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

You are not allowed to discriminate in the provision of a service - the baker cannot refuse to make a wedding cake and the venue cannot refuse to hire the venue. But neither the baker or the TRAs can be forced to say or write something they disagree with. So the Christian bakers can decline to write ‘support gay marriage’ on the cake and presumably the venue can decline to write ‘sex is immutable’ on a display panel directing attendees to a GC event in their building.

Personally I think that all businesses should have to provide the same service to all that want it regardless of difference in views. As long as the person buying the service is asking for something legal then surely my personal opinion as a business is irrelevant

However...say I was a self employed website designer and a person who I disliked wanted to employ my services there would be nothing to stop me from either pricing myself out of the job, being rather busy at the moment or doing a piss poor job to ensure that the person i didn't like didn't then recommend me to his friends.

Me too. I think it partly depends on how much of a monopoly exists in the sector. E.g. if there are

Florida SB 1580 now law. What conscience-based health care law does: (pnj.com)

What about this Florida law? It allows Florida health care providers and payors to refuse services based on their moral, ethical or religious beliefs.

A Christian baker in the UK can’t refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding (and they didn’t - they were happy to sell the gay couple a cake) but they can refuse to write words they disagree with on the cake. It was deemed being required to write the words was forced speech. This is very different from refusing to provide a service.

Yes, I would say so, if you mean write the message in icing? I don't think you'd be able to refuse to bake the cake in either case because it's just a cake. I think this area of law is bound to throw up hard cases, though.

Medical providers cannot refuse to care for a homosexual person with an STD just like they can't refuse to treat a heterosexual who got an STD from illicit sex. Doctors must treat all patients who present themselves for treatment, without prejudice or favor. That includes women with miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, etc. Now can we stop with the ignorant straw men?

Signed, the mother of an American doctor.

Yes, but a Christian baker CAN say he won't bake a "I love gay marriage" message?

And a TRA baker CAN say he won't bake a "Men can't become women" message?

In this country (UK) I think you would have to let them (assuming queer theory was a protected belief, or at least not officially declared not WORIADS) provided every aspect was legal and covered by your insurers. If you could make a child safeguarding case perhaps you could refuse on those grounds. I don't think your name being above the door and your extra activities would make a difference, because ultimately all you are doing is renting them a room.
At any rate, if you refused, I don't think it could be because you disapproved. Not explicitly stated, anyway. IANAL.

Normally I'm at one with Helen Joyce, but here, not so sure. She's good with this verdict, and I am generally, but I still can't see how she would then object to a DQSH supporting Dog And Duck pub telling her to begone if she wanted to host a launch of a GC book in this pub.

Or maybe she wouldn't.

Good point... I'm just going to climb right back onto this here fence...

Yes, but if you had a spare venue space, and DQSH wanted to hold a Queer The Infants! event, would you be happy to allow them to hold it? Especially if you're known as the local GC witch, running Down With Intersectional Politics and A Man Is A Man Is A Man events otherwise.

I mean it's your name and reputation above the door.

Like @RealityFan I'm torn on this.

I suppose (getting off the fence slightly) I might say that creative work is a bit different to a "renting out a meeting room" type of business. In the sense that producing something creative necessarily needs you to "give" something of yourself to the process, IYSWIM? So asking somebody to create something they fundamentally disagree with is asking them for a part of themselves?

Disclaimer: I don't work in a creative-type job so maybe I'm talking out of my posterior.

It was proved a couple of weeks back that a public place could not bar a person with differing views to them as it would be discriminatory but they could ban them on the grounds of it being unsafe.
However its its private then you can refuse service.

Not particularly. Similarly, should we decry a pub turning down a GC event if the guvnor is TRA in attitude?

A public place open to all. Are we saying this is the difference...a private contractor like a baker, web designer, artist etc can "reasonably" say thanks but no thanks to a commission involving a message that they heartfelt disagree with?

But a public venue cannot "bar entry" to those with attitudes that the management take exception to?

So, a pub could "reasonably" bar the meeting of a Helen Joyce meet if the management and staff were unanimously TRA in outlook?

It depends on how you define TRA venue?
Are you talking about a place that is solely for TRAs or a public place that would have LBGTQ+?

It's always useful to consider the opposite of the scenario you think others should put up with.

As a self-employed web designer, would you be content to be required to accept a commission to design a website for a church challenging gay rights, or a pro-life group, or a trans rights organization, or whatever things are dearest to your heart?

I'm torn on this one.

What's the difference between a Christian baker turning down a commission for a wedding cake saying "I support gay marriage"...and a TRA type venue turning down a GC talk to be held there?

I think it depends on the state whether sexual orientation is protected.

It also depends on what the issue is. The Supreme Court case establishing the right to same sex marriage was based on equal protection principles so in that sense sexual orientation was recognized as a protected class nationwide. My concern is that the present court will overturn that decision as they have overturned abortion rights.

The design of a website can't be an insignificant part of the efficacy of the message, though, or why would people pay for it, or approach any particular person to do it? A good designer engages with the message or aims of the people/organisation commissioning it, so that they can support those aims or that message. It's horrible that this woman and her church are homophobic, but you can't force her to feel differently. Why would you want anyone who despised you to design your website anyway? What if a homophobic church wanted you to design a website that proudly proclaimed their illiberal views? (Assuming that's not illegal in that state.) Do you think you should be forced to do so? Would you be happy about them splitting hairs about whether it was participation or speech?

"Because the efficacy of the message depends entirely on your input"

But you don't have to come up with arguments for something you disagree with. You don't have to write the rhetoric.

You just need to make a website look pretty or functional or whatever.

That's only a small part of the "efficacy of the message", and nothing is stopping you making another website to attack the message. No one would assume you necessarily agree with the message just because you worked on website design.

Would you be forced to participate in something you find unethical? Yes, sure.

But forced to speak? Seems questionable imo.

Personally I doubt that being forced to design something is really being "compelled to speak", so I'm not sure I like the technical reasoning here.

Because the efficacy of the message depends entirely on your input, and it means you're forced to choose between your professional integrity (doing the best job you can possibly do, furthering your own career, etc) and your personal beliefs.

It's compelling a person to use their creative and persuasive skills to promote something they fundamentally disagree with, and the better the job they do, the more effectively the message they fundamentally disagree with gets disseminated to others.

If I were forced to use my professional skills to directly promote ideas that strongly conflicted with my most fundamental beliefs with no option to leave my job, I would wonder what kind of society this is.

Do you have some reason to think these rulings would apply in that way, because frankly I don't really see how they could.

I for one would always want a doctor to treat a child no matter how it was conceived, but I wouldn't want one compelled to be involved in surrogacy arrangements, Which could involve a few complicated questions, but that doesn't mean they don't need to be addressed.

Sexual orientation is not a protected class in the US. As it has gone through the Supreme Court it sets precedent for other businesses to refuse to accept members of the LGBTQ community as clients. A doctor could refuse to treat someone with an STI

I think it depends on the state whether sexual orientation is protected.

The precedent is about "expressive activity", so it's unlikely that it can apply to medical treatment.

Personally I doubt that being forced to design something is really being "compelled to speak", so I'm not sure I like the technical reasoning here.

However you can certainly make a distinction between refusing service to a gay person because they are gay, and refusing them (or anyone else) service because you don't want to be involved in a particular kind of activity. So if a straight person turns up and asks for a custom made gay wedding cake for a family member, they are also getting refused service because it's about the "unethical" activity.