I brought Nazi up because most people would see Naziism as repugnant and understand why someone would want to refuse to help spread their message be creating content for Nazis. It’s a pretty hard thing to explain that one can refuse to create support in favor of one thing you detest ( Nazis) but not something that your religion or your conscience tells you is mortally wrong ( gay marriage—Again, I fully support gay marriage and I think that resistance to gay marriage is declining rapidly). We’ve seen affirmative action destroyed. This will end up destroying the concept of protected classes.
The reason that people keep rejecting your Nazi red herring is that Nazis are not a protected class, which you never seem to pay attention to. You just keep bringing it up as if Nazis were a protected class. In the above post, you even end up claiming that "This will end up destroying the concept of protected classes." But Nazis are not a protected class. People have even posted the Wikipedia page on
protected group to try to explain the difference between Nazis and a protected class. Doesn't seem to help. Everyone agrees with you that Nazism is repugnant and "why someone would want to refuse to help spread their message by creating content for Nazis." Yet you still seem to think that they don't agree with you. This ruling is not what protects businesses from having to publish Nazi hate messages...because Nazis are not a protected class. This ruling is about letting businesses decline to provide their goods and services to a protected class. Which Nazis are not.
I know that Nazis are not a protected class.
What you fail to understand is there are two warring principles:
1. It is unfair ( and for now unlawful) to discriminate against someone because of an inborn characteristic plus a couple of other categories ( marital status, religion, whether you have children)
2. It is unfair to force someone to CREATE something that promotes or celebrates something they find repugnant or that violates their deeply held convictions.
What I think will happen in the not so distant future is that the conceit of protected classes will be chipped away at and disappear.
In an ideal society, there would be no need for protected classes because no one would discriminate unfairly against anyone else. We obviously are not there yet—and may never be. But I think that just as some people view affirmative action ( recently ruled against) as unfair, plenty of people will argue that it is unfair to force someone to create or express ideas or sentiments which are repugnant to them.
I introduced a couple of examples that I wa certain everyone would see as repugnant: child marriage ( but marriage is marriage, right?) and Nazis ( Nazis are repugnant, right). Everyone sees why someone would balk at creating something for either of these because it’s repugnant and deeply violates our sense of what is right.
Fortunately we can discriminate against Nazis and against 40 year olds marrying children ( legal in some states in the US). It’s fortunate for us because that aligns with our principles and our deeply held beliefs. So nice when those align! And so convenient! We would adamantly defend our right to reject such customers. And not only would we be right but we’d have the legal right to do so.
I am vehemently against discriminating against people because of their race, religions, sex, gender, if they are gay/trans, marital status, whether it not they have children or are pregnant, whether or not they have disabilities and I know I’m forgetting something but you get the idea.
I am also vehemently against forcing anyone to create something that expresses or supports something they find repugnant.
It’s really easy to support someone refusing to create a wedding website for a Nazi themed wedding or for some child marriage. Because we agree that those are repugnant and we’d likely outlaw at least child marriage if we could and perhaps Nazis as well.
It’s harder to see where something is unjust if we disagree with the refusal. Especially if we not only disagree with the refusal but find the request to be repugnant. But I believe that the principle is the same.
I know that no one else agrees with me and that I am not going to change any minds.
I think this will be my last post on the subject.