It means that if a Christian asks you to design a website with messages that violate your religious beliefs then you can refuse. If I as a satanist believe that a woman's right to abortion is sacred then I can refuse to design a website with an anti-abortion message. I can't simply refuse to design a website for a Christian. Not saying I agree with the ruling, just explaining what it means.

[–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago

The ruling says you don't have to design a website that violates any sincerely held beliefs, not just religious beliefs.

So if you are gay and a Catholic asked you to design a website promoting "Marriage is for one man and one woman", you can refuse. Before the ruling, you might have been found to be discriminating against Catholics.

[–] SpaceToast@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Curious, why don’t you agree with the ruling?

[–] Bumblefumble 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because it's a shit ruling that says discriminating against people is a form of speech. At least that's why I think it's a horrible ruling.

[–] SpaceToast@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s not what it says.

[–] Bumblefumble 1 points 1 year ago

Of course it is. It says creating something is a type of expression, and that you can use that to discriminate since they can't curb free speech.

[–] fragmentcity@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I get that, but if they'd ruled differently, I don't think you'd be happier. Imagine being a website designer and the state is going to sue you unless you agree to make a wedding website for a fundamentalist Christian couple who believe interracial marriage is a sin.

[–] Bumblefumble 1 points 1 year ago

I would actually prefer that the state bans discrimination, also against Christians. But of course, being a bigot is not a protected class you can be discriminated based on. Paradox of intolerance and all that.

[–] vacuumflower@vlemmy.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The whole idea of some things being protected and some not is very wrong. Rights should be a wildcard. That's the right of private discrimination as ancaps see it.

[–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are two rights that the courts have traditionally protected, the right to say (or not say) what you want, and the right to be free of discrimination.

In this case, the two rights were in conflict. The court decided that the first one takes precedence.

[–] vacuumflower@vlemmy.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's to be free of discrimination by the state, which usually will treat your obligations independently of your rights.

While private discrimination is always something in the grey area. By private discrimination I mean both a banner saying " are not welcome here" and having face control (something quite normal for night clubs, and you'll also pick your tenants if you rent out).

[–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

It's not really a gray area. The Civil Rights Act explicitly prohibits discrimination against protected class by most businesses that are open to the public, like stores, restaurants, bars, and hotels.

If you're not a part of a protected class, or your particular business is not covered by the Civil Rights Act, then you are free to discriminate.

So to take your example, if a bar said "Irish not welcome here" then they would absolutely be violating the law.

The main change recently is that certain businesses that produce original expression, such as web designers, can no longer be covered by the Civil Rights Act because the court thought this would conflict with the First Amendment.