Hacker News Reader

Comment by primeradical | Hacker News Reader

I would be mortified walking into a karaoke bar with a group of friends and they ask me and my husband to leave but continue to serve our friends because they don't want LGTBQIA+ people to use their microphones.

I shouldn't have to lookup which minorities/protected classes your public business refuses to serve.

Easy to stand with her when you're not on the receiving end of that discrimination.

View on HN

You’d only get kicked out for your conduct, like stepping up to the mic and singing some lyrics about gay stuff that grosses everybody out.

We have a long history of having gays not being a protected class, so you can see from ten years ago how realistic your concerns are.

She didn't get to the Supreme Court because she was forced to serve a client whose conduct she disapproved. In fact, this case doesn't involve a specific client at all. This case is about the would-be client that hasn't even walked in the door.

And the court isn't considering whether LGBTQIA+ people fall into a protected class category, that's not this case. Metaphorically, this case is whether or not she can put up a sign on her business's front door that says "No ___ allowed." And according to the article, this conservative SCOTUS appears to be sympathetic to the "No ___ allowed" sign.

It appears SCOTUS is trying to draw line between public accommodation businesses and businesses that create speech, a distinction I believe Justice Sotomayor and KBJ countered aptly.

I could imagine an ISP denying the use of its networks to LGBTQIA+ people because they have sincerely held religious objections to transmit those customers' data across their network.

You can imagine all sorts of things, but a bar having authority over what gets performed in its premises is the first problem you came up with.

Marrying someone of the same sex is a behavior, and the designer is refusing to design websites relating to that behavior. The designer didn't refuse to design a website for say, dog walking just because the client is gay.

The debate is over Colorado law that, according to the article, "bars businesses open to the public from denying goods or services to people because of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and certain other characteristics."

I understand wanting to make the distinction between objectionable behavior and the intrinsic characteristics of clients. But that's not a distinction the Colorado law considers. And if stuck down, SCOTUS could establish that there would be nothing baring a business to refuse service to LGBTQIA+ dog walkers.

The plaintiffs argue otherwise:

> Smith explains that she decides whether to take on a commission based on the message that the work will convey, rather than the person requesting it. This means, she says, that she would “happily” design graphics for an LGBTQ customer who runs an animal shelter. But she will not take on commissions that would be inconsistent with her Christian beliefs – including, she says, by promoting same-sex marriage – because a custom wedding website would “express approval of the couple’s marriage.”

> Smith warns that allowing the 10th Circuit’s ruling to stand would mean that artists will be required to engage in speech that violates their conscience. Calligraphers who support abortion rights can be compelled to create flyers for anti-abortion activists, she says, and musicians who are atheists can be required to perform at religious ceremonies.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/12/colorado-web-designers-fi...

This specifically involves speech and its creation.

So, it does not have to do with any business, as you claim, but one which is hired to produce certain speech.

Ah, yes, history only goes in one direction... except for when it doesn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com