So...sidestepping the legal philosophizing on cakes and websites for people someone doesn't like or is religiously opposed to...a pretty simple pragmatic question should arise: "Why patronize people who don't like you?" The wedding website problem is risible, in a sardonic sort of way, because the person bringing the case apparently is n…
So...sidestepping the legal philosophizing on cakes and websites for people someone doesn't like or is religiously opposed to...a pretty simple pragmatic question should arise: "Why patronize people who don't like you?" The wedding website problem is risible, in a sardonic sort of way, because the person bringing the case apparently is not business to offer services yet. So it's interesting and critical on a philosophical basis, though, and yes, important.
Problems arise for bakers and website designers--and other sorts of folks--when they're asked to do something they don't want to do. If the Colorado law is upheld, then I reckon that they'll have to do what they don't want to do. Do you want, truly, to pay for the work of a reluctant, even hostile producer? What are you going to do? Sue for redress if you don't like the result? And you may well not like it.
The whole situation is silly, unless--maybe--unless the service wanted is critical and/or lifesaving, such as healthcare--and there's no recourse. But the Internet is vast, with lots of website designers, and there are other talented bakers who want your money. Maybe you can make the reluctant serve you. Will you be satisfied? And why bother?
Wouldn't all this be settleable without cost and drama if the vendor simply said, "The law says I have to serve you, so I will. I'll do my best, because I always do my best. But that best may be unavoidably tainted by my unwillingness and unhappiness about being force to do something I don't want. Let me refer you to someone who'll do a great job for you without reluctance, and we'll part amicably."
So...sidestepping the legal philosophizing on cakes and websites for people someone doesn't like or is religiously opposed to...a pretty simple pragmatic question should arise: "Why patronize people who don't like you?" The wedding website problem is risible, in a sardonic sort of way, because the person bringing the case apparently is not business to offer services yet. So it's interesting and critical on a philosophical basis, though, and yes, important.
Problems arise for bakers and website designers--and other sorts of folks--when they're asked to do something they don't want to do. If the Colorado law is upheld, then I reckon that they'll have to do what they don't want to do. Do you want, truly, to pay for the work of a reluctant, even hostile producer? What are you going to do? Sue for redress if you don't like the result? And you may well not like it.
The whole situation is silly, unless--maybe--unless the service wanted is critical and/or lifesaving, such as healthcare--and there's no recourse. But the Internet is vast, with lots of website designers, and there are other talented bakers who want your money. Maybe you can make the reluctant serve you. Will you be satisfied? And why bother?
Wouldn't all this be settleable without cost and drama if the vendor simply said, "The law says I have to serve you, so I will. I'll do my best, because I always do my best. But that best may be unavoidably tainted by my unwillingness and unhappiness about being force to do something I don't want. Let me refer you to someone who'll do a great job for you without reluctance, and we'll part amicably."
That would be the easy solution; but no she wants performative Art.