Probably. But if they don't get it here, they'll find it elsewhere. We shouldn't change things to mollycoddle people who are constantly seeking a reason to be offended.
They'd lose their little minds at the countless species that shift gender when necessitated by circumstance, not to mention the ones that generally propagate their line by mating with themselves. Don't even get me started about the evolutionary origins of "labyrinthine vaginas" or the necro proclivities of sea otters. 🤦🏼♂️
Simply put: a healthy reading habit is a great inoculation against idiocy. Critical thinking is invaluable.
edit: I'm not drawing a line between any of that, except to point out that a lack of knowledge is no foundation for loud opinions.
For real, though. I hope I'm alive to see the archaeological science tech improve to the point we can finally uncover the story about that mystery baby-daddy: was he a local, and that's why they left town? Maybe he was a traveling sandal salesman (there's a lot of foot washing in that book, just sayin'), and Joseph got wind he was spotted in Bethlehem? Somebody's got that ancient tea, and I wanna sip!
Wtf are you talking about… Inflation is through the roof on everything since Biden came into office. Grocery bill has doubled, gas has doubled and my paycheck looks worse thanks to all of the money he’s sending to Ukraine so he can launder it back to himself and his buddies. As far as morals go any man who inappropriately touches and sniffs every young girl in arms reach doesn’t have any. Either you’re in severe denial of who Biden is or you know but refuse to accept it. We know who Trump is and we know he’s not perfect, but he helped out this country and ALL of its people more than any president since JFK.
That’s the ridiculous thing about this entire case. This was a web designer and bigot who made websites for married couples. There were no homosexual couples asking the designer to make them a wedding website. She had one fake web request, and the Illegitimate Court said she had a right to discriminate against imaginary people.
This opens the floodgates to the rest of the bigots who want to protest the existence of people they hate by denying them services.
This case is bullshit, as you already stated. The problem is that the purpose of it is to lay the groundwork for medical professionals to deny service to "ungodly" people.
I’m actually surprised, I thought the reason they were reluctant to endorse the so-called Independent State Legislature Theory because they didn’t want to erode their already fragile credibility in light of the seemingly endless corruption scandals. Then they go and basically ignore the entire concept of standing and make a ruling based on literally nothing! I think I need to reexamine how smart I think they are…
I’m actually surprised, I thought the reason they were reluctant to endorse the so-called Independent State Legislature Theory because they didn’t want to erode their already fragile credibility in light of the seemingly endless corruption scandals.
An argument I’ve seen to explain this decision was that it detracted from the judiciary’s influence/power by instead empowering state legislatures. Take that as you will, but I wouldn’t put it past them.
I guess? But like, if the Independent State Legislature of California decided to go along with the decision and become the People’s Republic of California then the Court could just say “no but not like that tho” and then ban California from doing that. They must still care somewhat about credibility/legitimacy, but I guess they just couldn’t help themselves when the chance to attack The Gays was available.
She*, and she stole a real (straight, married, with children) man's identity to use as hypothetical. The whole thing should be absolutely thrown out by a higher court - the court of the people.
Also, what happens if a scotus judge is assassinated? Like for real, what if a terrorist straight up murders one? If it's the president, the vice president takes over, and if them.... There's like a power list for that. But, what about a scotus? Does the standing president just get to pick one again? Or is there a list of rank? Or is it like monarchy where the judge has a written will or a say over who replaces them? Goddamn; why do we even have this shitty system.
More realistically though, the wealthiest Republican party donors pick the SC, and have been doing so for the better part of the last few decades now.
Nobody else has a real say, and whenever somebody attempts to regain control for the people, the propaganda machine starts a'hummin', and we all start going at each other's throats again.
You don’t actually know that, though to be fair, an actually principled stance would be to refuse to serve all Republicans and not specifically Trump supporters. In some ways Trump is becoming the lesser evil of the Party when compared to some of the other monsters running against him.
European here so it may not be clear to me, but I thought discriminating against religious movements like the church or trump supporters is still illegal. Correct?
