The Supremes

[JBJ 3666]

Just now, sidis said:

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.

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

[jimmyjazz 46175]

21 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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.

You're not being as clear as you think you are.  Do you think anyone is saying it's OK to discriminate against a customer because they're white? 

[sidis 9832]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

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

well neither does your hypothetical that you attempted to analogize.  that's why i don't understand your efforts here.

frankly, nothing applies to the case at hand because we now know it was all fictitiously conjured for purposes of getting a case in front of a court with alito, thomas, gorsuch, barrett, and kavanaugh on it.

but nothing in the case is remotely comparable to your imposition of asking someone to construct a white power/black power website advocating as you have tried to analogize.  the case is based on a pretend website developer refusing to create a down-the-middle, uncontroversial wedding information website for a pretend gay couple that did not exist despite "wanting" to be in the business of making wedding information websites because she did not think gay people should be able to marry despite their legal right to do so.

[HenryJames 66182]

 

[HonkeyVape 107]

49 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

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

No way. That's not a basis in any precedented and codified religion. I think the slippery slope argument won't work here, because it's not just like you go register a spaghetti monster religion or I hate [insert race here] people religion online. It's for legitimate religious practice.

The supreme court quietly (or maybe it was just lost between this and the student loans) ruled in accordance to religious practices but it also made it seem pretty rigid:

From NYT:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/supreme-court-religion-sabbath-postal-worker.html

Quote

 

The Supreme Court broadened protections on Thursday for religious workers in a case that involved a mail carrier for the U.S. Postal Service who refused to work on his Sabbath.

In a unanimous decision, the justices rejected a test that had long been used to determine what accommodations an employer must make for religious workers, but declined to rule on the merits of the case, sending it back to a lower court to consider under a new standard.

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that the case gave it the “first opportunity in nearly 50 years” to explain the nuances of how workplaces must adapt to religious requests by employees.

For an employer to deny an employee’s request for a religious accommodation, Justice Alito wrote, it “must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”

The decision could affect countless workplaces and could require many employers to make substantial changes to accommodate religious workers.

The ruling is the latest in a series by the court that have focused on expanding the role of religion in public life, sometimes at the expense of other values, like gay rights and access to contraception.

 

 

[babysdaddy 2728]

3 hours ago, Foosters said:

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

Zero.  The answer is zero people.  

[swraith 347]

3 minutes ago, HonkeyVape said:

No way. That's not a basis in any precedented and codified religion. I think the slippery slope argument won't work here, because it's not just like you go register a spaghetti monster religion or I hate [insert race here] people religion online. It's for legitimate religious practice.

The supreme court quietly (or maybe it was just lost between this and the student loans) ruled in accordance to religious practices but it also made it seem pretty rigid:

From NYT:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/supreme-court-religion-sabbath-postal-worker.html

 

In your opinion, why are some religious practices legitimate and others not? Who is to decide what a legitimate religious practice is? Religion can be any held beliefs, not just your standard fair Christian fundamentalist. 

[JBJ 3666]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

You're not being as clear as you think you are.  Do you think anyone is saying it's OK to discriminate against a customer because they're white? 

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

[HonkeyVape 107]

46 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

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

I don't think so. 

It's more akin to how there is a rule in soccer for not allowing headwear or safety reasons but then letting Muslims where a hijab as an exception because it's part of their religion. 
 

I think it has to follow that logic pattern: The law says always do X but you can do Y if your [recognized religion here] compels you to deviate because of the moral code that undergirds the religion you legitimately follow.

At least that is how I'm reading it-- I'm not a constitutional scholar or constitutional lawyer.

[HonkeyVape 107]

10 minutes ago, swraith said:

In your opinion, why are some religious practices legitimate and others not? Who is to decide what a legitimate religious practice is? Religion can be any held beliefs, not just your standard fair Christian fundamentalist. 

That's a great question and one that I think is probably the most problematic. We are now essentially saying that there needs to be a body that legislates what is a legitimate religious practice and/or come up with a framework for what qualifies. Problematic.

What does that look like? # of adherents? History? Scholarship/written books and a code to follow?

I do wonder if there is a globally recognized standard for religion to adopt in the short term, like what a board accredited researching agency or something would use?

