this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
178 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

19 readers
1 users here now

@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.

founded 1 year ago
 

Actor Michael Imperioli has something to say about the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling in favor of a Christian web designer who refuses to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Geometric7792@kbin.social 39 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Do you think a resturant refusing to serve black people would be okay?

[–] Parallax@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

I 100% disagree with the ruling, but this is apparently what the court had to say. They effectively sectioned out "expressive services" as able to discriminate, versus non-expressive services, like restaurants , which are still covered by the first amendment.

The decision suggests that artists, photographers, videographers and writers are among those who can refuse to offer what the court called expressive services if doing so would run contrary to their beliefs. But that’s different from other businesses not engaged in speech and therefore not covered by the First Amendment, such as restaurants and hotels.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-website-designer-aa529361bc939c837ec2ece216b296d5

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

That distinction is horsecrap. A hotel manager can be forced to offer their wedding package for a gay wedding and a chef can be forced to cook for a gay wedding because they run venues that have been declared "nonexpressive" by 6 people who don't know the first thing about those professions. But a website designer cannot be forced to sell websites while running a website shop.

They don't believe in that distinction. They're just taking a step towards outright illegalizing queerness. They'll tear down that separation as soon as doing so can result in more discrimination.

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

Nonsense. They legalized gay weddings a handful of years ago. Be queer all you want.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Apparently you can be too queer for this lady to make your website, bit the cake decorator, DJ, caterer, wedding planner, dress designer and everyone else involved aren't real artists.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

The conservative justices declaring which jobs do and don't show human creativity and expression was not on my Christofascist dystopia bingo card, but probably should've been.

[–] metaStatic@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean a DJ just plays other peoples music right?

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, like how a guitarist just plays other people's instruments.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You sweet summer child, how can you possibly think Obergefell isn't going to get challenged and killed by these same anti-queer justices?

Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas wrote the dissent to it. Gay marriage would still be federally unprotected if they had their way, and they have since netted 2 more allies to their cause to make it happen.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)