It means that if a Christian asks you to design a website with messages that violate your religious beliefs then you can refuse. If I as a satanist believe that a woman’s right to abortion is sacred then I can refuse to design a website with an anti-abortion message. I can’t simply refuse to design a website for a Christian. Not saying I agree with the ruling, just explaining what it means.
The ruling says you don’t have to design a website that violates any sincerely held beliefs, not just religious beliefs.
So if you are gay and a Catholic asked you to design a website promoting “Marriage is for one man and one woman”, you can refuse. Before the ruling, you might have been found to be discriminating against Catholics.
The whole idea of some things being protected and some not is very wrong. Rights should be a wildcard. That’s the right of private discrimination as ancaps see it.
There are two rights that the courts have traditionally protected, the right to say (or not say) what you want, and the right to be free of discrimination.
In this case, the two rights were in conflict. The court decided that the first one takes precedence.
That’s to be free of discrimination by the state, which usually will treat your obligations independently of your rights.
While private discrimination is always something in the grey area. By private discrimination I mean both a banner saying “<any grouping at all> are not welcome here” and having face control (something quite normal for night clubs, and you’ll also pick your tenants if you rent out).
It means that if a Christian asks you to design a website with messages that violate your religious beliefs then you can refuse. If I as a satanist believe that a woman’s right to abortion is sacred then I can refuse to design a website with an anti-abortion message. I can’t simply refuse to design a website for a Christian. Not saying I agree with the ruling, just explaining what it means.
The ruling says you don’t have to design a website that violates any sincerely held beliefs, not just religious beliefs.
So if you are gay and a Catholic asked you to design a website promoting “Marriage is for one man and one woman”, you can refuse. Before the ruling, you might have been found to be discriminating against Catholics.
The whole idea of some things being protected and some not is very wrong. Rights should be a wildcard. That’s the right of private discrimination as ancaps see it.
There are two rights that the courts have traditionally protected, the right to say (or not say) what you want, and the right to be free of discrimination.
In this case, the two rights were in conflict. The court decided that the first one takes precedence.
That’s to be free of discrimination by the state, which usually will treat your obligations independently of your rights.
While private discrimination is always something in the grey area. By private discrimination I mean both a banner saying “<any grouping at all> are not welcome here” and having face control (something quite normal for night clubs, and you’ll also pick your tenants if you rent out).
Curious, why don’t you agree with the ruling?
Because it’s a shit ruling that says discriminating against people is a form of speech. At least that’s why I think it’s a horrible ruling.
That’s not what it says.