When you peel the onion layers back, I think the real annoyance or anger is that there are people who believe that homosexuality is a sin and others think that those people shouldn't have the right to believe that in such a way that it manifests in autonomy of action via a protected freedom of religion. At least that's how I've interpreted this thread's response.

Edited June 30, 2023 by HonkeyVape

[kevwun 15923]

Another great question is why do keep coming back to this website?

[HonkeyVape 107]

2 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Another great question is why do keep coming back to this website?

for the same reason that we ask, Why do caged birds sing?

[jimmyjazz 46175]

9 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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

You think people are OK with refusing service to white people BECAUSE THEY'RE WHITE?

Answer the damn question.

[JBJ 3666]

10 minutes ago, sidis said:

but nothing in the case is remotely comparable to your imposition of asking someone to construct a white power/black power website advocating as you have tried to analogize.  the case is based on a pretend website developer refusing to create a down-the-middle, uncontroversial wedding information website for a pretend gay couple that did not exist despite "wanting" to be in the business of making wedding information websites because she did not think gay people should be able to marry despite their legal right to do so.

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?

[Brisketexan 105380]

16 minutes ago, HonkeyVape said:

No way. That's not a basis in any precedented and codified religion. I think the slippery slope argument won't work here, because it's not just like you go register a spaghetti monster religion or I hate [insert race here] people religion online. It's for legitimate religious practice.

Tell me you understand functionally ZERO about the history of racism in the US without telling me you understand functionally ZERO about the history of racism in the US.

For fucking centuries, American faith leaders have argued in support of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and anti-miscegenation laws on religious grounds.  I'm talking about pastors in the pulpit, citing real-deal scripture in the Bible.  "Sincerely held religious beliefs" have -- again, for CENTURIES -- been used to support all manner of racist bullshit in this country.  Don't tell me that nobody believes that God has ordained that the races must be separate, black people are inferior, etc.  We have the fucking receipts.

But I do love you calling out and questioning whether something really is a sincerely held religious belief.  Because for most folks, their hatred of same-sex couples stands alone when it comes to "articles of their sincerely held religious belief" that they take a stand on.  Don't listen to me.  Listen to a priest, who wrote this today:

Quote

I would have more sympathy with web designers who refuse to serve certain people because of deeply held religious beliefs, if those certain people weren't always same-sex couples.

Do they, for example, refuse to serve people who are divorced, which Jesus himself condemns in the Gospels (Mt 19:9)? Do they refuse to serve non-Christians (which would surely be deemed discriminatory and illegal) who don't believe in the Incarnation or Resurrection (which are rather important beliefs)? Could a Catholic refuse to serve a Protestant? Could a Protestant refuse to serve a Jewish person?

The response is usually, "Well, this is about objecting to their offensive practices, not their own beliefs."

In that case, besides refusing to serve divorced couples, they should also refuse to serve couples living together before being married, unmarried pregnant women (and their husbands), as well as people who don't give to the poor or welcome strangers (Mt 25), people who call others names (Mt 5:21-22) and so on.

The list of activities and practices that don't conform to the Gospel or to church teachings is a very long one. But conservative Christians usually don't refuse to serve any of these people.

Why not? Well, for one thing, if you refused to serve anyone you deemed "sinful" your business would dry up pretty quickly.

But mainly it's because the objection is, almost always, only with same-sex marriage. Why?

There's an easy answer for all this: homophobia. Everyone else gets a pass.

All of this bullshit -- fucking ALL of it -- has nothing to do with actual faith.  It has everything to do with using "religious freedom" as a cover to be as shitty as you want to be.  Stop pretending it's anything but that.

The most hateful people in this country are the exact same people who wave the "CHRISTIAN!" banner most vigorously.   And churches wonder why people are bailing in droves.

[Nivek 16987]

8 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

One of my favorite things right now was finding out that the any person who works in anything in this country with any sort of regulatory oversight, ranging from working at a financial services firm to serving as a volunteer on a municipal arts advisory commission, is legally required to adhere to higher and more rigorous conflict of interest and compliance standards than members of the United States Supreme Court. 

