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...
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.
No, I brought this up to you earlier, but in terms of conflicting freedoms. People have a right to discriminate, but they also have a right to patronize businesses that choose to sell goods and services to the general public. The government has to mediate such disputes, and it has done so by passing laws that restrict the right to discriminate against certain protected classes of customers. You can't have it both ways--that business owners are free to discriminate whenever they want and that everyone can purchase goods and services that they choose to sell to the public. Nazis are irrelevant, because the freedom to discriminate against them remains untouched by the law. So please stop bringing them up as if they were relevant. Nobody disagrees with your point about "warring principles".
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.
The phrase I put in boldface above--I would change it to "
and obviously will never be..." There will never be a human civilization where everybody always gets what they want or gets treated fairly. The 14th amendment exists to guarantee everyone equal treatment, and protected classes have arisen to move us closer to that "ideal society" that you want. Ideally, we would like it to be second nature that we all see each other as equal, but that won't happen if we just pretend that discrimination has gone away. That pretense is what the current majority on the Supreme Court has been using to overturn laws that were implemented to carry out the goal of the 14th amendment. Roberts keeps saying that racial discrimination has essentially faded away, even though we see strong evidence that it is resurgent--especially after several of his decisions.
...
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 know that about you, Toni, and I have never believed otherwise. We are all vehemently against discrimination. Those of us arguing against your position do so because we believe, like the three dissenters on SCOTUS, that using free speech to justify denying services to protected groups will harm the goal of the 14th amendment--to ensure that all citizens enjoy the same protections under the law. Until now, businesses that violated those laws were penalized. Now there has been a radical weakening of antidiscrimination laws.
I am also vehemently against forcing anyone to create something that expresses or supports something they find repugnant.
It turns out that the law doesn't force anyone to do that unless they choose to sell goods and services to the public and want to deny those goods and services to certain protected classes. Outside of a business enterprise, they can be as creatively objectionable as they want, as long as they do it legally. Businesses rely on publicly-funded services and infrastructure to operate, so they are legally obliged to comply with antidiscrimination laws. Private clubs that do not offer goods and services to the general public, are allowed to discriminate.
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.
Fair enough, but people have been defending your position here, so you are not alone. Those of us who disagree are just exercising our freedom to express our opinions. Even Supreme Court justices disagree passionately with each other on this issue.
