Does that mean that, if someone's religion believes black people are inferior, a store owner could conceivably deny the entrance of black people on the same justification? Edit: that's the kind of...
Does that mean that, if someone's religion believes black people are inferior, a store owner could conceivably deny the entrance of black people on the same justification?
Edit: that's the kind of double standards that I fully expect Satanists to explore in order to expose the absurdity of it all...
I do have to applaud the people taking anti-LGBT school library rules as a chance to evict the bible from school libraries. Though I'm not sure what kind of action could be taken to exploit this...
Edit: that's the kind of double standards that I fully expect Satanists to explore in order to expose the absurdity of it all...
I do have to applaud the people taking anti-LGBT school library rules as a chance to evict the bible from school libraries. Though I'm not sure what kind of action could be taken to exploit this ruling to make a point without victimising other minorities. Maybe no entry to MAGA hat wearers?
There are so many ways Satanists can subvert this. I trust their creativity, they seem good at that stuff. Maybe they should open a chain of really good, really cheap chicken and refuse to serve...
There are so many ways Satanists can subvert this. I trust their creativity, they seem good at that stuff.
Maybe they should open a chain of really good, really cheap chicken and refuse to serve Christians. It would be called El Pollos Satanicos :P
Just require a pentagram be stamped on the hand at entry. That would really get some jimies rustled. The older Christians in my family already believe that cell phones are the mark of the beast...
Just require a pentagram be stamped on the hand at entry. That would really get some jimies rustled. The older Christians in my family already believe that cell phones are the mark of the beast mentioned in the Bible because everybody constantly has one in their hand now.
Grandma is the only one that thinks they're all whacko and pretends to be posssed while texting.
It's really not going to make a difference. The threat here to people is that Christians make up enough a large enough group that they may be able to actually have an impact. Someone who is gay or...
It's really not going to make a difference. The threat here to people is that Christians make up enough a large enough group that they may be able to actually have an impact. Someone who is gay or trans can reasonably expect to be denied at a business in their lifetime. The average Christian wouldn't.
A satanist business or two will make headlines, but little else. Their technique works with government displays of religion by saying "show Satan with the cross or show neither" - it's a poison pill.
To be clear: my idea is not that Satanists will have a direct impact on the issue, but it would work as a honeypot for Christian organizations to sue The Satanic Temple for discrimination and win,...
To be clear: my idea is not that Satanists will have a direct impact on the issue, but it would work as a honeypot for Christian organizations to sue The Satanic Temple for discrimination and win, positively affecting jurisprudence or legislation on the matter.
Unfortunately, except in very specific locations, that would be a recipe to go out of business. Evicting the bible from schools works because the people banning LGBT-acknowledging books can't get...
Unfortunately, except in very specific locations, that would be a recipe to go out of business. Evicting the bible from schools works because the people banning LGBT-acknowledging books can't get rid of the schools without harming themselves.
They are still trying and replacing with religious charter schools. Might as well go the nuclear option since they are not going to be respectful anyway.
They are still trying and replacing with religious charter schools. Might as well go the nuclear option since they are not going to be respectful anyway.
I disagree with their ruling, but even assuming that's the law of the US for now, I still think there's a good chance that this hair salon's action is not allowed under it. My understanding is...
I disagree with their ruling, but even assuming that's the law of the US for now, I still think there's a good chance that this hair salon's action is not allowed under it. My understanding is they justified it under an argument that acknowledging LGBT events like weddings in products like messages/illustrations on cakes etc. is compelled speech.
Providing a haircut on the other hand is not speech. I think it'd be great if someone challenged a move like this all the way, so the Supreme Court is either forced to curtail some of the implied permission people are reading in their previous ruling, or just come out and acknowledge their hypocrisy (and hopefully that would sway a few voters - given the slim margins in the last US elections, it's possible the attacks on Roe vs Wade backfired on the republicans and lost them the red wave they expected).
While some have argued that the decision narrowly applies to businesses that provide “expressive services” and does not provide carte blanche protection for any businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, many have predicted that anti-LGBTQ+ business owners inclined to discriminate would interpret the ruling as a license to do so, despite state laws banning anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination.
I don't think the article is precisely right either. My understanding is that the ruling is even more narrow — the "expressive service," itself would have to conflict with a sincerely held belief,...
I don't think the article is precisely right either.
