The Supremes

[JBJ 3666]

4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Stop. You clearly don’t understand the issues of the case. You’re just embarrassing yourself 

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.

Edited June 30, 2023 by JBJ

[SimonBolivar 10959]

1 minute ago, scottsins said:

I THINK there, according to this ruling, be a line drawn regarding whether the business activity = “speech”. It was a giant stretch to call cake decorating “speech”, but jiffy lube wouldn’t be able to meet even this new standard.

* I’m fully aware that nothing matters and SCOTUS could just invent new ways to rule for those business. My only point is that this specific ruling, legally, does no authorize what you’re talking about.

Well until next year when to enforce it at all levels they decide that every profession is an art form and therefore speech.

[Brisketexan 105372]

7 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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.

And I've been paying attention to and have even been involved in situations in which "christians" are expanding the scope of what constitutes "the exercise of their religion" (for "freedom of religion" purposes), and I'm here to tell you that it's fundamentally....everything. 

When a "christian" takes a dump, that's a "religious freedom-protected" dump because the person taking the dump is a "christian."  So, if your law impairs my ability to take a dump whenever and wherever I want, including right on your desk, right now, it violates muh religious freedom.  

Yes, I'm using a TOUCH of hyperbole there, but seriously....not much.  They are absolutely using the argument to resist any government action or regulation that costs money, because "using money for religious purposes like donating to my church is an essential part of my faith, and every dollar you cost me is a dollar I can't contribute to the First Baptist Church of Get in Your Place, Women and Darkies."  

They have told us who they are.  They have told us what they are doing.  And now, they are doing ALL of it, and having near-total success with their bought-and-paid-for court.  They are coming for it.  ALL of it.  Any law, any amendment, any ANYTHING that put all Americans on an equal footing, and doesn't blatantly favor white Christians, is in their crosshairs.  And they're popping them off at a higher rate than Chris Kyle.

[sidis 9832]

7 minutes ago, scottsins said:

I THINK there, according to this ruling, be a line drawn regarding whether the business activity = “speech”. It was a giant stretch to call cake decorating “speech”, but jiffy lube wouldn’t be able to meet even this new standard.

* I’m fully aware that nothing matters and SCOTUS could just invent new ways to rule for those business. My only point is that this specific ruling, legally, does no authorize what you’re talking about.

this is correct...gorsuch tried to cover his ass here by saying that this case is unique because it applied to a job involving "expression."  he's effectively left himself an out here to basically stratify businesses to say that "expressive" businesses (as opposed to essential worker businesses) are unique in this situation.  it's too clever by half.  guess who else's business is expressive?  media.  marketing firms.  advertising.  gun manufacturers.  etc...

"hey now, the lawnmowers i repair are bespoke works of art when i am done with them.  i have expressed my artistic preference in my workaround designs."

it is so dumb. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by sidis

[Dahobbs 17687]

Just now, JBJ said:

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?

1) I have sincere doubts that compelling a business to not discriminate in the services it provides is a form of compelling speech. 

2) To the extent it is (which again, I don't believe), yes. Government may have a compelling interest in one case and not the other. 

You keep talking about compelling speech, but you're not actually tying it to the law at issue. Again, there is no law that says "you must write whatever the customer wants." There is no law that compels anyone to write "white power." Were such a law to exist, it would be struck down for lacking a compelling government interest. 

Your shit is a false equivalence and you fucking know it.  Refusing to write "white power" is not a denial based on a race. It just isn't. 

Here is my query to you: do you honestly believe that government doesn't have a compelling interest in preventing discrimination based upon gender, sexuality, or race? 

[Dahobbs 17687]

7 minutes ago, scottsins said:

I THINK there, according to this ruling, be a line drawn regarding whether the business activity = “speech”. It was a giant stretch to call cake decorating “speech”, but jiffy lube wouldn’t be able to meet even this new standard.

* I’m fully aware that nothing matters and SCOTUS could just invent new ways to rule for those business. My only point is that this specific ruling, legally, does no authorize what you’re talking about.

Yes, but we know from Citizens United that money = speech. And so, I'm pretty sure, we'll also learn that pretty much everything else also equals speech and is thus covered by this new rule. 

[Brisketexan 105372]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, but we know from Citizens United that money = speech. And so, I'm pretty sure, we'll also learn that pretty much everything else also equals speech and is thus covered by this new rule. 

