The Supremes

[Nivek 16927]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

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:

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

They are also protected from being out voted and under-represented within the country.   

[Sawbonz 27548]

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

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

Are you saying honkey vape doesn’t want to serve black people?

[chainsaw 9867]

So help me understand something here.

I know that the "HEROES Act" was basically ignored by Justice Roberts for some reason I can't really understand.

Biden says he's looking for another Act to use for forgiving student debt.

Is there a way he could at least transform it into dischargeable debt?

I'm no CPA or finance dork but I thought this relief mainly had to do with federal guarantees on loans. Loans where the lender gets reimbursed by the government if the borrower defaults. If that's the case, I can understand why the lenders want the payments to restart and interest to continue accruing, but what's their recourse if the government tells the lenders to fuck off? Can Biden do that?

[Sawbonz 27548]

55 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.

This dude should sue her for libel. Say he is deeply offended by her allegations of his being gay and engaged to a man as they violate his deeply held religious beliefs and have done him irreparable harm

[Sawbonz 27548]

11 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

So help me understand something here.

I know that the "HEROES Act" was basically ignored by Justice Roberts for some reason I can't really understand.

Biden says he's looking for another Act to use for forgiving student debt.

Is there a way he could at least transform it into dischargeable debt?

I'm no CPA or finance dork but I thought this relief mainly had to do with federal guarantees on loans. Loans where the lender gets reimbursed by the government if the borrower defaults. If that's the case, I can understand why the lenders want the payments to restart and interest to continue accruing, but what's their recourse if the government tells the lenders to fuck off? Can Biden do that?

Roberts made his decision. Let him enforce it

[Nivek 16927]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

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

It has never been a shield, but a cudgel. 

[South Austin 52489]

Who else here had to google “cudgel”?

[Sawbonz 27548]

2 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Who else here had to google “cudgel”?

Clearly you are not prepared to take on a variety of wild animals in close combat

[Brisketexan 105119]

Who else here had to google “cudgel”?

You probably don’t even know what a shillelagh is.
Buncha unsophisticated mouth breathers round here.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

So help me understand something here.

I know that the "HEROES Act" was basically ignored by Justice Roberts for some reason I can't really understand.

Biden says he's looking for another Act to use for forgiving student debt.

Is there a way he could at least transform it into dischargeable debt?

I'm no CPA or finance dork but I thought this relief mainly had to do with federal guarantees on loans. Loans where the lender gets reimbursed by the government if the borrower defaults. If that's the case, I can understand why the lenders want the payments to restart and interest to continue accruing, but what's their recourse if the government tells the lenders to fuck off? Can Biden do that?

Then the lenders would come crying to, you guessed it, the government. Who will in turn, you guessed it again, bail them out. All cheered on by the gop and saving those jobs and banks.

[JBJ 3654]

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

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. 

Maybe not.  To me it seems like you would be proposing a different law altogether or amending this one.

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

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.   

Oh come on this is some major goalpost shifting and I can't believe I'm  explaining this: Homosexuality exists without gay marriage.  Things can't exist without things that are essential to them.  You have a point here and a word for that point exists, but that word is not intrinsic.

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. 

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.

Identity refers to the characteristics of a person which I was using to differentiate from referring to the characteristics of the entire protected class.   I know there are many colloquial uses and it is a bit of a buzzword right now, but thought this was clear in the context.

My step-by-step breakdown of what I thought your stance is (1) Painter refuses to paint interracial couple themselves because of category but this is also the actual identity of the customer, which you said should be illegal.  (2l Painter refuses to paint poster of interracial couple to basically any other people = legal - while being iffy on the actual child of that couple which was something you clarified - actual child and not any other mixed child. This lead me to believe that the personal identity of the client was an essential part of the thing you are trying to protect.  Because the category of the actual client matters when the expression is their actual likeness or maybe that of a close relative and not any member of the same class.

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.

Strict scrutiny isn't novel.  The expressive acts interpretation for speech and the allowance of discrimination because of it are not novel.  And these things were established by much more liberal courts.

People on this very website are free to and do denigrate all sorts of people.  One especially despicable poster is repeatedly denigrating a protected class on this very thread.  This is an expressive act discriminating against a protected class.  It also can't possibly be made illegal. 