My understanding is that the ruling is even more narrow — the "expressive service," itself would have to conflict with a sincerely held belief, not any action by businesses who provide expressive services.
I think the ruling is very dangerous anyway, and the current SC majority writes some profoundly unclear and logically inconsistent rulings, but hope that further appeals will allow the Court to clarify exactly how narrow the ruling is intended to be.
It’s no different, but remember that this is the country where doing exactly that was completely legal (and court battle tested) for hundreds of years. It’s sad but not surprising that the court...
It’s no different, but remember that this is the country where doing exactly that was completely legal (and court battle tested) for hundreds of years.
It’s sad but not surprising that the court ruled the way it did, given their ideological makeup. It has set us back to a time where discrimination is legal and legally protected.
It's not unconstitutional. There's a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that says so. In fact, not only is it not unconstitutional, it's actually constitutional - because it's supported by the First...
This should be unconstitutional.
It's not unconstitutional. There's a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that says so. In fact, not only is it not unconstitutional, it's actually constitutional - because it's supported by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
It should be unconstitutional though, baseless bigotry and discrimination are not worth protecting. And with the first amendment, it makes sense that one should be able to say and share whatever...
It should be unconstitutional though, baseless bigotry and discrimination are not worth protecting.
And with the first amendment, it makes sense that one should be able to say and share whatever ideas they want, but that isn't a carte blanche to act however you want. If drunk driving was near and dear to my heart or part of my religion, I still couldn't and shouldn't do it because it endangers others. Business discrimination like this causes another type of harm, and shouldn't be allowed.
Should and is are two different things. Also, the fact that delphi followed up that statement with a wish that people would sue the offending business, implied that they're not aware that this...
Should and is are two different things.
Also, the fact that delphi followed up that statement with a wish that people would sue the offending business, implied that they're not aware that this discriminatory behaviour has already been strongly implied to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Otherwise, delphi would realise that suing this business would only end up with the court case being appealed all the way up to that same Supreme Court, which would make the same ruling in favour of the discriminatory business owner (as the OP already pointed out to them).
For the foreseeable future, this behaviour is constitutional in the United States and, sadly, no amount of righteous outrage on the internet will change that.
I’m absolutely aware that this is constitutional, that’s why I said should. I’m saying it shouldn’t be, and also that I’m sure there’s some loophole or legal trick you can exploit to make them...
I’m absolutely aware that this is constitutional, that’s why I said should. I’m saying it shouldn’t be, and also that I’m sure there’s some loophole or legal trick you can exploit to make them regret that decision.
My reading of the law is that it has to be about the content of the work created. Not a lawyer, but I listen to a lot of podcasts with lawyers? (Go Lawfare and Quinta Jurecic!) Like, the web site...
My reading of the law is that it has to be about the content of the work created. Not a lawyer, but I listen to a lot of podcasts with lawyers? (Go Lawfare and Quinta Jurecic!)
Like, the web site designer will not have to create a website that's pro gay marriage, because that would involve the designer having to write pro-gay messages. But if a gay person wanted a website on like finance (something which the designer did not disagree with), then the designer could not refuse on the grounds of the client being gay. Essentially it's about compelled speech. In practice, I think homophobic web designers would reject gay clients regardless (and hide their homophobic reasoning), and I think this is a bad ruling, but I do want to point out the detail of the law.
In this case, I don't see how a hair stylist could make the same claim. Hair is hair right, not speech? I could see a hair stylist saying there's certain styles they can't/won't do. But a gay person's hair is the same as a straight person's hair. This is different from a web designer who would have to create artwork that is specifically pro-gay. Perhaps the hair stylist could refuse to, for example, shave the phrase "Pro Gay Marriage" into someone's hair, but unless you're doing that it seems ungrounded.
If I wanted to get ultra-pedantic, I would point out: Writing a notice to advertise what one's business does and does not do, is "speech", and is therefore covered by the First Amendment. A...
If I wanted to get ultra-pedantic, I would point out:
Writing a notice to advertise what one's business does and does not do, is "speech", and is therefore covered by the First Amendment.
A business that advertises one thing, and delivers another, is breaking the law.
Therefore... a business owner in the USA is allowed, according to the constitution, to say whatever they want about who they will and won't serve, and U.S. law will then enforce that statement about the business.
