Not covered, IMO. A pharmacist isn’t writing the scrip and isn’t administering the treatment. They’re merely completing a retail transaction, albeit one with a lot of paperwork. If they have a moral position against doing their job as prescribed by law, they should find a new job.
A care provider, like a doctor or nurse, has personal involvement with the patient. I’m ok with refusing to perform a procedure they disagree with, as long as there is no negative impact for the patient.
Pharmacists are a strictly regulated profession. The whole job is filling prescriptions ordered by doctors and informing customers (patients) about the safe use of the substances. It’s not a creative process and it’s not their choice to prescribe or deny medication.
Last I checked bakers and photographers are barely regulated by comparison, and you could easily consider their work creative in nature.
Sure, but your example is too extreme to take seriously.
Death like that is so much worse than anything else, that it imo makes any other discussion meaningless. But when your scenario would never ever happen, it’s just a useless comment.
Maybe, but the problem here is that it’s so extreme that it makes no sense.
Bringing up abortion pills would makeore sense, since someone could conceivably consider that to be murder and refuse to sell it. That would obviously be very stupid but it’s something that actually could happen.
So I agree with the content of your comment. I don’t agree with all the implications. A cake maker should be able to refuse to make a dick cake, but they shouldn’t be able to refuse to make a cake just because the couple is gay. If they would make an identical cake for a straight couple, they should make the same cake for a gay couple.
Similarly, a photographer should be allowed to refuse to take nudes photos, but they shouldn’t be allowed to take identical photos that they would for a straight couple just because the couple is gay.
If the photograph isn’t at ease with that, I’d argue they should be allowed to ensure not to be in a situation where they can’t render the proper service
But where does that stop? At what point are racists who are uncomfortable with interracial marriage allowed to deny services to people because of their race
I pretty much already stated all that. When it’s about performing some act, and where “what you don’t agree with” impacts the work being performed.
…so if we go with the previous example, a photographer should be allowed to deny service to an interracial couple if they’re “not at ease” with seeing them -
“move a little closer”, “look this way”, "kiss lightly ", etc., etc.
Well the hypothetical protection you’re describing would in practice protect and embolden people who hold white supremacist beliefs. I say “embolden” because you know what a racist photographer would do without those protections? They’d either turn them down, or they would take the pictures, take the money, and keep their ugly mouths shut. Because those are better options than fighting a battle they believe they could lose.
However, if they are legally protected by the federal government in communicating to interracial couples they won’t provide service to them because they are an interracial couple, can you imagine the actions a now unrepressed fanatic would take? You think you wouldn’t see “whites only” on some of these people’s websites? And can you begin to imagine the fear and anxiety that would inspire in the people who now have to see those kinds of notices while looking for a wedding photographer? A wedding cake? Who now have to ask every photographer and cake maker if they serve “couples like them” if they don’t have a notice? Can you see the parallels?
Legal action that empowers bigots and disempowers those they hate at scale is all it takes to develop a foundation and vocal support for the return of socially acceptable and legally backed discrimination. And you better believe that a foundation is exactly what the far-right politicians that brought about these “protections” view it as, because plenty have signaled openly that they have no interest in stopping legalized queer discrimination here, and will absolutely use this decision to justify going further in the future, the same strategy they use for all their culture wars.
Not really. As far as I’m aware there’s nothing in law that differentiates between selling a product and providing a service. However the whole problem here is that the law isn’t actually that well fleshed out.
The 14th Amendment gives equal protection under law. This basically says the state can’t treat any citizen different for any reason. Thus, a court can’t refuse to hear your case because you’re black, and a state can’t refuse your marriage because you’re gay. This only really applies to governments, however.
The Civil Rights Act has various Titles, most of them still relate to the state (eg voting). There are two exceptions where this goes beyond the public sector, though, Title VII on employment and Title II on inter-state commerce. Title II outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin - but not sex nor sexual orientation, and it only applies to inter-state commerce. Title VII prohibits private employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, but might not cover sexual orientation (I haven’t found a definition on what “sex” covers, orientation might fall under this but it might not).
There is other legislation covering specific aspects, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act which provides extensive protection to people with disabilities.
Beyond that, it is up to individual states to set their laws. However, they must do so within the bounds of the Constitution, which is what allows free speech challenges like the one in the Supreme Court ruling over 303 Creative v. Elenis, which set a clear precedent allowing private businesses to discriminate regardless of state law.
All in all, anti-discrimination laws in the US are actually very weak.
IANAL, feel free to correct me if you know better.
In US law specifically no, the US judicial system is purposefully built to give more power to courts to decide things like that on case by case basis and to get this kind of rules of thumb based on previous rulings, but not bounded by them. That’s why it’s so hard to codify anything into law, compared to other countries.
deleted by creator
What about a pharmacist refusing to fill a legal, correct, and safe prescription that they disagree with?
