The Supremes

[Dahobbs 17544]

18 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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. 

More bullshit.

1) A refusal to write "white pride" is not a refusal because the person is white. It is a refusal to expressly endorse a particular ideology. "white pride" isn't intrinsically a part of being white. 

2) Refusing to make a wedding website for a gay couple merely because they are gay is discrimination based upon sexuality. Being gay is intrinsically a part of being a gay couple. 

Again, this isn't a case where the plaintiff was concerned about making an express representation supporting gay marriage (e.g., "gay marriage is great"). She was merely concerned that a hypothetical gay couple may ask for a wedding website. That's it. It would otherwise be the same as every other website, pictures of the couple, address for the wedding, where to send gifts, etc.

If this opinion was about her being forced to write creed on how "gay marriage is good," you might have a point. But again, refusing to write such a website would not be a refusal because of the sexuality of the individual. 

Be a bigot if you want. But stop trying to pretend it is more than it is.  

Edited June 30, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Pancho 44817]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

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 

Like clockwork

”I CANT BE RACIST I HAVE A BLEK FRIEND!”

[Js1 85350]

8 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

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.

It has been like 4 hours. Sorry he’s not fast enough for you? Jesus Christ. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Js1

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

It has been 4 hours. Sorry he’s not fast enough for you!

lighten up Francis. I was saying that a speech itself isn't enough. I wasn't expecting a hand delivered note to everyone today. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Nice Guy Eddie

[JBJ 3654]

22 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

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? 

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?

Edited June 30, 2023 by JBJ

[Gengs1 2583]

[wildcat09 29354]

I think she's actually not doing either because she fucking lied about the entire basis of her case.

[SquishMitten 10408]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

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

I wish this had been done long ago as the number of circuits increased. But at this point, it probably doesn't change the outcome. If you wanted a new judge, you'd just create new circuits. Maybe if it was setup to add one new judge every 4 years until you get to 13, then you could possibly avoid the gamesmanship and inevitable counter-court packing. 

Term limits and an actual ethics system are a good, non-partisan solution right now. How you would stagger those terms is a difficult question though, and the only way I think you could get such a law passed would be to say that everybody currently on the court maintains their life-appointment, but all new appointments are subject to term limits. That doesn't help in the short-term, but it's a step in the right direction. 

[cactusflinthead 27598]

Well, this is a shitty Friday.

 

[hobbes2702 13037]

33 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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. 

This is magical lol

[Dahobbs 17544]

11 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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?

I don't know what this sentence means because the 1) and 2) you were talking about referred to actions by the state, not by her. 

Let's go back to your really stupid hypothetical and modify it:

1) white couple wanting a normal wedding website

2) gay couple wanting a normal wedding website.

3) white power couple wanting a normal wedding website

4) white power couple wanting a wedding website that espouses the belief of white supremacy. 

(A) If I deny services to (1) because I don't believe white people should get married, I'm denying services based upon their race. 

(B) If I deny services to (2) because I don't believe gay people should be married, I'm denying services based upon their sexuality.

(C) If I deny services to (3) because I don't believe white people should get married, I'm denying services based upon their race. 

But,

(D) If I deny services to (4) because they want me to espouse the belief that whites are fundamentally better than every else, then I'm denying them services because of the ideology they wish me to express, not because of their race. 

Do you still fail to see the distinction? 

The law at issue would outlaw (A) through (C). It may or may not outlaw (D), it just depends on what "creed" means under the law. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Dahobbs

[SimonBolivar 10958]

7 minutes ago, Gengs1 said:

Like anyone could even know that

[SquishMitten 10408]

36 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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. 

This is why it would've been nice to have actual facts in the case. If the design of a website for a gay couple included the requirement to write pro-gay messages or something, then you may have a point (that may be forcing someone to make an expression they didn't agree with). If the website is just a template and the only thing differentiating it from every other website is the names/pictures of the couple, then there's no expression. You're arguing one side of a hypothetical without acknowledging that there are other hypotheticals that may be impacted by this ruling. 

[sidis 9828]

42 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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. 

i gave you way too much credit earlier.  this is incredibly fucking stupid, dude.

white pride is an expressed viewpoint.  refusing it isn't a refusal based on race.

being homosexual is categorical...like being white.  refusing it is based on sexuality.

you seem to be struggling with this analogy so i'll present it another way.  a comparable analogy to your white supremacy exemplar would be if the (fictional we now know) couple asked the (fictional) website creator to make a website that says "homosexuals are the supreme beings and will go to heaven while piece of shit straight people are all pedophiles that will all go to hell."

like the refusal of a white supremacy messaging, the (pretend aspirational) website creator that would like to be a website creator could reject such a request.  those are comparable scenarios.

the comparable scenario in the other direction would be the (pretend aspirational) website creator saying that she would not create a wedding site for them because they are white/black/christian/hindu/homosexual/heterosexual.

hopefully this clears up the confusion and you can abandon this very, very silly argument.

