|
|
|
|
|
|
by KMag
1090 days ago
|
|
|
Technically, isn't the ruling that the website designer can refuse to create same-sex wedding content? If the same-sex couple commissioned a website for a hetero wedding, the designer would be obligated, right? It's a subtle distinction, but legally important. Things get really messy because it's tough to disentangle the content from those commissioning the website in the case of a same-sex wedding. Don't get me wrong: I hold these web designers in low regard. However, my understanding is that this ruling isn't as bad as the headline suggests. |
|
|
Based on this ruling, no. The designer would be just as firmly within their rights under this ruling to say "I don't think anyone should get married, so I won't do a heterosexual wedding website", or to say "I think this person is too tall, so I don't want to make their website".
If the designer agreed to make a given website, though, then declined upon finding out that the customers were a same-sex couple (in a way that didn't change the contract at all), then that would still presumably be a case of discrimination.