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

[SerendipityJane]

Not sure quite what this means. None of us approves of forced speech, and yet ?

https://news.sky.com/story/us-supreme-court-sides-with-christian-graphic-designer-who-refused-to-create-same-sex-wedding-website-12912559

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, 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

It is nothing to do with having a monopoly; they cannot discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics and they cannot be forced to say or write something they disagree with. It doesn’t matter how many alternative businesses there are.

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.

If you disliked them due to their protected characteristic then doing any of those things would be illegal discrimination. You could, however, refuse to populate the pages with their chosen text.

I can't imagine that i personally would feel the need to discriminate based on a protected characteristic, hence the 'person I disliked' reference.

But say I was deeply anti religious could I say that it wasn't my area of expertise and direct them to a provider that did religious websites?

No. But as populating the pages and placing pictures was likely to be a significant part of the design they may wish to go to someone who would do that but too. But if they were happy for you to just do all the layout work then you would be breaching the equality act to say no and direct them elsewhere.

Thanks@IWillNoLie for the clarification.

I would look at it like, a pub shouldn't be able to refuse to hire a room to someone because of their GC views.

Let's say you want to hold a meeting of your local UFO group at the pub, you shouldn't be able to refuse service just because the person booking the room also happens to hold GC views.

But quite possibly you should be able to refuse to hire the room for a GC event, while allowing other types of political event.

Now if it's a major convention centre, no, I don't think you should be able to refuse a GC event. That's probably a lot harder to find an alternative to.

Or small websites should be able to have whatever rules they want. But major platforms like Twitter and Reddit maybe shouldn't be allowed to prevent GC views being expressed.

It's a threat to free speech if the big platforms are all biased in a certain way, and I think free speech is more important than the property rights of the companies to control those platforms in the way that they want.

Once again, NO! A pub hiring out a room to the public cannot discriminate against GC customers, or black people, wishing to hire their room for any lawful activity.

They (or a website) can, however, hold activities themselves that are restricted to specific protected characteristics - so have a single sex dating app, a women’s group, a group for trans individuals, or an ante-natal group if this is a proportionate response to achieve a reasonable aim. And likewise groups hiring the room can also hold events restricted to a specific protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

Once again, NO! A pub hiring out a room to the public cannot discriminate against GC customers, or black people, wishing to hire their room for any lawful activity.

Is there clear case law for that?

Anyway I can discuss what I think the law can reasonably be, regardless of whether it's actually UK law at this moment.

What is actually the big deal if you can refuse to hire a room for a particular political activity that you see as unethical?

I think it's similar to refusing to make a custom gay wedding cake.

Is there a clear case in law that you mustn’t discriminate in the provision of a service to black people?

GC beliefs are not ‘political activity’ they are a protected belief under the Equality Act whether you want to pretend they are not or not.

PorcelinaV do you work for Stonewall? They seem very keen to train people in what they would like the law to be rather than what it actually is too.

@IWillNoLie is talking about the law as it stands in the UK and is spot on.

Being homosexual is as innate as having a certain skin color. I am sure the Supreme Court would not tell someone they have a right to not make a African American themed website. And citing religion as the reason is also ridiculous.

On the other hand, forcing people to do things they don't want to do is usually not a good idea.

Well when you aren't discriminating against the person, but refusing to be business involved in a particular political ideology, regardless of the colour of someone's skin, then quite possibly there isn't case law for that.

Why isn't it more comparable to refusing to bake a custom gay wedding cake?

GC beliefs are not ‘political activity’ they are a protected belief under the Equality Act whether you want to pretend they are not or not.

Well consider religion then.

Is there case law that you can/can't refuse to hire a space for a scientology event?

As distinct from refusing to hire a space to a scientologist just in general.

I find this very worrying. I fully support LGB people and I support T people, with caveats on when and which services are used.

This is a "socially conservative" attack on "progressive" values and comes alongside striking down affirmative action on race and debt forgiveness for students. This could fundamentally shift US cultural norms and hurt lots of people.

If a Christian can e.g. refuse to design a website for gay marriage, and a liberal can e.g. refuse to design a website for conservative Christians, is it really harming anyone? Or how is going down this path going to result in harm?

You mean like Glasgow City Council having to pay £100,000 compensation for cancelling letting a venue to an evangelical Christian group?
https://judiciary.scot/home/sentences-judgments/judgments/2022/10/25/billy-graham-evangelistic-association-v-scottish-event-campus-limited

Why isn't it more comparable to refusing to bake a custom gay wedding cake?

They didn’t refuse to bake a custom gay wedding cake, they refused to write on it ‘support gay marriage’ as this went against their beliefs. The case found that people cannot be forced to say things they don’t belief. If they had refused to bake the cake they would have been guilty of discrimination but they didn’t.