Jump to content

The Supremes

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Dahobbs

Dahobbs 18319

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Pretty sure you're wrong on this one. See, fake wedding page businesses that don't want to service fake customers have no financial repercussions for their fake stands. Real businesses aren't going to be so lucky. She may however manage to work out a scam through GoFundMe, which I expect to be up in about an hour or less. 

Also, it'll be real interesting to see this test the limits of Gorsuch's expressive goods and services. 

Here is Michigan's law on the issue. Notably, the mere posting of her Facebook message was in violation of the law. This may be another setup. 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(semjvcmlw2iw3irnr532m4pa))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-37-2302

Quote

 

ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 453 of 1976

***** 37.2302 THIS SECTION IS AMENDED EFFECTIVE 91 DAYS AFTER ADJOURNMENT OF THE 2023 REGULAR SESSION SINE DIE: See 37.2302.amended *****


37.2302 Public accommodations or services; prohibited practices.

Sec. 302.

   Except where permitted by law, a person shall not:

  (a) Deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status.

  (b) Print, circulate, post, mail, or otherwise cause to be published a statement, advertisement, notice, or sign which indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status, or that an individual's patronage of or presence at a place of public accommodation is objectionable, unwelcome, unacceptable, or undesirable because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status.


History: 1976, Act 453, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
Constitutionality: The goal of the Civil Rights Act was to broaden the scope of equal protection rather than the standard of equal protection developed by the courts in the course of interpreting the equal protection provisions of United States and Michigan Constitutions. Civil Rights Department v Waterford, 425 Mich 173; 387 NW2d 821 (1986).

 

 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 12.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Brisketexan
Brisketexan

Some people and posts above see this for the incredibly dangerous thing it is.  See the whole forest, not just the tree.  Roe is built on the bedrock of the 14th amendment and the inherent right to pr

Ghost of LL
Ghost of LL

The whole episode is pretty bad for the Court.  The leak is embarrassing.  But the decision is catastrophic. You've got a 5-4 decision to get rid of a something that has been settled as a constit

sidis
sidis

in one of the many instances in which i debunked your oversimplified, unsupported bullshit and you simply never responded, i addressed your absolutist contention that religious are more charitable tha

Posted Images

DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14648

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Lawyers with supreme court business paid Clarence Thomas aide via Venmo

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/12/clarence-thomas-aide-venmo-payments-lawyers-supreme-court

 

This is fine Meme | Meaning & History | Dictionary.com

Eh, as a former law clerk I could see how a bunch of them might pitch in funds for a party (with a current clerk being the one doing the colleting).  That said, someone needs to come forward and explain what it was for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28537

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Eh, as a former law clerk I could see how a bunch of them might pitch in funds for a party (with a current clerk being the one doing the colleting).  That said, someone needs to come forward and explain what it was for.

Or they could ghost the journalists investigating, and turn all their shit to private instead! Because what the fuck are we gonna do about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46165

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, GopherRock said:

 

https://www.vox.com/2022/6/24/23181723/roe-v-wade-dobbs-clarence-thomas-concurrence

Obergefell was one of the 14th Amendment rulings on Clarence Thomas' hit list from Dobbs. 

For sure, but I guess what I'm asking is, wouldn't it make more sense for the Texas judge to wait until obergefell is actually overturned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GopherRock

GopherRock 1773

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

For sure, but I guess what I'm asking is, wouldn't it make more sense for the Texas judge to wait until obergefell is actually overturned?

No. It sounds like this judge wants this to be the case to overturn one or more of Lawrence and Obergefell.

  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 78677

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, GopherRock said:

No. It sounds like this judge wants this to be the case to overturn one or more of Lawrence and Obergefell.


It isn’t enough for the laws to be over turned, these billionaire backers want to be the one to do it 

bought and paid for Supreme Court 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46165

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Lurch said:

Part of me wants them to do this so FAFO can fully kick in for elections to run lopsided for a while. Feels like it’s needed for any real course correction to occur

We also run the risk that it won’t sway voters the way we think it should. Granted, the early results from Dobbs are promising. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7637

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

We also run the risk that it won’t sway voters the way we think it should. Granted, the early results from Dobbs are promising. 

