Supreme Court: Web designer may deny services for same-sex weddings

submitted by Drewski from (usatoday.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Drewski[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I understand the distinction, but to my knowledge there aren't any anti-discrimination laws in the constitution that apply to protected classes. Please correct me if I'm wrong. There is the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

but that just stops the state from discriminating against individuals. And I agree, as a public entity the state should not be able to discriminate against an individual or class of people. There other anti-discrimination laws such as the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, but they aren't part of the Constitution so the Supreme Court would not use them as a basis for their ruling. At least that's my understanding. Now, they would use the precedent of other cases which have come before the Supreme Court and been ruled on, but that's not set in stone and can be overturned.

My point was just that in a free society private individuals and businesses should be able to choose who they transact with for any reason regardless of whether they're performing a custom request or just offering a generic product or service. If a business gains a reputation for discriminating based on race, sexual identity, or whatever they would be shamed and boycotted. I don't think they should be compelled to do business however.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think you're right and I may be confusing the civil rights act or maybe the unpassed equal rights amendment with the 14th.

As far as this refusing service, I generally agree with you principle, but I think there are some scenarios that could make this...complicated. For example, you are in a small town, a man has a medical emergency, and there is only one doctor in town - a refusal to treat certain groups of people could be awfully problematic in terms of real world outcomes here, even if as I say, I agree with you purely on principle. I think society would have to be structured somewhat differently for this to work, i.e. people all lived in communities with their own identity group so this doesn't happen.