The Supremes

[The Dog 44093]

 

[Gourmand 7774]

More from the Kagan dissent: In her view, the text of the HEROES Act makes clear that the plan is legal. "The statute provides the Secretary with broad authority to give emergency relief to student-loan borrowers, including by altering usual discharge rules. What the Secretary did fits comfortably within that delegation. But the Court forbids him to proceed. As in other cases, the rules of the game change when Congress enacts broad delegations allowing agencies to take substantial regulatory measures."

 

Kagan accuses her colleagues in the majority of usurping the role of Congress and the executive branch in making policy. Congress authorized the plan, the Biden administration adopted it, and Biden "would have been accountable for its success or failure. But this Court today decides that some 40 million Americans will not receive the benefits the plan provides, because (so says the Court) that assistance is too significant."

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

9 minutes ago, JBJ said:

But the fact that a case is manufactured is not a reason to dismiss it.

This is so dumb my brain hurts. Courts on their own (or sua sponte if you want the magic Latin phrase) can make determinations on jurisdiction at every appellate level 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Pig Bellmont

[Js1 85493]

4 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Fucking lulz John

[Dahobbs 17644]

1 minute ago, Pig Bellmont said:

This is so dumb my brain hurts. Counts on their own (or sua sponte if you want the magic Latin phrase) can make determinations on jurisdiction at every appellate level 

Yes, a manufactured controversy destroys standing.  

[SimonBolivar 10958]

3 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

They're trying to get the message out as fast as possible

Quote

Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia joined a chorus of Democrats attacking the court’s student loan ruling. “The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the targeted student loan forgiveness program hurts millions of Americans and our economy,” he said in a statement. “I remain committed to easing the burden of student debt, lowering the costs of higher education and expanding access to post-secondary education.”

 

[Captainant 27723]

13 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I read that backwards.  Lower courts decide what the facts of the case are, so they CAN dismiss a case if they think the facts and law don't line up.  The Appellate courts can't really change the factual findings from the lower court.  But the fact that a case is manufactured is not a reason to dismiss it.

Wow, thanks for the answer but that's fucking crazy. If a lower court finds the sky is yellow and the sun is blue, and the supreme court affirms it, then all courts must abide by it? 

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Also, I'm just flummoxed how this Court continually just blows by the usual analysis applied when restricting rights in other contexts. Compelling government interest anyone?  

It’s blatantly choosing a political outcome and then retrofitting some bullshit. The Supreme Court has become ran by activist judges going against the will of Congress, the executive, and Americans. It’s become the very thing Rush Limbaugh and AM radio hosts hyperventilated about (in bad faith) 30 years ago. 

[jimmyjazz 46055]

OK, refresh my memory.  I thought the original "gay wedding cake" ruling was a clever application of protected class (sex/gender) as a proxy to sexuality, which was NOT a protected class?  i.e., you can't discriminate against Steve & Bill because one of them is not a woman, not because they're gay, which didn't have the legal standing at the time.

Now I read up on protected classes and I see sexuality referenced often.  Is this just a poorly defined concept at the Federal level, are state definitions being rolled in, did sexuality get added to the group of protected classes more recently?

I agree that, if sexuality is a recognized protected classes that has been blown up by this decision, it opens the door to massive amounts of discrimination of all kinds.

Edited June 30, 2023 by jimmyjazz

[Dahobbs 17644]

Just now, Captainant said:

Wow, thanks for the answer but that's fucking crazy. If a lower court finds the sky is yellow and the sun is blue, and the supreme court affirms it, then all courts must abide by it? 

First, @JBJ is simply wrong on the law. Second, in your hypothetical, at least for the specific case you're referencing, pretty much yes. But, if that same case gets remanded back to the lower court, that court could do additional fact finding and change the result. It really just depends on the specific procedural posture of the case. 

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

Don’t worry guys- I’m sure the 6 justices will get to occupy some empty seats on private jets soon for being good pets

[kevwun 15842]

The Court did the same thing to FDR and even he couldn't push expanding the court through.  Too many old members of Congress will oppose it.

