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

  • MagicShel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    So I agree with you, but food for thought as I was mulling this over: what about someone building a deck? I shouldn’t discriminate who I build a deck for based on color or orientationn because building that deck doesn’t expose me to anything I object to (I’m using “I” universally here - I’m queer positive and don’t build decks). But like if I’m a boudoir photographer who is squicked by queer sexuality I ought to be able to decline a shoot.

    So I don’t know that the line is just a one on one service. That’s not quite there, but it’s close. I recognize the need to protect folks from being forced to witness or participate in things they object to, but I also recognize the need to protect minority groups from being excluded from the benefits of society.

    I also think it would do people good to get over themselves and be exposed to things they find uncomfortable and grow as a person, but I recognize that isn’t anything that can be forced on someone.

    • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah I agree that it doesn’t seem to be a firm hard line, but maybe that’s a good thing. And honestly, to me it’s one of those things that, from a purely economic standpoint, it’s just opening up that opportunity to competitors.

      So you don’t wanna photo gay weddings? That’s cool, someone else will.