Aside from a couple of justices I still don't quite trust the Supreme Court to be fair, honest, and independent. As such I'm concerned that rulings like this may just be attempts to lull us back to sleep so the slow decline can continue.
But this is a very good victory. Freedom of - what would you even call this? I think it's bigger than freedom of religion. But the right to refuse objectionable customers and especially objectionable work is extremely important to a society that even pretends to be free and fair. The idea that you can be forced to create a work that goes against your beliefs, religious of otherwise, is utterly repugnant and you can bet the unbelievably vile shitstains (My mistake, I assumed this was a result of someone trying to sue her for refusing them service. It's better this way, I probably would have run afoul of rule two.)
Even if they are just throwing us a bone in the hope we'll quiet down, if we're getting noisy enough to be heard that's a good thing. I think we can all feel a shift in the tide. People are waking up to the disgusting state of affairs we find ourselves in, and they are pissed. That's what gives me hope. It always comes down to the people, not the elites.
But the right to refuse objectionable customers and especially objectionable work is extremely important to a society that even pretends to be free and fair.
We lost this right in the "Civil Rights" movement when you ceased to be able to choose who was your customer and had to let everyone in. Everything since has just been attempts to skirt around and loophole it, but when it comes down you are either given a large generalization that does little or simply forced to let it happen.
Except for teenagers, because at the moment "age based discrimination" technically only applies upward. You can absolutely discriminate against the youth with all you want, which is why places can openly post signs banning them. Despite being no less destructive or problematic than your average adult black, who you are forced to allow in.
With the rise of cancelling people's bank accounts because they have the wrong opinions, I can see the need for some kind of guarantee of service, but at the same time, individuals should be able to refuse service or association for any reason.
Maybe a way to ensure that would be to make it so only larger companies, or better yet corporations, have to provide service to everyone (and that includes people guilty of wrongthink). Treating corporations like individuals is the opposite of what should happen.
Or let people serve who they want, but there has to be a guaranteed, government-backed option that people refused elsewhere can use. And there certainly needs to be a clear path for people to create their own infrastructure without being shut down by monopolies and legal bullshit.
None of which will happen, of course, when they can just destroy freedom of association by forcing you to serve and validate their sacred cows.
Officially speaking, freedom of religion is freedom of conscience. In order to include the concept of atheism, and to avoid having the state impose regulations on religion by trying to define it, freedom of religion is effectively any philosophical moral judgement you make.
Aside from a couple of justices I still don't quite trust the Supreme Court to be fair, honest, and independent. As such I'm concerned that rulings like this may just be attempts to lull us back to sleep so the slow decline can continue.
But this is a very good victory. Freedom of - what would you even call this? I think it's bigger than freedom of religion. But the right to refuse objectionable customers and especially objectionable work is extremely important to a society that even pretends to be free and fair. The idea that you can be forced to create a work that goes against your beliefs, religious of otherwise, is utterly repugnant
and you can bet the unbelievably vile shitstains(My mistake, I assumed this was a result of someone trying to sue her for refusing them service. It's better this way, I probably would have run afoul of rule two.)Even if they are just throwing us a bone in the hope we'll quiet down, if we're getting noisy enough to be heard that's a good thing. I think we can all feel a shift in the tide. People are waking up to the disgusting state of affairs we find ourselves in, and they are pissed. That's what gives me hope. It always comes down to the people, not the elites.
Equal parts freedom of expression and freedom of association.
Freedom from faggots, both kinds.
We lost this right in the "Civil Rights" movement when you ceased to be able to choose who was your customer and had to let everyone in. Everything since has just been attempts to skirt around and loophole it, but when it comes down you are either given a large generalization that does little or simply forced to let it happen.
Except for teenagers, because at the moment "age based discrimination" technically only applies upward. You can absolutely discriminate against the youth with all you want, which is why places can openly post signs banning them. Despite being no less destructive or problematic than your average adult black, who you are forced to allow in.
With the rise of cancelling people's bank accounts because they have the wrong opinions, I can see the need for some kind of guarantee of service, but at the same time, individuals should be able to refuse service or association for any reason.
Maybe a way to ensure that would be to make it so only larger companies, or better yet corporations, have to provide service to everyone (and that includes people guilty of wrongthink). Treating corporations like individuals is the opposite of what should happen.
Or let people serve who they want, but there has to be a guaranteed, government-backed option that people refused elsewhere can use. And there certainly needs to be a clear path for people to create their own infrastructure without being shut down by monopolies and legal bullshit.
None of which will happen, of course, when they can just destroy freedom of association by forcing you to serve and validate their sacred cows.
Freedom of conscience.
Officially speaking, freedom of religion is freedom of conscience. In order to include the concept of atheism, and to avoid having the state impose regulations on religion by trying to define it, freedom of religion is effectively any philosophical moral judgement you make.