SCOTUS rules website designer does not have to design for a gay couple.

[The Hammer]

I notice you made no attempt to explain how your claim is true. So you gave me no chance to understand what you think.

I’m not sure what “religious about their religion” means. At face value, meaning I’m not making any assumptions or guesses, this is an obscure and evasive statement.

People who are serious about their religious views, have religious leanings, and actually observe their religion are "religious about religion".

ie a person is not religious by choice but because they are religious. Just like atheism isn't really a choice but typically a person's default position.

 

[Alien826]

Supreme Court rules for website designer in case involving free speech, LGBTQ+ protections​

They did this by deciding that designing a website constitutes "speech." But I wonder, if the site is for somebody else, how can it be your speech? Are you not merely performing a technical activity to present someone else's speech on a technology that they may not have the skills to use?

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the SCOTUS makes decisions based on a logical interpretation of the Constitution. Unfortunately that went out of the window some time ago.

 

[Revoltingest]

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the SCOTUS makes decisions based on a logical interpretation of the Constitution. Unfortunately that went out of the window some time ago.

Was it ever consistently based upon the Constitution?
I don't know that it's worsened. But I speculate that
it seems so because passions of the moment tend to
supersede memory of past events.

 

[fantome profane]

You know, there's something wildly suspicious about this particular case -- the suit was brought by someone who -- while not actually ever having created a wedding website -- claimed that she wanted to start but was afraid she might be compelled to provide services to same-sex couples.

SHE HAS NEVER CREATED SUCH A WEBSITE -- THIS IS A 100% HYPOTHETICAL!

And, as she says, "I've wanted to do this for 7 years, but now I can actually start." Are we being conned here? Let's watch and see if she ever does set up such a site.

I don’t understand how a case like that could even get up to the Supreme Court. If what you say in true there is no case. No one was violating her rights, no one was asking her to do something she didn’t want to do.

This should have been rejected by a lower court the second it was filed, and her lawyer sanctioned for wasting the courts time.

 

[Alien826]

Yes & yes.
Practically speaking, each will find someone to
do the work. So the extreme measure of having
government compel speech is more onerous
than having to find an alternate service provider.

There is the principle of a "public accommodation" though. Briefly, if you are offering a service to the public, it has to be available to all the public.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Was it ever consistently based upon the Constitution?
I don't know that it's worsened. But I speculate that
it seems so because passions of the moment tend to
supersede memory of past events.

And that (read your own words again) is how you find yourself on the path to fascism. Sadly, I have to suppose that this is just a part of the human condition. We can be, individually, not bad -- but let us get into groups of "like-minded folks," and we can lynch innocents and cast our neighbours under the proverbial bus. Usually because we've been whipped up by some demagogue or other -- but in this era of the internet and social media, we're getting less and less capable of even being that "not bad" individual that we once could be.

 

[Alien826]

Was it ever consistently based upon the Constitution?
I don't know that it's worsened. But I speculate that
it seems so because passions of the moment tend to
supersede memory of past events.

Probably not. Even the best intentions, things happen today that were never envisioned when the Constitution was written. But don't you think that's all gone away when we can reliably predict how certain members of the court will decide in certain subjects?

 

[F1fan]

People who are serious about their religious views, have religious leanings, and actually observe their religion are "religious about religion".

So "religious" being synonymous with fervent, passionate, or even extreme?

ie a person is not religious by choice but because they are religious. Just like atheism isn't really a choice but typically a person's default position.

Which suggests that basic religious assumptions come as social indoctrination, much the way that acquiring a society's language is learned. It's all adopted because it has a certain utility. I would suggest religion isn't a necessity like language is since, as we all observe, many people might say they believe in God even though they aren't religious. And of course atheists existing and thriving is most societies.

 

[F1fan]

You know, there's something wildly suspicious about this particular case -- the suit was brought by someone who -- while not actually ever having created a wedding website -- claimed that she wanted to start but was afraid she might be compelled to provide services to same-sex couples.

SHE HAS NEVER CREATED SUCH A WEBSITE -- THIS IS A 100% HYPOTHETICAL!

