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

  • Neato@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    No. He gets to choose who to work for. He doesn’t get to choose not to work for entire classes of people when those classes are protected.

    It’s the same as if he said he didn’t want black clients.

    • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I mean…now you’re getting into the realm of words vs actions.

      In the case of a freelance contract worker, there’s a difference between saying “I don’t do work for gays and blacks” and keeping your mouth shut (or providing some excuse like that you’re already too booked) and no-quoting that work, in effect not working for these groups.

      However in both cases, I believe it is (and should be) legal.

      Rude and offensive, sure, but I feel it’s a situation where you have to allow assholes to be assholes because the alternative is compulsory work which opens a whole new can of worms and is an even bigger restriction on freedoms.

      So many people in these comments are trying to legislate morality, and it’s just a non-starter in these circumstances.

      • Neato@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Protected classes deserve protection. Trying to get around that gets you sued.