Leer la versión en español

Lire la version en français

“I refuse to design your website, because you’re gay.”

“We’re not going to cut your hair in this salon, because you’re old.”

“Our events company will not cater your anniversary party, because you’re black.”

Is this the kind of society we want to live in?

Sadly, it seems to be the kind of society the United States Supreme Court wants to create.

Last week, the Court ruled that nondiscrimination laws cannot be enforced against businesses that offer expressive products and services. The case, 303 Creative v. Elenis, involved a web designer who wanted to make wedding websites but not for same-sex couples. At issue was a law in the US state of Colorado prohibitting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Court ruled that, because the conduct involved her expression, it was protected speech, and the nondiscrimination law could not be applied to her.

If any readers are thinking, “well, I’m not gay and I don’t need a website, so none of this affects me,” think again. (And also maybe review Pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous quote.) The ruling significantly weakens laws that protect LGBT people against discrimination, obviously, but it goes much further.

The scope of this decision is vast for at least two reasons. It opens the floodgates for many businesses to discriminate against people on many grounds.

First, the Court offered little guidance on what constitutes expressive goods and services, leaving it open to interpretation by lower courts. Many businesses open to the public offer products that involve expressive creativity. Think florists, hairstylists, nail salons, print shops, photographers, caterers, designers, car detailers… The list is endless.

All these businesses and others may now be able to now claim they too should not have to comply with nondiscrimination laws.

Second, laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation typically also prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, nationality, disability, age, gender identity, and other so-called “protected classes.” The Court did not indicate that those would be treated any differently.

In short, the Court uprooted decades of legal consensus that businesses open to the public could be required to comply with nondiscrimination laws.

With its empowerment of hate, the Supreme Court seems way out of step with most folks in the US.

Few people want to live in a “we don’t serve your type here” country, and those who do quickly change their mind once they realize “your type” can also mean their type.

Over the weekend, The New York Times published an important investigation into last month’s mass drowning off the coast of Greece.

The report by Matina Stevis-Gridneff and Karam Shoumali details the last days and hours of the Adriana, before the ship sank, taking more than 600 lives with it. They examine the missteps of the Greek coastguard in particular.

You should read the whole article, but I’d like to highlight one paragraph here, because it crystalizes the problem perfectly:

“Dozens of officials and coast guard crews monitored the ship, yet the Greek government treated the situation like a law enforcement operation, not a rescue. Rather than send a navy hospital ship or rescue specialists, the authorities sent a team that included four masked, armed men from a coast guard special operations unit.”

This says everything you need to know about why people keep drowning en masse on the doorstep of Europe. The EU and its member states see powerless people as a threat, not as human beings in need.

And their policy approach stems from that. They’ve decided EU ships should not actively patrol anywhere near where most boats fall into distress, and they obstruct, harass, and even criminalize private groups who try to save lives.

As I’ve written here before, this all amounts to a deliberate “let them die” policy.

The trial of three journalists is scheduled to begin in Iran today, in a continuation of the authorities’ ongoing harassment, prosecution, and punishment of those exercising their rights to free speech.

The charges facing Saeideh Shafiei, Mehrnoush Zarei Henzaki, and Nasim Sultan Beigi are vague, relating to “propaganda” and “national security.” Rough translation: they said things the regime doesn’t like, or feels threatened by.

They’re going after Shafiei for articles she wrote about rising poverty and the government's management of energy subsidies and public resources.

The charges against Henzaki relate to her articles on reproductive laws and the state of Iran’s national parks.

Sultan Bigi’s charges are based on her work with numerous domestic and foreign media outlets. The prosecutor has apparently sought the most severe penalty for Sultan Bigi due to her lack of cooperation during her interrogation and her promotion of the removal of the hijab.

But while the charges are bogus, the possible sentences, are very real. Each charge could bring the accused five years in prison.

(compiled by Lisa Maier)

• Israeli army strikes West Bank city of Jenin (DW) 
• Australian teenager with disability locked in solitary confinement for 500 days (HRW) 
• Bahrain: quash religious freedom convictions (HRW) 
• Dutch King apologizes for his country’s role in the slave trade (NY Times)