• maporita@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It means that if a Christian asks you to design a website with messages that violate your religious beliefs then you can refuse. If I as a satanist believe that a woman’s right to abortion is sacred then I can refuse to design a website with an anti-abortion message. I can’t simply refuse to design a website for a Christian. Not saying I agree with the ruling, just explaining what it means.

    • FlowVoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The ruling says you don’t have to design a website that violates any sincerely held beliefs, not just religious beliefs.

      So if you are gay and a Catholic asked you to design a website promoting “Marriage is for one man and one woman”, you can refuse. Before the ruling, you might have been found to be discriminating against Catholics.

    • vacuumflower@vlemmy.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The whole idea of some things being protected and some not is very wrong. Rights should be a wildcard. That’s the right of private discrimination as ancaps see it.