US Supreme Court sides with Christian graphic designer who refused to create same-sex wedding website

But in the grand scheme of human history law is arbitrary and malleable. And what you call "balance" others may not see as a balance. E.g. can one balance trans rights and women's rights?

The 9 protected characteristics are defined in law. I don't think there's any appetite either in parliament or among the electorate for changing the list, except possibly for "gender reassignment" which is currently very poorly defined. The Supreme Court "gay cake" ruling makes it very clear that rights can be balanced.

If they had refused to enter into an agreement in the first place, and tried a "freedom of expression" defence, it's a different question that the court would be looking at.

Human rights apply to individuals not councils or businesses.

Equality Act

But that raises the question what should be considered a "protected characteristic". And it also changes when these "protected characteristics" change.

This isn’t an argument against Equalities law. Currently it is illegal for a Hindu garment factory owner to refuse to hire a Muslim. Currently it is illegal for a Protestant taxi driver to refuse a pick up from a Catholic area. Currently it is required that service providers make reasonable adjustments for disabled service users.

These things do of course happen. But as a society we have decided they are wrong and therefore have laws in place to deter behaviour that we believe to be detrimental to people’s well-being. Yes the real world is messy and where the law comes up against the real world there are often lots of unforeseen consequences. This is why we have courts and an appeal system.

The point is that discrimination is complex. Even with legislation social attitudes etc prevail.
Of course legislation can stop 'some' things.e.g in my home country university admissions is by racial quota and landlords happily put up signs saying 'tenants of a certain race' only.

But the Equalities Act aside, 'social justice' activism seems to be about putting people into small groups and pitting them against each other. Race/religion is the biggest example. For LGBTQ++ , TRA's.

'Equalities and total non- discrimination' only work when there is a clear delineation of rights but the real world is messy.

Even for disabilities... even people with the same conditions can have diametrically opposite needs... Who do you prioritise?

It's not always clear.

I’m unclear as to how getting rid of the Equalities Act would improve the situations you describe.

Since your original comment was about 'non-white' people I'd just like to point out that the Leicester riots had nothing to do with them! It was between Hindus and Muslims. Based on developments in India.

Ironically if people were less 'multicultural' and thought of themselves as British nationals altogether instead of staying firmly in their little religious/national groups this wouldn't have happened.

FTR I'm of Indian descent, Hindu, from another multicultural country. Can't understand why there are such large groups of people born and raised in the UK who are much more 'traditional' than I am and have never mixed outside their own race/religion. As much as I disagree with France's extreme of banning all religious symbols in public there has to be some integration.

People will come on board and say 'oh but there are all white villages' - well of course, the UK is a white country, you can't avoid that statistically unless you moved token non whites around. Just like how you wouldn't be shocked at finding loads of Indians in India.

My English husband's village is predominantly white, treated me very well, no racism. So was his grandfather's home, again very white, on the Scottish border.

I got cat called and stared at by my 'own' people just because I wore a short skirt walking through a 'brown' area. Got rude comments from British Muslims because I am Hindu.

But of course... All the racism rhetoric always blames white people.

I'm sticking to the white areas thanks where I can wear what I like and nobody insults me.

It's not about 'innateness'. It's about protected characteristics.
Both religion and race are protected characteristics. So in the same way that a Muslim outlet might refuse to make something with pork in it, they might refuse to make something with an LGBT message.

I'm not sure what other protected characteristic prohibits dealing with people of a different race, unless someone invents their own religion just for that. It probably already exists.

If they had tried a different defence, then who knows?

They tried to defend on one ground, (they cancelled because of security concerns), and the court didn't believe them.

If they had refused to enter into an agreement in the first place, and tried a "freedom of expression" defence, it's a different question that the court would be looking at.

Anyway, regardless of what would have happened, even if someone can come up with legal reasoning to say that this is different to the "cake message" case, and you can't legally refuse service when hiring out a venue just because you dislike the message...

I would still ask what is the significant difference that would make most people think it's morally acceptable to refuse in case A, but clearly bad discrimination in case B?

This whole legal thing is a minefield and every time I think I get it, some poster posts a different scenario that would / wouldn't work and I'm confused again.

Under the US constitution, freedom of speech is protected. It is traditionally interpreted liberally - “speech” isn’t limited to using your physical voice. It includes writing, music, wearing t-shirts with slogans. Writing a message on a cake would 100% be considered speech. “Compelled speech” is generally prohibited. Because the interpretation of “speech” is broad—which I think most people agree is a good thing—the interpretation of compelled speech is also broad.