See my posts above -- conservatives are already using that argument in cases.  Anything that costs a "christian" money infringes on his ability to exercise his religious freedom and speech, because money is how they do it.  They are openly attempting to create a system where anyone claiming the shield of "I'm a christian" can live their lives almost entirely above and outside the law.  In other words, they are using "religious freedom" as the trojan horse to fully and finally enshrine the core conservative belief:

Quote

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

That's it.  That's the whole enchilada, the entire goal and game plan, and they're running it down our fucking throat while taunting "and what are you gonna do about it?"

[Nice Guy Eddie 13523]

If business or people can now legally discriminate against gay people, can't a business owner effectively discriminate against anyone by just claiming that they thought the person was gay? If a restaurant owner felt their cooking was an expression of their free speech, but didn't want to cook for an African-American, then they only need to claim that they thought the African-American was gay. And even if that person states they are not gay, they could be lying so therefore the business owner can make discrimination decisions on their assumptions.

And why the above is a hypothetical, it now appears that hypotheticals are eligible for SCOTUS decisions.

As an aside, I think wedding websites should be unconstitutional across the board. No one cares about that except 1-2 people in the wedding. 

[4th&Five 41590]

 

[Gourmand 7774]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, but we know from Citizens United that money = speech. And so, I'm pretty sure, we'll also learn that pretty much everything else also equals speech and is thus covered by this new rule. 

excellent point

[Js1 85583]

2 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

They can keep their guns, and if they don’t have one, they’re given one, paid for by the victim. Duh 

[tx 3 putt 77449]

54 minutes ago, Pancho said:

So wait…

The SC said colleges can’t discriminate but the web designer can discriminate?

 

a web designer that has no website or customer, only the thought of a website and having to serve a gay customer 

[elfenix 34332]

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, not "manufactured," per se -- a manufactured controversy can still be real (see Rosa Parks refusing to go to the back of the bus.  It was manufactured, but it actually happened, it wasn't a hypothetical).  Whereas this Colorado case....the underlying thing (gay guy asks her to decorate a cake) NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED.  That's not a "manufactured" controversy...it's an imaginary controversy, and where there is no actual case or controversy, there is no jurisdiction.

Oh, and the conservatives finally got what they wanted: you can discriminate against anyone you want to, so long as you use "muh religious freedom!" as a shield.  Understand that there are people in this country (a metric fuckton of them, by the way) who still view interracial marriage as an abomination before God (as just one easy example).  So, nope, I won't be serving those evil unions.  And the fun fact is that the use of "religious freedom" as a tissue-paper-thin shield to excuse all manner of absolutely awful conduct is just in its beginning stage.  It's going to get a LOT worse.

They've functionally voided ALL gun laws and regulation (we told you that was the inevitable outcome of Bruen, and lo and behold, it's happening).

They've enshrined "but muh religion" as a shield to claims of discrimination.  But let's be clear...."muh religion" only means good, Christian religion (their brand of fundamentalist, rigid Christianity).

"Muh Religion!"

i assume the texas supreme court is going to overturn the trial and austin court of appeals in the mclennan county JP case (the one who was officiating marriages but not gay marriages).  note that there is no requirement that a JP officiate any marriages, it's not part of the job description at all. 

[wildcat09 29408]

39 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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

Lol, no it's obviously not you fucking rube.

[Gourmand 7774]

Instead of questioning the number of justices that currently sit on the Supreme Court and whether or not it's wise for Biden to meet this moment and wage a propaganda war on this unchecked billionaire-owned cabal of black robes, maybe we should start discussing the usefulness of judicial review?....

Just a thought.

[Dahobbs 17687]

9 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If business or people can now legally discriminate against gay people, can't a business owner effectively discriminate against anyone by just claiming that they thought the person was gay? If a restaurant owner felt their cooking was an expression of their free speech, but didn't want to cook for an African-American, then they only need to claim that they thought the African-American was gay. And even if that person states they are not gay, they could be lying so therefore the business owner can make discrimination decisions on their assumptions.

And why the above is a hypothetical, it now appears that hypotheticals are eligible for SCOTUS decisions.

As an aside, I think wedding websites should be unconstitutional across the board. No one cares about that except 1-2 people in the wedding. 

