• bric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not any reason though, the case didn’t change any of the protected classes like sex, religion, or sexual orientation. It just made it so a company can choose what “expressive work” they want to do, especially websites. So it’s legal to say you don’t want to make someone a custom website if you disagree with the contents of the website (ie a website that supports gay marriage), but it’s still illegal to refuse to make someone a website because the customer is gay. You can choose what you make, but you can’t choose who you sell it to

      • Zyansheep@vlemmy.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Very important distinction.

        It’d be pretty bad if hotels or restaurants started restricting access based on sex or race!

    • ramblechat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      But I can see this embolden racists / homophobes. They are generally dumb, and will probably refuse to serve people citing this decision and will either end up in court or get away with it.

      • bric@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Are you just disagreeing with the ruling, or something about my interpretation of it? To be clear, I’m not arguing for or against the ruling, just explaining what it means