this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
416 points (94.1% liked)

News

23259 readers
2794 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 139 points 1 year ago (4 children)

As one of the LGBT, I’m fine with this. I want the ability to refuse work to the Religious and Republicans—and I have done so for decades. The difference is, I don’t tell them why. I just say I’m busy. Because even though I want them to burn in a fiery hell, I’m not an asshole.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

While religion is a protected class, political orientation is not protected. It is perfectly legal (and moral) to ask someone if they are conservative before agreeing to do work for them.

You can even cite a policy to really drive it home: "I do not conduct business with racists, bigots, misogynists, homophobes, xenophobes, fascists or any other type of conservatives."

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] ExLisper@linux.community 22 points 1 year ago (22 children)

Cool but where do you draw the line? If a taxi driver refuses to drive you is it still fine? What if a teacher refuses to teach your children? Or if a doctor refuses to treat you?

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] devz0r@kbin.social 97 points 1 year ago (17 children)

I disagree with him, and I think he's bigoted. But I don't think anyone has the right to his labor and that he should be legally forced to photograph things that he doesn't want to photograph. And it's not like photography is a business that anyone can corner the market of in a small town or anything like that, all you need is a camera. It's the most common side hustle I see people try.

[–] darq@kbin.social 58 points 1 year ago (45 children)

And how do you differentiate between this and say, a shop, or a doctor? Do LGBT people not "have the right to the labour" of those services?

I disagree with that framing entirely. But I'm curious to know how you would differentiate.

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I'd say it's the business model.

Not defending the practices or arguing in defense of bigotry, just offering an explanation.

If it's a business model like a store where you come in and buy things with prices on them, that's open to everyone equally.

If it's a business where you sit down individually with each client and work out custom goods and services and pricing, then it's less "owner sells things" and more "clients contract owner for XYZ", and at that point, I'd tend to agree that it's a two way street, that both parties must agree to terms.

At that point, both sides have the option to simply not agree and not enter into a contract, for any reason. Just because one may disagree with one party's decision to not enter that agreement doesn't mean they shouldn't have that option.

What if it was a photographer who didn't want to be hired to photograph a Trump rally, a pro-life protest, or something else they felt strongly against like a (peaceful, lawful) far right event?

I don't think in those cases that a photographer should have no choice because the organizers are paying the money, so likewise, in this case, I don't feel like it's fair to force the photographer to cover an event they have a strong moral objection to, simply because that's their business.

Again, I'm not arguing that I agree with the photographer or that their position isn't bigoted, just offering a distinction.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

I think your comment can be summed up more succinctly with "independent contractors have more discretion to choose their clients or projects than businesses that serve the public." And I agree with you

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] HenchmanNumber3@lemm.ee 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I'm not saying I disagree with your position, but being a Trump supporter or anti-choice is a choice, whereas being LGBTQ isn't, so the comparison isn't of equal demographic descriptors.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This isn't about defining a business model. It's about defining discrimination and protected groups. By your logic above, the photographer could charge a black couple more than a white one. I know that's not what you mean, but it would be the potential result of how that law would be interpreted.

At the end of the day, a Trump rally is not a protected group, so a business can say no. Just like a shop proprietor can refuse business to said rally goers, but not to a protected group.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (44 replies)
[–] gastationsushi@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Whether you see it or not, your opinion is carving out a way for legal bigotry when done by a christian. Of course an atheist refusing to serve this asshole bigot would open up the door for a religious discrimination case against the atheist because bigots want nothing more than to divide society. We have no obligation to defend a bigot's rights they are actively taking those same rights away from others.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No. He gets to choose who to work for. He doesn't get to choose not to work for entire classes of people when those classes are protected.

It's the same as if he said he didn't want black clients.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Mandy@sh.itjust.works 63 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Why are headlines about American Christians always the exact opposite of what the Bible wants them to be?

What happened to love thy neighbour and shit

[–] TwoBeeSan@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Selective religion to suit their needs. Oldest trick in the literal book.

Jesus was white BTW

/s in case it wasn't abundantly clear

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Denalduh@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

As someone who grew up in a very religious household, I can tell you without a doubt in my mind, the worst people I ever met were the church crowd. Everyone was so nice to each other inside the building but as soon as the service was over, people showed their real colors in the parking lot.

You'd get parents screaming at their kids for "misbehaving" during the boring ass sermon, cars bolting out of their parking spaces with no disregard for other people walking, cars battling each other to try and get out of the lot before the other guy.. You know.. Cause football was starting soon.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sanyanov@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Nobody seems to be asking the main question: why would LGBT+ couples want to hire an open homophobe to take their wedding pictures to begin with?

