They basically said a business can discriminate. The case in question was by a bakery that didn’t want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. SCOTUS said that was ok.
The kicker is that the claims put forth in the lawsuit by the bakery may be based on lies. The man they claimed wanted the cake isn’t gay, is already married, never ordered from the bakery, and didn’t even know he was mentioned in the court case until a reporter contacted him for comment.
This case is a web designer for wedding websites, not a bakery. The bakery thing was several years ago now.
Both rulings cute the same fundamental precedent: “expressive works”/“expressive goods” — that is, services that entail some act of creative work and/or speech, generally in endorsement.
For example, to take a less-favorable position as an example, a web designer could under this ruling post as terms of their services that they do not design websites for anyone connected with a Baptist church, because designing websites for them would require the designer to write speech and create designs participating in what the designer considered bigoted. If a Baptist group sued on these grounds, and the government said “no, you must take them on as clients”, the government would be coercing a particular kind of speech from this web designer — that is, the government would be forcing the web designer to, by court order, write that speech they see as clearly bigoted.
A grocery store could not, however, say “we won’t sell groceries to anyone from a Baptist church”, because selling someone a gallon of milk or whatever else off the store shelves does not involve participating in any of their speech. If a grocery store did so, and a Baptist group sued, and the government said “no, you must sell them groceries”, the government is not coercing any sort of speech from the grocery store owner.
That’s the crux of the issue here: not Jim-Crow “we don’t sell groceries to coloreds” baseline discrimination against people, but instead trying to walk the line of not using lawsuits as a weapon to coerce someone to participate in some viewpoint.
A six-justice majority agreed that Colorado cannot enforce a state anti-discrimination law against a Christian website designer who does not want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples because doing so would violate her First Amendment right to free speech.
If your work uses Microsoft Teams, you can go into your calendar, click meet now, have a meeting by yourself. Once you’re in there change your status back to available and it won’t change to away, the screen won’t lock, and no one who cares will know. No jiggler, no script
I'm 49 and I got a notice for jury duty for the first time a couple months ago. You had to call a number every evening to see if you had to come in the next day. I never had to come in. In fact only one day that week had anyone coming in.
You got paid, because it’s required by law that you do. Your boss is also required by law to not interfere with your service. It awesome that the judge held up the law. They would normly just dismiss you because it would take up time they don’t have.
You got paid, because it’s required by law that you do.
That's not true. Maybe it varies from state to state, I dunno, but I live in an otherwise very blue state, and there's no statute on the books saying that a private employer must pay for time missed for jury duty.
They are required to allow you to go if you're summoned, but beyond that, it's their choice. Obviously, most (if not all) choose not to.
I thought they were so hot at the time. Well, of course, that was like 95% of what the point was with the band so mission accomplished I guess. To celebrate the downfall of Reddit, here's Ne Ver Ne Boysia Ne Prosi of Eurovision 2003. A different age, when Russia was actually seen as pretty OK. It's too bad what has become of Russia because I think their language lends itself well to music. :) Imagine what could have been, a beautiful country stretching through Siberia.
What happened is that the theatre of peace let its curtains fall to the stage, revealing violence behind. For as long as the average person doesn't fight tooth and nail for what is right and good, violence will always return.
And you will also see some post about France - Wales (rugby Union) as Wales is Pays de Galles (Country of Wales) in French and we also call the France - Wales games France - Galles (and Galles and Gall have the same pronunciation in French).
The EU regulation is not in force yet. I doubt Apple's current solution is in accordance to the new regulations despite the title making it seem as if Apple successfully sidestepped it.
Another user in the thread incorrectly thinks Apple's current port has also circumvented the USB-C port requirement with it's current port.
While regulations can be circumvented (sometimes by design) there is no benefit in a defeatist attitude where Apple (and other corps) are inevitably going to defeat customer protections.
exactly - the port law enters into effect next fall for all new models introduced after. Apple has iPhone 15 and 16 to comply. EU likes for their big industry actions to come on reaaaaaly slow … partly as a defense against the industry arguing they did not have time to prepare
The EU generally operates under the principle of the "spirit of the law," while in the US, courts typically operate under the principles of the "letter of the law." The EU will not take kindly to attempts to skirt the spirit of the law, and their penalties have teeth.
maliciouscompliance
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.