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

Had a big long rant all queued up, but I'm deciding I'll go with the everything's broken and it isn't going to get fixed response.   The effective crushing of the middle continues.  I do wonder if in my lifetime we see the eventual end run of all this and whether it leads to rebellion or a fully subservient near slave class. Or if any of that matters because we all burn up by then.

[Dnaguy 11970]

So now anyone at anytime can deny someone who isn’t their strict version of whatever religion they practice right?

 

[HonkeyVape 107]

So....the $10 or $20k in student loan debt isn't happening now? I filled out the form like 6 months back and everything. From the stated requirements, it didn't look like the little grad school debt I had left was eligible due to my income anyways, but I was hoping they'd pro-rate me something along with everyone else. Now it's a no-go? Can we escalate this to the supreme court manager? #studentloankaren

[wildcat09 29354]

You can bet the right will use this to go after protections for other protected classes too. They’re already talking about it:

 

[HonkeyVape 107]

5 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

So now anyone at anytime can deny someone who isn’t their strict version of whatever religion they practice right?

 

The way I read it was you aren't denying to make a website because they are gay, they are denying because they don't want to be complicit in encouraging homosexuality because it is against their religion and by encouraging it they are encouraging sin and the further downfall of society, etc etc. This is codified and well-known to be the case, by virtue of even being written explicitly for reference in the religious text that dates before case law.

Just making up a religion or reason for not serving someone I don't think is going to be an on-going issue and I think the number of instances where an orthodox religious person won't bake a cake or make a website for an unabashed sinner (in their view) is so limited it's not even a rounding error. It will be in the realm of how few times transpeople will want to swim with men or whatever and the left's version of that controversy.

Again, this is how I think it was interpreted by the courts.

Edited June 30, 2023 by HonkeyVape

[Captainant 27678]

1 minute ago, HonkeyVape said:

The way I read it was you aren't denying to make a website because they are mixed race, you just don't want to be complicit in encouraging mixed race couples because it is against your religion. This is codified and well-known to be the case, by virtue of even being written explicitly for reference in the religious text that dates before case law.

Change the target group of your sentence and HOO BOY it gets dicey fast

[hobbes2702 13037]

7 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

So now anyone at anytime can deny someone who isn’t their strict version of whatever religion they practice right?

 

Seems that way 

[HonkeyVape 107]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Change the target group of your sentence and HOO BOY it gets dicey fast

True, true. But I don't think there is any religious precedence for any of that nonsense.

At the end of the day, I personally think keeping religious freedoms (but not free of consequences) is good. Don't bake a cake for gay weddings and then go bankrupt, as the world turns.

I've thought about this in context to sports players-- don't want to engage or wear the rainbow patch for pride because you cite "religion", that's fine, but if your owner is gay and the fans/community hate you, that's on you and can't blame anyone when you get cut.

[hobbes2702 13037]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Change the target group of your sentence and HOO BOY it gets dicey fast

The way I read it was you aren't denying to make a website because they are Christian, you just don't want to be complicit in encouraging Christian couples because it is against your beliefs. 

 

It works for anything 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

1 hour ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

Or if any of that matters because we all burn up by then.

You get it

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

You can bet the right will use this to go after protections for other protected classes too. They’re already talking about it:

 

torbush

[jimmyjazz 45962]

44 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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?

Her quote in WaPo:

Quote

She wants to expand her business to create wedding websites — but only to tell the stories of brides and grooms “through God’s lens.” And she wants to be able to tell same-sex couples on her 303 Creative LLC website that she will not create such platforms for them.

Seems pretty fucking obvious -- no gay clients.

[Sawbonz 27565]

At what point should Biden just start ignoring these bullshit rulings

[Sawbonz 27565]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Her quote in WaPo:

Seems pretty fucking obvious -- no gay clients.

She has tattoos. Clearly going to hell.

[jimmyjazz 45962]

16 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You can bet the right will use this to go after protections for other protected classes too. They’re already talking about it:

 

Matt doesn't understand that he is protected by these laws.  He cannot be discriminated against because he is white, a man, a Catholic, straight, etc.

Fuck around and find out, boys.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

23 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You can bet the right will use this to go after protections for other protected classes too. They’re already talking about it:

 

That's what we were trying to do Matt, ya asshole.

[Mo Horn 8848]

 

[JBJ 3654]

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't know what this sentence means because the 1) and 2) you were talking about referred to actions by the state, not by her. 