Kavanaugh wouldn't be hired at a Mcdonald's based on his interview.   They also have a higher ethical standard and more oversight and training.  Once someone is a SCOTUS he can show up dick in hand jerking off under the robe while the one lawyer releases a monkey to deliver him a bag of cash in court and nothing would be done about it.  Maybe another justice would ask them to jerk off prior to the court or to deliver the cash via family connections, but the corruption and indecency wouldn't change. 

[JBJ 3666]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You think people are OK with refusing service to white people BECAUSE THEY'RE WHITE?

Answer the damn question.

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.

[Dahobbs 17685]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

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?

The question is whether the refusal is because of the identity of the customer.  None of them except 3) are based on the identity of the customer. 5 is probably a close call since it is a painting ostensibly of their parents. For the others, the identity of the customer is irrelevant.

52 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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?

You keep missing that "white power" is not an intrinsic part of being white. No matter how many different ways you try to approach this, refusing to write those words isn't a refusal based on race. Accordingly, it would not be covered by the statute.  

38 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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.

Your hypothetical is contrived. But presumably your hypothetical website will create a "black pride" website for anyone, regardless of race.  So, if that is the particular business offering, I don't see how a denial of creating anything else could be based on race. But, more than that, the content of the requested work isn't inextricably linked to the protected identity of the customer. "White Pride" isn't an intrinsic part of being white.

A person that focuses on creating wedding pages generally is offering a fundamentally different service. The issue here is that there is literally nothing the gay couple could do to get this person to provide their services, i.e., creating a website for their wedding. The objection to performing the work is based entirely on the sexuality of the couple. 

And you still haven't addressed this, why does the state's compelling interest in ending discrimination not win here? You've already agreed the state has such an interest. The case law is replete with rights that succumb to such an interest. But this Court has apparently abandoned that principle and replaced it with a king's x for conservative Christians. 

[HonkeyVape 107]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Tell me you understand functionally ZERO about the history of racism in the US without telling me you understand functionally ZERO about the history of racism in the US.

For fucking centuries, American faith leaders have argued in support of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and anti-miscegenation laws on religious grounds.  I'm talking about pastors in the pulpit, citing real-deal scripture in the Bible.  "Sincerely held religious beliefs" have -- again, for CENTURIES -- been used to support all manner of racist bullshit in this country.  Don't tell me that nobody believes that God has ordained that the races must be separate, black people are inferior, etc.  We have the fucking receipts.

But I do love you calling out and questioning whether something really is a sincerely held religious belief.  Because for most folks, their hatred of same-sex couples stands alone when it comes to "articles of their sincerely held religious belief" that they take a stand on.  Don't listen to me.  Listen to a priest, who wrote this today:

All of this bullshit -- fucking ALL of it -- has nothing to do with actual faith.  It has everything to do with using "religious freedom" as a cover to be as shitty as you want to be.  Stop pretending it's anything but that.

The most hateful people in this country are the exact same people who wave the "CHRISTIAN!" banner most vigorously.   And churches wonder why people are bailing in droves.

You are right on. And at the same time, one must confront that believing homosexuality is a sin, while having deep empathy and love for the sinner, and not wanting to encourage sin and be complicit in the social morass and further denigration of society IS a legitimate religious (orthodox, maybe?) view, whether you agree with it or not.

I think this ruling is asking demanding of the dissenting to view that the unalienable right of religious freedom here looks for them a lot like the old yarn of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Disapprove and disagree and, heck, even mock and denigrate and vilify it and hope they fail miserably-- but respect understand the rights of those who believe it and that they operating within those rights, per the law of the land. 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by HonkeyVape

[David Dennison 18948]

One of these days white folks are gonna get break.

[Brisketexan 105380]

1 minute ago, HonkeyVape said:

Disapprove and disagree and, heck, even mock and denigrate and vilify it and hope they fail miserably-- but respect the rights of those who believe it.

Naaah.  Not gonna do that.

I'll never respect people who refuse to serve black people because black people deservedly bear "the curse of Ham."

If your religious belief is some variation of "I am required to treat other people like shit," you can fuck all the way off.  And then, once you have fucked all the way off, keep fucking off, until the heat death of the universe.

But back to the real point: these aren't religious beliefs.  They are personal beliefs that use the veneer of religion to make them sacrosanct/unchallengeable.  It's a lie.  So not only are these people giant fucking assholes, they're lying giant fucking assholes.  Fuck em to hell, which I actually hope exists.