[Dahobbs 17644]

1 minute ago, kevwun said:

The Court did the same thing to FDR and even he couldn't push expanding the court through.  Too many old members of Congress will oppose it.

Death Note it is then. 

[Pancho 44940]

So wait…

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

 

[Js1 85493]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

did sexuality get added to the group of protected classes more recently?

Didn’t Gorsuch write that damn opinion too?  

[Brisketexan 105212]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, a manufactured controversy destroys standing.  

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

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

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

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

"Muh Religion!"

[BrickHorn 18262]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Congress.

Actually governing.

And then, actually governing with the best interests of the people in mind.

 

That will never, ever, ever, ever happen again.  Not as long as the GQP exists.

 

9 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

You mean the Congress where one body is controlled by right wing insurrectionists? LOL

Yeah I get it. Congress is full of rightwing assholes. This Congress won’t do the right thing. I don’t disagree at all and I’m no less frustrated by it.

But the solution isn’t to shift more power into the hands of the presidency, even though that would be expedient at the present moment. The solution is to do the hard work through elections and lobbying to get Congress to pass helpful laws.

That’s how our system is supposed to work. Republicans have been better at it than we have. But I can’t get on board with ditching the entire concept of separation of powers based on nothing more than a childish “BUT I WANT IT NOW AND THEY WONT GIVE IT TO ME!” reaction. Whatever instant gratification we gain will not be worth the bullshit it enables the next GOP administration to impose on their evil whim. 

tl;dr: think long term. 

[SimonBolivar 10958]

2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Don’t worry guys- I’m sure the 6 justices will get to occupy some empty seats on private jets soon for being good pets

If the Ds can't successfully juxtapose the student loan debt relief with the recent hit pieces on the conservative justices accepting handouts (regardless of legal reasonings on the student loan relief) then we deserve the country we're getting.

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Now I read up on protected classes and I see sexuality referenced often.  Is this just a poorly defined concept at the Federal level, are state definitions being rolled in, did sexuality get added to the group of protected classes more recently?

Gorsuch, ironically enough, wrote the opinion stating Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964 applies to protecting against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation 

[Mdhorn 5978]

14 hours ago, YGIFS said:

Whuh?  I don't think that second pic means what you think it means.  

As TwiceHorn points out, the cold comfort from this is that there are already admissions vetting that can get racial information within 90%+ accuracy without directly asking for it.  And i suspect it will get even more accurate in the wake of this decision.  There've been some applications I've read where you couldn't really discern the ethnicity if you were looking to do that for diversity or scholarship purposes.  Generic sounding name, diverse high school in big suburb with all kinds of races represented, no mention of anything like "Asian Coding Club" or "Blacks in STEM" or anything like that.  But one of the cliche essay questions on every college application nationwide, "Describe a challenge you've had growing up and how you are working to overcome it."  Boom, that's the big reveal.  Parents immigrating from other country, being discriminated against based on skin color, language barriers, etc.  It's all there.  

I've had white parents complain to me about certain alumni scholarships going to Female from the RGV or Black Male from Metroplex who pledge to major in Education or social work or whatever for $10k a year.  Same canned response, "It's a named scholarship awarded by a 501c3, not UT.  If they want to fund a left-handed chess grandmaster to major in clarinet while playing club tennis...it's their money.  We just steward it for them and interview the kids.  That's it."  But I bet this decision will be used to further erode efforts to give ethnically or geographically specific scholarships down the road.  

This isn't like the Roe decision, where a lot of women in a lot of states are literally shit out of luck based on time, geography, and money.  There is a proven system for working around this kinda stuff.  The applicants and admissions committees just have to work a bit harder is all.  Good news is if they're smart, determined, and well intended...they'll get their shot.  There are rooms all over this country filled with people who will figure out how to work around this.     

