Hacker News Reader

Comment by boeingUH60 | Hacker News Reader

I don’t know if this opinion is unpopular, but I personally think anyone should be allowed to refuse to render their services to anyone they want to…I mean, if I don’t want to offer my services, can’t I just make an excuse like I’m overbooked or something?

Obviously, it gets murky when it comes to innate characteristics like race…but I don’t think religious views fall under that category because a considerable number of people change their religions or go from religious to atheist or vice versa.

View on HN

I don’t think its an unpopular opinion, but I think the issue here is that there is a lot of nuance.

Should someone be forced to officiate a same-sex wedding or build a website is different from should that person be forced to rent an apartment to a same sex couple which is different from should a cashier be forced to provide service at the register to a same-sex couple.

The law provides distinction between speech and conduct, and that’s the main topic in this court case. Conduct can’t discriminate, but speech can. Eg. You can say mean things about a certain race, but you can’t refuse them service because if it. So professional services… is that conduct or speech? The Colorado law in question said that business is conduct not speech, and thats really what is at the root of this case. What is the line? Is baking a cake speech? Is building a website? What about being a grocery store cashier?

> Obviously, it gets murky when it comes to innate characteristics like race

What about innate characteristics like sexuality?

This is a good explanation of the subtleties involved in this.

- Alice wants to publish a website about how the moon is made out of cheese but Alice is bad at web design.

- Bob is good at web design and wants to sell his design services.

- Bob is discriminatory in how clients are accepted: he doesn't want people to make claims that the moon is made out of cheese.

- Alice is rejected.

I don't think Bob is really wrong in this hypothetical specifically because people who believe certain things about the moon aren't a class protected by law from discrimination.

However, when Alice is trying to make a website about her marriage to her future wife:

- Bob is discriminatory in how clients are accepted: he doesn't want people to announce or advertise their same-sex marriages.

Seems like this is discrimination against a protected class. Personally, I don't buy the argument that Bob's speech is compelled because it's not his speech (not his website).

(Not that the above comment makes this argument, just that it appears to be the prevailing argument in favor of this person's decision.)

> Seems like this is discrimination against a protected class.

The other nuance is the Colorado recognizes this protected class but not the federal government (or Supreme Court).

> Personally, I don't buy the argument that Bob's speech is compelled

What about if bob was gay and Alice was working for an anti-gay Church? If I was bob I wouldn’t want to participate in such business.

> What about if bob was gay and Alice was working for an anti-gay Church? If I was bob I wouldn’t want to participate in such business.

This is a good point that I should have considered more. (Not that it really matters but I do try to catch my biases before expressing them.) I was thinking about this more yesterday and this morning and eventually reversed my conclusion because of this argument.

Churches generally have exceptional carve-outs in what discriminatory actions they can take. As such, comparing churches and commercial establishments isn't an apples to apples comparison.

The church is the client in this example, not the discriminator, but you can replace it simply with an individual who holds and shares their religious views.

I think it's a very popular opinion. That's the point. It's a very easy snap judgment to make when you're not in a group that's often discriminated against, and so you haven't put a lot of thought into what it's actually like.

That's the great thing about being in the majority. Most people share your opinion.

As another poster said - it's more nuanced than that.

Not all that long ago, almost nobody wanted to render services to same-sex couples. The only reason the level of blatant discrimination has (slightly) lessened is because laws were enacted that explicitly protected their rights.

As someone (referring to myself here) who has almost no reason to be discriminated against, it's very easy to imagine that allowing business owners to freely choose who they provide services would be ok. I'd imagine the reality of that scenario would be pretty grim however.

For a while I also thought this. If these bigots don't want money then let them go without. Then I thought about what desegregation looked like in this country. It only applied to government institutions so private businesses hung "WHITES ONLY" signs in their window. Are we going to have "STRAIGHTS ONLY" signs or should I just assume any Christian symbol to mean discrimination?

What happens if someone say, lives in Texas and suddenly can't purchase basic goods or get basic services because individually businesses decide they no longer want to serve people whom area gay? Should doctors, nurses etc be able to refuse to render service because their patient is gay? What about teachers?

The problem with this line of thought (and why we have laws to help protected individuals) is that it hurts a minority of people and imposes a tyranny of the majority. Christians will likely never have to worry about an Atheist shop telling them to pound sand, but an Atheist in a rural area could suddenly have services taken away from them unless they convert.

In this scenario they had the freedom to deny the job and move on; but they wanted to specifically make it about their religion. They want the ability to discriminate not on the basis of being picky with their clientel, but specifically so that they can impose their own religious beliefs on others. And that is the core problem of the case; and also why I sadly think the Supreme Court will rule in favor.

The line being drawn in these cases is creative expression, i.e. courts are ruling that these are artistic statements, speech can’t be compelled, and so on.

This would never affect the ability to buy groceries or receive medical care.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com