we just take as a given that anyone is allowed to start a business?

      • noride@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        No one said otherwise, just pointing out why Walmart can’t deny your right to buy a redbull but I have no obligation to fix a computer with a Nazi flag stickers on it.

        • Lileath@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          But our existence is not some kind of political opinion. If a wedding photographer won’t take jobs from interracial couples because he thinks that they sully the white race or some shit it is not really different from the stuff this guy did. And my example would hopefully fall under any anti-discrimnation laws.

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

            Honest question, In your mind, should I be legally compelled to work on systems operated by people openly racist towards me?

            • Lileath@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              What exactly do you mean with “systems”?

              I would say no to that because there is a big difference between refusing to work for someone that holds a discriminatory ideology and refusing to work for someone that is some category of human they hate especially if they can’t actually do something about being in that category like with skin colour or being LGBTQ+.

              You can’t be tolerant of intolerance if you call yourself tolerant.

              • noride@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                That right to refuse work based on your personal ideology has to cut both ways, otherwise those in power get to decide what is a ‘just’ reason for refusal of services and what is an ‘unjust’ reason. If the right group of racists were in power, then I could be legally compelled to perform services for those who are openly hostile towards me, which you yourself seem to intimate would be ‘unjust’

                In the same way that I can choose not to take a job at Nestle because of how they treat our freshwater supply, I can also choose not to work on Jimbobs computer because he doesn’t believe the Holocaust happened.

                Also ‘systems’ was just a placeholder to clarify I wasn’t selling commodites, sorry for any confusion there.

              • stella@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                What exactly do you mean with “systems”?

                Are you paying attention? In the first comment of his you replied to, he said: “but I have no obligation to fix a computer with a Nazi flag stickers on it.”

    • Lem Jukes@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure I see how the product of his photography service(however bespoke) is any different from the product of the meal and a place to eat. Everyone at the chow house is arguably getting a bespoke experience as well since there’s more than one seat and presumably you not every meal is going to be prepared in the exact same way and may in fact involve customization like the rarity of a steak or thes submission or removal of ingredients(eg ‘no cheese’).

      My understanding is that a business is still allowed to deny service to any singular customer for no explicit reason. It’s the matter of stating and enforcing a policy of discrimination against a protected class.

      You can’t force me to clean your gutters, but you also could sue me if I refused to clean your gutters by showing you my policy that I refuse to do business with anyone belonging to whatever protected class you fall under. Because the policy of discrimination is what’s illegal and not the individual act of discrimination itself.

      Also, I’m pretty sure purchasing a good still legally qualifies as a form of a contract in tort law. Ofc I am in no way a lawyer so please, anyone, correct me if ive misunderstood here.