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

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't really see what the point of this was, if it's a hoax of some sort, as they ruled in the favor of the baker who didn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding. This is basically the same thing. And, no - that other one didn't strike down anti-discrimination laws, either. I don't see how it would, as those are two different issues. One is refusing to create a product because you find the product offensive or unconscionable, the other is refusing any service to someone due to (perceived) attributes. The former is what is addressed by the Supreme Court rulings and the latter is what the anti-discrimination laws address.

 

[Revoltingest]

She is religious and didn't want to do any work for anyone/anything that as agaist her religious beliefs.

I'm highly skeptical of that interpretation
because it's about discriminating against
people for who they are, not about what's
asked of the business.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yep. This is what my post #113 was about. The original New Republic breaking story is linked to there. It is referenced in your Democracy Now source.

Thank you! I don't know how I missed your post, but it is excellent -- you did a better job than I did.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't really see what the point of this was, if it's a hoax of some sort, as they ruled in the favor of the baker who didn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding. This is basically the same thing. And, no - that other one didn't strike down anti-discrimination laws, either. I don't see how it would, as those are two different issues. One is refusing to create a product because you find the product offensive or unconscionable, the other is refusing any service to someone due to (perceived) attributes. The former is what is addressed by the Supreme Court rulings and the latter is what the anti-discrimination laws address.

The point is that the Supreme Court didn't actually strike down the law, so this second pass was to further constrict it, but not because of the religion issue. This time, it's "free speech". I don't think they yet have enough of the 6-person supermajority to actually cancel out the entire law. Generally speaking, the Court is rolling back precedents piece-by-piece, but they are shocks to the system of civil rights protections that have been built up over decades. The important thing about the hoax side is that there were no actual people involved who had been discriminated against. The plaintiff had not actually discriminated against anyone yet. So there were no victims of discrimination to present their side of the story. It was a setup. That's why there is a case and controversy clause in the Constitution to prevent such advisory rulings from federal courts. But this one wasn't technically a prohibited advisory ruling, because there was a named victim. Except that the victim wasn't actually a victim. It was bogus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What can I say. It was a 6-3 decision. I swear, if there was one less conservative on the Supreme Court all of them would do a lot more thinking before they made their decisions.

Really?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really?

Yes, the explosion of terrible decisions did not occur until it hit the 6-3 point. The court is becoming almost a conservative echo chamber. When it comes to making people see reason it is going to be a more than twice as hard to convince two people to follow their oath than just one.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What can I say. It was a 6-3 decision. I swear, if there was one less conservative on the Supreme Court all of them would do a lot more thinking before they made their decisions.

Really?

Yes, really! If you already know you're going to win, you don't need to work nearly so hard to defend your position.

I'll tell you, I can really understand (and viscerally feel) Justice Sotomayor's written dissent, agreed to by Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, the explosion of terrible decisions did not occur until it hit the 6-3 point.

Nor did it occur before air quality in Chicago really tanked, but correlation is not causation.

 

[F1fan]

I think you're missing my point. My point is; whatever laws we apply to issues we agree with, those same laws have to be applied to issues we disagree with as well

It comes down to the issues and the people. For example when slavery was outlawed in the USA those who agreed with the law had a moral argument. Those who disagreed had what? Tradition? Bigotry? Economic interests? Too bad. Morality and human dignity are the priority for civilized people.

Again; you are speaking as an enemy of the KKK.

Any sane and moral person would be, do you agree?

Those who agree with the KKK don't claim they harm others,

Yet they do. Their self-deception and self-service is irrelevant.

so whatever laws that are applied to issues you agree with has to be applied to issues you disagree with as well

Who would disagree with laws that protect those victimized by racists? Where do you stand on that?

I guess the question becomes; who decides which group gets protective status.

Is it difficult to understand when prejudiced groups are threatened and attacked? It is society as a whole that decides. Of course as you note there will be racists who disagree, but they cause their own problems due to their racism, and the protections for their victims are only necessary because of the racists. If a society was made up of hip and tolerant people there would be no victims of racism because there would be no racists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nor did it occur before air quality in Chicago really tanked, but correlation is not causation.

