Recent searches
Search options
So there's an aspect of this Supreme Court case on "refusing service on first amendment grounds" that seems particularly complicated. I think it's worthwhile to choose a different example that would perhaps fall into the same kind of situation for analysis. This leaves aside the questions about standing and such that have been raised in the existing case.
Let's say you have a Muslim voice over artist who promotes their services. A member of a protected class comes to them and wants them to produce a series of anti-Muslim ad spots, which would require the voice over artist to use their own voice to promote those messages.
Would it be reasonable for that voice over artist to refuse that work? How is this different or not different from the Supreme Court case at issue?
It's a good way to look at the issue.
For me, it seems to come down to the #difference between #selling something (goods, service) vs being paid to #create something.
You run a hotel, offering rooms for money. Can't #refuse someone based on their race, sexuality, etc.
But you offer to create something new for people - I don't think you should be #forced to accept every #customer.
The first is selling. The second is effectively refusing an offer of #employment.