It's a bit of a long bow to draw, but it's not totally illogical.
There are limits though. It's not legal to say "I won't do business with black people." You're right that's speech, but it certainly isn't protected by the first amendment if that's how your...
Writing a notice to advertise what one's business does and does not do, is "speech", and is therefore covered by the First Amendment.
There are limits though. It's not legal to say "I won't do business with black people." You're right that's speech, but it certainly isn't protected by the first amendment if that's how your business operates. This example of using the speech defence to refuse to deal with black people or women came up in the Supreme Court Case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.
The question in this case is what are those limits? This case has defined new lines.
Jesus Christ, that’s vile. It’s so distressing to see how bold these people have become in thinking it’s acceptable to say this out loud. Sending love to all in the community after having to see...
Jesus Christ, that’s vile. It’s so distressing to see how bold these people have become in thinking it’s acceptable to say this out loud. Sending love to all in the community after having to see this! ❤️
Because to these people trans = pedophiles. There's a reason why they're always rallying against any kind of LGBTQ+ education in school, it's in large because they legitimately believe it's...
Because to these people trans = pedophiles. There's a reason why they're always rallying against any kind of LGBTQ+ education in school, it's in large because they legitimately believe it's pedophilia adjacent, they truly think trans people are out there grooming children.
You can thank fox news and the like for broadcasting this sentiment.
It's a recycling of the same moral panic about gay rights from the 80's and 90's. All of the talking points are the same, just the targets have been changed.
It's a recycling of the same moral panic about gay rights from the 80's and 90's. All of the talking points are the same, just the targets have been changed.
Because they lost that fight. And when they lose this fight, they'll move on to deploy the same attacks against their next target, whatever group that ends up being. Because these attacks, as...
Because they lost that fight. And when they lose this fight, they'll move on to deploy the same attacks against their next target, whatever group that ends up being. Because these attacks, as objectively ridiculous as they are, are incredibly when it comes to creating this sort of moral panic. And panic makes people exceptionally easy to manipulate and control
There are plenty of people who believe in those religions who aren't nutjobs though. I don't think religion is the problem, if there weren't any religions then those same people would find another...
There are plenty of people who believe in those religions who aren't nutjobs though. I don't think religion is the problem, if there weren't any religions then those same people would find another reason to be hateful.
Possibly. The reality is those religions have been an excuse to discriminate since..... Forever. We can debate on wether or not these idiots would find another excuse without religion, but there...
Possibly.
The reality is those religions have been an excuse to discriminate since..... Forever.
We can debate on wether or not these idiots would find another excuse without religion, but there is no debate about religion being used as a reason to commit uncountable atrocities through our history.
one of the oldest anti-semitic lies in existence is blood libel - the claim that Jewish people steal Christian children in the middle of the night, murder them, and use their blood in religious...
one of the oldest anti-semitic lies in existence is blood libel - the claim that Jewish people steal Christian children in the middle of the night, murder them, and use their blood in religious rituals.
the purpose of this lie is that it creates a permission structure where people can convince themselves that preemptive violence against Jewish people (pogroms) is justified. after all, "they" are coming to harm your children, and it's going to happen while you're sleeping and unable to protect them. so, the logic goes, a preemptive attack against the entire group of people isn't an attack at all, it's actually defense.
"trans people are pedophiles" is blood libel for the 21st century
"they" are coming to harm your kids, and it's going to happen while you're not around (when they're at a public school, or checking out a book from the library, etc). the goal is the same - to create a permission structure that can be used to justify attacks on those people (both through the legal system, and as extrajudicial violence) as actually being "defense" and "protecting the children".
It makes me so sad to see stuff like this. Maybe I just have nostalgia goggles since I was still growing up around that time, but I feel like even a decade ago this would totally not of been okay....
It makes me so sad to see stuff like this. Maybe I just have nostalgia goggles since I was still growing up around that time, but I feel like even a decade ago this would totally not of been okay. Hell I even remember watching an episode of The Love Boat of all shows that was trans-positive. I think I remember a few episodes of M.A.S.H. too. And now calling LGBTQ+ people pedophiles is basically the political stance of an entire party in the U.S..
I'm optimistic about the future because of how bad the midterms went for Republicans, I do think they're really going in too hard on topics that aren't super popular with the majority opinion, but christ do some people make it hard to keep a bright outlook when you see them talk like that.