[HonkeyVape 107]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

One of these days white folks are gonna get break.

Okay David, one more thing, this summer when you're being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don't forget what you're celebrating, and that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes.

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Naaah.  Not gonna do that.

I'll never respect people who refuse to serve black people because black people deservedly bear "the curse of Ham."

If your religious belief is some variation of "I am required to treat other people like shit," you can fuck all the way off.  And then, once you have fucked all the way off, keep fucking off, until the heat death of the universe.

But back to the real point: these aren't religious beliefs.  They are personal beliefs that use the veneer of religion to make them sacrosanct/unchallengeable.  It's a lie.  So not only are these people giant fucking assholes, they're lying giant fucking assholes.  Fuck em to hell, which I actually hope exists.

I edited I guess after you submitted. 

Don't respect it, that's your right. But understand.

[Brisketexan 105380]

1 minute ago, HonkeyVape said:

Don't respect it, that's your right. But understand.

I understand that they're giant fucking lying assholes, don't worry about that.

[HonkeyVape 107]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

But back to the real point: these aren't religious beliefs.  They are personal beliefs that use the veneer of religion to make them sacrosanct/unchallengeable.  It's a lie.  So not only are these people giant fucking assholes, they're lying giant fucking assholes.  Fuck em to hell, which I actually hope exists.

How can you argue that they aren't religious beliefs? I'm curious how you can argue that when the canon of the religion of which all things are governed from literally and explicitly states it in the first five chapters.

I mean, it's also a religious belief to take a Sabbath day and not work on Sunday (which the supreme court always affirmed this week) along with a million other things that we find silly or ugly depending on the range

[Nivek 16987]

2 hours 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:

 

Does this mean those assholes are no longer protected from taxes? 

[C-Man 27273]

5 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Does this mean those assholes are no longer protected from taxes? 

[Fudge Nuggets 19227]

7 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Does this mean those assholes are no longer protected from taxes? 

I would reply to ol' Matt with this exact post if I wasn't banned from the tweeties.

[Anastasis 23484]

All wedding websites are gay. 

['stache 21880]

The gall of these assholes to refer to the student loan proposal as a "bailout" is just too goddamned much. They never seem to have a problem when its a mega corporation or for the benefit of millionaires. I'll never understand how these shit stains keep getting elected.

Edited June 30, 2023 by 'stache

[Dahobbs 17685]

38 minutes ago, HonkeyVape said:

No way. That's not a basis in any precedented and codified religion. I think the slippery slope argument won't work here, because it's not just like you go register a spaghetti monster religion or I hate [insert race here] people religion online. It's for legitimate religious practice.

The supreme court quietly (or maybe it was just lost between this and the student loans) ruled in accordance to religious practices but it also made it seem pretty rigid:

From NYT:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/supreme-court-religion-sabbath-postal-worker.html

You don't think racism has been codified in religions? Are you fucking serious? 

https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/

Quote

 

During the period of American slavery, how did slaveholders manage to balance their religious beliefs with the cruel facts of the “peculiar institution“? As shown by the following passages — adapted from Noel Rae’s new book The Great Stain, which uses firsthand accounts to tell the story of slavery in America — for some of them that rationalization was right there in the Bible.

Out of the more than three quarters of a million words in the Bible, Christian slaveholders—and, if asked, most slaveholders would have defined themselves as Christian—had two favorites texts, one from the beginning of the Old Testament and the other from the end of the New Testament. In the words of the King James Bible, which was the version then current, these were, first, Genesis IX, 18–27:

“And the sons of Noah that went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole world overspread. And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.”

Despite some problems with this story—What was so terrible about seeing Noah drunk? Why curse Canaan rather than Ham? How long was the servitude to last? Surely Ham would have been the same color as his brothers?—it eventually became the foundational text for those who wanted to justify slavery on Biblical grounds. In its boiled-down, popular version, known as “The Curse of Ham,” Canaan was dropped from the story, Ham was made black, and his descendants were made Africans.

 

 

29 minutes ago, HonkeyVape said:

I don't think so. 

It's more akin to how there is a rule in soccer for not allowing headwear or safety reasons but then letting Muslims where a hijab as an exception because it's part of their religion. 
 