Political affiliation is not protected, religious affiliation is. It’s true that the Right has been doing their level best to politicise their religious feelings into public life, so that barring Trump supporters effectively excludes Evangelicals and a majority of Catholics. This may not be their desired outcome, but perhaps they shouldn’t have tied their religious sentiment to political causes.
These signs are surely in response to the recent US Supreme Court ruling which allowed a website designer to refuse to make websites for same-sex weddings.
First, churches are religious; Trump supporters are political, and not religious. In the US, religion is a "protected class", but political alignment is not. But traditionally, political alignment or part affiliation is not discriminated against, even if it is federall legal to do so. (Various states may have their own clauses making political alignment a protected class in certain contexts, I'm not sure.) Also important to this discussion is that sexual preference is not a protected class federally, although I know that many states have enshrined protection for sexual preference in their own state laws.
If a case were brought about discrimination against Trump supporters because of these signs, in a jurisdiction where politics was not a protected class, I should expect that that case would fail, under current law. But just like SCOTUS is highly political right now, lower courts are, too, especially lower federal courts. It's anybody's guess as to whether a given judge would actually adhere to existing case law.
For the religious side of these signs, it gets interesting. As above, SCOTUS has ruled that a religious business owner can discriminate against customers based on the business owner's "religious disagreement" with a position held by the customer, presumably where that disagreement does not overlap with a protected class.
And there's the rub. Religion is a protected class, so it should be prohibited to discriminate against someone for their religious position. This, however, really tips the scales in favor of the religious: the religious business owner can discriminate on the basis of their own religious belief, but no one can discriminate against them because of that same religious belief. To me, this seems to tread very heavily on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...
"Congress," in this context, has been interpreted by the courts to mean more generally "the government," at any level. The recent SCOTUS ruling gives a religious business owner the right to discriminate on the basis of their religion, but the right of other people to discriminate against that business owner on the exact same basis remains prohibited. Again, I am not a lawyer, but that seems to be clearly in opposition to the Establishment Clause.
All of this is interesting, but none of it is cause for concern.
What is cause for concern is the foundation of Obergefell, which made same sex marriage legal in all of the US. That basis is that the only difference between opposite sex and same sex marriages is the sex of one of the people in the couple. An argument I recall from the time was that prohibiting same sex marriage is unconstitutional, because to do so would be discriminating against someone on the basis of sex - which is a protected class. However, that does not appear to have been mentioned in the court's ruling.
No matter the reason, if it is unconstitutional to discriminate against same sex couples in the context of their getting married in the first place, it should stand to reason that it would be unconstitutional to discriminate against those same sex couples in any other context. Reason does not appear to be this court's strong suit; they have decided that the rights of religious people to discriminate on the basis of their personal and individual beliefs "trumps" (pun intended) the rights of people (religious or not) to not be discriminated against.
This is a "canary in a coal mine" to overturn all manner of previous courts' rulings: Obergefell (same sex marriage), Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage), Griswold (access to contraception), Lawrence v Texas (legalization of homosexuality), and certainly others.
Again, all of this seems to prioritize religion, which is in clear opposition of the Establishment Clause.
Political affiliation is not a protected class. You are permitted to discriminate based on politics. Religious affiliation is a protected class. You cannot discriminate solely on the basis of religion... Until now.
Conservatives love to discriminate, but their new rulings are also making it easier to discriminate against them.
It's complicated and the implications and scope are not entirely clear.
The court stated that creative works such as web design qualify as a form of speech, and that the first amendment does not allow the government to use law to force creators to speak any message — especially one with which they disagree. Essentially, any business with something that might be considered speech as its product or service may be free to discriminate against protected classes. We aren't sure how far this will extend in practice, but I expect many will test it.
In this case of this post, it depends on what is being sold.
Edit: wrote this before my coffee and thus neglected to point out what replies said: political affiliation is not a protected class in America and these signs are a bit misleading. See replies.
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.
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.
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.
Add comment