I've had white students complain in class about more scholarships and preferential enrollment treatment being given to minority students.  A quick look around the class room and there are no minority students was my only response--didn't say a word.  Really, this is an argument that is entirely parent based that the student coopted, but I still hear it on occasion, and it usually comes from political science majors. I would be interested to see the minority stats for students that intern on the hill--where they can afford DC rent and tuition with little to no income.    

I always keep politics out of class, so it's never a discussion.  

[Brisketexan 105212]

6 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

 

Yeah I get it. Congress is full of rightwing assholes. This Congress won’t do the right thing. I don’t disagree at all and I’m no less frustrated by it.

But the solution isn’t to shift more power into the hands of the presidency, even though that would be expedient at the present moment. The solution is to do the hard work through elections and lobbying to get Congress to pass helpful laws.

That’s how our system is supposed to work. Republicans have been better at it than we have. But I can’t get on board with ditching the entire concept of separation of powers based on nothing more than a childish “BUT I WANT IT NOW AND THEY WONT GIVE IT TO ME!” reaction. Whatever instant gratification we gain will not be worth the bullshit it enables the next GOP administration to impose on their evil whim. 

tl;dr: think long term. 

There is no long-term anymore.

It doesn't matter what the Dems do.  The Senate is and will remain a hard block against any Dem legislation for the rest of our lives, and the rest of our children's lives.  Then, on the occasions when the GQP captures the House, the GQP will rush through as much awful legislation that it can (none of it actually "governing," and certainly none in the interest of actual ordinary citizens) until it loses a few seats.  Then the GQP will bide its time until the next time it has +1 in the House.  But no worries, in the MEANTIME, the Calvinball Court will be making new, and awful, law faster than that goddamned Lucille Ball show candy machine.

We are irreparably broken.  There is no fixing it.

[JBJ 3664]

21 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

A major business should implement a policy that it will no longer provide services to white men based upon religious belief. Americans need to see the disastrous consequences of this Court's rulings. And this Court needs to be held accountable for its shoddy reasoning. Packing the Court should be job #1, #2, and #3 for Democrats. 

Should a black business be forced to create a website about "white power?"  Should any business be required by law to do that?  You don't really understand the downstream effects of what you are arguing for.

[GopherRock 1765]

10 minutes ago, kevwun said:

The Court did the same thing to FDR and even he couldn't push expanding the court through.  Too many old members of Congress will oppose it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

 

Politically motivated or not, had the Court struck down the minimum wage law in that case, the 1937 Judiciary Act would have expanded the Court then. 

[David Dennison 18944]

 

[Js1 85493]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Should a black business be forced to create a website about "white power?"  Should any business be required by law to do that?  You don't really understand the downstream effects of what you are arguing for.

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

 

 

 

yet

Edited June 30, 2023 by Js1

[jimmyjazz 46055]

6 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Should a black business be forced to create a website about "white power?"  Should any business be required by law to do that?  You don't really understand the downstream effects of what you are arguing for.

A public accommodation?  Yes, on its face, I would say so.  Now, what white power customer is going to want to patronize a "Black" business?  

 

EDIT:  actually, I think @Js1 has the right angle.  The discrimination wouldn't be on the basis of race, but racist messaging by the customer.  I rescind my answer.  Maybe.

Edited June 30, 2023 by jimmyjazz

[Foosters 17867]

6 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Should a black business be forced to create a website about "white power?"  Should any business be required by law to do that?  You don't really understand the downstream effects of what you are arguing for.

Wait, aren't you supposed to be a lawyer?

[Brisketexan 105212]

5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Should a black business be forced to create a website about "white power?"  Should any business be required by law to do that?  You don't really understand the downstream effects of what you are arguing for.

If you think this new "standard" will be applied to protect any position but 1) white 2) "christian," you haven't been paying attention.

Your bought-and-paid-for fundamentalist, white supremacist court will tell you what to do, and how to do (or not to do) it, and you'll take it.

When the Chief Justice feels compelled to actually write - not just think, but write - that "hey now, the institution is just fine, and we're not broken at all, don't read our dissents that way," that is a 100% tell that the institution is in fact irreparably broken.  It's the equivalent of a woman telling you through pursed lips that she's "fine."  It means the exact fucking opposite.