There is no reason for the pretext. They can simply say it is against their religion to serve black people and that they believe serving/cooking/whatever is a form of expression. 

[Gourmand 7774]

 

[Brisketexan 105372]

10 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

 

7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

They can keep their guns, and if they don’t have one, they’re given one, paid for by the victim. Duh 

The ruling will be a lot closer to this than anything that makes sense.  They are not going to back off of Bruen.  They said that no laws or regulations restricting firearms after 1789 can stand, and they meant it.

There's no way for them to unscramble the Bruen egg without admitting that they fucked up, and....this is the important part.....they DIDN'T fuck up.  They wrote what the meant, and meant what they wrote.

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

There is no reason for the pretext. They can simply say it is against their religion to serve black people and that they believe serving/cooking/whatever is a form of expression. 

Bingo.  All you have to do is cloak whatever service you provide, no matter how generic, in the veneer of "expression," and you can discriminate however you want and just claim 

"Muh religion"

I believe that black people are a product of the devil, and are against God's laws.  That's my sincere religious belief [and Brisket didn't just make that up -- there are a shitload of people who genuinely hold that exact belief].  By my faith, I am not to do anything that facilitates the existence of such abominations here on the face of earth, God's creation, and I CERTAINLY can't be forced to use my expression to support them.

My hotel offers rooms that are individually decorated (I went down to the art show at the Coliseum and personally selected the $15 paintings to go in each room), and thus are an embodiment of my expression.

Each dish in my restaurant is hand-prepared, and is definitely an expression.

How I designed my shopping center involved specific aesthetic choices (I LOVE the "mexican plaza" look, which seems odd since I'm a racist piece of shit, but what I love about it is the colonialist patron feel), so the very act of having the shopping center is an expression.

If you don't think that conservative "christians" are ALREADY TRYING such arguments, you aren't paying attention.

We're going to get one country for christian theocrats, and one country for everyone else.  The christian theocrats are going to get to do whatever they want.  The rest of us....are not.  We are just going to have to accept whatever the christian theocrats do, and do to us.  That's the conservative goal and dream, and they are well on their way to making it reality.

[JBJ 3666]

34 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

1) I have sincere doubts that compelling a business to not discriminate in the services it provides is a form of compelling speech. 

I feel it is more obvious in this case than the Baker one.  I'm not sure we can move past this point if you disagree but I'm willing to explore why.  I don't believe people's personal beliefs stop being expressed because they are being paid to produce a product.  Someone above commented on this, and I'm not sure if that's your stance but I figured I'd head it off immediately if so.

2) To the extent it is (which again, I don't believe), yes. Government may have a compelling interest in one case and not the other. 

Actually agree here.  The government can have a compelling interest.

You keep talking about compelling speech, but you're not actually tying it to the law at issue. Again, there is no law that says "you must write whatever the customer wants." There is no law that compels anyone to write "white power." Were such a law to exist, it would be struck down for lacking a compelling government interest. 

Isn't that exactly what is the government is saying here?  You must write what this particular customer is asking you to?  The white power example is just a lensing of the current case.  And I'm actually not sure that the CO law -as some people want to apply it- wouldn’t actually do it.

Your shit is a false equivalence and you fucking know it.  Refusing to write "white power" is not a denial based on a race. It just isn't. 

Refusing to create a white power website.  I don't think the plaintiff in the case was being asked to write "gay marriage is great" (or anything in particular) which would certainly be more egregious.  A closer scenario is that some white pride group asks a web designer to create a website for them.

Here is my query to you: do you honestly believe that government doesn't have a compelling interest in preventing discrimination based upon gender, sexuality, or race? 

No, I dont believe that.  Yes, government has an interest.  I didn’t argue the opposite.

Above.

Edited June 30, 2023 by JBJ

[jimmyjazz 46165]

13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Lol, no it's obviously not you fucking rube.

I asked this of @JBJ, and got no answer:  what if the person desiring a "white power" website were Black?  Would refusing that work be because of race?

[RPM 26355]

We're heading in the wrong fucking direction and it's not going to get better as long as the Trumpkins are on the court. Dark times coming. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by RPM

[Foosters 17889]

I wonder how many people there are under 40 who just had an extra 10K+ added to their debt AND sat out the 2016 election...

Hopefully they learn something here

[JBJ 3666]

16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I asked this of @JBJ, and got no answer:  what if the person desiring a "white power" website were Black?  Would refusing that work be because of race?