If they continue unopposed, it's all going to happen anyway. Normally, fascists rip rights away methodically, without generating a big enough pool of direct victims to band together and stand up against them. They hit the marginalized populations first and eliminate them before moving on. 

Our one big hope here is that this crop of assclowns is so stupid and filled with unearned hubris. They are moving very quickly and it's drawing attention that smarter fascists would be more careful to string out. 

The electoral map for dems in 2024 is atrocious. If the Supreme Court had waited until after 2024 for Dobbs, we'd have been fucked. Fortunately, they were stupid enough to announce their intentions early. 

I hope they come for everyone at once and do it now, while voters can still do something about it in 2024.

The sooner everyone realizes the existential threat the GQP fascists pose, the better. 

Edited by Pods
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46165

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Pods said:

If they continue unopposed, it's all going to happen anyway. Normally, fascist rip rights away methodically, without generating a big enough pool of direct victims to band together and stand up against them. They hit the marginalized populations first and eliminate them before moving on. 

Our one big hope here is that this crop of assclowns is so stupid and filled with unearned hubris. They are moving very quickly and it's drawing attention that smarter fascists would be more careful to string out. 

The electoral map for dems in 2024 is atrocious. If the Supreme Court had waited until after 2024 for Dobbs, we'd have been fucked. Fortunately, they were stupid enough to announce their intentions early. 

I hope they come for everyone at once and do it now, while voters can still do something about it in 2024.

The sooner everyone realizes the existential threat the GQP fascists pose, the better. 

Alright dammit I'm in!

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 22133

Posted
Posted (edited)

The slippery slope is usually a logical fallacy, but not when dealing with todays right wing. Literally everyone saw this coming. Expect at least a year of congressional hearings on Bud Light and any other company that has ever posted in support of Pride, Black History Month, etc. Does you're company have affinity support groups for women, minorities, etc.? See you in D.C. 

 

 

Senator Puts Law Firms On Notice Over DEI Work

Law360 (July 18, 2023, 1:48 PM EDT) -- In letters to 51 law firm leaders Monday, Sen. Tom Cotton contended the firms' clients' — and their own — diversity, equity and inclusion programs may be violating federal law following the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision on affirmative action in higher education.

The nation's largest and most prestigious law firms—including Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP and Greenberg Traurig LLP—received his letters, which point to a Supreme Court decision at the end of June that ended race-conscious admissions policies at U.S. colleges and universities.

"Though that case focused on colleges, the same principles and indeed the plain text of federal law also cover private employers," the letter from Cotton, R-Ark, said. "To the extent that your firm continues to advise clients regarding DEI programs or operate one of your own, both you and those clients should take care to preserve relevant documents in anticipation of investigations and litigation."

The threat comes as U.S. law firms have embraced DEI initiatives in recent years in an effort to address longtime inequities in the legal industry related to race, gender and other protected characteristics. Law firms with employment and environmental, social and governance, or ESG, departments also often advise their corporate clients on similar efforts.

Large law firms have grown their diversity departments in recent years, with the Association of Law Firm Diversity Professionals doubling its membership since 2021 to nearly 450 members today, according to the organization.

That growth comes as many in the legal industry look to change longstanding inequities.

A report in February by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association found that attorneys of diverse backgrounds in law firms represent relatively greater percentages of summer associates, but that their numbers dwindle at higher levels of the profession. For example, Black attorneys represented 10.6% of second-year summer associates, but only 5.9% of associates and 2.5% of all partners, according to the report.

Cotton contends law firm efforts to change those outcomes are now potentially illegal based on the high court decision regarding affirmative action in college admissions. He pointed to "race-based hiring quotas and benchmarks" in his letter, something he says some law firms and the corporations they represent have adopted as part of their DEI programs.

