Actor Michael Imperioli has something to say about the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling in favor of a Christian web designer who refuses to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings.

  • slightgeist@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    1 year ago

    her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds

    Usually true, except when it comes to discrimination against people of protected class for being under that protected class, which is why this ruling is so concerning.

    The reality is that this sort of discrimination happens all the time under the guise of other rationale and is hard to stamp out (see: real estate redlining, gerrymandering, employment and rental discrimination, etc.), but theoretically a disenfranchised person with documentation can still seek recourse under the law.

    This ruling (as well as the general apprehension around queer people living publicly) has laid the groundwork for christofascism to further underclass those (and other marginalized) communities and makes the violent rhetoric coming from “family values” white supremacist extremists more palatable to the public.

    It is incredibly dangerous and further damages whatever remains of SCOTUS’ credibility.

    • zd@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Being gay or trans isn’t a protected class. The First Amendment and US Constitution trumps a class of anything.

      • HipHoboHarold@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is a protected class

        The first amendment is the thing you’re missing with all of this. People can discriminate against gay people. But only if it takes away their first amendment. The courts ruled that art should not be forced. So they don’t have to serve gay people. But if someone is selling a car, that has nothing to do with art.

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is not a protected class at the federal level. It is in many states.

          However, part of the argument in favor of making same sex marriage a right, as ordered in Obergefell, so that no state can refuse to marry same sex couples, is that the only difference between an opposite sex couple and a same sex couple is the sex of one of the people. Hence, the discrimination is on the basis of sex, which is a protected class federally.

          Why that same argument wouldn’t apply to the more recent web designer case is beyond me.

          • Bluskale@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why that same argument wouldn’t apply to the more recent web designer case is beyond me.

            Ahh, about that, well… welcome to the new Robert’s Court, where the facts are made up and the precedent doesn’t matter.

            From courtroom to Congress, it seems these days conservatives only look at getting things their way, with consequences & the nation at large be damned. At times there’s startlingly little ideological consistency being proffered to justify their actions, and sometimes they even punish other conservatives to force getting their way (see recent rejection of a multitude of bills in Texas because the governor didn’t get his favored legislation through, for instance). I don’t see how this can be kept up long term… it’s like venture capitalism has infected the government and we’re working on burning out all the assets still.

          • metaStatic@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            True freedom is the realization you can literally do whatever the fuck you want.

            (something something we live in a society …)

      • admiralteal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sex is a protected class. There’s no discrimination against gay or trans people that is not inherently discrimination based on sex. So no, it is absolutely a protected class.

        Conservatives just allow their hatred of queer people to easily, easily, easily overcome their desire to appear to respect the law.

        • YouShutYoMouf@lemmy.fmhy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly.

          Say a person has sex with a man. Is that person homosexual?

          Depends on the sex of the person having sex with the man. Sexual orientation requires a person’s sex to be considered.

          You literally can’t determine sexuality without looking at a person’s sex, so sexual orientation is covered by sex itself being a protected class.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Homophobes hate gay people because of their sex. Not them having sex, but that they are the same sex and Ina relationships ship.

        Sex is a protected class in the US, so logically sexuality would be covered by any common sense reading of the law.

        Also the SCOTUS decision is pure bullshit as any creative work I causing commercial business is creative work and the free speech justification is bullshit.

      • keeb420@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        and being a lying pos doesnt give you standing. but here we are commenting on a case where someone lied to have standing and now rights are being eroded away.