Here’s another thought experiment:
Joe is a printer. He refuses the following orders, because he doesn’t agree that the events they relate to should occur:
Invitations to a same-sex wedding.
Handbills advertising a Black Lives Matter rally.
Fundraising letters for the NRA.
Yard signs for a female candidate’s campaign.
He says: I’m not discriminating against people; I’m discriminating against points of view with which I disagree.
Does the fact that he’s in the business of printing messages matter?
What if in each case, the person who brought in the order was a straight white male? Does that matter?
I think the cab drivers present a pretty easy case. The service they provide is very much public, and has no communicative aspect. No reasonable person would think that a cab driver condones drinking just because he takes a fare who’s carrying a case of booze. Although each trip is different, their services aren’t customized in the way some of the others (like wedding photographers) are.
But how about this one: somebody sets up a special private bus service for Orthodox Jews that separates men from women in each bus. Is this legal? Should it be?
Just a note: beware of the attitude that goes, “What this person is doing is bad, and therefore it should be against the law.” That’s the attitude of the people who wanted to keep same-sex marriage illegal.
Yeah that’s a tough one and I don’t have a strong opinion on it. I think I would come down on the side of uber (I think those cases are uber, right?) requiring drivers to carry dogs or other domesticated pets as a condition of employment. Too bad Seinfeld isn’t still on; that would make for a great episode with Elaine, George, a dog, and a taxi.
My D’s current roommate is Muslim. They were going to share an off-campus apt next year with a couple other girls. It turned out that one of those girls was going to bring her dog to live in the apt. My D’s roommate had to bail at that point, as her parents refused to let her live with a dog.
@Hunt I think everyone should just do their job. Print the Blacklivesmatters rally and the same sex invitation. What you don’t have to print is hate speech or speech that is obscene and vulgar.
Your shop printing Black Lives Matters flyers doesn’t in any way mean that you support or agree with BLM.
As you undoubtedly know, this is a THING here. I work on the west side of the Diamond District, so I literally see this with my own eyes. Whether legal or not, it’s strictly enforced in practice. I have to admit that I do find it offensive. But I’m not in the market for expensive diamonds, so my opinion is of no consequence!
I recently read a book about the Monsey area and some of the actual crimes committed by religious people were shocking to me on the sheer scale, planning and dollar amounts. Which is funny, because they live in religious communities to commit the crimes. And get there in segregated buses.
And who gets to decide? I was personally in the presence of a rally in Times Square last year where members of BLM called for the death of cops. I find that hate speech by hatemongers.
As some of you will know from prior discussions, I am a big supporter of free speech, even when it’s speech that any reasonable person would despise. So, I would not support a person being required to engage in speech with which he disagrees. (So, for example, I really detest laws that tell doctors what they must say to patients.) So for me, the ghost-writer and print shop cases are easy: you can’t make people engage in speech against their will, even if they have a bad reason for it. (There are exceptions, of course: you can tell public school teachers what teach, for example.) We can certainly quibble over what is “speech,” of course–like the message on a cake.
@zoosermom@Hunt Were you free to leave the rally? You can’t make people engage in speech
service dogs (and even Muslims) aren’t part of these classifications - you are not discriminating against the dog
The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.[1]
They possess an immutable[2] and/or highly visible trait.
They are powerless[2] to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a “discrete” and “insular” minority.[3])
The group’s distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.[4]
I agree w @Hunt in " We do have the right to use our religion to discriminate against others in lots of respects. I can choose not to have friends of other races, sexes, or religions. I can choose not to frequent businesses run by members of races or religions I don’t like. I can vote for or against a candidate because I don’t like people of that race, sex, or gender.
Rather, we can discriminate as much as we like unless that discrimination conflicts with the rights of another person, such as the right to be served in a place of public accommodation. "
Part of my point about the printer not wanting to print a Black Lives Matter handbill is to point out that it may not be easy to distinguish between discrimination on the basis of race, and discrimination on the basis of a point of view. I think this distinction is implicated in the same-sex marriage cases. Surely everybody would agree that it would be entirely legal for a baker to post the following sign in front of his store: “I believe that a marriage is between one man and one woman, and thus I have a strong moral objection to preparing cakes for same-sex weddings. However, the law requires me to sell a cake for this purpose if requested, and I will obey the law, albeit unwillingly.”
Just to make my position clear, I think most of the “religious liberty” laws we’re talking about go way, way beyond a reasonable line in dealing with these sorts of issues. I just think there is a line that sensible people could discuss, however unlikely that may be to happen.
No it does not matter he is in the business of printing messages.
In my opinion:
No - can’t turn down customer
Yes - BLM is not a protected class.
Yes - NRA - not a protected class
Yes - politicians not a protected class.
The printer, IMO, would not be able to turn down a request by black person, an open carry gun permitted person, or a female to print flyers for a garage sale - even if they were a member of BLM, the NRA or a politician.
You have to serve someone in public accommodations if you are going to be open to the public if not become a private club (like at Harvard!!). You don’t have to write obscene or derogatory speech in that accommodating. That has been decided in the courts already. You all seem to advocate for rational basis (as long as you can give a reasonable rationale) being applied as the criteria for who to serve.
I think the real question you are asking here is Should LGBT be placed in a suspect class and included in public accommodations (do they meet the above criteria? IMO YES) like race and then there are levels of scrutiny like gender (an intermediate level of scrutiny) and rational basis …
I would ask in this country where religious freedom is enshrined in the Constitution, where religion should be placed in the conversation. Personally, I think it should be considered. And no, that doesn’t lead me down the path to ISIS.
@Hunt Most LGBT I know don’t want to get a cake from or flowers or hire a photographer who vehemently is opposed to their wedding… just like my son didn’t want to force the boy to room with him, (when the boy didn’t want to bc my son is gay) and so my son let the boy out of his rooming, and most LGBT would never even want to buy from a store that had that sign in the window… a sign that they are legally allowed to have.
… we just don’t want a law on the books that says by law they are allowed to discriminate against my son and others on the basis of sexual orientation…
“think everyone should just do their job. Print the Blacklivesmatters rally and the same sex invitation.”
And the Holocaust Denier Convention flyer too? The “come and see what the KKK has to offer” poster? It’s easy to be in favor of free speech we all like.