Let's go back to your really stupid hypothetical and modify it:

1) white couple wanting a normal wedding website

2) gay couple wanting a normal wedding website.

3) white power couple wanting a normal wedding website

4) white power couple wanting a wedding website that espouses the belief of white supremacy. 

(A) If I deny services to (1) because I don't believe white people should get married, I'm denying services based upon their race. 

(B) If I deny services to (2) because I don't believe gay people should be married, I'm denying services based upon their sexuality.

(C) If I deny services to (3) because I don't believe white people should get married, I'm denying services based upon their race. 

But,

(D) If I deny services to (4) because they want me to espouse the belief that whites are fundamentally better than every else, then I'm denying them services because of the ideology they wish me to express, not because of their race. 

Do you still fail to see the distinction? 

The law at issue would outlaw (A) through (C). It may or may not outlaw (D), it just depends on what "creed" means under the law. 

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?

[Satchel 6938]

Just so people know, it was not Asian students who filed the AA lawsuit against Harvard. It was a con front group called Students for Fair Admissions headed by something called Edward Blum. The point of these shenanigans is to foment distrust and anger between non dominant cultures.

[Dahobbs 17544]

56 minutes ago, HonkeyVape said:

True, true. But I don't think there is any religious precedence for any of that nonsense.

At the end of the day, I personally think keeping religious freedoms (but not free of consequences) is good. Don't bake a cake for gay weddings and then go bankrupt, as the world turns.

I've thought about this in context to sports players-- don't want to engage or wear the rainbow patch for pride because you cite "religion", that's fine, but if your owner is gay and the fans/community hate you, that's on you and can't blame anyone when you get cut.

Don't serve black people. Good. That's you. 

[TexEx15 17535]

 

['stache 21816]

1 minute ago, TexEx15 said:

 

Truth.

[JBJ 3654]

1 hour ago, sidis said:

white pride is an expressed viewpoint.  refusing it isn't a refusal based on race.

being homosexual is categorical...like being white.  refusing it is based on sexuality.

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.

Edited June 30, 2023 by JBJ

[Dahobbs 17544]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

I understand the issue with the analogy so allow me to correct it:

The website 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 for black websites.

No, you don't understand. Neither of those are discriminating because of being white. 

[DaysOff 7951]

I'm trying to catch up for the last 24 hours.

Fuck the poors
Fuck the blacks
Fuck the gays

Does that cover all the decisions?

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

So if I'm atheist, I can deny service because you are religious? 

[JBJ 3654]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

No, you don't understand. Neither of those are discriminating because of being white. 

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?

Edited June 30, 2023 by JBJ

[Dahobbs 17544]

2 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

So if I'm atheist, I can deny service because you are religious? 

Yes, until the supreme court makes clear the answer is no because that would be discrimination. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Yes, until the supreme court makes clear the answer is no because that would be discrimination. 

[Bullneck 19106]

5 hours ago, FartingDreamer said:

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

It will happen when Biden wins a second term and the Dems control the House and Senate.  

[Dahobbs 17544]

Just now, JBJ said:

I agree, but why do you think the same does not apply in this case.

You are dense. I've said it many times already. The hypothetical gay couple is being denied service solely because they are gay. They could never get service from that person because of who they are inherently. 

[Bullneck 19106]

8 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

I'm trying to catch up for the last 24 hours.

Fuck the poors
Fuck the blacks
Fuck the gays

Does that cover all the decisions?

Fuck the hijackers!

[JBJ 3654]

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You are dense. I've said it many times already. The hypothetical gay couple is being denied service solely because they are gay. They could never get service from that person because of who they are inherently. 

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.

Edited June 30, 2023 by JBJ

[Js1 85350]

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

lighten up Francis. I was saying that a speech itself isn't enough. I wasn't expecting a hand delivered note to everyone today. 

He just announced he will use the Higher Education Act and proceed with the forgiveness 

['stache 21816]

SCOTUS seriously believes that race relations are all just fine now, as if the past is meaningless. It really boggles my mind how we got here.

[sidis 9828]

30 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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.

still does not work, jbj.  the analogy can be demonstrated as a false equivalence through one detail being added to the hypothetical.  the person seeking to engage the developer to create the white pride website is black.  that demonstrates the difference between discriminating service based on viewpoint versus discriminating service based categorical attributes of the person.

[CTC2 2797]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

You can bet the right will use this to go after protections for other protected classes too. They’re already talking about it:

 

Yeah, fuck Hot Wheels and those annoying ramps that he needs to get into a building. And while we are at it, don’t hire any women because they will just leave to go have kids plus they are all raging at least one week out of the month.  Oh, and all you boomers who are holding on to your jobs, you’re fired.