It's weird how it always seems like projection too. A bar owner in my hometown was known for putting up a lot of anti LGBT stuff on his building and generally being hateful. He made it very clear...
It's weird how it always seems like projection too. A bar owner in my hometown was known for putting up a lot of anti LGBT stuff on his building and generally being hateful. He made it very clear he thought everbody that wasn't straight and white was coming after his kids. Flash forward to today and he's in prison for raping an 8 year old girl.
A similar thing happened with a guy I hung out with in high school. He clocked me with a metal bat after finding out I am bi. Now he's also in trouble for grooming children. I know some of these people are just normal hateful, but it seems like more than a coincidence that so many people like that turn out to be pedophiles.
So my understanding of the recent SCOTUS decision was that making a website or any other artistic design constituted speach. And the US goverment couldn't infringe on free speach. So you couldn't...
So my understanding of the recent SCOTUS decision was that making a website or any other artistic design constituted speach. And the US goverment couldn't infringe on free speach.
So you couldn't force a baker to make a pride cake/decorations, but they would have to make a normal cake for a gay couple. So then is cutting hair more like making a generic wedding cake or more like making a pro LGBTQ+ website. I would argue a hair cut is not a form of speach unless the cut somehow was pro LGBTQ+, like dyeing it rainbow colored.
I feel like their own wording of their rationale seems to show that this is discrimination against trans folks in particular, and not a refusal for a certain kind of expression. After all, a...
I feel like their own wording of their rationale seems to show that this is discrimination against trans folks in particular, and not a refusal for a certain kind of expression. After all, a haircut for a cis woman is going to be the same as a haircut for a trans woman (or frankly any gender, male, female, or nonbinary). There's definitely arguments to be made here that this is old-fashioned, illegal discrimination.
And, this hairdresser obviously believes she now has the license to discriminate in her business. Whether she's right or wrong is irrelevant. The highest legal authority in the USA has sent out a...
While some have argued that the decision narrowly applies to businesses that provide “expressive services” and does not provide carte blanche protection for any businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, many have predicted that anti-LGBTQ+ business owners inclined to discriminate would interpret the ruling as a license to do so, despite state laws banning anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination.
And, this hairdresser obviously believes she now has the license to discriminate in her business. Whether she's right or wrong is irrelevant. The highest legal authority in the USA has sent out a signal to conservatives everywhere: "we'll find a legal way to support you if you want to discriminate".
I think this is getting more to the heart of the matter. People are expected to DO things as part of their job, and sometimes those things are objectionable. Under what conditions can someone...
I think this is getting more to the heart of the matter.
People are expected to DO things as part of their job, and sometimes those things are objectionable. Under what conditions can someone morally object to a task?
Usually people already have strong opinions about the subject or we wouldn't be here talking about it, so I try to step back and remember the law applies equally to us all, then imagine this same situation playing out for multiple groups with strong opinions.
For salons specifically this is not a bad thing imo. I would much rather just know hey don't go to x location, they don't wanna serve me than go because they're required to and then get a shitty...
For salons specifically this is not a bad thing imo. I would much rather just know hey don't go to x location, they don't wanna serve me than go because they're required to and then get a shitty haircut bc they're prejudiced and don't wanna give what I want.
At least in the "shitty haircut" case, the person has to keep their prejudice to themselves. They're less free to voice their bigotry, and feel societal pressure to hide their thoughts lest they...
At least in the "shitty haircut" case, the person has to keep their prejudice to themselves. They're less free to voice their bigotry, and feel societal pressure to hide their thoughts lest they receive backlash. And, for unknowing trans people, they can at least go on with their lives (hopefully) not realizing that the bad haircut they received was intentional. They can chalk it up to an unskilled stylist and move on?
But, in the "we don't serve people like you here" case, the bigotry is on full display? If a trans person isn't able to vet the hair stylist before arriving, then presumably there will be a full on scene with explicit vitriol hurled at them. That experience seems a lot more traumatic? Just, really driving home the point that prejudice towards trans folk is socially acceptable, when it really, really shouldn't feel that way. Allowing this feels like slipping backwards.
Yeah, you're correct. Like back during segregation in the 1900s and before you had segregated everything. A black person in that situation may think not to go to the whites only businesses/places...
