JBJ

Do you think that in this case, she is actually doing #1 (theoretically-actually at least) or that it doesn't matter whether she, in her mind, is doing #2 because because the result is similar to #1?

The way people are trying to interpret this. See DaHobbs post directly above yours. He wants it both ways. 1) An refusal of expression on white pride doesn't implement racial discrimination. 2) A refusal of an expression on gay marriage must implement sexuality discrimination. You might be able to argue these separately both ways, but these two statements certainly can't coexist.

The services that the law require include speech and expression. This might not meet every definition of "targeting" speech, but it is not tailored in order to avoid it. To further my thoughts on this so we aren't arguing in a circle: 1) If there was a person working in an expressive business that refused work from certain groups, a law can prohibit that. 2) If there is a person working in an expressive business that refuses work of a certain nature, a law cannot prohibit that. A good law on this subject captures as much of #1 without touching #2 at all (while not asking the court to read the mind of the business operator in order to determine which is which.)

Do you not understand that this is EXACTLY my point? THE CONTENT BEING REQUESTED IS NOT THE SAME AS THE PERSON REQUESTING IT. I don't think so, but that's they way people want to interpret this case.

Above.

Honestly didn't listen to orals or do much research here, but understand.it to be mostly in line with the similar Baker case. If I'm missing something significant here someone should point it out because I honestly wouldn't know about it.

There not a false premise here. The government is compelling speech in both scenarios. What do.you.believe is the legal distinction between your hypothetical and this case. That the government should compel speech some speech only?

You can apply all the same hypotheticals to this case: What if website has a history of discriminating against gay customers broadly? Well that changes the facts of the case signifcantly, doesn't it? What if the customer wasn't gay? It probably wouldn't be class-based discrimination under COs law, but I'm not like super familiar with it. The government still can't compel the speech because first amendment.

My point is the government shouldn't compel speech against the conscientious of the person. I understand there are negatives behind this. The alternative is worse for me. If you understand what you are asking for and still disagree, that's fine. I don't think most people do.

Discriminating against "White power" is certainly discriminating on the basis of race.

Should a black business be forced to create a website about "white power?" Should any business be required by law to do that? You don't really understand the downstream effects of what you are arguing for.

I read that backwards. Lower courts decide what the facts of the case are, so they CAN dismiss a case if they think the facts and law don't line up. The Appellate courts can't really change the factual findings from the lower court. But the fact that a case is manufactured is not a reason to dismiss it.

Appellate courts can't determine facts at all, so never. Manufactured cases are actually quite common and aren't illegal or even really considered deceptive in the court. The most famous example is probably the Montogmery bus case (Rosa Parks). It took several runs with several people to create different situations until lawyers decided to proceed with the Rosa Parks instance.

Not sure what is satire anymore.

This is something UCLA was willing to do, but I don't think it works for Ivy league for the same reason Berkeley has been fighting it. It is part of their business model to recruit donors via their children.

This is basically what happened at UCLA when the UC system went race-neutral. They just used other information to get back to similar racial demographics. Which is probably more in line with the goals of AA admissions anyway. Also, this case doesn't require race-blind or eliminate AA admissions anyway. Texas's admission process is still legal after this case.

This is just wrong. Juneteenth was 2.5 years after the Emancipation Proclamation. It was the actual enforcement of such after the theater of war in the Mississippi Basin/ Galveston ended. The 13th amendment was after Juneteenth and did effectively free slaves. Delaware and Kentucky never abolished slavery at the state level and it was still practiced there until the passing of the 13th amendment. It really makes zero sense as a national holiday.

Actually, you are 7x more likely to be killed by yourself. ....But not if you get him first.

I think people overestimate how much we will ever be able to "trust" AI. Engineers have being using computer models to do most of their math for years and some of this is still true for those programs. There's known (albeit uncommon) issues that have persisted for years. Some of which have lead to disastrous results.

I dunno man, many things to varying degrees. One that wants to start a family while she is still in her 20s, wanting to settle down, willing to relocate for her husband's career, cares about domestic matters even if they are split (childrens education, cleaning, cooking healthy food)...there's probably a million more, not all being necessary. But most importantly one that stays off social media 😉.

Forgot what I came to say. As far as passport bro goes, my wife was an American when I met her (and we dated for a while until I even knew she wasn't born here), but I definitely understand the draw of wanting a traditional-minded woman and how American pop culture is against that. However, I think a lot of that is driven more by media, "content," and algorithm than it is true. On both fronts - America is more traditional than media paints it and people traveling to find a women doing it for the media.

I've been married for longer than I can remember, but here's my take on a lot of this: The 80/20 stat are matches from dating apps. Which has little to do with overall sex or dating. I can't remember if that particular stat comes from OK Cupid or Tinder. In general, dating apps suck for men who are average-to-below and ugly women, but that's an incredibly small slice of the pie. From personal experience, "game" or lack thereof has little to do with picking a woman up. Women are receptive to men they find physically attractive regardless. As much as the stammering, awkward male trying to talk to a woman is a trope in popular media, you usually find the opposite to be more true. Women absolutely swoon when attractive man initiates with them.

Generally, you can trademark something with a name but can't enforce that trademark against someone who just happens to share the same name. One can always use their own personal name regardless. But this trademark is attempting this with a specific person in mind, so this immediately goes to NIL and the right to publicity. Doesn't seem like it would be allowed for the same reason one wouldn't be able to trademark Ryan Reynold's Rum.

Didn't see this yet: https://www.legaldive.com/news/chatgpt-fake-legal-cases-generative-ai-hallucinations/651557/ ---- Excerpt: However, Judge P. Kevin Castel wrote in an early May order regarding the plaintiff’s filing that “six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations.” He called it “an unprecedented circumstance.” In his affidavit filed later in May, Schwartz said that ChatGPT not only provided the legal sources, but assured him of the reliability of the opinions and citation that the court has called into question. For example, a document attached to his affidavit indicates he asked the generative AI-powered ChatGPT if one of the six cases the judge has called bogus was real and the chatbot responded that it was. Additionally, he asked ChatGPT if the other cases provided were fake. The chatbot responded that they were also real and “can be found in reputable legal databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw.” Schwartz acknowledged in the affidavit that his source for the legal opinions “has revealed itself to be unreliable.” Schwartz’s mistakes resulted in a story published on the front page of The New York Times, and a judge has scheduled a hearing in the coming weeks to determine possible sanctions.

Which is kind of why I worded it the way I did. They pay some based on non-exempt revenue (like from hosting a semipro or PGA tourney) over a certain limit. Churches would also, but most churches don"t have that kind of side hustle.