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.
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.
Do you think a resturant refusing to serve black people would be okay?
They literally just said they think that’s OK. You don’t need to ask. This person thinks it’s perfectly fine for a business to refuse service for any reason. They think it’s fine to refuse service for nationality, race, gender, religion, disability, social caste, physical attractiveness, or whatever.
Which in the US us explicitly illegal as clearly outlined in civil rights legislation, but the current court would probably throw that out too as long as the person discriminating is a white Christian.
Just look at the kind of stuff getting passed in Florida. I fully expect that level of legal bullshit as a normal.
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.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-website-designer-aa529361bc939c837ec2ece216b296d5
Is cooking not an expressive service… what about a really good mechanic with some flair… it Def covers lawyers and would most likely apply to ER nurses and doctors… this is fucked when you follow it to their intended conclusion…
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.
Nonsense. They legalized gay weddings a handful of years ago. Be queer all you want.
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.
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.
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.
I mean a DJ just plays other peoples music right?
Sure, like how a guitarist just plays other people’s instruments.
how is cooking not expressive? This distinction is meaningless. Any work product can be and is expressive.
I think we all know the answer to that question.
If serving hamburgers would count as free speech, I guess. Don’t ask SCOTUS because they might say it is…
Only if you draw faces on the patty using ketchup.