Yeah, you're correct. Like back during segregation in the 1900s and before you had segregated everything. A black person in that situation may think not to go to the whites only businesses/places because of the fear of retaliation for the color of their skin, but that's exactly why they had to go to those places. Having the right to go anywhere as yourself without living in fear because of your race, gender, sexuality, etc. is a core component of freedom and creating a tolerant society. Like, you don't have to agree with who I am, but you do have to tolerate me. Having an intolerance for intolerance is what makes a (redundant) tolerant society.
How is this any different to business owners not serving black people in the 19XXs? This should be unconstitutional. I hope someone sues their asses.
Does that mean that, if someone's religion believes black people are inferior, a store owner could conceivably deny the entrance of black people on the same justification?
Edit: that's the kind of double standards that I fully expect Satanists to explore in order to expose the absurdity of it all...
I do have to applaud the people taking anti-LGBT school library rules as a chance to evict the bible from school libraries. Though I'm not sure what kind of action could be taken to exploit this ruling to make a point without victimising other minorities. Maybe no entry to MAGA hat wearers?
There are so many ways Satanists can subvert this. I trust their creativity, they seem good at that stuff.
Maybe they should open a chain of really good, really cheap chicken and refuse to serve Christians. It would be called El Pollos Satanicos :P
Just require a pentagram be stamped on the hand at entry. That would really get some jimies rustled. The older Christians in my family already believe that cell phones are the mark of the beast mentioned in the Bible because everybody constantly has one in their hand now.
Grandma is the only one that thinks they're all whacko and pretends to be posssed while texting.
It's really not going to make a difference. The threat here to people is that Christians make up enough a large enough group that they may be able to actually have an impact. Someone who is gay or trans can reasonably expect to be denied at a business in their lifetime. The average Christian wouldn't.
A satanist business or two will make headlines, but little else. Their technique works with government displays of religion by saying "show Satan with the cross or show neither" - it's a poison pill.
To be clear: my idea is not that Satanists will have a direct impact on the issue, but it would work as a honeypot for Christian organizations to sue The Satanic Temple for discrimination and win, positively affecting jurisprudence or legislation on the matter.
Stop serving Christians.
Unfortunately, except in very specific locations, that would be a recipe to go out of business. Evicting the bible from schools works because the people banning LGBT-acknowledging books can't get rid of the schools without harming themselves.
They are still trying and replacing with religious charter schools. Might as well go the nuclear option since they are not going to be respectful anyway.
They could make each restaurant a Temple so they wouldn't pay taxes and also wouldn't really need to make a profit.
I disagree with their ruling, but even assuming that's the law of the US for now, I still think there's a good chance that this hair salon's action is not allowed under it. My understanding is they justified it under an argument that acknowledging LGBT events like weddings in products like messages/illustrations on cakes etc. is compelled speech.
Providing a haircut on the other hand is not speech. I think it'd be great if someone challenged a move like this all the way, so the Supreme Court is either forced to curtail some of the implied permission people are reading in their previous ruling, or just come out and acknowledge their hypocrisy (and hopefully that would sway a few voters - given the slim margins in the last US elections, it's possible the attacks on Roe vs Wade backfired on the republicans and lost them the red wave they expected).
The article addresses this
I don't think the article is precisely right either.
My understanding is that the ruling is even more narrow — the "expressive service," itself would have to conflict with a sincerely held belief, not any action by businesses who provide expressive services.
I think the ruling is very dangerous anyway, and the current SC majority writes some profoundly unclear and logically inconsistent rulings, but hope that further appeals will allow the Court to clarify exactly how narrow the ruling is intended to be.
It’s no different, but remember that this is the country where doing exactly that was completely legal (and court battle tested) for hundreds of years.
It’s sad but not surprising that the court ruled the way it did, given their ideological makeup. It has set us back to a time where discrimination is legal and legally protected.
It's not unconstitutional. There's a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that says so. In fact, not only is it not unconstitutional, it's actually constitutional - because it's supported by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
That's why businesses in the USA can now do this.
It should be unconstitutional though, baseless bigotry and discrimination are not worth protecting.
And with the first amendment, it makes sense that one should be able to say and share whatever ideas they want, but that isn't a carte blanche to act however you want. If drunk driving was near and dear to my heart or part of my religion, I still couldn't and shouldn't do it because it endangers others. Business discrimination like this causes another type of harm, and shouldn't be allowed.
