They allowed a company to discriminate against a gay customer for religious reasons, when they requested to make a website them. It's important to note that the supposed customer never actually contacted the company, is not gay and had been married to a woman for about 20 years. So this was all based on a lie
I think this is ok. It’s how the market works. If you have enough people who agree with your stance, then you’ll survive, if not, you fail. Transversely, if you are trying to make a profitable business, you remove all roadblocks from a consumer who wants to do business with you.
That’s a very shallow way to look at it. First wrong: This isn’t a numbers game. A party with more people won’t necessarily win. Second wrong: Not all people who are not the minority are against the minority
No, given the preponderance of white owned businesses, the way that turns out is Jim crow. You think that some store in rural bumfuck will hurt with a sign saying "no blacks, jews or gays"?
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.
I hate that they have to ask that too, but my understanding is the legal reasoning is to try and weed out money launderers or some shit like that.
As an aside, let me just encourage everyone here to use credit unions. I needed a very small loan once, only $500, to send to a sibling in another state who had lost his job and just needed short-term help. They wouldn’t approve the $500, but I was told they would approve $4000, which infuriated me as it was clearly a predatory tactic.
So I switched to a CU. My CU even taught me how to avoid overdraft fees in case I ever make a mistake. (Keep a line of credit open, that way if I accidentally overdraft the money would come from that and no fees.) I love banking with them.
Also, I actually make interest money with my credit union savings account. A few bucks a month isn't a ton, but it's a few bucks a month more than I ever got from Wells Fargo.
I have my investments spread a bit between oil, crypto, and VTI (an ETF). I’ve been lucky. The oil stock I bought at bargain prices in March 2020 paid off my student loans and my down payment on my condo.
Why would you invest stocks into something that’s destroying the environment of the very planet you, I, the others on reddit and the rest of humanity live on excluding those currently in space.
Sorry if my comment ends up being spammed multiple times, it might be because of a bug if I’m not actually timing out
Why would you invest stocks into something that’s destroying the environment of the very planet you, I, the others on reddit and the rest of humanity live on excluding those currently in space.
Sorry if my comment ends up being spammed multiple times, it might be because of a bug if I’m not actually timing out
It was a short-term investment. When the airline industry shut down, oil bottomed out, but I knew it was only a matter of time before COVID subsided and air travel came back, and when it did, I made a profit selling those stocks.
I’d also add that, if I had any real power to reverse climate change, I would. The people in my country are powerless to create real change because American corporations are the biggest polluters, and they also own all of our legislators.
To be fair if I see a sign saying they support Trump, GOP, or anti-LGBT I keep walking on by. I have seen many places that say if you are a bigot, sexist, or racist you are not welcome here. Those are the places I spend my money at.
There’s a pizza place in a town near me that has “Make Pizza Great Again” permanently painted on their sign in huge letters. Needless to say, they will never get my business.
I’m from out west, so it was a very foreign concept for me when I visited my sister in Arkansas and saw a lot of “Christian Family Auto” type places with Jesus swag trying to win over business.
I used to frequently transfer money between two countries, the process of which required talking to a human at the time. During one such conversation, the Customer Service Representative asked a new question: “What’s the purpose of the transfer?” This immediately took me aback, partly because I didn’t expect the question and partly because, much like your father, it’s none of their fucking business.
After stumbling a bit, I learned the magic phrase “personal use”. After that, every transfer I initiated was for “personal use” until such time as the bank automated the process and I no longer needed to speak to a human to transfer the money across an international border.
I have no earthly idea why “personal use” is acceptable, since it conveys no more useful information than writing nothing, but then it’s not my policy and I don’t care.
Pretty sure this racist, illegitimate court, knew what they were doing in ruling that religious beliefs override protected classes, including those in the Civil Rights act. The Klan is a religion after all.
oh shit, that would do it for sure. Surely race is still protected no? If not, then I can see many a store in the south going back to the days of segregation
WAIT! NOT LIKE THAT THOUGH! IT WAS ONLY SUPPOSED TO KEEP THE GAYS OUT!
/s
But that's one way to do it. No churches, no religious people, no trump supporters, no republicans allowed at all. Give them a taste of their own medicine.
we need a religion that will make it so that you can't believe in Christianity, republicans, trump supporters, etc.. so that way we can claim it espouses our religious beliefs, just like that chucklefuck web designer said. This way we can be protected under this new ruling.
Is Atheism considered an organized religion though? Sincerely asking because someone mention that yesterday and it got me thinking, would Atheism actually be protected under religious freedom laws?
That’s kind of what the Satanic Temple is for. It’s an atheist organization but fulfills the “requirements” of a religion so that it can be protected under the first amendment
My brand of humanism forbids me from interacting with liars and proponents of bad faith. aka: don't feed the trolls. Christians citing the bible in bad faith; right wing nut-jobs citing the constitution in bad faith; SCOTUS citing religious persecution or reverse racism in bad faith..
People can do that now, but only for occupations that qualify as “speech”. Owners of “public businesses” (i.e. places that you can walk in to) still aren’t allowed to forbid entry to people arbitrarily.
Long answer: us kids were starting high school and he knew college was after that, so he needed to figure out how to come up with some money to help us. He was good at math, so someone suggested he play the stock market.
He started off investing “fake” money (just his own personal ledger) and did pretty good. So he invested small amounts and continued to do well. He finally decided to borrow money from the bank, which is how the story came about.
He actually did REALLY well; paid off the loan, got a bigger one, paid that off, etc, until he had enough of his own money to keep investing. He beat the S&P every year, he had a talent for it.
But he really didn’t enjoy it, he said it was a lot of work to keep up with the markets and how they interacted with each other. He kept it up for a few years after we finished college until he had a comfortable nest egg and quit.
He only paid for half our college, as a matter of principle he wanted us to come up with the other half. I still have loans to pay off but it was a huge help.
Now he hates capitalism and doesn’t do any investing at all. He used to have some safe mutual funds but he’s jaded about the state of the world, he doesn’t want any part of the system.
When I was in my my twenties, a few months into my first full time career job, I felt like I could splurge a little to celebrate. The problem was my credit card was stuck at “college student” limits, basically useless, and my salary was still going toward the basics of setting up my independent life.
My attempt to raise my credit limit was rejected, my attempt at a personal loan was rejected. Maybe they would have anyway, maybe I just needed to wait more, but I regret answering “buy a nice stereo”. It does sound like the epitome of careless spending to buy electronic gadgets beyond your immediate means. Even back then, your answer mattered.
The reason I’m convinced it mattered was replaying my conversation with my credit union in my head years later: it surely seemed like she was politely trying to get me to give a different answer.
maliciouscompliance
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.