His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.

  • mommykink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think your comment can be summed up more succinctly with “independent contractors have more discretion to choose their clients or projects than businesses that serve the public.” And I agree with you

      • mommykink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        For the same reason that I don’t believe gay couples should be legally forced to accept services from a MAGA photographer. A private contract in this situation is just that, a contract. Both parties have the power to set whatever terms and conditions that they want.

        For example, imagine a black couple wanted a photographer for a family event and said something along the lines of “we’d like to support members of the black community by hiring an independent black photographer.” If a white photographer saw this and sued, everyone would (rightfully) react negatively to him trying to force a private party to break the conditions they set for their private contract.

        • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          But a MAGA supporter is not the same characteristic as being LGQTB. They are not equivalent. Some countries have protected classes which I think is best. Political affiliation is not protected. Sexual orientation is. A protected class is saying that infringing the freedoms of others based on these characteristics is a great threat to freedom. The country needs to explicitly state it won’t tolerate it, because it will erode the freedom far greater than not allowing it. You can discriminate against someone based on choices they make, but not on inherent characteristics they have.

          Likewise saying you are hiring a black photographer isn’t the same as saying you’re not hiring a white photographer. The distinction is important. You’re not saying you exclude a person based on an inherent/protected characteristic. The exclusion can be inferred but it doesn’t actually mean the exclusion exists. You can say you will hire a black photographer does not mean you won’t consider or hire any other. But saying you will not hire a white photographer does concretely state your exclusion which shouldn’t be a factor in business in any free Democratic country.

          I would think this is a choice that doesn’t have a right answer. All choices suck. You infringe on someone regardless of choice. But saying that I think the choice with least harm is choosing to have protected classes that can’t be infringed on vs allowing people to disallow people access to services based on these protected classes. I would prefer a person who feels they will infringe on those rights to not choose to be in the market offering services where they can discriminate based on sex, race, sexual orientation or other traits that should be protected. But if they feel they don’t want to serve plumbers or Democrats or movie producers all the power to them