454
submitted 10 months ago by Salamendacious@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago

Those aren't the same situations. You're allowed to discriminate against Nazis or people who own a ficus, but not gays. It's not an arbitrary line, it's a legally well defined distinction.

In both cases you don't want to offer those people a service because of hatred. You're allowed to hate people and discriminate against them for a variety of reasons. As a society we've legally decided that it's not acceptable to hate (insofar as it leads to discrimination) for many reasons innate to a person (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc...). That's the line.

[-] Okokimup@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I'm not talking about what the law allows. I'm talking about what I think the law should allow. Laws are written by people after discussing what they think should be allowed, they are not immutable facts of nature.

As you can see in my other responses below, I think the line should be drawn between businesses being required to provide the same products and services to everyone, but not requiring the provider to engage in participatory behavior.

[-] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 0 points 10 months ago

And thankfully for pretty much all minorities, this law represents sounds ethical principles and the desires of the general population, and not your desires to treat gays and blacks the same as Nazis as long as you hate them enough.

this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
454 points (94.0% liked)

News

22908 readers
4188 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.


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