News

While religion is a protected class, political orientation is not protected. It is perfectly legal (and moral) to ask someone if they are conservative before agreeing to do work for them.

You can even cite a policy to really drive it home: "I do not conduct business with racists, bigots, misogynists, homophobes, xenophobes, fascists or any other type of conservatives."

Cool but where do you draw the line? If a taxi driver refuses to drive you is it still fine? What if a teacher refuses to teach your children? Or if a doctor refuses to treat you?

And how do you differentiate between this and say, a shop, or a doctor? Do LGBT people not "have the right to the labour" of those services?

I disagree with that framing entirely. But I'm curious to know how you would differentiate.

To say that anyone can be a photographer belittles the skill associated with a professional photographer. That's akin to saying that you can hire anyone with a voice to be a singer. Sure, you can, but there's a qualitative difference.

That aside, would there be any sign that the photographer could put on their door that would be illegal? No Blacks, No Jews, No Women, etc… If not, play that to the logical extreme; What if all photographers in town had the same sign? What services are appropriate to deny in entirety to a specific class of people.

This potentially opened the floodgates for discrimination. Unless this is specifically only for for “hired” or “contract” If not…. Coming soon to stores in the south near you

“NO F****TS ALLOWED”

“TRA***ES NOT WELCOME”

I don't think he has the right to make his business known publicly if it isn't available to the public-- all of it.

Selective religion to suit their needs. Oldest trick in the literal book.

Jesus was white BTW

/s in case it wasn't abundantly clear

As someone who grew up in a very religious household, I can tell you without a doubt in my mind, the worst people I ever met were the church crowd. Everyone was so nice to each other inside the building but as soon as the service was over, people showed their real colors in the parking lot.

You'd get parents screaming at their kids for "misbehaving" during the boring ass sermon, cars bolting out of their parking spaces with no disregard for other people walking, cars battling each other to try and get out of the lot before the other guy.. You know.. Cause football was starting soon.

I feel like framing the issue like this kinda dangerous. If a single entity (in this case, a business) is allowed to discriminate against a protected class, then are all businesses that provide that service allowed to discriminate against said class?

It seems as though they would be. That gets us back to a version of the Jim Crow South pretty quickly. How are LGBTQ+ folks supposed to exist as equal members in a society if entire segments of that society are legally allowed to close themselves off? What happens when a business that controls major segments of more important service sectors makes a similar decision (for example, say the only Level 1 trauma center in a city is in a privately-owned, religiously-affiliated medical center that now has a legal precedent to say they won't serve LGBTQ+ patients for religious reasons)?

Same reason black people wanted to eat at the whites only lunch counters.

In 303 Creative v. Elenis the answer is: the couple was manufactured. No LGBT+ couple tried to hire them. The man named in court docs who supposedly tried to hire 303 Creative first heard about the case when reporters contacted him shortly before the Supreme Court released their decision. He has been happily married (to a woman) for a long time, and had no need for a wedding website.

It would also likely mean that LGBTQ+ photographers won the right to discriminate against christians.

You can refuse for any reason - except those involving discrimination against a protected class. Sexual orientation is supposed to be a protected class. You can still discriminate, you just have to give another/no reason and make sure it doesn't look like you're doing it for a prohibited reason.

If I wanted to say that no people with glasses were allowed to shop in my store, that would be allowed. If I wanted to say that no pregnant women could shop in my store, that wouldn't be allowed. If it was a pregnant woman wearing glasses, I could claim the first reason, but then, if I was found to be allowing other people with glasses to shop, my reasoning would be challenged and I would have to demonstrate that I wasn't discriminating because of pregnancy.

At least, this is how discrimination laws are supposed to work.

It turns out that anti-discrimination laws in the US are actually very weak and not fully defined, allowing bullshit like this to seep out of judge's mouths and through the cracks. The Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment only grants equality under law, so it only really affects governments. The Civil Rights Act extends this out to private employment under Title VII, but not much further.

What the 303 Creative v. Elenis ruling (the Supreme Court ruling that led to the settlement here) does, in theory, is allow any private person the right to discriminate against any protected class (eg pregnancy, disability, and all the others) so long as the person they're discriminating against isn't an employee. This is clearly bullshit, and I'm sure if people started discriminating against Christians they'd be up in arms.

Thankfully, this settlement does not in any way strengthen this ruling, it only gives one asshole permission by one state - there is no ruling here, just an out of court settlement, thus it does not extend to anyone else. In particular, the state probably thought that because there was no injured party actually being discriminated against there wasn't much point wasting time and money litigating.

Obligatory IANAL.

It isn't.