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.

Edited June 30, 2023 by JBJ

[Blotto 23579]

2 hours ago, FartingDreamer said:

Why is there not much of a push to expand the Supreme Court?  This clearly must be done.

I have never understood that argument? We'll keep adding justices in an arms race based on who's in power? Is the idea that we just add justices this one time, and then outlaw future court packing because one party doesnt like the current political bent of the court? I favor term limits (8, maybe 12 years) on SC justices, so the justices and their political biases cycle through the system. 

[Js1 85583]

2 minutes ago, Blotto said:

I have never understood that argument? We'll keep adding justices in an arms race based on who's in power? Is the idea that we just add justices this one time, and then outlaw future court packing because one party doesnt like the current political bent of the court? I favor term limits (8, maybe 12 years) on SC justices, so the justices and their political biases cycle through the system. 

Expand to 13 to match the circuits, term limits for SCOTUS and an ethics system. 

[RPM 26355]

3 minutes ago, Blotto said:

I have never understood that argument? We'll keep adding justices in an arms race based on who's in power?

The Mitch plan. He just went about it different.

[SubliminalHorn 6811]

Religion is a scourge in humanity 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20496]

It would be hilarious if gay stylists, wedding planners, designers, caterers etc... started withholding services from Christian conservatives.

[Dahobbs 17687]

6 minutes ago, JBJ said:

1) I have sincere doubts that compelling a business to not discriminate in the services it provides is a form of compelling speech. 

I feel it is more obvious in this case than the Baker one.  I'm not sure we can move past this point if you disagree but I'm willing to explore why.  I don't believe people's personal beliefs stop being expressed because they are being paid to produce a product.  Someone above commented on this, and I'm not sure if that's your stance but I figured I'd head it off immediately if so.

How was it obvious in this case? He wasn't asked to write ANYTHING. He doesn't fucking exist. We have no factual basis for anything. As to why this isn't compelling speech, in part because the law doesn't address speech at all. The law isn't targeted at speech or expression. It is targeted at providing services to customers. 

Quote

 

2) To the extent it is (which again, I don't believe), yes. Government may have a compelling interest in one case and not the other. 

Actually agree here.  The government can have a compelling interest.

 

Great. Glad you agree. So, why isn't that enough here? Why does the right still prevail over the compelling government interest?

Quote

 

You keep talking about compelling speech, but you're not actually tying it to the law at issue. Again, there is no law that says "you must write whatever the customer wants." There is no law that compels anyone to write "white power." Were such a law to exist, it would be struck down for lacking a compelling government interest. 

Isn't that exactly what is the government is saying here?  You must write what this particular customer is asking you to?  The white power example is just a lensing of the current case.  And I'm actually not sure that the CO law -as some people want to apply it- wouldn’t actually do it.

 

No. The law doesn't require you write what the customer asks you to. It requires you not to deny services based upon, among other things, sexuality. See below. 

Quote

 

Your shit is a false equivalence and you fucking know it.  Refusing to write "white power" is not a denial based on a race. It just isn't. 

Refusing to create a white power website.  I don't think the plaintiff in the case was being asked to write "gay marriage is great" (or anything in particular) which would certainly be more egregious.  A closer scenario is that some white pride group asks a web designer to create a website for them.

 

The plaintiff in this case wasn't asked to write anything. The plaintiff didn't have an actual operating business. The plaintiff didn't have an actual customer. Hell, the plaintiff may not even fucking exist. It was just a hypothetical business that may be asked to create a wedding page for a hypothetically gay customer. 

That said, let's take your hypothetical:  a website designer is asked to write a website saying "Gay marriage is great." I'm not sure it is clear that the law, as written, actually would have required the website designer to create the website. I don't think refusing to create that specific phrase would be a denial based on the customer's sexuality. The web designer isn't refusing to serve a customer because the customer is gay, but because of an affirmative phrase that the web designer is being required to write.  On the other hand, the hypothetical actually addressed by the court, was a web designer refusing to create a wedding site for a gay couple. I think such a refusal is clearly because of the sexuality as opposed to something apart from it. What is less clear to me is what it means when the statute also forbids discrimination because of "creed." Would that have covered your hypothetical or not? I don't really know how the law would apply to that. It would be really nice to have had a real case with real facts actually go through the court system to suss that out. 

