Jump to content

JBJ

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    4488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JBJ

  1. JBJ

    The Supremes

    I understand your venn diagram argument. It just doesn't make sense with what the law wants to accomplish. There's probably not many black people in Denver the are into mariachi music. Mariachi band can therefore refuse to play events for black customers? You know because the Venn Diagram is so so small.
  2. JBJ

    The Supremes

    We are literally using it the same way, identity, as in the characteristics that describe the customer. What the person is. Specifically, those characteristics protected by this law. Doesn't protecting these characteristics as a class also protect them as individual identities? I don't understand your how is this broadening the language or your issue would be with it either way. You literally can't explain what you believe or why across several pages, why try to explain someone else's postiion? This discussion feels over. You seem disinterested and I have become so.
  3. JBJ

    The Supremes

    Above.
  4. JBJ

    The Supremes

    Above.
  5. JBJ

    The Supremes

    Generally, no. In my scenario, yes. I feel that I've already explained that the expression being commissioned matters without regard for the demographics of the customer.
  6. JBJ

    The Supremes

    The hypothetical is extreme so 99.999% of the board would agree with it. I want to know from intelligent posters that view the case differently why the outcome is different? Or, really, what's their knife-edge where any form of expression and discrimination get separated?
  7. JBJ

    The Supremes

    I believe everyone offering an opinion on it has agreed it's okay to refuse the white customer. Myself included.
  8. JBJ

    The Supremes

    I disagree but can understand this (see my painter post above), but it also doesn't apply to the case at hand.
  9. JBJ

    The Supremes

    That's not any different from my scenario? My revised website designer specializes in the field needed, doesn't have qualms with offensive or hateful content, refuses to do the same work they already do because the customer is white.
  10. JBJ

    The Supremes

    This is like the 5th time someone has agreed on this point that I also agree with. The question I keep asking is why do you think the same logic does not apply in this case? And I guess I have you completely wrong on the racist painter example?
  11. JBJ

    The Supremes

    I kind of understand the issue with the analogy (it's not an issue to me because the work is an expression either way to me), but allow me to correct it: The web developer specializes in black pride websites, but now is refusing to do a white pride website. We don't know the exact messaging yet, but the plaintiff can show that the developer has worked with offensive and racist material in the past on black websites.
  12. JBJ

    The Supremes

    I (think) I get where you are coming from now but don't agree that any should be illegal. --- Sorry to do this but another thought exercise: There is a particular ass of a painter who does not believe in interracial marriage. He is commissioned to recreate the same photo of an interracial couple on 5 separate occasions: 1) by a same-race couple. 2) by a different interracial couple. 3) by the couple themselves. 4) By a mixed person. 5) By a mixed person who says they are their child. He refused them all, which can be illegal without violating 1A? --- I don't believe any of these scenarios can be illegal. It's the same expression and the customer is irrelevant to me. I believe I understand your stance well enough to know that you think #3 is different from #1. Because the identity of the customer in #3 is included as part of the expression. This obviously isn't the case in #1. Out of sheer curiosity, what about the others? Or have I completely missed something?
  13. JBJ

    The Supremes

    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?
  14. JBJ

    The Supremes

    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.
  15. JBJ

    The Supremes

    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.)
  16. JBJ

    The Supremes

    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.
  17. JBJ

    The Supremes

    Above.
  18. JBJ

    The Supremes

    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.
  19. JBJ

    The Supremes

    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?
  20. JBJ

    The Supremes

    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.
  21. JBJ

    The Supremes

    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.
  22. JBJ

    The Supremes

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

    The Supremes

    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.
  24. JBJ

    The Supremes

    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.
  25. JBJ

    The Supremes

    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.
×
×
  • Create New...