I think it has to follow that logic pattern: The law says always do X but you can do Y if your [recognized religion here] compels you to deviate because of the moral code that undergirds the religion you legitimately follow.

At least that is how I'm reading it-- I'm not a constitutional scholar or constitutional lawyer.

This isn't an accommodation for a religious practice. It is a refusal to offer public services to someone because of their sexuality, race, sex, etc. The question should be whether the government has a compelling interest in preventing that from occurring such that it can impinge on the so called religious beliefs of those that wish to be bigots. The answer to that question has long been yes, of course the government can. But, now it can't. Because of reasons. 

26 minutes ago, HonkeyVape said:

That's a great question and one that I think is probably the most problematic. We are now essentially saying that there needs to be a body that legislates what is a legitimate religious practice and/or come up with a framework for what qualifies. Problematic.

What does that look like? # of adherents? History? Scholarship/written books and a code to follow?

I do wonder if there is a globally recognized standard for religion to adopt in the short term, like what a board accredited researching agency or something would use?

When you peel the onion layers back, I think the real annoyance or anger is that there are people who believe that homosexuality is a sin and others think that those people shouldn't have the right to believe that in such a way that it manifests in autonomy of action via a protected freedom of religion. At least that's how I've interpreted this thread's response.

Oh, good, instead of not adopting the very dumb rule, let's make it complicated and arbitrary so that it is 100% clear that he purpose is to make a rule that protects, but does not bind, conservative Christians, while it binds, but does not protect, anyone else. 

3 minutes ago, HonkeyVape said:

You are right on. [edited out hateful bullshit]

I think this ruling is asking demanding of the dissenting to view that the unalienable right of religious freedom here looks for them a lot like the old yarn of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Disapprove and disagree and, heck, even mock and denigrate and vilify it and hope they fail miserably-- but respect the rights of those who believe it.

What about the right of everyone else not to be discriminated against? What about the right of everyone else to equal protection under the law? It used to be the law required a balancing of those interests. Why are [conservative Christian] religious beliefs now being granted a special trump card over everyone else? 

And, let's be clear here: this case is absolutely not about having a right to say whatever you want. No one is stopping this not-a-business from posting all sorts of hateful shit about gays. What this case is about is whether someone offering their services to the public can discriminate on the basis sexuality, race, or anything else that may offend their religious beliefs. The answer is apparently yes. 

[Brisketexan 105380]

15 minutes ago, HonkeyVape said:

How can you argue that they aren't religious beliefs? I'm curious how you can argue that when the canon of the religion of which all things are governed from literally and explicitly states it in the first five chapters.

Because for these people, they aren't.  They are personal prejudices, and they look for a religious excuse to hold them.  How do we know that this particular belief - you know, the one that demands we treat gay people like shit -- is not really based in their faith?  Because they give a pass to literally EVERY OTHER issue addressed in their purported "religion."  All the other sins....well, they get a pass.  But the one about the homogays, and discriminating against them?  Well, it's SO DAMNED important that they'll go to the SCOTUS to fight for it.

Pretty telling when that's the one they fight for, and not the clear Gospel commandment to love the immigrant and stranger (I note that none of these people are getting the Liberty Institute or whatnot to back them up in their fight to provide food, water, and shelter to desperate immigrants.  Golly gee, it's a mystery).  In fact, when THAT issue comes up, they pull out their utterly hypocritical "oh, no, we have to defer to the LAW -- render unto Caesar!"  

They're lying fucking hypocrites.  Every.  Single.  One of them.

[Brisketexan 105380]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Oh, good, instead of not adopting the very dumb rule, let's make it complicated and arbitrary so that it is 100% clear that he purpose is to make a rule that protects, but does not bind, conservative Christians, while it binds, but does not protect, anyone else. 

Quoted with all due emphasis.  That is what the law is here, and that is entirely its purpose.

[deac_tracy 516]

 

[HonkeyVape 107]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You don't think racism has been codified in religions? Are you fucking serious? 

https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/

 

This isn't an accommodation for a religious practice. It is a refusal to offer public services to someone because of their sexuality, race, sex, etc. [based on their religion and religious practice.] The question should be whether the government has a compelling interest in preventing that from occurring such that it can impinge on the so called religious beliefs of those that wish to be bigots. The answer to that question has long been yes, of course the government can. But, now it can't. Because of reasons. 