And, as she says, "I've wanted to do this for 7 years, but now I can actually start." Are we being conned here? Let's watch and see if she ever does set up such a site.

The reporting I read was that her case was aided and funded by Christian nationalists.

I don't understand why she would not be able to di wedding website since the number of gay couples would not be significant. I think we are being conned. The case should never have been accepted.

 

[Alien826]

McConnell was responsible for two of them. We need reform on SC nominees (a bipartisan committee) and confirmation (minimum of 60 votes), and term limits.

Yes, and that's a lot more likely than constitutional amendments, as the Government has full power to determine how the SC is constituted and elected.

I would like to see some non political body deciding who should on the SC but I'm not sure where that would come from. The makeup of a bipartisan committee would still be determined politically I fear.

I'd favor term limits that gave each President (or Presidential term) one nomination, coupled with automatic confirmation.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Can an evangelical doctor also refuse to perform a life-saving abortion based on personal beliefs? Per this ruling, would it be "compelled speech" for them to perform it?

I like ro think if one doesn't do it, another one will.

It's that autonomy that needs to be protected, not one or the other.

 

[The Hammer]

So "religious" being synonymous with fervent, passionate, or even extreme?

Sure if you think lumping passion with extremism is ok, which is what it seems you aim to do here.

But I would say that's a false comparison.

 

[The Hammer]

Which suggests that basic religious assumptions come as social indoctrination, much the way that acquiring a society's language is learned. It's all adopted because it has a certain utility. I would suggest religion isn't a necessity like language is since, as we all observe, many people might say they believe in God even though they aren't religious. And of course atheists existing and thriving is most societies.

Well yes, social religious people exist, those that do it purely for social obligations are probably not a minority.

But that does not discount the views of other believers, or believers in general.

 

[F1fan]

Sure if you think lumping passion with extremism is ok, which is what it seems you aim to do here

I cited levels of passion, with extremism being a real category within religions, and are very passionate folks. I see no problem with Christian extremists being included those who are religious about their religion. The door was left open for the forum to guess. If believers remain vague we critics rely on our observations.

But I would say that's a false comparison.

Then I invite your correction of my error.

 

[The Hammer]

I cited levels of passion, with extremism being a real category within religions, and are very passionate folks. I see no problem with Christian extremists being included those who are religious about their religion. The door was left open for the forum to guess. If believers remain vague we critics rely on our observations.

Then I invite your correction of my error.

Nah.

I was never here to debate. Just clarify something for someone else. Good day

 

[F1fan]

Yes, and that's a lot more likely than constitutional amendments, as the Government has full power to determine how the SC is constituted and elected.

I would like to see some non political body deciding who should on the SC but I'm not sure where that would come from. The makeup of a bipartisan committee would still be determined politically I fear.

No doubt. My remedy would be a democrats pick 4 republicans and republicans pick 4 democrats, and these 8 work to screen nominees.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is the principle of a "public accommodation" though. Briefly, if you are offering a service to the public, it has to be available to all the public.

Such are laws called into constitutional
question regarding compelled speech.

 

[Revoltingest]

And that (read your own words again) is how you find yourself on the path to fascism. Sadly, I have to suppose that this is just a part of the human condition. We can be, individually, not bad -- but let us get into groups of "like-minded folks," and we can lynch innocents and cast our neighbours under the proverbial bus. Usually because we've been whipped up by some demagogue or other -- but in this era of the internet and social media, we're getting less and less capable of even being that "not bad" individual that we once could be.

Remember this episode?
The Monsters Are On Maple Street.

 

[Revoltingest]

Probably not. Even the best intentions, things happen today that were never envisioned when the Constitution was written. But don't you think that's all gone away when we can reliably predict how certain members of the court will decide in certain subjects?

The Constitution has been & can be amended.
And we should have better quality justices.
But my idea of "quality" is ruling based on
the Constitution, a philosophy that many
people oppose.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Remember this episode?
The Monsters Are On Maple Street.

The video wasn't available in Canada, but I know the episode -- one of the best.