The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a web designer can refuse to supply services to a gay couple who wanted to celebrate their marriage.
Curiously, no one had asked the designer to do so. Presumably, other married gay couples have already gone elsewhere. That means, the issue was moot. So why did the court take up the issue in the first place?
The court apparently based its ruling on the Constitutional First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press, and not on the issue of freedom of religion.
Commentators have talked all day about the problems this ruling will cause, alleging that gay couples lose their right to celebrate their marriage through internet publication, and the ruling clashes with the American tradition of press freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Defenders insist that the ruling is about freedom of speech, not about religion.
But if businesses cannot refuse service to people based on their race, why is this different? Why is it permissible to refuse service based on gender preference?
Following the reasoning in the current ruling, it will be legal to deny a hotel room to a gay couple. But it's already illegal to deny a hotel room to a Black couple.
If a web designer can refuse to set up a page for a gay couple because it's against her spiritual beliefs, could she also refuse to do so for a Black couple?
Take the reasoning further, and we get the issue of whether a newspaper can refuse to accept an ad from an anti-government firm. Should a printer be required to do work for a propagandist? Can a newspaper be required to run a 500-word story on Page One, rather than two paragraphs on Page 17?
All these issues relate to the First Amendment of the Constitution. Freedom of speech and of the press, as well as freedom of religion, specify that government cannot force a publisher or a preacher to conform to any specific view.
All things considered, both sides are right in their thinking of how to handle wedding publicity.
But the larger question remains, can a business refuse to serve a person or a couple, and for what reason?
Curiously, no one had asked the designer to do so. Presumably, other married gay couples have already gone elsewhere. That means, the issue was moot. So why did the court take up the issue in the first place?
The court apparently based its ruling on the Constitutional First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press, and not on the issue of freedom of religion.
Commentators have talked all day about the problems this ruling will cause, alleging that gay couples lose their right to celebrate their marriage through internet publication, and the ruling clashes with the American tradition of press freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Defenders insist that the ruling is about freedom of speech, not about religion.
But if businesses cannot refuse service to people based on their race, why is this different? Why is it permissible to refuse service based on gender preference?
Following the reasoning in the current ruling, it will be legal to deny a hotel room to a gay couple. But it's already illegal to deny a hotel room to a Black couple.
If a web designer can refuse to set up a page for a gay couple because it's against her spiritual beliefs, could she also refuse to do so for a Black couple?
Take the reasoning further, and we get the issue of whether a newspaper can refuse to accept an ad from an anti-government firm. Should a printer be required to do work for a propagandist? Can a newspaper be required to run a 500-word story on Page One, rather than two paragraphs on Page 17?
All these issues relate to the First Amendment of the Constitution. Freedom of speech and of the press, as well as freedom of religion, specify that government cannot force a publisher or a preacher to conform to any specific view.
All things considered, both sides are right in their thinking of how to handle wedding publicity.
But the larger question remains, can a business refuse to serve a person or a couple, and for what reason?
No comments:
Post a Comment