this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
458 points (94.0% liked)

News

23267 readers
3227 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (6 children)

i am kind of torn on this.

on the one hand I think it's important that you can refuse to work with people you don't like for whatever reason.

On the other hand, this is an absolutely childish and stupid reason to not work with someone.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You can refuse for any reason - except those involving discrimination against a protected class. Sexual orientation is supposed to be a protected class. You can still discriminate, you just have to give another/no reason and make sure it doesn't look like you're doing it for a prohibited reason.

If I wanted to say that no people with glasses were allowed to shop in my store, that would be allowed. If I wanted to say that no pregnant women could shop in my store, that wouldn't be allowed. If it was a pregnant woman wearing glasses, I could claim the first reason, but then, if I was found to be allowing other people with glasses to shop, my reasoning would be challenged and I would have to demonstrate that I wasn't discriminating because of pregnancy.

At least, this is how discrimination laws are supposed to work.

It turns out that anti-discrimination laws in the US are actually very weak and not fully defined, allowing bullshit like this to seep out of judge's mouths and through the cracks. The Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment only grants equality under law, so it only really affects governments. The Civil Rights Act extends this out to private employment under Title VII, but not much further.

What the 303 Creative v. Elenis ruling (the Supreme Court ruling that led to the settlement here) does, in theory, is allow any private person the right to discriminate against any protected class (eg pregnancy, disability, and all the others) so long as the person they're discriminating against isn't an employee. This is clearly bullshit, and I'm sure if people started discriminating against Christians they'd be up in arms.

Thankfully, this settlement does not in any way strengthen this ruling, it only gives one asshole permission by one state - there is no ruling here, just an out of court settlement, thus it does not extend to anyone else. In particular, the state probably thought that because there was no injured party actually being discriminated against there wasn't much point wasting time and money litigating.

Obligatory IANAL.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your comment should be an article. Excellent clarifications.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Thanks. I think my other comment made soon after gave a bit better detail on the laws:

I think the issue lies in the different measures of protected class, and the layers of law between State and Federal. US law is needlessly complicated and full of holes.

The Civil Rights Act provides protections for employees against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin under Title VII. Title II covers inter-state commerce and protects against discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin - but not sex.

Beyond this, states are supposed to make their own laws. However, the Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis undermines this, as the court ruled that the 1st Amendment and free speech overrules any discrimination law the state makes. Thus, provided you avoid Title II by only doing business within the state, it would be possible to argue that you can discriminate against any protected classes, so long as that class isn’t protected by other Federal legislation (eg the Americans with Disabilities Act provides extensive coverage for those with disabilities).

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It feels...weird to me. Like refusing to work with someone at your job because they like coffee. Or dislike tigers.

Or more accurately, they were born with blue eyes and you just hate people with blue eyes. And you can't stand them so much that you take your case against blue-eyed folk to the highest court of the land just to ensure you never have to work with them or take them as clients at your IT company. Sometimes it makes me wonder how we ever even got here, lol.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure the photographer in question got all his court fees paid for by PACs or think tanks.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

What's there to be torn on?

You can't honor people's rights just when they suit your agenda. What would happen if you refused to work with someone and other people thought it was 'absolutely childish and stupid'?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So you think I should be able to start job interviews by asking people if they've ever voted Republican? Because we absolutely employ LGBT people, so I have a legitimate interest in protecting them from bigots.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

At this point? I think it's not unreasonable. Given the state of the Republican party right now, you don't vote for them for their economical policy or whatever they pretended to care about decades ago. They only concern about culture war bullshit, and by voting for them you agree with it, and that includes unwavering hate for LGBT people.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Not liking someone because they smoke isn't the same as not liking someone for who they are.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

wanted to prove the law was unjust before it even affected him

Who was hiring him?