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

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.

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.

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

Equality Act

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.

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.

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?