On the other hand, this reminds me of the old signs that said "we dont serve Mexicans and black people. Dogs are welcomed " which were pretty bad. Should someone be forced to work on something he doesn't want to due to her (wrong) beliefs?
I think their comment still applies. Do you still think the web developer should have the right to deny service based on the race or sex of the client, if that's what they were claiming offended their beliefs?
If every wedding photographer denied a couple service because they are two men, doesn't that "make life difficult for the excluded group"?
Laws are not programs and you should not expect them to be written precisely over the full generality of possible inputs. A good suggestion can be one that merely makes the right outcomes clearer, not just one that makes law a matter of rote. Pretty much every law ever written can be dismissed if you count there being some ambiguity as a reason for dismissal.
[1] https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=55...
The case in question may be more nuanced than this — TFA is paywalled.
The secular West has adopted the philosophy of "everything goes as long as it doesn't harm me", which falls apart at scrutiny. This philosophy has also invaded their Christian population, which is why you see they caved to pressure.
I still have moral views despite not believing in any god.
I encourage you to learn more about evolution. The evidence and coherency is overwhelming. “The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins is a very good brief overview of the evidence. It’s quite stunning.
Also, Dawkins is a suspect figure to say the least, he's all over the place and clearly has an agenda.
If you study evolution with an open mind, you will see that it is true. There is a reason that the percentage of people who don't accept evolution has steadily decreased over the decades. It is by far the most compelling explanation for the origin of all the life we see around us, including ourselves. You can then see how the capacity for morality is an evolved trait, like all innate human behaviors.
Specific moral systems, such as the Judeo-Christian tradition you mention, are the product of cultural "evolution". They are built on top of our innate moral capacities.
If that's the case, then many, if not most, workers in the US are slaves, too.
It's highly illegal to refuse work on the grounds that you "don't work for gays" or similar.
That implies hatred towards a group of people.
And it's generally just a shitty thing to do.
If you don't want to do something for any reason, just be professional about your refusal and you won't get into messes like this.
This is not a case of “don’t work for gays.” You’re overlooking a distinction that is important to the case.
If the gay couple wanted a website to showcase pictures of their dog and the web designer didn't take the job because the clients were gay - the supreme court never would have taken that case. It's just discrimination.
If a straight couple wanted to build a pro-lgbt website and the web designer refused, the case would fundamentally be the same. It's an issue about compelling speech.
The issue is that she (reportedly) will happily work for gays, just not in order to produce pro-gay content. So it's not a question of "are you willing to work for <protected class>", it's "are you willing to create whatever content someone might want?"
> Artist Lorie Smith is a website designer who creates original, online content consistent with her faith. She plans to (1) design wedding websites promoting her understanding of marriage, and (2) post a statement explaining that she can only speak messages consistent with her faith.
The article also says that the issue will be limited to the “Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment”, so in a legal sense I think the fact that someone might make such a policy because of their religion is irrelevant in this case.
While the Supreme Court will address this on First Amendment grounds, that doesn’t mean religion is irrelevant. Speech is deeply intertwined with religion. There is a long history of forcing people to engage in speech contrary to their religious beliefs as a way to attack and destroy the religion.
American Muslims (I’m an immigrant from a Muslim country) have a very nuanced view on same-sex marriage. Most support it’s legality because they view white Americans as belonging to a distinct culture that isn’t subject to Islamic law. But in their own community it’s completely unacceptable: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/us/lgbt-muslims-pride-progres....
Thus there is a big difference for most Muslims between equal rights, non-discrimination protections, etc., and anything that would require their personal involvement.
Let's hypothetically take this to an extreme, take off the veneer. Let's say John hates some group of people. Let's disregard whether that group is defined by mutable or immutable characteristics. Does John have a right to hate those people? Does he have a right to express that hatred in a non violent, non coercive way? And if so, what does that entail? Is it about speech? Is making a painting speech? A website? What about making a cocktail? And why is it limited to speech, just because of the letter of the law? Does one have the right to associate with whom they please, and do business with whom they please?