Oh, good, instead of not adopting the very dumb rule, let's make it complicated and arbitrary so that it is 100% clear that he purpose is to make a rule that protects, but does not bind, conservative Christians, while it binds, but does not protect, anyone else. 

What about the right of everyone else not to be discriminated against? What about the right of everyone else to equal protection under the law? It used to be the law required a balancing of those interests. Why are [conservative Christian] religious beliefs now being granted a special trump card over everyone else? 

And, let's be clear here: this case is absolutely not about having a right to say whatever you want. No one is stopping this not-a-business from posting all sorts of hateful shit about gays. What this case is about is whether someone offering their services to the public can discriminate on the basis sexuality, race, or anything else that may offend their religious beliefs. The answer is apparently yes. 

I get your point, but I think if you completed your thought (which I added to, in bold), you'd see how this makes sense. Or maybe not, I don't know, you make good points.

To Briskets point though, I think it's a poor and failed argument to "what about" other rules and laws in the bible to argue that it's not an inherent and obvious religious view (and is personal as well, to his point).

That's all I got-- I think troph actually stated it best on the other thread-- y'all have a great long and SAFE holiday weekend celebrating this country! God Bless America and God bless you all.

[HenryJames 66182]

 

[NAVY 6747]

1 hour ago, kevwun said:

Another great question is why do keep coming back to this website?

Why do we always come here? 

I’d really like to know 

Because it’s like some kind of torture 

to have to watch this show 

[Brisketexan 105380]

1 minute ago, HonkeyVape said:

To Briskets point though, I think it's a poor and failed argument to "what about" other rules and laws in the bible to argue that it's not an inherent and obvious religious view (and is personal as well, to his point).

What that exercise tells us is actually quite plain.  It's not about their religion and following it (because if it was, they'd fight just as hard for their other "religious beliefs" that are plain as fucking day right there in the scripture).  Rather, it's about one particular belief being super important to them (because as fucking apes, nothing is as important as our tribal need to hate the "other"), so they find a religious basis/justification for it to shield it from review or restriction.

It.  Is.  A.  LIE.  They don't want to discriminate against homogays because the Bible tells them to.  They want to discriminate against homogays because they want to treat the "other" like shit.  The Bible only comes in because they need something to protect their desire to discriminate against the homogays.

If they wanted to do X because the Bible tells them to, they'd be lined up at the border handing out water and blankets (the Gospel is 10X plainer about what you should do with respect to the immigrant/stranger/poor than it is about homogay morality).  Yet they aren't.  In FACT....they stridently oppose that.

American conservative "christianity" isn't a belief system.  It's a blanket excuse, and shield for, cruelty and shittiness.  That's it.  Full stop.

[Captainant 27791]

13 minutes ago, HonkeyVape said:

y'all have a great long and SAFE holiday weekend celebrating this country!

with all the supreme court fuckery, I'm sure you're celebrating quite a lot

['stache 21880]

Does anyone have a WSJ subscription? I’d love a pdf of this article about the ICWA case.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/indian-law-child-welfare-act-native-american-supreme-court-add7c334#comments_sector

[NameAlreadyInUse 5129]

Brisket continues to nail it in his last few posts.

[Dahobbs 17685]

24 minutes ago, HonkeyVape said:

I get your point, but I think if you completed your thought (which I added to, in bold), you'd see how this makes sense. Or maybe not, I don't know, you make good points.

To Briskets point though, I think it's a poor and failed argument to "what about" other rules and laws in the bible to argue that it's not an inherent and obvious religious view (and is personal as well, to his point).

That's all I got-- I think troph actually stated it best on the other thread-- y'all have a great long and SAFE holiday weekend celebrating this country! God Bless America and God bless you all.

You initially set up your argument on the premise that a poor religious person is being stopped from espousing their beliefs. That isn't happening, and it wasn't an issue in this case. It is a strawman argument.

