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

  • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Those aren’t the same situations. You’re allowed to discriminate against Nazis or people who own a ficus, but not gays. It’s not an arbitrary line, it’s a legally well defined distinction.

    In both cases you don’t want to offer those people a service because of hatred. You’re allowed to hate people and discriminate against them for a variety of reasons. As a society we’ve legally decided that it’s not acceptable to hate (insofar as it leads to discrimination) for many reasons innate to a person (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc…). That’s the line.

    • Okokimup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not talking about what the law allows. I’m talking about what I think the law should allow. Laws are written by people after discussing what they think should be allowed, they are not immutable facts of nature.

      As you can see in my other responses below, I think the line should be drawn between businesses being required to provide the same products and services to everyone, but not requiring the provider to engage in participatory behavior.

      • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And thankfully for pretty much all minorities, this law represents sounds ethical principles and the desires of the general population, and not your desires to treat gays and blacks the same as Nazis as long as you hate them enough.