"Your firm has a duty to fully inform clients of the risks they incur by making employment decisions based on race," the letter said.

--Additional reporting by Kevin Penton. Editing by Caitlin Wolper.

Read more at: https://www.law360.com/nativeamerican/articles/1700941?nl_pk=c018a0c4-fded-4b4a-b656-d7d4634f2b51&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nativeamerican&utm_content=2023-07-19&read_main=1&nlsidx=1&nlaidx=0?copied=1

Edited by 'stache
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46165

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

The slippery slope is usually a logical fallacy, but not when dealing with todays right wing. Literally everyone saw this coming. Expect at least a year of congressional hearings on Bud Light and any other company that has ever posted in support of Pride, Black History Month, etc. Does you're company have affinity support groups for women, minorities, etc.? See you in D.C. 

 

 

Senator Puts Law Firms On Notice Over DEI Work

Law360 (July 18, 2023, 1:48 PM EDT) -- In letters to 51 law firm leaders Monday, Sen. Tom Cotton contended the firms' clients' — and their own — diversity, equity and inclusion programs may be violating federal law following the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision on affirmative action in higher education.

The nation's largest and most prestigious law firms—including Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP and Greenberg Traurig LLP—received his letters, which point to a Supreme Court decision at the end of June that ended race-conscious admissions policies at U.S. colleges and universities.

"Though that case focused on colleges, the same principles and indeed the plain text of federal law also cover private employers," the letter from Cotton, R-Ark, said. "To the extent that your firm continues to advise clients regarding DEI programs or operate one of your own, both you and those clients should take care to preserve relevant documents in anticipation of investigations and litigation."

The threat comes as U.S. law firms have embraced DEI initiatives in recent years in an effort to address longtime inequities in the legal industry related to race, gender and other protected characteristics. Law firms with employment and environmental, social and governance, or ESG, departments also often advise their corporate clients on similar efforts.

Large law firms have grown their diversity departments in recent years, with the Association of Law Firm Diversity Professionals doubling its membership since 2021 to nearly 450 members today, according to the organization.

That growth comes as many in the legal industry look to change longstanding inequities.

A report in February by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association found that attorneys of diverse backgrounds in law firms represent relatively greater percentages of summer associates, but that their numbers dwindle at higher levels of the profession. For example, Black attorneys represented 10.6% of second-year summer associates, but only 5.9% of associates and 2.5% of all partners, according to the report.

Cotton contends law firm efforts to change those outcomes are now potentially illegal based on the high court decision regarding affirmative action in college admissions. He pointed to "race-based hiring quotas and benchmarks" in his letter, something he says some law firms and the corporations they represent have adopted as part of their DEI programs.

"Your firm has a duty to fully inform clients of the risks they incur by making employment decisions based on race," the letter said.

--Additional reporting by Kevin Penton. Editing by Caitlin Wolper.

Read more at: https://www.law360.com/nativeamerican/articles/1700941?nl_pk=c018a0c4-fded-4b4a-b656-d7d4634f2b51&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nativeamerican&utm_content=2023-07-19&read_main=1&nlsidx=1&nlaidx=0?copied=1

Wonder how his coffers are going to look when he loses ALL corporate donors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29579

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Wonder how his coffers are going to look when he loses ALL corporate donors?

He won't, and even if he did, he'd still have plenty of far-right lunatic billionaire money backing him. But even if he lost all his financial support, why would he give a shit? Dems didn't even run anyone against him last time. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 78677

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

The slippery slope is usually a logical fallacy, but not when dealing with todays right wing. Literally everyone saw this coming. Expect at least a year of congressional hearings on Bud Light and any other company that has ever posted in support of Pride, Black History Month, etc. Does you're company have affinity support groups for women, minorities, etc.? See you in D.C. 

