# Well, it looks like if you run a business, it’s A-okay to discriminate against certain customers based on your religious beliefs… **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 30, 2023, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409 "2023-06-30T14:34:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2023, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/61 "2023-06-30T23:01:51Z")
I’m saying that the hatred comes first, then comes the justification by religion (in general, and in America, at least). Religion didn’t drive white southerners to oppress black people – hatred and bigotry driven by other factors did, and they found a convenient rationalization in selective reading of religious texts. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2023, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/62 "2023-06-30T23:14:42Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > How do you think this case would have been resolved by Gorsuch if bigot Smith had picked a racial classification rather than sexual orientation? If she opened up her marriage website business, but refused to cover interracial marriages? If he’s honest (he’s not) and consistent (jury is still out), he’d have to find that Smith could do that. Which would be shocking in light of precedent. My guess is that the Supreme Court would have declined to hear a speculative case where racial discrimination was involved. For a non-speculative case, I think they’d seek to protect freedom of expression, but be pragmatic. Moving the discussion from interracial marriage, if a business declined to create Juneteenth media, whether written articles, posters, online objects, or edible objects, I think the Supreme Court would back their decision to decline the business opportunity. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2023, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/63 "2023-06-30T23:18:13Z")
Why are you moving from interracial marriage. If you think a wedding contractor (like Smith) should be allowed to do weddings for single race, but not interracial, marriages, just say so. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2023, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/64 "2023-06-30T23:31:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It shouldn’t. History shows us that bigotry hides behind religion, but rarely is actually driven by it. Indulging that fiction does far more damage to society and freedom by restricting the ability of so many Americans to engage in normal commerce than it does to those who yearn to discriminate due to personal bigotry. There’s no actual religious text that teaches “thou shalt not create bespoke travel experiences for same-sex couples”. So you get to be the arbiter of what’s an actual religious belief and what is a purported religious belief based on underlying motives? Or would that be the job of some government department? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2023, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/65 "2023-06-30T23:33:03Z")
I’d happily take the job, but it’d be better if SCOTUS did it. I mean a non-corrupt SCOTUS, which hopefully we will have someday. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2023, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/66 "2023-06-30T23:45:34Z")
Or just the courts in general-- Usually it wouldn’t need to make it all the way up to the Supremes. At least, not if we had courts that recognized precedent and the concept of rule of law. And courts judge all sorts of things already, because that’s exactly their job. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/67 "2023-07-01T09:47:19Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Why are you moving from interracial marriage. If you think a wedding contractor (like Smith) should be allowed to do weddings for single race, but not interracial, marriages, just say so. I’m not sure what a wedding contractor is, but I’m presuming you mean a goods/service provider hoping to be hired by the wedding organisers, whether the couple getting married or a wedding planner acting as a general contractor. If it’s a venue hiring out a location, then no, they shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against interracial couples because the location is not expressing any opinion. However, suppose the location has a celebrant included in their package, and the celebrant is opposed to interracial marriage. There’s then a conflict between the celebrant’s right to not be compelled to officiate an interracial marriage, and the couple’s right to purchase the wedding package. I think the celebrant has the legal right to decline to officiate at the wedding. His participation would be based on his individual beliefs, and I don’t think the government can compel him to reject those beliefs. I think the Supreme Court decision supports my belief. An interesting question, and perhaps one more topical to the OP, is would the venue be able to offer celebrant-led weddings to non-interracial couples, and BYO celebrant weddings to interracial couples. I think the Supreme Court ruling would allow such a practice. The ruling enforces the principal that the government can’t compel a violation of free speech. That should restrict the government from forcing businesses to compel their employee’s speech. However, if the wedding venue, independent of government intervention, chose to require it’s celebrants to perform interracial weddings, I think that would be legal. _Groff v. DeJoy_ set a higher standard for businesses to provide religious accommodation. In that case, Alito wrote. "We think it is enough to say that an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” My opinion is that the hypothetical wedding venue could state that the lost revenue from providing a reduced service for interracial weddings, plus the impact to their reputation, would exceed the threshold set by _Groff v. DeJoy_. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/68 "2023-07-01T10:41:54Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > So you get to be the arbiter of what’s an actual religious belief and what is a purported religious belief based on underlying motives? Or would that be the job of some government department? > [@Religious Accommodation {Christian postal worker case}](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-christian-postal-worker-case/978267/213): > > I’d happily take the job, but it’d be better if SCOTUS did it. The government, including the courts, should seek to create a legal framework where people’s freedoms are maximised, but also where people are treated fairly, including being free from discrimination. Sometimes those two goals have conflicts, such as in _CREATIVE LLC ET AL. v. ELENIS_. Government trying to regulate religion would work against both goals. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/69 "2023-07-01T11:36:30Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > legal right to decline to officiate at the wedding. ‘Umm, I just wanted them to; build us a website/bake us a cake/cater the reception meal!’ I don’t have the first clue where you’re getting “officiate at the wedding” from? ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/70 "2023-07-01T11:54:08Z")