Your addition changes nothing. As I said previously, the issue is whether someone can discriminate against another based upon that person's gender, sexuality, race, or religion. That the discrimination would be justified by a sincerely held religious belief was implicit in my post. That's why I said you have two sets of rights at play. Our previous jurisprudence would have balanced those rights and looked at whether the state had a compelling interest in weighing in one way or another. Apparently the new rule is conservative Christian belief gets a king's x on everyone else's rights. And apparently you openly support bigotry on that basis. Kudos to you I guess. But, the shoe will eventually be on the other foot. Or maybe it'll be a knife at the throat. We'll see. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Brisketexan 105380]

11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

As I said previously, the issue is whether someone can discriminate against another based upon that person's gender, sexuality, race, or religion. That the discrimination would be justified by a sincerely held religious belief was implicit in my post. That's why I said you have two sets of rights at play. Our previous jurisprudence would have balanced those rights and looked at whether the state had a compelling interest in weighing in one way or another. Apparently the new rule is conservative Christian belief gets a king's x on everyone else's rights.

Bolded for the punchline.

My friend was born gay.  He has less protection for that trait than a conservative "christian" gets for a belief system that he CHOSE to adopt.

The concepts of rights and protections has been turned on its head: the right to be a conservative "christian," practicing whatever discrimination or ill treatment you want, is THE supreme right, protected above all else.  Again, we're back to the sole 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.

"Conservative christian" is the American super-class.  It is protected above every and all other classes.  That is the reality.

[JBJ 3666]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The question is whether the refusal is because of the identity of the customer.  None of them except 3) are based on the identity of the customer. 5 is probably a close call since it is a painting ostensibly of their parents. For the others, the identity of the customer is irrelevant.

I get it.  I just disagree.  I don't think you are absolutely wrong or right in the legal aspect of the matter, either.  This would be an interesting legal theory to test.

You keep missing that "white power" is not an intrinsic part of being white. No matter how many different ways you try to approach this, refusing to write those words isn't a refusal based on race. Accordingly, it would not be covered by the statute.

Your hypothetical is contrived. But presumably your hypothetical website will create a "black pride" website for anyone, regardless of race.  So, if that is the particular business offering, I don't see how a denial of creating anything else could be based on race. But, more than that, the content of the requested work isn't inextricably linked to the protected identity of the customer. "White Pride" isn't an intrinsic part of being white.

A person that focuses on creating wedding pages generally is offering a fundamentally different service. The issue here is that there is literally nothing the gay couple could do to get this person to provide their services, i.e., creating a website for their wedding. The objection to performing the work is based entirely on the sexuality of the couple.

I don't feel like intristic is being used here properly but I know what you are saying and can't think of a better word. 

They are both a type of self-expression of the protected class which goes towards the "identity and expression becoming the same thing" argument.   That the business is being asked to express the identity of the person. We are going to spin our wheels if we try to go back and forth on what constitutes a valid expression of identity. 

Hopefully, this is steelmanning more than strawmanning, but I think based on your answers to the painter questions that there's also a personal component to your view.  This exists in the wedding site and painter but isn't quite the same in my white pride example.  You are asking the person for an expression of you individually and not just your class category.

And you still haven't addressed this, why does the state's compelling interest in ending discrimination not win here? You've already agreed the state has such an interest. The case law is replete with rights that succumb to such an interest. But this Court has apparently abandoned that principle and replaced it with a king's x for conservative Christians.

I already did answer. The law violates the 1A and it doesn't have to.  Although there are carve outs for appropriate limitations on speech, there really aren't ones that compel it. Laws like this clearly can be workable under the consistution as they have existed for some 60 years and most have been through the 1A challenge already whether surviving wholy or amended to be legal.

Above.

[HenryJames 66182]

 

['stache 21880]

Usury is strictly forbidden in my religion so I'm just not gonna pay my loans back anyway. 

Plus, I hear that Sallie Mae is a total les, my religion also forbids me from paying to support her lifestyle. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by 'stache

[Aqua Buddha 14621]

So, the web designer case was all fake?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/colorado-web-designer-court-filings/index.html

 — 

The Colorado web designer who wanted to refuse LGBTQ customers and just won her case at the Supreme Court had claimed in court filings that a man inquired about her services for his same-sex wedding.

But the man says he never reached out to Lorie Smith, the web designer who argued at the Supreme Court that she shouldn’t be forced to create same-sex wedding websites because of her religious objections. In fact, the man says he’s straight and married to a woman.