[JBJ 3664]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

A public accommodation?  Yes, on its face, I would say so.  Now, what white power customer is going to want to patronize a "Black" business?  

 

EDIT:  actually, I think @Js1 has the right angle.  The discrimination wouldn't be on the basis of race, but racist messaging by the customer.  I rescind my answer.  Maybe.

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

Edited June 30, 2023 by JBJ

[APMP 688]

Sotomayor's dissent in 303 Creative is exceptional. The majority opinion is depressing, doubly so because like a bunch of others here I'm a lawyer that took an oath to uphold the constitution this Court is treating like a piñata.

Here's hoping that in the not too distant future, a law clerk finds Sotomayor's dissent late in the night and quotes it in an opinion overturning this garbage.

[Js1 85493]

Just now, APMP said:

Sotomayor's dissent in 303 Creative is exceptional. The majority opinion is depressing, doubly so because like a bunch of others here I'm a lawyer that took an oath to uphold the constitution this Court is treating like a piñata.

Here's hoping that in the not too distant future, a law clerk finds Sotomayor's dissent late in the night and quotes it in an opinion overturning this garbage.

I know people want her to step down bc of her diabetes, but damn, she is fire with her dissents. Please stay on the court 

[YGIFS 19452]

From the Dept. of some good news.  UT's new Forty Acres Scholars cohort was announced earlier this week.  This is the flagship scholarship program and many students often are choosing between this package and Stanford, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, NYU, and some Ivies.  Beyond qualified, in a whole other stratosphere of the caliber of students we were talking about earlier.  They are chosen on dozens of factors, one of which is will they be a good face for the program with donors, corporate partners, alumni, et. al.  Take a look at the faces, the names, the high schools...you may notice a lack of representation from one horribly oppressed group.  It was their accomplishments that got them in that finalist interview room.  The ones who actually win all that money and experience...in the end?  It's the ones who just wanted it more:

https://www.texasexes.org/scholarships/news/forty-acres-scholars-program-class-2027-announced?utm_campaign=FY24+FASP+Newsletter+June+2023&utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Forty+Acres+Scholars+Program+Class+of+2027&utm_term=20230630_11912539_317567977

[Dahobbs 17644]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

Should a black business be forced to create a website about "white power?"  Should any business be required by law to do that?  You don't really understand the downstream effects of what you are arguing for.

No, it is you that doesn't understand. There is no law, zippo, zero, that mandates a business has to provide services to absolutely everyone. There is no law that says a business must provide services to white power activist. Instead, both federal and state laws that do exist say: you can't discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or national origin. Denying someone services to create a "white power" website is not a denial based on any of those things. Denying services to a gay couple celebrating their wedding absolutely is. 

The true downstream effects for what this Court has done are: on basis of religion, a business can deny access to pretty much anyone it wants, and there is apparently no compelling government interest that allows the government to prevent that. 

 

[David Dennison 18944]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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

Clarence Thomas says, "What?"

Edited June 30, 2023 by David Dennison

[6th Street 6476]

Student loan forgiveness is backward looking and does absolutely nothing to address the rising cost of higher education. Zero benefit to anyone going to college in the next decade. 
 

Much better use of funds would be to heavily subsidize 2-year programs at community college to give those kids a chance at transferring and graduating with a 4-year degree. 

[jimmyjazz 46055]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

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

I am so not a lawyer, but I see a possible disconnect here.  If that business has historically, provably and currently served white customers, I'm not thinking I would agree.  I doubt that holds sway with the courts defining law, though.

But, I would ask:  what if the customer who wants a "white power" website is Black?  How would that be a race-based discrimination if the business refused the work?

[Dahobbs 17644]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

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

No, no it isn't. That's ridiculous. It isn't because of race, it is because of the hateful message. Those are not the same thing unless you believe all white people inherently believe in white power I suppose. 

[JBJ 3664]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

If you think this new "standard" will be applied to protect any position but 1) white 2) "christian," you haven't been paying attention.