> [@Religious Accommodation {Christian postal worker case}](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-christian-postal-worker-case/978267/217): > > I don’t have the first clue where you’re getting “officiate at the wedding” from? I was replying to Hamlet. > [@Hamlet](#): > > If you think a wedding contractor (like Smith) should be allowed to do weddings for single race, but not interracial, marriages, just say so. A “wedding contactor” could be any of a number of service providers. A celebrant/officiant is a wedding service provider where it’s obvious speech will be part of her role. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/71 "2023-07-01T14:01:23Z")
I feel like the website is speech. And catering the chicken isn’t. I’ve seen arguments either way on the cake, but I’m inclined to think most “off the shelf” wedding cakes shouldn’t be considered speech. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/73 "2023-07-01T16:01:37Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > I think the celebrant has the legal right to decline to officiate at the wedding. His participation would be based on his individual beliefs, and I don’t think the government can compel him to reject those beliefs. I think the Supreme Court decision supports my belief. Again, why shift to a celebrant? Do you think bigot Lorie Smith should have legal protection for only doing her wedding website work for people she decides are “white” and refusing to do so for interracial couples or people of color? ---
**Author:** ![ratatoskK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ratatoskk/32/2987_2.png) [@ratatoskK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ratatoskK)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/74 "2023-07-01T16:12:14Z")
I’m boiling mad about this crass decision. I’m so mad I can barely write this. If I have a “sincerely held” non-religious conviction, does that allow me to do whatever I want to anyone anywhere? And to call this bigot an “artist” when all she probably does is plug some names into a template and press Go. Give me a break. ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/75 "2023-07-01T16:44:14Z")
On CNN’s “Smerconish,” this morning, Lorie Smith and the Alliance Defending Freedom attorney, Kristen Waggoner were interviewed. Smerconish asked [paraphrasing] if I see the website you designed for a opposite-sex couple’s wedding, and I want to hire you to do _the exact same thing_ for my same-sex wedding – only changing the names, the date, and the pictures – would you? Smith’s non-answer [again: paraphrasing] is that she only does custom content, _not_ cookie-cutter, templatized stuff, implying that this request wouldn’t fall within her wheelhouse. She conspicuously did _not_ give a yes or no response. The attorney was silent. Which, to me, sounded like quite a sleazy way around a pretty damned important question. It also got her around helping _us_ to understand where on that continuum between “off-the-rack” and “uniquely and absolutely custom” _she_ feels the line should be drawn. I _do_ believe that somebody _could_ make a good faith [NPI] argument, before SCOTUS, that not ‘creating’ for an _interracial_ couple does _not_ violate anti-discrimination laws (race being a protected class), because – though the issue _could be framed as_ (read: absolutely is) one of race – “it really _isn’t_ a matter of race because I’m not discriminating against a black person _or_ a white person.” Maybe this is already clearly prohibited under well-established law, but – obviously – so what? Do I _think_ the answer _should_ lie in _**[Loving v. Virginia](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395)**?_ [bolding mine] > In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally “odious to a free people” and were subject to “the most rigid scrutiny” under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose “independent of invidious racial discrimination.” **The Court rejected the state’s argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites** and found that racial classifications were not subject to a “rational purpose” test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “Under our Constitution,” wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, “the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.” Of course, I do. But – again – so what? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/76 "2023-07-01T16:48:53Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > If you’re a web designer and I’m a Nazi, it’s one thing for you to refuse to design a web site for me to show off my Beanie Baby collection, but it’s another for you to refuse to design a web site for me to spread my white supremacist beliefs. IMHO. What if nobody actually asked you to design anything at all? What if you made the whole thing up? ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/77 "2023-07-01T16:57:34Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > I feel like the website is speech. And catering the chicken isn’t. I’ve seen arguments either way on the cake, but I’m inclined to think most “off the shelf” wedding cakes shouldn’t be considered speech. I agree, or even most custom ones. I always found this hypothetical interesting. Suppose I’m getting married to my same sex spouse, and I’ve decided I want a wedding cake baked by a company that refuses to serve same sex couples on the grounds covered in this lawsuit. Not a rainbow cake, not a sheet cake that says Happy Marriage Ana and Beth ( the tackiness of a sheet cake with text for a wedding is a subject for another day) not a cake with a two bride topper. I just want a pretty cake with a customized floral decorations, two varieties of flowers with special meaning to us. So I go in by myself and order a cake, maybe I even take an opposite sex friend with me and insinuate that he’s my fiancé- maybe I even lie and say he is. The big day comes and I pick up my cake, maybe I even add the two bride topper. Then I post pictures of the cake with my wedding photos, crediting the bakery. The post goes viral and the bakery claims damage to their reputation as bigots, and claim that they have been harmed by other bigots refusing to buy their cakes. Does the bakery have a case? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/78 "2023-07-01T16:58:06Z")
It’s bad enough that people propose ridiculous hypotheticals on a message board in order to win internet points. Now they propose ridiculous hypotheticals to win SCOTUS cases. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/79 "2023-07-01T17:03:09Z")
What if none of this happens, but the bakery goes to court saying, “Well, it _could_ have happened!”. Does the bakery have a case? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/80 "2023-07-01T17:06:22Z")
AIRI there was no problem making exactly that cake . . . until the baker/owner found out precisely who it was for. Apparently it’s a sort of Schrodinger’s Cake, the cakes ‘’‘gayness’‘’ is only revealed when it’s for a non heterosexual marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/81 "2023-07-01T17:17:32Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > It’s bad enough that people propose ridiculous hypotheticals on a message board in order to win internet points. Now they propose ridiculous hypotheticals to win SCOTUS cases. Using hypotheticals and analogies have been a part of legal interpretations/caselaw since the Code of Hammurabi. Hell, in the oral arguments in this case, almost every judge used a hypothetical or analogy to make a point or draw a line. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409.md?page=5)