Texas admissions actually discriminates legally on the basis of constitutionally protected categories.  Discrimination, even when done by the government itself, isn't nearly as high in the hierarchy of legal concepts as one would think a consitutional right should be.  Why should the government be allowed to take away a right much more fundamental for one it doesn't think it even needs to follow all that strictly?

Above.

Edited July 1, 2023 by JBJ

[Nivek 16927]

Who else here had to google “cudgel”?

should i have said truncheon?

[jimmyjazz 45914]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

You probably don’t even know what a shillelagh is.

LOL, it's literally the unofficial "brand" of my undergrad school:

[Dahobbs 17534]

55 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Above.

You keep making this about identity. This case is about discrimination based upon sexuality. I only address the specific identity of the customer to make clear that reason for denial of service has to be because of a characteristic of the customer that is in a protected class. 

The fact that you think being gay and gay marriage aren't so intertwined that rejecting the latter isn't discrimination based on sexuality (it is) speaks volumes. You're in a hate bubble and I don't think there is way to get you out. I'm confident history will look down on people with this view. 

A proper court would have said that 1) the law itself doesn't directly compel speech 2) the state has a compelling interest in preventing public discrimination, and 3) to extent creating a wedding page for gay couple implicates free speech, it does so very indirectly. The primary purpose of the website isn't to advocate or speak for gay marriage generally. It is help a couple celebrate. And that is why the law, as applied to this hypothetical, should be constitutional. 

I think a much closer call would be application of the law that would force a web designer to create a gay advocacy website. I could see an argument that compelling speech to that extent may broach unconstitutional, although I still have doubts that a work for hire represents speech of the hired at all. 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Anastasis 23469]

2 hours ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Then the lenders would come crying to, you guessed it, the government. Who will in turn, you guessed it again, bail them out. All cheered on by the gop and saving those jobs and banks.

The only thing with more bipartisan support than military handouts is bank bailouts. 

[tx 3 putt 76932]

Illegitimate court …..

 

[tx 3 putt 76932]

Rage against the court ….

 

[DDD Dad 14338]

9 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

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. 

I liked the federal courts better back when they limited their intervention into actual cases and controversies rather than hypotheticals. 

Edited July 1, 2023 by DDD Dad

[Anastasis 23469]

Jimi did it better over 50 years ago. 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Anastasis

[TexEx15 17515]

 

[Pancho 44769]

 

[Satchel 6938]

I’ve never seen a more thin skinned super majority in my life 

Roberts scolds liberal justices for demonizing rulings they don't like: 'Disturbing feature' of dissent.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a warning Friday against dissenting opinions from liberal justices who demonize the high court when they disagree with its final decisions. 
 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/roberts-scolds-liberal-justices-demonizing-rulings-dont-like-disturbing-feature

His scolding came as the Supreme Court delivered a blow to the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan — which would have wiped out over $400 billion in student loan debt — ruling that it was not permitted by federal law. 

Robert's warned that it is "important that the public not be misled" about the decision in light of how liberal justices opposed it.

---

 

quote:

---

"It has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary," Roberts wrote. He said the majority came to its decision by adhering to court precedent "old and new" that "requires that Congress speak clearly before a Department Secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy."

---

 

quote:

---

"We have employed the traditional tools of judicial decision-making in doing so. Reasonable minds may disagree with our analysis — in fact, at least three do," Roberts wrote, referencing Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, who wrote the dissenting opinion. 

"We do not mistake this plainly heartfelt disagreement for disparagement," Roberts said. 

"It is important that the public not be misled either. Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country," he added. 

Roberts wrote that after Kagan argued in her dissent that the majority exceeded "the permissible boundaries of the judicial role" in its decision.

[Serak The Preparer 3431]

9 hours ago, HonkeyVape said:

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 ofq those who believe it and that they operating within those rights, per the law of the land. 

 

A series of questions to help me (and potentially others) understand your vires on when it is reasonable to discriminate due to religious beliefs:

1a) 100 years ago do you belive it was a legitimate religious belief that black people were inferior and that mixed marriages were inherantly immoral? If not, why not given that it was widely preached in churches?