Your bought-and-paid-for fundamentalist, white supremacist court will tell you what to do, and how to do (or not to do) it, and you'll take it.

When the Chief Justice feels compelled to actually write - not just think, but write - that "hey now, the institution is just fine, and we're not broken at all, don't read our dissents that way," that is a 100% tell that the institution is in fact irreparably broken.  It's the equivalent of a woman telling you through pursed lips that she's "fine."  It means the exact fucking opposite.

My point is the government shouldn't compel speech against the conscientious of the person.  I understand there are negatives behind this.   The alternative is worse for me.  If you understand what you are asking for and still disagree, that's fine.   I don't think most people do.

[Js1 85493]

[Dahobbs 17644]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

My point is the government shouldn't compel speech against the conscientious of the person.  I understand there are negatives behind this.   The alternative is worse for me.  If you understand what you are asking for and still disagree, that's fine.   I don't think most people do.

Your point is nonsense because it is built on a false premise. If there was a government law that said: "You must write whatever your customer tells you to write" then you might have a point. The problem of course is that such a law wouldn't have a valid compelling government interest and so wouldn't stand up to strict scrutiny. We don't need the "protection" that the court just provided. Not unless you're a bigot who wants to be free to be bigoted. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Js1 85493]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Your point is nonsense because it is built on a false premise

So it’ll be part of next year’s docket? 

[David Dennison 18944]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

My point is the government shouldn't compel speech against the conscientious of the person.  I understand there are negatives behind this.   The alternative is worse for me.  If you understand what you are asking for and still disagree, that's fine.   I don't think most people do.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't call out that particular brand of conscientiousness as bigotry disguised as religious freedom.

[BrickHorn 18262]

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There is no long-term anymore.

It doesn't matter what the Dems do.  The Senate is and will remain a hard block against any Dem legislation for the rest of our lives, and the rest of our children's lives.  Then, on the occasions when the GQP captures the House, the GQP will rush through as much awful legislation that it can (none of it actually "governing," and certainly none in the interest of actual ordinary citizens) until it loses a few seats.  Then the GQP will bide its time until the next time it has +1 in the House.  But no worries, in the MEANTIME, the Calvinball Court will be making new, and awful, law faster than that goddamned Lucille Ball show candy machine.

We are irreparably broken.  There is no fixing it.

Jesus. Relax. Have a drink. Or maybe stop drinking. We all know the GOP sucks. But a beneficent tyrant is not the fucking solution, dude.

[sidis 9832]

52 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

I haven’t followed this closely but, at a high level, I’m kind of okay with the message that the President can’t forgive federal loan debt without authorization from Congress. Modern presidents have too much unilateral authority as it is. 

I’m in favor of student loan forgiveness (and generally more fully subsidizing higher education). So let’s lobby Congress to pass a law to that effect.  

 

31 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

 

Yeah I get it. Congress is full of rightwing assholes. This Congress won’t do the right thing. I don’t disagree at all and I’m no less frustrated by it.

But the solution isn’t to shift more power into the hands of the presidency, even though that would be expedient at the present moment. The solution is to do the hard work through elections and lobbying to get Congress to pass helpful laws.

That’s how our system is supposed to work. Republicans have been better at it than we have. But I can’t get on board with ditching the entire concept of separation of powers based on nothing more than a childish “BUT I WANT IT NOW AND THEY WONT GIVE IT TO ME!” reaction. Whatever instant gratification we gain will not be worth the bullshit it enables the next GOP administration to impose on their evil whim. 

tl;dr: think long term. 