True, but since there is a clear relationship with my example but not one with yours my statement is far more reasonable.

 

[Kfox]

The people who need protective status are the people who should get it.

Everybody needs protective status.

 

[Kfox]

It comes down to the issues and the people. For example when slavery was outlawed in the USA those who agreed with the law had a moral argument. Those who disagreed had what? Tradition? Bigotry? Economic interests? Too bad. Morality and human dignity are the priority for civilized people.

When you consider the subjectivity involved, are you sure you wanna use moral arguments to justify certain laws? Laws justified due to moral arguments have a long history of discriminating against people you and I both agree should not be discriminated against. What is moral today, may not be tomorrow.

Any sane and moral person would be, do you agree?

No. racism does not equal insanity.

Who would disagree with laws that protect those victimized by racists? Where do you stand on that?

Do you agree the same laws that protect those victimized by racists should also protect racists from being victimized as well?

 

[F1fan]

When you consider the subjectivity involved, are you sure you wanna use moral arguments to justify certain laws?

When they outlaw immoral acts, yes. Do you have a problem with laws against immoral acts?

Laws justified due to moral arguments have a long history of discriminating against people you and I both agree should not be discriminated against. What is moral today, may not be tomorrow.

It's notable that progressives in American society are better at defending rights than conservatives these days. Conservatives values ideals, while progressives value human dignity.

No. racism does not equal insanity.

I suggest racism does not equal maturity and mental stability.

Do you agree the same laws that protect those victimized by racists should also protect racists from being victimized as well?

Give us examples of racists being victimized, but be sure the acts against them are while they were minding their own business, and not defense and retribution for their active racist acts. I would not think that a neo-Nazi wearing a shirt with a swastika in public to intimidate people is being victimized if some citizens react harshly to his anti-social choices.

 

[F1fan]

Everybody needs protective status.

Who is threatening you and your rights for who you are? Describe the natural attributes you have that others target and use against you. If you can't think of any, then not everybody needs protective status. I sure don't need any.

 

[Wandering Monk]

So, if you are a business owner, you are now legally allowed to discriminate against people as long as that discrimination is NOT directed at someone's protected status. Since political affiliation is not a protected class, I think every progressive business owner should now stop serving anyone wearing MAGA paraphernalia or who supports Republican candidates. This might create a situation where MAGAts have to go into 'the closet' in order to get any service. That would be delicious irony.

MAGA needs a doctor? Go try to find a MAGA doctor! Good luck with that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Everybody needs protective status.

But not everybody needs to be enabled, and we now find ourselves and our society in the grips of a right wing legal strategy that allows a disgusting fraud to fabricate a scenario as an act of cruelty towards a class of people. Sophomoric attempts to rationalize the Court's actions may make for a peppy forum debate, but they do little to mitigate the pain, fear, and demoralization now spreading through the LGBTQ+ community.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, the explosion of terrible decisions did not occur until it hit the 6-3 point.

Nor did it occur before air quality in Chicago really tanked, but correlation is not causation.

Yet, @Jayhawker Soule, it is certainly many times easier to connect the dots in the actual situation, than in your hypothetical.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Who is threatening you and your rights for who you are? Describe the natural attributes you have that others target and use against you. If you can't think of any, then not everybody needs protective status. I sure don't need any.

Yes, actually, you do -- and you have lots of them. They are enshrined in the Constitution. Consider Habeas Corpus, for example, or your First and Second Amendment rights. You are protected in what you write in these forums, whereas in China or Russia, your words may well get you arrested.

 

[Alien826]

SCOTUS itself would limit the flooding.

Yes. It would limit cases to those it considered "important", which become political very quickly. It does already of course, but allowing any cases to be open to their choice gives them a wider field to operate in.

 

[Alien826]

Well obviously a company like Gibson that sells speakers has no way to control what is said through their speakers, but if I own a website, I have the right to control what those who choose to join my website say; IMO.

You're right about those who own websites, but I thought the case referred to designing web sites that would belong to whoever paid to have the site created. It's a bit like a painter refusing to use a color of paint you have selected based on his personal likes and dislikes.