1b) 100 years ago do you believe it was acceptable to discriminate against black people by denying jobs, services, etc.? Same for denying mixed marriages.

1c) 100 years ago, do you belive that the Supreme Court should have upheld a claim that it was acceptable to discriminate against black people by denying jobs, services, etc? Same for denying mixed marriages.

[JBJ 3654]

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

You keep making this about identity. This case is about discrimination based upon sexuality. I only address the specific identity of the customer to make clear that reason for denial of service has to be because of a characteristic of the customer that is in a protected class. 

The fact that you think being gay and gay marriage aren't so intertwined that rejecting the latter isn't discrimination based on sexuality (it is) speaks volumes. You're in a hate bubble and I don't think there is way to get you out. I'm confident history will look down on people with this view. 

We are literally using it the same way, identity, as in the characteristics that describe the customer.  What the person is.  Specifically, those characteristics protected by this law. Doesn't protecting these characteristics as a class also protect them as individual identities?  I don't understand your how is this broadening the language or your issue would be with it either way.

You literally can't explain what you believe or why across several pages, why try to explain someone else's postiion?  This discussion feels over. You seem disinterested and I have become so.

[Chad Fuck 17673]

 
 

Fuck man.

Fuck this fucking mother fucking fuck.




Fuck.

[Dahobbs 17534]

4 hours ago, JBJ said:

We are literally using it the same way, identity, as in the characteristics that describe the customer.  What the person is.  Specifically, those characteristics protected by this law. Doesn't protecting these characteristics as a class also protect them as individual identities?  I don't understand your how is this broadening the language or your issue would be with it either way.

You literally can't explain what you believe or why across several pages, why try to explain someone else's postiion?  This discussion feels over. You seem disinterested and I have become so.

I've explained it fine. You have an inability to understand. The law is you can't discriminate because of someone's sexuality or race. I don't know why this is hard for you. 

White power is not a characteristic of the white race. 

Marrying who you want is a characteristic intimately tied with your sexuality, and thus gay marriage is a characteristic of the sexuality of being gay. 

The fact that you believe white power and being white are analogous to gay marriage and being gay is entirely a you problem. They aren't. It doesn't follow from being white that one would believe in white power. It does follow from being gay that one would want to marry consistent with that sexuality. 

Maybe a visual representation will help. The venn diagram of white power and being white looks like a very small circle in a much larger circle (and maybe the small circle has a sliver outside the big circle). 

The venn diagram of the sexuality of being gay and gay marriage is essentially one circle. If you want to argue that some people don't believe in marriage at all, I'll give you two nearly identical circles that overlap except for a the smallest of slivers at one edge. 

Going back to your previous post, I've already said strict scrutiny isn't novel. They just didn't actually apply it in this case. I provided the proper application of strict scrutiny. Instead, the court came up with a new rule that while strict, isn't strict scrutiny. The rule is conservative Christianity wins. 

[cactusflinthead 27598]

It's started

 

[Neonmoon 38129]

Good. Fuck them. 

 

[JBJ 3654]

40 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The fact that you believe white power and being white are analogous to gay marriage and being gay is entirely a you problem. They aren't. It doesn't follow from being white that one would believe in white power. It does follow from being gay that one would want to marry consistent with that sexuality. 

Maybe a visual representation will help. The venn diagram of white power and being white looks like a very small circle in a much larger circle (and maybe the small circle has a sliver outside the big circle). 

The venn diagram of the sexuality of being gay and gay marriage is essentially one circle. If you want to argue that some people don't believe in marriage at all, I'll give you two nearly identical circles that overlap except for a the smallest of slivers at one edge. 

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

[Anastasis 23469]

52 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

It's started

 

What store is that? Hard to tell from the Facebook post wrapped in a tweet alone. 

[cactusflinthead 27598]

Just now, Anastasis said:

What store is that? Hard to tell from the Facebook post wrapped in a tweet alone. 

The first one of more to come 

[Anastasis 23469]

1 minute ago, cactusflinthead said:

The first one of more to come 

Ok, but what actual store. Or is this just memefare. 

[cactusflinthead 27598]

Dude it's a picture of a store. Make of it what you will.