 

Quote

Here is my query to you: do you honestly believe that government doesn't have a compelling interest in preventing discrimination based upon gender, sexuality, or race?

No, I dont believe that.  Yes, government has an interest.  I didn’t argue the opposite.

Great, so why is the statute unconstitutional? 

 

[Dahobbs 17687]

14 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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.

The question is whether the refusal to provide service is because of the person's sexuality, race, etc. 

A refusal to write "white power" is not because of the person's race. 

A refusal to create a wedding page for a gay couple merely because they are gay is most definitely because of their sexuality. 

Your hypothetical is based on two false premises (1) that the examples above are analogous, and (2) that both instances above would have violated the statute. (1) is fucking false as shit. (2), as I addressed above, it isn't clear at all. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Dahobbs

[jimmyjazz 46165]

16 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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.

What?  You said this, please explain:

Quote

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

 

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

11 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

It would be hilarious if gay stylists, wedding planners, designers, caterers etc... started withholding services from Christian conservatives.

They will be unaffected. Do you think a gay hairdresser would allow someone to walk out looking like this?

 

[Celery Man 21001]

what if my conscientious says that black people shouldn't even be around, and my speech is no cruze enfrente del autobus

[Brisketexan 105372]

2 minutes ago, Blotto said:

I have never understood that argument? We'll keep adding justices in an arms race based on who's in power? Is the idea that we just add justices this one time, and then outlaw future court packing because one party doesnt like the current political bent of the court? I favor term limits (8, maybe 12 years) on SC justices, so the justices and their political biases cycle through the system. 

There is no fix.  None will ever be accepted.

That's the problem with the World of Calvinball.  Not that us sane folks hate its outcomes (we do, but that's not the foundational problem).  Rather, the problem is that once the rules of the game are "Calvinball," then that is the only rational way to play.

Imagine that you were playing a football game against a team that blew through your line before the ball was snapped to level your QB every play, that tackled receivers at the line of scrimmage so they couldn't catch a pass, and that lined up 16 players on offense so there's no way you could possibly cover all of them.  If you want to have ANY chance, how do you play against that team?  There's only one way -- start playing by their rules (that is, NO rules).

Once one side opts out of rules and norms, then the entire game has changed.  What the American conservative movement has done that is so horrible is not what they've done WITH upending the rule of law and norms...it's that they opted out of the rule of law and norms in the first place, so that now the rules of the game no longer exist.

[Js1 85583]

24 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

It would be hilarious if gay stylists, wedding planners, designers, caterers etc... started withholding services from Christian conservatives.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13523]

25 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

It would be hilarious if gay stylists, wedding planners, designers, caterers etc... started withholding services from Christian conservatives.

Anyone, that even remotely cares about gay rights, should only work with organizations that don't discriminate. Especially when that discrimination doesn't readily impact you. Teach the bigots that actions have consequences.

[Celery Man 21001]

I work with quite a few people who won't attend anything in Florida.

[JBJ 3666]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

How was it obvious in this case? He wasn't asked to write ANYTHING. He doesn't fucking exist. We have no factual basis for anything. As to why this isn't compelling speech, in part because the law doesn't address speech at all. The law isn't targeted at speech or expression. It is targeted at providing services to customers. 

Great. Glad you agree. So, why isn't that enough here? Why does the right still prevail over the compelling government interest?

No. The law doesn't require you write what the customer asks you to. It requires you not to deny services based upon, among other things, sexuality. See below. 

The plaintiff in this case wasn't asked to write anything. The plaintiff didn't have an actual operating business. The plaintiff didn't have an actual customer. Hell, the plaintiff may not even fucking exist. It was just a hypothetical business that may be asked to create a wedding page for a hypothetically gay customer. 

That said, let's take your hypothetical:  a website designer is asked to write a website saying "Gay marriage is great." I'm not sure it is clear that the law, as written, actually would have required the website designer to create the website. I don't think refusing to create that specific phrase would be a denial based on the customer's sexuality. The web designer isn't refusing to serve a customer because the customer is gay, but because of an affirmative phrase that the web designer is being required to write.  On the other hand, the hypothetical actually addressed by the court, was a web designer refusing to create a wedding site for a gay couple. I think such a refusal is clearly because of the sexuality as opposed to something apart from it. What is less clear to me is what it means when the statute also forbids discrimination because of "creed." Would that have covered your hypothetical or not? I don't really know how the law would apply to that. It would be really nice to have had a real case with real facts actually go through the court system to suss that out. 

