• Showroom7561
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    sides with business owner who refused to provide services for same-sex wedding, citing freedom of speech.

    Um, “freedom of speech” would be to say that you don’t support same-sex marriage, but refusal to provide a service based on the fact that you don’t agree with same-sex marriage seems like flat out discrimination.

    • NaN@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think the argument is essentially that the alternative is forcing the person to literally “say” (write) something (code) and they have the freedom not to write things they disagree with. It seems like a very narrow ruling and it will be interesting to see if it is kept that way, I doubt it. I also may not understand all of the nuance.

      I think of a bakery case, would the ruling mean they can’t refuse to bake a cake, which is not speech, but they could refuse to write “happy pride” on a cake, or does it now mean that they can refuse all forms of service. I don’t think it does, but it wasn’t really a question before.

      One of the most interesting parts to me was an article I saw yesterday, where one of the supposed gay men who requested the website was contacted and said he was straight, married with a kid, and had never asked for such a thing. It seems like the case may have been invented out of thin air to create a precedent. (Apparently someone posted it farther down)