[Js1 85320]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Ok, but what actual store. Or is this just memefare. 

Deciding on your next protest location? 

[Dahobbs 17534]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

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

Wow. I have to be misunderstanding your post. Otherwise, you have somehow managed to walk from one incredibly bigoted view (white power is analogous to gay marriage) to an even more bigoted view, one that was argued extensively decades ago during the height of the fight for civil rights. Your argument is that discrimination is fine because no gay person would want a bigot designing their wedding website. And really, why would a black person want to go to a restaurant operated by a racist? So, because that overlap is so small, laws restricting discrimination against blacks at restaurants, hotels, or other public places should be unconstitutional. 

I have to assume you don't actually believe what you just wrote. And that instead you have somehow missed the point of the venn diagram entirely. The venn diagram example was designed to illustrate for you the what it means for a characteristic to be innate to the protected class. Gay marriage is innate to the sexuality of being gay. White power is not innate to the race of being white. That's all I was demonstrating. 

[Nivek 16927]

10 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Rage against the court ….

 

that is some low-energy crap.  

[Celery Man 20943]

10 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Rage against the court ….

 

because Supreme Court decision is a liar sometimes

[CooterBrown 18007]

Are Muslims now free to kill infidels?

[Nivek 16927]

8 hours ago, Satchel said:

I’ve never seen a more thin skinned super majority in my life 

Extremist Roberts scolds sensible justices for demonizing rulings they don't like: 'Disturbing feature' of dissent.

Theocratic activist judge and corrupt Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a warning Friday against dissenting opinions from principled justices who rightly disagree with the corrupted court majority and their rulings on fake cases. 
 

https://www.fauxnews.com/politics/roberts-scolds-liberal-justices-demonizing-rulings-dont-like-disturbing-feature

His scolding came as the supreme court legislated from the bench against the popular Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan — which would have wiped out over $400 billion in student loan debt — ruling that somehow debt forgiveness and bailouts are suddenly not permitted by federal law. 

Robert's warned that it is "important that the public not be misled" about the decision, the same jackass that claimed the population was too stupid to understand and criticize the court, now claiming that other justices that disagree also don't understand, a common tactic of activist judges and snowflakes.

---

 

quote:

---

"It has become a disturbing feature of some recent (dissent is not a recent feature) opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary," Roberts wrote. He said the majority came to its decision by adhering to court precedent "old and new" that "requires that Congress speak clearly before a Department Secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy."

---

 

quote:

---

"We have employed the traditional tools of judicial decision-making (Ignored previous judges decision to avoid conflict of interest in favor of taking bribes and asked friends appearing before them what solution they wanted before ruling in their favor because") in doing so. Reasonable minds may disagree with our analysis — in fact, at least three do," Roberts wrote, referencing Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, who wrote the dissenting opinion. 

"We do not mistake this plainly heartfelt disagreement for disparagement," Roberts said.  Then why say it Supreme Snowflake?

"It is important that the public not be misled either. Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country," he added.  Of course, his previous claims that the public was too stupid to understand their rulings, their lies to the public, ruling against the will of the people, and support of the disenfranchisement of voters,  free luxury vacations, vanishing of debt, free homes for family members, lack of ethics, hostility towards duly elected officials asking legitimate questions, seating of a drunk and sexual predators, millions in kickbacks from 'friends' who have cases appearing before them, their snowflake attitude for being directly protested, had nothing to do with the court losing its esteem, no, it must be the dissent or the stupidity of the general public.  

Roberts wrote that after Kagan appealed to the majority justices to come to their senses and correctly argued in her dissent that the majority rightly exceeded "the permissible boundaries of the judicial role" in its decision.

Corrected.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Nivek

[Brisketexan 105119]

Corrected.

Remember “ Any man who says I am the king is no king”?
Well, any court that feels the need to say “We are not illegitimate” is indeed illegitimate.
The very fact that Roberts felt the need to make this defense reveals that it’s already too late, the ship has sailed.

[Js1 85320]

Roberts is so thin skinned, he’s see through. What a whiny baby 

[Nivek 16927]

Wait, does this mean qualified immunity is shot down?  And cops can now just be fired for failing to perform their duty like the rest of us plebs?   No more lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court? I mean what other job allows for that bullshit?  No more sacred cows right?  