 

 

Senator Puts Law Firms On Notice Over DEI Work

Law360 (July 18, 2023, 1:48 PM EDT) -- In letters to 51 law firm leaders Monday, Sen. Tom Cotton contended the firms' clients' — and their own — diversity, equity and inclusion programs may be violating federal law following the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision on affirmative action in higher education.

The nation's largest and most prestigious law firms—including Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP and Greenberg Traurig LLP—received his letters, which point to a Supreme Court decision at the end of June that ended race-conscious admissions policies at U.S. colleges and universities.

"Though that case focused on colleges, the same principles and indeed the plain text of federal law also cover private employers," the letter from Cotton, R-Ark, said. "To the extent that your firm continues to advise clients regarding DEI programs or operate one of your own, both you and those clients should take care to preserve relevant documents in anticipation of investigations and litigation."

The threat comes as U.S. law firms have embraced DEI initiatives in recent years in an effort to address longtime inequities in the legal industry related to race, gender and other protected characteristics. Law firms with employment and environmental, social and governance, or ESG, departments also often advise their corporate clients on similar efforts.

Large law firms have grown their diversity departments in recent years, with the Association of Law Firm Diversity Professionals doubling its membership since 2021 to nearly 450 members today, according to the organization.

That growth comes as many in the legal industry look to change longstanding inequities.

A report in February by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association found that attorneys of diverse backgrounds in law firms represent relatively greater percentages of summer associates, but that their numbers dwindle at higher levels of the profession. For example, Black attorneys represented 10.6% of second-year summer associates, but only 5.9% of associates and 2.5% of all partners, according to the report.

Cotton contends law firm efforts to change those outcomes are now potentially illegal based on the high court decision regarding affirmative action in college admissions. He pointed to "race-based hiring quotas and benchmarks" in his letter, something he says some law firms and the corporations they represent have adopted as part of their DEI programs.

"Your firm has a duty to fully inform clients of the risks they incur by making employment decisions based on race," the letter said.

--Additional reporting by Kevin Penton. Editing by Caitlin Wolper.

Read more at: https://www.law360.com/nativeamerican/articles/1700941?nl_pk=c018a0c4-fded-4b4a-b656-d7d4634f2b51&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nativeamerican&utm_content=2023-07-19&read_main=1&nlsidx=1&nlaidx=0?copied=1


how is this serving his piss poor state ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3386

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, 'stache said:

The slippery slope is usually a logical fallacy, but not when dealing with todays right wing. Literally everyone saw this coming. Expect at least a year of congressional hearings on Bud Light and any other company that has ever posted in support of Pride, Black History Month, etc. Does you're company have affinity support groups for women, minorities, etc.? See you in D.C. 

 

 

Senator Puts Law Firms On Notice Over DEI Work

Law360 (July 18, 2023, 1:48 PM EDT) -- In letters to 51 law firm leaders Monday, Sen. Tom Cotton contended the firms' clients' — and their own — diversity, equity and inclusion programs may be violating federal law following the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision on affirmative action in higher education.

The nation's largest and most prestigious law firms—including Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP and Greenberg Traurig LLP—received his letters, which point to a Supreme Court decision at the end of June that ended race-conscious admissions policies at U.S. colleges and universities.

"Though that case focused on colleges, the same principles and indeed the plain text of federal law also cover private employers," the letter from Cotton, R-Ark, said. "To the extent that your firm continues to advise clients regarding DEI programs or operate one of your own, both you and those clients should take care to preserve relevant documents in anticipation of investigations and litigation."

The threat comes as U.S. law firms have embraced DEI initiatives in recent years in an effort to address longtime inequities in the legal industry related to race, gender and other protected characteristics. Law firms with employment and environmental, social and governance, or ESG, departments also often advise their corporate clients on similar efforts.

Large law firms have grown their diversity departments in recent years, with the Association of Law Firm Diversity Professionals doubling its membership since 2021 to nearly 450 members today, according to the organization.

That growth comes as many in the legal industry look to change longstanding inequities.