Great, so why is the statute unconstitutional? 

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.)

[Nice Guy Eddie 13523]

The Administration should send a letter to every student loan debt holder explaining that the conservative wing of the Supreme Court voted to not allow debt to be forgiven and that he, Biden, will continue to fight for them.  I would even include an estimate of how much that cost each individual debt holder to educate them. Seems appropriate for any President to communicate how they're fighting for constituents.

[JBJ 3666]

23 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What?  You said this, please explain:

 

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. 

[Js1 85583]

2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The Administration should send a letter to every student loan debt holder explaining that the conservative wing of the Supreme Court voted to not allow debt to be forgiven and that he, Biden, will continue to fight for them.  I would even include an estimate of how much that cost each individual debt holder to educate them. Seems appropriate for any President to communicate how they're fighting for constituents.

He’s supposed to speak on it later today

[elfenix 34332]

48 minutes ago, Blotto said:

I have never understood that argument? We'll keep adding justices in an arms race based on who's in power? Is the idea that we just add justices this one time, and then outlaw future court packing because one party doesnt like the current political bent of the court? I favor term limits (8, maybe 12 years) on SC justices, so the justices and their political biases cycle through the system. 

[SquishMitten 10440]

2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Whatever instant gratification we gain will not be worth the bullshit it enables the next GOP administration to impose on their evil whim. 

tl;dr: think long term. 

Thinking long term doesn't make me feel any better. Unless something extreme occurs, the next GOP president will likely still have this court. And any "but I want it now" justifications for allowing that president to make laws will be upheld 6-3 by the USSC.

[Dahobbs 17687]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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.)

The hypothetical in the case was a web designer refusing to create a wedding website for a gay couple. Not a website promoting gayness or gay marriage generally. Not a political website. Not even a website that says anything explicitly about being gay. A website that merely addresses the marriage of a particular gay couple. How the fuck is that anything but #1? 

Here is the hypothetical addressed by the court (again, none of these things actually happened):

Quote

Through her business, 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith offers website and graphic design, marketing advice, and social media management services. Recently, she decided to expand her offerings to include services for couples seeking websites for their weddings. As she envisions it, her web- sites will provide couples with text, graphic arts, and videos to “celebrate” and “conve[y]” the “details” of their “unique love story.” The websites will discuss how the couple met, explain their backgrounds, families, and future plans, and provide information about their upcoming wedding. . . . she sought an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create wedding websites celebrating marriages that defy her beliefs [i.e., websites for gay people].

The plaintiff isn't refusing to make wedding websites. She wants to do that. And she isn't worried that she'll be forced to make a website promoting the legalization of gay marriage. Rather, she is worried that some of the people she may have to make a wedding website for may be gay. That's it. 

Again, tell me why the Colorado law didn't do exactly what you just said is your belief? Tell me why the state's compelling interest didn't win the day here? 

[SquishMitten 10440]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

White nationalists aren’t a protected class, last I checked. 
 

 

 

 

yet

Only because that case hasn't made it to the USSC yet.

[Gourmand 7774]

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Once one side opts out of rules and norms, then the entire game has changed.  What the American conservative movement has done that is so horrible is not what they've done WITH upending the rule of law and norms...it's that they opted out of the rule of law and norms in the first place, so that now the rules of the game no longer exist.

No coincidence that now they've gone full hood-off and wrecked all norms  and wantonly disregard the power of precedent in law they are no longer screeching about "activist judges." They've completely dropped that one from their playbook. 

[Js1 85583]

Also don’t worry, the Karen in question clarified she has gay friends. She just would never do their wedding website bc she’s a fucking bigot 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13523]

7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

He’s supposed to speak on it later today

That's nice but student loan debtors need to see the personal amount they "lost" today not hear a generic speech about it. I also doubt that many will be listening to a presidential speech going into 4th of July weekend.

[hobbes2702 13074]

2 hours ago, JBJ said:

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

No it isn’t lol.

[wildcat09 29408]

It's always frustrating every time JBJ comes in to defend an indefensible, purely-politically-motivated SCOTUS decision. I honestly wish he could be a better advocate for his position, because his arguments are always terrible.