[Dahobbs 17685]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I get it.  I just disagree.  I don't think you are absolutely wrong or right in the legal aspect of the matter, either.  This would be an interesting legal theory to test.

I don't think you get it. The rest of your posts reveals that you don't. At any rate, we can't test this particular law on this particular issue because this case wasn't real so we don't have any facts at all to deal with. 

Quote

I don't feel like intristic is being used here properly but I know what you are saying and can't think of a better word. 

Yes it is. Here, let me help. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic

Quote

intrinsic
adjective

1a
: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing
the intrinsic worth of a gem
the intrinsic brightness of a star

Liking the same sex is an essential nature of the sexuality of being gay. Refusing to provide someone a service because they are gay is discriminating against them based upon their sexuality. This seems pretty fucking straight forward.   

Quote

They are both a type of self-expression of the protected class which goes towards the "identity and expression becoming the same thing" argument.   That the business is being asked to express the identity of the person. We are going to spin our wheels if we try to go back and forth on what constitutes a valid expression of identity. 

You've shifted the discussion to "identity" to make it sound broader than it really is. Remember, what is forbidden under the statute isn't discrimination based upon identity. Rather, it is discrimination because of sexuality, race, etc.  While white power ideology may be part of a particular person's identity, it is not part and parcel of being a member of the white race. On the other hand, every gay person is gay. They can't be anything else. Gayness is part and parcel of their sexuality and cannot be separated from it. 

Quote

Hopefully, this is steelmanning more than strawmanning, but I think based on your answers to the painter questions that there's also a personal component to your view.  This exists in the wedding site and painter but isn't quite the same in my white pride example.  You are asking the person for an expression of you individually and not just your class category.

I have no idea what this means. Again, the law doesn't protect you from discrimination due to your individuality. It protects you from discrimination because of race and because of sexuality. 

Quote

I already did answer. The law violates the 1A and it doesn't have to.  Although there are carve outs for appropriate limitations on speech, there really aren't ones that compel it. Laws like this clearly can be workable under the consistution as they have existed for some 60 years and most have been through the 1A challenge already whether surviving wholy or amended to be legal.

I agree that many laws have previously passed this hurdle no problem (including largely identical laws as part of the Civil Rights Act). But, those laws were analyzed under different rules. The whole point of the strict scrutiny analysis is to scrutinize those laws that impact a right and determine whether they should be allowed to do so. Protecting people from discrimination should be a valid and compelling interest of the state such that the state can indirectly regulate free speech. It is obvious that the aim of protecting people from discrimination in public places can't be accomplished by a lesser law because the result of this case is that people will in fact face discrimination because of their sexuality.

Under this rule there is nothing to prevent others from discriminating on the basis of sex, race, religion, or any other protected class. And, the reasoning of this opinion can't just be so easily cabined to "expressive works" (whatever the fuck that means) because, as a I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court has already said that money = speech. Allowing black couples at your restaurant? Well, that expresses that you're ok with black people being allowed in public places. Letting a woman work as an engineer? That expresses to anyone that sees her that you believe women can do a "man's job." It is open season to  hate and discriminate, and you applaud it.  

[Nivek 16987]

2 hours ago, HonkeyVape said:

No way. That's not a basis in any precedented and codified religion.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43231638

Religion is whatever anyone wants it to be.  The Crusades were sanctioned military events.  The Inquisitions were sanctioned as well.   The majority of you christians are there out of tradition and social acceptance, not out of alignment.   That long-haired hippie you pretend to worship dammed you.  

[ChiTownDoc 21167]

 

[Nivek 16987]

16 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

So, the web designer case was all fake?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/colorado-web-designer-court-filings/index.html

 — 

The Colorado web designer who wanted to refuse LGBTQ customers and just won her case at the Supreme Court had claimed in court filings that a man inquired about her services for his same-sex wedding.

But the man says he never reached out to Lorie Smith, the web designer who argued at the Supreme Court that she shouldn’t be forced to create same-sex wedding websites because of her religious objections. In fact, the man says he’s straight and married to a woman.

Why not?  This sham of an institution rules on sham cases.  They have less legitimacy than Judge Judy.