- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.
His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.
It could be more accurate. How is he discriminating against them? Oh, he’s refusing service. Let me try the non-biased headline:
“Photographer wins right to refuse service to LGBTQ+ couples”
This way, instead of the vague term ‘discrimination’, we can focus on the specifics so people have a more accurate idea of what’s going on.
He’s refusing service… because they’re LGBTQ+. That sounds fairly discriminatory to me.
I think they point he’s trying to articulate is that he assumed it had to do with workforce discrimination and not refusing service.
They’re different kinds of discrimination, and it like like both are legal in religious grounds in certain circumstances.
An example of legal religious employment discrimination is churches. They are allowed to require those in religious leadership and religious education positions to be professing members of the faith. But they CAN’T discriminate based on religion for non-religous positions.
So a Baptist Church can require that a pastor be a Christian, but can’t fire the janitor for being Buddhist.
Ok so hear me out. I get what you’re saying and your example also makes sense however I think one thing is being glossed over.
In drawing the equivalence to religious beliefs we are stating that those part of the LGBTQ2+ABC123 community are also simply pretending who they are.
That’s not an equivalence I’m comfortable with. It’s frankly demeaning to say that a trans person can just “stop thinking they’re trans and be done with it”.
One is discrimination based on what you believe and another is discrimination on who you are.
So to your example, I think it’s better if you’re a Baptist Church you can’t require that a pastor be white just like you can’t fire a janitor for being black.
They’re not the same thing from a human perspective. But religious belief has the same protection under the law as other protected classes.
Many churches also ban gay or female clergy. Do I find that abhorrent? Absolutely. But it’s reasonable for organizations to expect their leadership to represent their beliefs.
Look at it from the other direction. What if the GLAAD CEO were to join the Westboro Baptist Church, claim she’d been converted? Legally, her religion and religious speech is just as protected as race or sex, but GLAAD would certainly have cause to fire her for being a member of the WBC.
I never said it wasn’t discriminatory.
Is English not your first language? Or are you just trolling at this point?
Then the original headline was valid was it not?
Re-read my initial comment until it makes sense.
I’m gonna block you now.
I don’t agree with you. Now I’ll wait to be blocked. Hahahah
Seriously dude accuses someone of being a troll and then behaves like a massive troll not to mention a child. Then when someone talks levelheaded back “imma block you now”
Fragile indeed.
Your wish is my command!
Your initial comment is pedantic and you’re being a dick.
When people outside the conversation are saying “you’re being a dick” it might be time to step back and reflect on why that is.
Immediate accusations of trolling because I pointed out your needless pedantry? Yeah thats a block.
Lol, okay.
The headline already gives the most accurate picture of what is going on than just saying “refusing service” because it includes why.
No it doesn’t, for the reasons I explained.
If you think saying ‘discrimination’ is more accurate than saying what that discrimination is, then you simply don’t have a firm grasp of the English language.
Awesome. I can finally refuse to hire Republicans.
I think it’d be more accurate to say you can refuse service to republicans, which you already could do.
You seem to be conflating hiring with serving.
I’d argue I have a way bigger legitimate interest in keeping conservatives out my workplace compared to this photographer’s interest in refusing clients. We employ many LGBT people, and have had a handful of issues where regressive assholes cannot handle working with such people and cause problems.
I can demonstrate not only direct financial impacts of hiring Republicans, but a whole host of less tangible impacts of allowing such conflict into the workplace. It’s actually striking how inevitable it is. The moment a person comes out as a Republican, it’s basically a ticking clock until they will make their hate everyone’s problem. As it stands we have to be extremely careful about firing these folks because of the conservative outrage machine, so if we could just be direct about not employing them that would honestly save me a lot of time.
Finally, unlike one’s sexuality or gender, nobody is born conservative. If somebody reads a platform of hate and chooses to identify with that platform, then I should have a choice to marginalize such people to protect my family and business.
I never said you were right or wrong, just that your conclusion wasn’t an accurate representation of this specific case.
Pretty sure you can also refuse to hire someone based on their political beliefs.
Hey, I’m trying to figure out something in my Lemmy app. Do you see this comment?