Hey Lawyers, lets file some fake cases.  You can use me as your client.   I want to be a supreme court justice but the lifetime appointment sacred cow prevents me.  I am Mr. Bill S. Preston Esquire.

Fuck I need to cheer up, time for the Ukraine thread to watch russians get destroyed/rosencoptered.

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Nivek

[hobbes2702 13033]

7 hours ago, JBJ said:

We are literally using it the same way, identity, as in the characteristics that describe the customer.  What the person is.  Specifically, those characteristics protected by this law. Doesn't protecting these characteristics as a class also protect them as individual identities?  I don't understand your how is this broadening the language or your issue would be with it either way.

You literally can't explain what you believe or why across several pages, why try to explain someone else's postiion?  This discussion feels over. You seem disinterested and I have become so.

I legitimately wonder if you can read

[scottsins 1966]

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

They can’t, because they would be doing so based on the race of the prospective customer.

[scottsins 1966]

It's started
 

Cool. Of course, before this decision, it has always been legal to refuse business to someone based on being a trump supporter. Glad to see that the recent events have made it obvious to them.

[Brisketexan 105119]

Cool. Of course, before this decision, it has always been legal to refuse business to someone based on being a trump supporter. Glad to see that the recent events have made it obvious to them.

Yep. Political affiliation is not a protected class. Neither is being shirtless, or people who cuss loudly, or people who smell like dogshit. You have always been, and remain, able to refuse service to those people and kick them out of your restaurant and such.
What is new today is that now 1) you can refuse to serve a member of a class (gay people), 2) solely because they are a member of that class, and 3) your right to do so is protected because you say “muh religion says so.”
It is not a logical leap - it is actually entirely logically consistent - to apply that logical syllogism to any and all other classes.
Maybe your religious belief is (and note: every one of these is an actual religion-based belief held by some people) that Jews are Christ-killers who must be punished, black people bear the curse of Ham and are god-ordained to live apart from white people, interracial marriages defy God’s natural order, women should not be allowed to work outside the home…and we could go on. For weeks.
By this logic, a business owner could refuse to serve each of those OTHER classes and would be protected in doing so when they say “my religion requires it.”
The “only for creative endeavors” safety switch is bullshit, and Gorsuch knew it when he wrote the opinion. Damned near every good or service involves some element of creative expression (carefully assembling your burger at Chili’s, choosing specific decor for your coastal hotel, hemming your pants, etc.).
“I can’t be forced to exercise my creative vision in assembling a burger/straightening up a hotel room/sewing pants for wicked Jews/blacks/working women/abomination married couples - my religion forbids it!” That had been trotted out before, and it’s already being trotted out again and expanded, before the ink on this opinion was even dry.
There is only one truly “protected class” in this SCOTUS’s America: conservative “christians.” Every other person, class, and group is and must be subordinate to that super-class.

[cactusflinthead 27598]

23 minutes ago, scottsins said:

Cool. Of course, before this decision, it has always been legal to refuse business to someone based on being a trump supporter. Glad to see that the recent events have made it obvious to them.

This has been the case for assholes since the beginning of time.

Be nice or get out

 

[Rimbo 25922]

I have one major, major beef with the affirmative action ruling.

It happened one year too late.

The NYTimes had a guest op-ed piece that absolutely nailed it for me:

I Teach at an Elite College. Here’s a Look Inside the Racial Gaming of Admissions. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/opinion/college-admissions-affirmative-action.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

In short, Chinese people, who are hardly a favored race in the USA, were more discriminated against than any single race in affirmative action. And my son, who is half Chinese and has a Chinese surname, found himself locked out of every school he applied to, despite having a weighted gpa of 4.4, a couple swimming world records, and a state championship in marching band (of all things).

The solution is, and always has been, to provide affirmative action based on economic background, not race. This piece was just the start, but the Times' op-ed board has weighed heavily in that direction since. And they're absolutely right.

[Rimbo 25922]

3 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

It's started

 

my church flies a pride flag, so we're good

[washparkhorn 9939]