Should and is are two different things.
Also, the fact that delphi followed up that statement with a wish that people would sue the offending business, implied that they're not aware that this discriminatory behaviour has already been strongly implied to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Otherwise, delphi would realise that suing this business would only end up with the court case being appealed all the way up to that same Supreme Court, which would make the same ruling in favour of the discriminatory business owner (as the OP already pointed out to them).
For the foreseeable future, this behaviour is constitutional in the United States and, sadly, no amount of righteous outrage on the internet will change that.
I’m absolutely aware that this is constitutional, that’s why I said should. I’m saying it shouldn’t be, and also that I’m sure there’s some loophole or legal trick you can exploit to make them regret that decision.
My reading of the law is that it has to be about the content of the work created. Not a lawyer, but I listen to a lot of podcasts with lawyers? (Go Lawfare and Quinta Jurecic!)
Like, the web site designer will not have to create a website that's pro gay marriage, because that would involve the designer having to write pro-gay messages. But if a gay person wanted a website on like finance (something which the designer did not disagree with), then the designer could not refuse on the grounds of the client being gay. Essentially it's about compelled speech. In practice, I think homophobic web designers would reject gay clients regardless (and hide their homophobic reasoning), and I think this is a bad ruling, but I do want to point out the detail of the law.
In this case, I don't see how a hair stylist could make the same claim. Hair is hair right, not speech? I could see a hair stylist saying there's certain styles they can't/won't do. But a gay person's hair is the same as a straight person's hair. This is different from a web designer who would have to create artwork that is specifically pro-gay. Perhaps the hair stylist could refuse to, for example, shave the phrase "Pro Gay Marriage" into someone's hair, but unless you're doing that it seems ungrounded.
If I wanted to get ultra-pedantic, I would point out:
Writing a notice to advertise what one's business does and does not do, is "speech", and is therefore covered by the First Amendment.
A business that advertises one thing, and delivers another, is breaking the law.
Therefore... a business owner in the USA is allowed, according to the constitution, to say whatever they want about who they will and won't serve, and U.S. law will then enforce that statement about the business.
It's a bit of a long bow to draw, but it's not totally illogical.
There are limits though. It's not legal to say "I won't do business with black people." You're right that's speech, but it certainly isn't protected by the first amendment if that's how your business operates. This example of using the speech defence to refuse to deal with black people or women came up in the Supreme Court Case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.
The question in this case is what are those limits? This case has defined new lines.
Jesus Christ, that’s vile. It’s so distressing to see how bold these people have become in thinking it’s acceptable to say this out loud. Sending love to all in the community after having to see this! ❤️
What kind of nutjob do you have to be to correlate trans people with pedophiles?
Because to these people trans = pedophiles. There's a reason why they're always rallying against any kind of LGBTQ+ education in school, it's in large because they legitimately believe it's pedophilia adjacent, they truly think trans people are out there grooming children.
You can thank fox news and the like for broadcasting this sentiment.
It's a recycling of the same moral panic about gay rights from the 80's and 90's. All of the talking points are the same, just the targets have been changed.
Because they lost that fight. And when they lose this fight, they'll move on to deploy the same attacks against their next target, whatever group that ends up being. Because these attacks, as objectively ridiculous as they are, are incredibly when it comes to creating this sort of moral panic. And panic makes people exceptionally easy to manipulate and control
Christian, Catholic, Islamic, Hindu, etc
The kind of nut job that lets you think your belief system is a reason to be an asshole to other people.
There are plenty of people who believe in those religions who aren't nutjobs though. I don't think religion is the problem, if there weren't any religions then those same people would find another reason to be hateful.
Possibly.
The reality is those religions have been an excuse to discriminate since..... Forever.
We can debate on wether or not these idiots would find another excuse without religion, but there is no debate about religion being used as a reason to commit uncountable atrocities through our history.
one of the oldest anti-semitic lies in existence is blood libel - the claim that Jewish people steal Christian children in the middle of the night, murder them, and use their blood in religious rituals.
the purpose of this lie is that it creates a permission structure where people can convince themselves that preemptive violence against Jewish people (pogroms) is justified. after all, "they" are coming to harm your children, and it's going to happen while you're sleeping and unable to protect them. so, the logic goes, a preemptive attack against the entire group of people isn't an attack at all, it's actually defense.