A report in February by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association found that attorneys of diverse backgrounds in law firms represent relatively greater percentages of summer associates, but that their numbers dwindle at higher levels of the profession. For example, Black attorneys represented 10.6% of second-year summer associates, but only 5.9% of associates and 2.5% of all partners, according to the report.

Cotton contends law firm efforts to change those outcomes are now potentially illegal based on the high court decision regarding affirmative action in college admissions. He pointed to "race-based hiring quotas and benchmarks" in his letter, something he says some law firms and the corporations they represent have adopted as part of their DEI programs.

"Your firm has a duty to fully inform clients of the risks they incur by making employment decisions based on race," the letter said.

--Additional reporting by Kevin Penton. Editing by Caitlin Wolper.

Read more at: https://www.law360.com/nativeamerican/articles/1700941?nl_pk=c018a0c4-fded-4b4a-b656-d7d4634f2b51&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nativeamerican&utm_content=2023-07-19&read_main=1&nlsidx=1&nlaidx=0?copied=1

This is probably all GQP virtue signaling, as I don't think anything has come from his prior threats to the same 51 law firms about ESG matters back in November 2022 (ESG Letters to law firms (senate.gov)).  Kinda shocked that Marsha Blackburn didn't want to ride along on this one again, given white nationalism would seem to be her jam ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28537

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

Wow, so it really and truly WAS bullshit on every possible level. She DID create a wedding website, despite the attestations of her lawyers during her description of her FALSE GODDAMN VICTIMHOOD

In 2015, a web designer named Lorie Smith featured the wedding website in her portfolio of recent work—you can still access an archived copy of Smith’s site on the Wayback Machine. But you won’t find the wedding website in Smith’s live online portfolio anymore. The page detailing her role in the wedding website’s creation was removed some time before she filed a legal challenge—one that claimed she was unable to enter the wedding website business because Colorado’s anti-discrimination law would compel her to create same-sex wedding websites. The wedding website Smith made before she filed her case—and highlighted in a portfolio on her own site—is being reported for the first time in The New Republic. 

In her suit against the state of Colorado, which spanned nearly seven years and made it all the way to the Supreme Court, Smith and her attorneys with the Christian nationalist law project Alliance Defending Freedom, or ADF, argued that she was barred from creating wedding websites due to the state’s anti-discrimination law. “Ms. Smith’s speech has been chilled,” one of her attorneys told the Supreme Court when it heard her case, 303 Creative v. Elenis, in December 2022. “For six years, she has been unable to speak in the marketplace.” On June 30, Smith prevailed, and the court’s decision was celebrated across conservative media and by anti-LGBTQ activists. Yet it appears—and not for the first time in this case—that a basic fact that was used to build a narrative of Smith’s victimhood was not adequately tested.

...

In another filing, “ADF suggested that Colorado put Smith in an impossible position,” Redburn explained. If Smith wanted to create and sell wedding websites, according to ADF’s logic, she had a few options. She could express what she believed by making wedding websites only for straight weddings and be penalized for violating civil rights law. She could express something that she didn’t believe—that same-sex weddings were legitimate—in order to adhere to the law. She could say nothing and not make wedding websites at all. 

But the discovery of the destination wedding website “could seriously undermine that story by revealing a fourth option,” Redburn said. It is now clear that Smith had, in fact, built a wedding website and advertised that work on her own website without, it appears, any of the adverse consequences she and her attorneys said could follow. 

“She claimed that she was ready to speak about marriage, but the government was getting in the way,” Redburn told me. “It looks like she did speak about marriage as she wished, and Colorado didn’t try to stop her.” 

Edited by Captainant
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottsins

scottsins 2047

Posted
Posted
Not surprising in the least... The "Praying Coach" case (church and state issue from earlier this year) didn't seem to think that facts mattered either.

The actual legally relevant fact issue would be whether she made a wedding website after the new law went into effect. The “never ever made one” claim wasn’t only patently false, but not even needed to support her claim.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...