Our law about public accommodation springs from an entirely different part of the Constitution (interstate commerce). It’s generally prohibited to discriminate in places of public accommodation. The original rule came from a case where race was the issue but I think this has been extended to sexuality although I’m not sure it’s been litigated to this level. So I can imagine a case where a venue would have to serve a wedding banquet for a gay wedding but could not be compelled to put “God loves gay marriage!” on their outdoor sign.

I hate how this particular case came out but I think protecting freedom speech (which includes prohibiting compelled speech) is extremely important.

I’d also like to add that I think the outcome suited the majority just fine.

You're having a laugh. We literally had race riots in Leicester last year. Incidents of anti-semitism are through the roof. Disabled people are still left on planes for hours because airlines fail in their duties. Women with children still suffer indirect discrimination in housing. Children still suffer (legally, unfortunately, due to the exceptions in EA) religious discrimination in education.

For these laws to not be required, social attitudes would have to change everywhere, not "in many places". Until they do (which they never will) we need the force of law.

I don't think it's at all clear that would be the case. Social attitudes have changed significantly in many places since then, and the economy has changed too which might be more important in the end.

Indeed, this already can and does happen, just not around things that are protected characteristics. (At least not officially.)

So in a way what we get are certain categories that are excluded from that kind of treatment, while others aren't. And it doesn't always have to be direct discrimination either, if a certain type of exclusion seems to fall on a particularly named group more often, even if that isn't the goal, it will still be considered discrimination and often be illegal.

In some ways it makes sense then that we see more and more people wanting to identify as being members of protected groups, or having the groups protected be widened..

What confuses this issue is that race, age, religion, disability, sex, are protected classes in the US, being a member of the LGBTQ community is not. Previous presidents could have pushed for their inclusion in the protected classes but they didn't. In theory it is legal to refuse business services, medical care, housing, education, jobs to members of the LGBTQ community purely because they belong to that community. The only exception being emergency medical care and even that would just mean stabilizing them enough so they can leave the hospital under their own steam.

One of my DC is part of that community, another reason we were glad to leave the states after 30 years of living there. They honestly didn't feel safe visiting some states.

It would play out with non-white people, NI catholics, and disabled people being treated in the same way they were treated before the legislation that culminated in the Equalities Act was introduced.

Now think about it where the media are also discriminating and pushing a specific ideology supported by a government. Very quickly things get polarised - good people and ‘bad’ people who can be discriminated against. ‘Bad’ people are not recruited to jobs, or lose their jobs, lose their bank accounts, they are not allowed to meet up and their voice is silenced, the police ignore crimes against them whilst arresting them for infractions of laws which prevent free speech, children in schools are taught by discriminatory teachers what it is to be a ‘bad person’ and how they must follow the supported ideology and are taught a government imposed curriculum on what constitutes acceptable thoughts. Networks of places are set up where the public can report wrong think to the police anonymously, including wrong think in the home at the dinner table. Children excluded from school for wrong think.

Sounds pretty fascist to me.

My argument was simply that discrimination on the basis of someone's beliefs is not the same as refusal to accept the truth or rightness of those beliefs. It is certainly a rather clumsy phrase - I was attempting to address the fact that you seem to struggle with the distinction between (on the one hand) providing a service to someone with whom you disagree, and (on the other) pretending you agree with them. I'm not sure how I can say that more plainly.

There isn't any example here where you need to "pretend you agree". You can produce a cake with a message, without needing to pretend you agree with the message.

What I'm saying, is that there isn't an obvious significant difference, that would make refusing service clearly acceptable in one case, but clearly unacceptable in another, between (1) producing a cake with a message you disagree with, and (2) hiring a venue out. Note that hiring a venue out may well involve your site displaying various messages with which you strongly disagree. So posters inside, or advertising outside the venue.

Even if you could find a technical legal difference between the cases, what is the real difference that means people would think it morally acceptable in one case, and clearly bad discrimination in the other?

We tend to take it as read that it would be a disaster, I suspect it might play out in a much more complicated way.

This is an interesting point. I know that because I'm very aware of how useful the Equality Act has been for e.g. GC feminism recently, I tend to assume it is very much a Good Thing - but with all laws, how they play out is much more complex and nuanced than we sometimes acknowledge.