"trans people are pedophiles" is blood libel for the 21st century
"they" are coming to harm your kids, and it's going to happen while you're not around (when they're at a public school, or checking out a book from the library, etc). the goal is the same - to create a permission structure that can be used to justify attacks on those people (both through the legal system, and as extrajudicial violence) as actually being "defense" and "protecting the children".
It makes me so sad to see stuff like this. Maybe I just have nostalgia goggles since I was still growing up around that time, but I feel like even a decade ago this would totally not of been okay. Hell I even remember watching an episode of The Love Boat of all shows that was trans-positive. I think I remember a few episodes of M.A.S.H. too. And now calling LGBTQ+ people pedophiles is basically the political stance of an entire party in the U.S..
I'm optimistic about the future because of how bad the midterms went for Republicans, I do think they're really going in too hard on topics that aren't super popular with the majority opinion, but christ do some people make it hard to keep a bright outlook when you see them talk like that.
It's weird how it always seems like projection too. A bar owner in my hometown was known for putting up a lot of anti LGBT stuff on his building and generally being hateful. He made it very clear he thought everbody that wasn't straight and white was coming after his kids. Flash forward to today and he's in prison for raping an 8 year old girl.
A similar thing happened with a guy I hung out with in high school. He clocked me with a metal bat after finding out I am bi. Now he's also in trouble for grooming children. I know some of these people are just normal hateful, but it seems like more than a coincidence that so many people like that turn out to be pedophiles.
So my understanding of the recent SCOTUS decision was that making a website or any other artistic design constituted speach. And the US goverment couldn't infringe on free speach.
So you couldn't force a baker to make a pride cake/decorations, but they would have to make a normal cake for a gay couple. So then is cutting hair more like making a generic wedding cake or more like making a pro LGBTQ+ website. I would argue a hair cut is not a form of speach unless the cut somehow was pro LGBTQ+, like dyeing it rainbow colored.
I feel like their own wording of their rationale seems to show that this is discrimination against trans folks in particular, and not a refusal for a certain kind of expression. After all, a haircut for a cis woman is going to be the same as a haircut for a trans woman (or frankly any gender, male, female, or nonbinary). There's definitely arguments to be made here that this is old-fashioned, illegal discrimination.
And, this hairdresser obviously believes she now has the license to discriminate in her business. Whether she's right or wrong is irrelevant. The highest legal authority in the USA has sent out a signal to conservatives everywhere: "we'll find a legal way to support you if you want to discriminate".
I think this is getting more to the heart of the matter.
People are expected to DO things as part of their job, and sometimes those things are objectionable. Under what conditions can someone morally object to a task?
Usually people already have strong opinions about the subject or we wouldn't be here talking about it, so I try to step back and remember the law applies equally to us all, then imagine this same situation playing out for multiple groups with strong opinions.
For salons specifically this is not a bad thing imo. I would much rather just know hey don't go to x location, they don't wanna serve me than go because they're required to and then get a shitty haircut bc they're prejudiced and don't wanna give what I want.
At least in the "shitty haircut" case, the person has to keep their prejudice to themselves. They're less free to voice their bigotry, and feel societal pressure to hide their thoughts lest they receive backlash. And, for unknowing trans people, they can at least go on with their lives (hopefully) not realizing that the bad haircut they received was intentional. They can chalk it up to an unskilled stylist and move on?
But, in the "we don't serve people like you here" case, the bigotry is on full display? If a trans person isn't able to vet the hair stylist before arriving, then presumably there will be a full on scene with explicit vitriol hurled at them. That experience seems a lot more traumatic? Just, really driving home the point that prejudice towards trans folk is socially acceptable, when it really, really shouldn't feel that way. Allowing this feels like slipping backwards.
Iunno. Am I just rehashing Segregation 101 here?
Yeah, you're correct. Like back during segregation in the 1900s and before you had segregated everything. A black person in that situation may think not to go to the whites only businesses/places because of the fear of retaliation for the color of their skin, but that's exactly why they had to go to those places. Having the right to go anywhere as yourself without living in fear because of your race, gender, sexuality, etc. is a core component of freedom and creating a tolerant society. Like, you don't have to agree with who I am, but you do have to tolerate me. Having an intolerance for intolerance is what makes a (redundant) tolerant society.