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?
@lauren It's different in that the voice actor in your example would refuse that job regardless of what kind of customer it came from. All customers are being treated equally, and who/what they are doesn't enter into the decision. In the case before the Court, content hadn't been discussed yet and so couldn't enter into the decision, the appellant was refusing the job solely based on who/what the customer was and would've accepted the job if it were any other kind of customer.
@lauren I think the biggest issue is that hate speech is protected speech. I'm surprised that the hate crime laws haven't been overturned because of this. I don't think it should be protected speech, but that's where we're at.
@kkeller Really both. From an academic standpoint, I'm wondering how that voice over artist could be protected while not enabling a "website designer" as in this case.
Certainly not an expert on US law, but I assume that the difference is that the voice artist would refuse the job regardless of who the customer was. The protected category is irrelevant and it's not discrimination.
It would depend on the facts of the case (obviously, it always does) but unless the complainant could produce evidence that the voice artist had, in fact, agreed to do hate work for other clients, I'd expect it to be enough for the artist simply to assert that they would refuse.
@lauren
It's important to realize this entire ruling was based on fraud:
The plaintiff was not a website designer, let alone weddings. No one would go to her for such a service.
The person she "refused" didn't know his name was used until about 2 months ago. His name, address, phone number and website were included in the case. He was married, to a woman, at the time of the claimed request. There was no gay couple, there was no wedding.
@video_manager You are correct, that's why I noted that we're leaving aside the issues of standing for that case in this analysis. I'm trying to find a legal way for that theoretical Muslim voice over artist to refuse that hate speech work.
@lauren Lauro bad example. Muslims are covered under other laws, specifically since this is hate speech. What the court did will actually make it easier for your example to go forwards by the way, or businesses to deny service on account of skin color or religion. It’s a roll back to the 1950s
@Nadinabbott There are rules against hate speech directed at religions. Yes. But do those cover the theoretical I'm asking about? They may. So let's change the example a bit. Let's say a random voice over artist is asked by a member of a protected class to produce a series of ads saying that computer geeks are awful people and should be treated with disdain (or an even worse message). The voice over artist disagrees with this view and refuses to do the work. Do they have a legal basis?
@lauren they do all the time. This covers protected classes. And that is the point. A few lawyers have made this point over and over on the tv during analysis.
@Nadinabbott Right, and that's why I'm asking specifically about protected classes who might request (in this case, voice over ads), on topics other than religion, sexuality, etc. that the voice over person disagrees with, but would be required to lend their voice to. Edge cases is how to analyze these situations.
@lauren the point, once again, is to roll back all the civil right habits of the last fifty years. Next in the agenda is interracial marriage and my right to vote. This is the exact point of the radical court. Hell, maybe they will go after my citizenship.
@Nadinabbott I know what the point is. The current court is Nazi friendly. We all know that. I'm trying to figure out the ramifications at the edge of this specific ruling, not anything else this horrific court has done or does.
@Nadinabbott This will become clearer when some people try to push the envelope, e.g. just trying to refuse service when no possible "first amendment" messages are involved. Those are likely to push back up to the court, and even this court would have a hard time going along given the way they piled the current ruling totally on the first amendment.
@Nadinabbott They seem to be really, really strong on originalist interpretations of the first amendment. This is having all sorts of consequences, not all of which may necessarily be negative (for example, they've made predicting how a bunch of Internet content control state laws will actually be judged a much more complicated undertaking than one might originally have assumed.)
@Nadinabbott I think they would have if she'd retired soon enough. Closer to the end it got way more problematic, and she was betting Hillary would win.
@Nadinabbott Now, one way out of this might be if the laws specify that the service requirement only applies when the protected class patron wants a message that relates to the reason that they are a protected class, not some random message. I don't know if any current laws make this distinction, however.
@ttpphd IF we take the court at its word (which is a massive leap), they are claiming that only when the work involves forcing the business owner to become directly involved in the patron's message that their ruling would apply. So, most transactions would never fall into that category. But I'm trying to figure this out example by example. Should the Muslim voice over artist be required to produce in their own voice anti-Muslim ads, and if not, what is their legal basis for refusing in the context of SCOTUS?
@ttpphd I'm looking at this strictly from a legal standpoint. Obviously a positive message about gay marriage is not equivalent to hate speech about Muslims. But I'm analyzing this in terms of what the laws at issue actually say, because my assumption is that in the wake of the ruling there will be people who try the hate speech scenarios just to see what happens.
@lauren
Amicus podcast discusses the possibility of refusing to serve mixed race couple being covered by this ruling. Having this couple in a restaurant may suggest restaurant owner supports interracial marriage, so restaurant should be allowed to ban couple.
Amicus Plus: MAGA SCOTUS Is Back
@ttpphd We're assuming the would-be patron is in a "protected class" -- on what principle would the voice over artist refuse the work that would not invoke similar issues to the SCOTUS case?
Add comment