Not covered, IMO. A pharmacist isn’t writing the scrip and isn’t administering the treatment. They’re merely completing a retail transaction, albeit one with a lot of paperwork. If they have a moral position against doing their job as prescribed by law, they should find a new job.
A care provider, like a doctor or nurse, has personal involvement with the patient. I’m ok with refusing to perform a procedure they disagree with, as long as there is no negative impact for the patient.
Pharmacists are a strictly regulated profession. The whole job is filling prescriptions ordered by doctors and informing customers (patients) about the safe use of the substances. It’s not a creative process and it’s not their choice to prescribe or deny medication.
Last I checked bakers and photographers are barely regulated by comparison, and you could easily consider their work creative in nature.
deleted by creator
Is your entire argument based on something that doesn’t happen and will never happen?
deleted by creator
Sure, but your example is too extreme to take seriously.
Death like that is so much worse than anything else, that it imo makes any other discussion meaningless. But when your scenario would never ever happen, it’s just a useless comment.
It doesn’t strengthen any point.
deleted by creator
Maybe, but the problem here is that it’s so extreme that it makes no sense.
Bringing up abortion pills would makeore sense, since someone could conceivably consider that to be murder and refuse to sell it. That would obviously be very stupid but it’s something that actually could happen.
deleted by creator
So I agree with the content of your comment. I don’t agree with all the implications. A cake maker should be able to refuse to make a dick cake, but they shouldn’t be able to refuse to make a cake just because the couple is gay. If they would make an identical cake for a straight couple, they should make the same cake for a gay couple.
Similarly, a photographer should be allowed to refuse to take nudes photos, but they shouldn’t be allowed to take identical photos that they would for a straight couple just because the couple is gay.
deleted by creator
But where does that stop? At what point are racists who are uncomfortable with interracial marriage allowed to deny services to people because of their race
deleted by creator
…so if we go with the previous example, a photographer should be allowed to deny service to an interracial couple if they’re “not at ease” with seeing them -
Well the hypothetical protection you’re describing would in practice protect and embolden people who hold white supremacist beliefs. I say “embolden” because you know what a racist photographer would do without those protections? They’d either turn them down, or they would take the pictures, take the money, and keep their ugly mouths shut. Because those are better options than fighting a battle they believe they could lose.
However, if they are legally protected by the federal government in communicating to interracial couples they won’t provide service to them because they are an interracial couple, can you imagine the actions a now unrepressed fanatic would take? You think you wouldn’t see “whites only” on some of these people’s websites? And can you begin to imagine the fear and anxiety that would inspire in the people who now have to see those kinds of notices while looking for a wedding photographer? A wedding cake? Who now have to ask every photographer and cake maker if they serve “couples like them” if they don’t have a notice? Can you see the parallels?
Legal action that empowers bigots and disempowers those they hate at scale is all it takes to develop a foundation and vocal support for the return of socially acceptable and legally backed discrimination. And you better believe that a foundation is exactly what the far-right politicians that brought about these “protections” view it as, because plenty have signaled openly that they have no interest in stopping legalized queer discrimination here, and will absolutely use this decision to justify going further in the future, the same strategy they use for all their culture wars.
So bakers should be forced to make a cake that reads "I hate "?
Is there any legal basis in this?
Not really. As far as I’m aware there’s nothing in law that differentiates between selling a product and providing a service. However the whole problem here is that the law isn’t actually that well fleshed out.
The 14th Amendment gives equal protection under law. This basically says the state can’t treat any citizen different for any reason. Thus, a court can’t refuse to hear your case because you’re black, and a state can’t refuse your marriage because you’re gay. This only really applies to governments, however.
The Civil Rights Act has various Titles, most of them still relate to the state (eg voting). There are two exceptions where this goes beyond the public sector, though, Title VII on employment and Title II on inter-state commerce. Title II outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin - but not sex nor sexual orientation, and it only applies to inter-state commerce. Title VII prohibits private employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, but might not cover sexual orientation (I haven’t found a definition on what “sex” covers, orientation might fall under this but it might not).
There is other legislation covering specific aspects, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act which provides extensive protection to people with disabilities.
Beyond that, it is up to individual states to set their laws. However, they must do so within the bounds of the Constitution, which is what allows free speech challenges like the one in the Supreme Court ruling over 303 Creative v. Elenis, which set a clear precedent allowing private businesses to discriminate regardless of state law.
All in all, anti-discrimination laws in the US are actually very weak.
IANAL, feel free to correct me if you know better.
Dang. It’s so nice getting informative responses instead of memes and lame jokes.
Thank you.
deleted by creator
In US law specifically no, the US judicial system is purposefully built to give more power to courts to decide things like that on case by case basis and to get this kind of rules of thumb based on previous rulings, but not bounded by them. That’s why it’s so hard to codify anything into law, compared to other countries.