If it was not considered forced speech, then it would be clear discrimination to not print religious material if you would print non religious material. The fact you discriminated equally against all non-white individuals would not mean you are not discriminating against black people.

Would it, though? When I first read this I thought yes, of course, that's right. But later I wasn't sure. What matters is whether you offer the same service to everyone, regardless of their beliefs. You're not looking for a comparator for the service you provide (or not), but for the person you provide it to.

I think maybe refusing a service to everyone (assuming everyone has a religion or lack of religion of some kind, even if it's only "meh") is OK. So saying "I will not print anything religious (or anti-religious) for anyone" is not discriminating, because you have one rule for everyone, which is applied regardless of their belief or lack of belief. Obviously this only works if you include "anti-religious" in the refusal - but there's a big difference between "anti-religious" and "non-religious". I.e. "nothing on this topic, don't care what it says".

Or is it indirect discrimination, on the basis that some people might have a greater need to access printing of religious materials than others? Argh. I don't know. It might be comparable to refusing to provide sanitary bins and defending yourself by saying there aren't any for the men either. But I'm pretty sure that the crucial thing is whether the service you offer changes depending on the characteristics of the person you are dealing with, and that a blanket refusal that genuinely applies to everyone is fine.

I do think it's worth considering what might happen if we did allow that kind of discrimination. Not to approve it, obviously, but in terms of it not being illegal for businesses and individuals to, say, rent a room to whomever they liked, or not. Or have them in a shop.

We tend to take it as read that it would be a disaster, I suspect it might play out in a much more complicated way.

Your argument isn't clear to me, but with the cake message example, I don't think it does involve to "visibly align yourself with their values".

My argument was simply that discrimination on the basis of someone's beliefs is not the same as refusal to accept the truth or rightness of those beliefs. It is certainly a rather clumsy phrase - I was attempting to address the fact that you seem to struggle with the distinction between (on the one hand) providing a service to someone with whom you disagree, and (on the other) pretending you agree with them. I'm not sure how I can say that more plainly. Would you find "express views you disagree with" easier to understand? If it helps, here is the relevant piece of the summary of the Supreme Court judgement, which is probably about as clear as anyone can be:

"The rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 9) and to freedom of expression (article 10) were clearly engaged by this case [49]. They include the right not to be obliged to manifest beliefs one does not hold [52]. The McArthurs could not refuse to provide their products to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or because he supported gay marriage, but that was different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed [55]."

Except, I suppose, insofar as if you sell a guitar to a trendy vicar you are "forced to contribute" to Shine, Jesus, Shine. Or if you rent a flat to a Catholic couple you are "forced to contribute" to them indoctrinating their children under your roof.

Again, not sure what you are arguing here.

As I understand it, your argument was that providing a service to someone (e.g. allowing them to meet in your space) might enable them to promote their beliefs, and that therefore you were "forced to contribute" to the furtherance of their (objectionable) views, even if you did not express those views directly yourself. Therefore, you appeared to be saying, it was an infringement on your right to freedom of speech equivalent to a demand that you express those views as if they were your own. I was pointing out the logical implication of this argument, i.e. that if it were so, you would be justified in refusing service in many situations which at the moment would clearly be illegal.

Essentially you seem to be arguing for the removal of "religion or belief" as a protected characteristic, which is not in itself an incoherent position (although it is a totalitarian one). As DemiColon's excellent post points out, there are balances and compromises to be made, and for some people the lines have been drawn in the wrong place. (Hence, for example, the need for the Grainger criteria, and the arguments about whether beliefs are Worthy of Respect in a Democratic Society, etc.) But if so, you have to live with signs in shops that say "No Jews" or "No Muslims" or indeed "No feminists". Are you happy with that?

Ok, well that would depend on whether printing religious material you didn’t agree with came under the Asher judgement - is it forced speech? If so then you could just not print religious material for the religion/belief/political viewpoint you disagree with. You wouldn’t matter if you only objected to certain religious texts but were fine with humanists for example. It would be about forced speech not discrimination. But it is not clear whether this would be covered as the Asher judgement separated out the phrase ‘support gay marriage’ from the protected characteristic of sexuality of the purchasers. That distinction might not be drawn between eg orders of service for mass and Catholicism.

If it was not considered forced speech, then it would be clear discrimination to not print religious material if you would print non religious material. The fact you discriminated equally against all non-white individuals would not mean you are not discriminating against black people.