100% agree with brickhorn and the actual underlying thinking from the ussc on this one.  unlike his asinine opinions related to prince's abilities as a guitarist, he nailed this one imo.  accepting the premise that higher education has become obscenely discriminatory and punitive over the last three decades, it is undoubtedly a serious crisis.  however...

the arbitrary and unilateral movement here is just so material and has legitimate objectors with compelling cases.  this is one that is not black and white in terms of "doing the right thing" when viewed objectively.  of course people burdened by student loans are feeling crushed by interest rates. but so were the people before them and the people after them.  the person that paid their $100K loan off fully after 20 years and it just happened to be in 2019 has a legitimate inequity gripe...had the person simply repudiated the loan contract instead of performing, they would have been released from the obligation randomly because the president felt like it.  moreover, after having paid their's off, now they are, as a taxpayer, contributing to paying someone else's off.  people arguing that someone was uniquely impacted by the covid economy were also granted a very long interest holiday.  

i don't raise these arguments to advocate for one side or another...just to point out that there is a bit of antagonism and inequity in the application of a unilateral movement by a single person's desire with half a trilion dollars of impact.  the materiality and significance to the overall nation and its economy rise to the level of needing to be decided and instituted by legislative process.  the issue should become engaged by society and a centerpiece of voting.  make it a question for the primaries and the elections.  congressman, where do you stand on a specific package of student debt relief.  that way, the people have a voice in it and advocates on both sides of the argument can vote with their feet.  giving the power to the president to just wake up one day and say meh, let's spend half a trillion dollars today that benefits a targeted segment of the population to the detriment of others is similar to having the president be able to say hey, i woke up today and i want to invade iraq.  wait...

 

as for the 303-elenis case, congrats to bigots everywhere!  you can finally now discriminate against the people you hate so much because a greek guy wrote some stupid shit he was thinking down a couple thousand years ago.  it's really time for alito, thomas, and gorsuch to make a trip to big bend.  they are genuinely such terrible, terrible fucking scumbags whose hypocrisy knows no bounds and whose shame is nonexistent.

Edited June 30, 2023 by sidis

[JBJ 3664]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I am so not a lawyer, but I see a possible disconnect here.  If that business has historically, provably and currently served white customers, I'm not thinking I would agree.  I doubt that holds sway with the courts defining law, though.

But, I would ask:  what if the customer who wants a "white power" website is Black?  How would that be a race-based discrimination if the business refused the work?

You can apply all the same hypotheticals to this case:

What if website has a history of discriminating against gay customers broadly?  Well that changes the facts of the case signifcantly, doesn't it?

What if the customer wasn't gay?  It probably wouldn't be class-based discrimination under COs law, but I'm not like super familiar with it.  The government still can't compel the speech because first amendment.

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

21 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Should a black business be forced to create a website about "white power?"  Should any business be required by law to do that?  You don't really understand the downstream effects of what you are arguing for.

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

[sidis 9832]

20 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Should a black business be forced to create a website about "white power?"  Should any business be required by law to do that?  You don't really understand the downstream effects of what you are arguing for.

i have read enough of your posts to realize that you are too informed to actually believe this false equivalence is remotely relevant to the discussion.  i am left wondering why you would post it.

[Dahobbs 17644]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

You can apply all the same hypotheticals to this case:

What if website has a history of discriminating against gay customers broadly?  Well that changes the facts of the case signifcantly, doesn't it?

What if the customer wasn't gay?  It probably wouldn't be class-based discrimination under COs law, but I'm not like super familiar with it.  The government still can't compel the speech because first amendment.

Refusing to write "white power" is not a discrimination based upon race. Refusing to provide a website for a gay couple celebrating their wedding is discrimination based upon sexuality. That you think these are the same thing says a ton about you. 

[JBJ 3664]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Your point is nonsense because it is built on a false premise. If there was a government law that said: "You must write whatever your customer tells you to write" then you might have a point. The problem of course is that such a law wouldn't have a valid compelling government interest and so wouldn't stand up to strict scrutiny. We don't need the "protection" that the court just provided. Not unless you're a bigot who wants to be free to be bigoted. 

There not a false premise here.  The government is compelling speech in both scenarios. What do.you.believe is the legal distinction between your hypothetical and this case. That the government should compel speech some speech only?

[scottsins 1969]

100 percent businesses will now go full scorched earth and refuse to work with Muslims, Catholics, Jews, etc. Some will refuse Blacks entry and cite that decision. 

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

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