[–] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I feel like framing the issue like this kinda dangerous. If a single entity (in this case, a business) is allowed to discriminate against a protected class, then are all businesses that provide that service allowed to discriminate against said class?

It seems as though they would be. That gets us back to a version of the Jim Crow South pretty quickly. How are LGBTQ+ folks supposed to exist as equal members in a society if entire segments of that society are legally allowed to close themselves off? What happens when a business that controls major segments of more important service sectors makes a similar decision (for example, say the only Level 1 trauma center in a city is in a privately-owned, religiously-affiliated medical center that now has a legal precedent to say they won't serve LGBTQ+ patients for religious reasons)?

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Same reason black people wanted to eat at the whites only lunch counters.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Dempf@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 year ago

In 303 Creative v. Elenis the answer is: the couple was manufactured. No LGBT+ couple tried to hire them. The man named in court docs who supposedly tried to hire 303 Creative first heard about the case when reporters contacted him shortly before the Supreme Court released their decision. He has been happily married (to a woman) for a long time, and had no need for a wedding website.

[–] Iapar@feddit.de 38 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Does this in return mean that LGBTQ+ couples win the right to discriminate against christian photographers?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Even more than the outright bigotry, what concerns me most is this growing trend of conservative ideology that allows for lawsuits without cause. You shouldn't be able to sue unless you are harmed. That's the way its supposed to work. Yet these conservative courts have been turning that concept entirely on its head lately.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] lorez@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago

More work for the intelligent ones that don't discriminate.

[–] Nacktmull@lemm.ee 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (15 children)

I can´t believe I actually have to say this but here it comes: Everyone should be free to choose the things they do and don´t do. Nobody should be forced by law to do things they don´t want to do. This goes for LGBTQ+ people just as it goes for photographers and all other humans in this world. I support human rights 100%, which obviously especially includes discriminated minorities like LGBTQ+. However, I have to say that the framing in the article and it´s title, are edgy af and sound like based on an extremist, culture warrior ideology, instead of rational thinking and common sense.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"I don't want to treat black people or LGBTQ like human beings." -- like that? Or how about signs on businesses "No Gays" or "No Hispanics". Does this apply to government entities and their employees? How about it enough people don't want to drink out of the same public fountain as black people, should we then bring back segregated fountains since everyone has a right to drink from fountains?

Sorry, but showing bigotry cannot be accepted by a tolerant society because it breaks the one tenet of such a society: be tolerant.

The thing you're ignoring is that being rejected by businesses is harmful to those being rejected. And moreover public businesses discriminating is a great way to fracture society and uphold a culture of bigotry and discrimination that then bleeds into every other area. If your religion teaches you to be a bigoted asshole then you need a different religion.

If you run a business, you don't have a right to discriminate against whole groups of people.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] LazaroFilm@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Sigh. US politics really wants me to become an anarchist.

[–] ElBarto@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Waiting for the first Christian couple to be denied the photographers services, to lose their shit about it! It happened when that bakerdid it and it will happen here.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] raynethackery@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (10 children)

There was an article on Slate a few years ago that I wish I could find again. It was a fictional story about what it was like for a lesbian, with a kid and a wife, going through a day in which businesses were allowed to refuse her service. It's a slippery slope, guys.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Lemjukes@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

How is his policy/service any different from a whites only lunch counter?

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] lemmefixdat4u@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

We've always had bigots. We always will. In the past, bigoted business behavior has resulted in opportunity for those who are willing to serve the clients the bigots won't. Minorities understand this, and minority-friendly businesses prospered.

I can understand being upset that a business won't accept you as a customer. What I don't understand is why anyone would still insist on supporting that offensive business with their patronage. I'd be spreading the word about their practices, asking folks to boycott them.

[–] frickineh@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Having looked at his photos, I'm gonna say this is no big loss for the LGBTQ+ community. They're marginally better than the stuff advertised on Nextdoor, but man really went all in on the vignettes, and he doesn't seem to have any eye for detail.

But also, fuck the Supreme Court for allowing this nonsense.

[–] Adramis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Show me someone saying "This is fine", and I'll show you someone who has the privilege to not fear whether they're going to be blocked out of society for the crime of...existing. This is only the first step to "All businesses, including businesses required for life, can discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals". Y'all are unhinged.

Obligatory:

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Generally speaking it's almost always a bad idea to force somebody who's diametrically opposed to your core values to work for you. I don't understand how they would have wanted this to ideally go? That the photographer grinds their teeth while being forced to take photos of them?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›