1

Fucking Religious Reich and this bullshit court...throw it into the fire.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] LucyLastic@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

The way they've made this ruling while the person at the center or the initial complaint has come forward to say that the entire case was fabricated confirms there's no bottom to the pit of BS

[-] GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Of course they did, they want to "fix" the various decisions of the last 10, 20, 50+ years until the US is a single-party Christian‐ruled white ethnostate. They'd ban gay marriage today and start shooting queers tomorrow if they could, but they can't (yet).

[-] oblast@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

this is just the status quo. businesses, especially ones operated online, can really reject you for whatever reason they want. you can go full paranoia, and feed into political extremism, or just see this is as what it is; America being at crossroads for what "freedom" really means. Is freedom the ability to shop wherever, or the freedom for business owners to reject whomever they want, no matter the petty-ness of it?

[-] DrJenkem@lemmy.blugatch.tube 2 points 1 year ago

businesses, especially ones operated online, can really reject you for whatever reason they want.

Legally speaking, this isn't actually true, at least in America. Businesses are not legally allowed to discriminate against protected classes. For example, it's the reason why it's illegal to refuse service to someone simply because they're black (race is a protected class) but ok to discriminate against say redheads (hair color is not a protected class).

[-] Mookulator@wirebase.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

False. It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on race, religion or sex, according to Title 2 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

America was at a crossroads of what freedom really meant 60 years ago, not today. It is now long-established law that freedom is the ability to shop wherever.

All that is up for debate is whether sexual orientation should be included, despite not being explicitly included. Textualists say no, intentionalists say yes.

[-] Recant@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That's true. Moving past the emotional attempt to rile up the community by stating "throw it into the fire", it isn't clearly defined what a business can refuse business for.

If someone at a restaurant acts like a complete jerk and the business rejects providing service, is the business wrong for punishing the customer for expressing their freedom of speech? As long as that customer is not trying to incite violence, as it stands, there is no clarity on which party would be in the right.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10181 readers
458 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS