| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
 Posted: 06/30/23 3:14 pm ::: The Supremes: Latest Hits |
Reply  |
|
https://www.scotusblog.com/
Ohhhh, my. And the beat goes on.
In today's decision to protect a certain Ms.Smith of Colorado from any obligation to develop a website for a gay wedding, Gorsuch's opinion included in their ruling how he hoped "....that the court’s decision would provide similar protection to other business owners whose services involve speech, such as artists, speechwriters, and movie directors."
And seven years ago, a Colorado baker was excused from being obligated to create a wedding cake for a gay couple by an even more liberal court.
Happy Last Day of Gay Pride Month! 
Now, frankly....I'm good with all that. Yep. Me, an out/proud gay man. And here's why: If I want a wedding cake or website for my gay wedding, I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY I'D WANT A HOMOPHOBE TO DO THAT SERVICE FOR ME. And since those fields of creativity have no shortage of gay entrepeneurs, patronize THEM, ferchrissake! So I say to all homophobe business people (hiding behind the guise of "Christianity") to stuff your product up your own holes.
Now. I can't WAIT for the same assholes to suddenly NEED a medical specialist (who happens to be gay or atheist, or Muslim) to provide a valuable service, and....be told by that specialist, "I'm not helping you, I don't help Christians!" 
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
scullyfu
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8860
Location: Niagara Falls
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/01/23 7:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Exactly, Howee. Oh, the whining of the victims will be glorious. They’ll probably take it to the SUPREME FRAUDS for a discrimination claim.
_________________
i'll always bleed Storm green.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/01/23 10:10 am ::: Re: The Supremes: Latest Hits |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| In today's decision to protect a certain Ms.Smith of Colorado from any obligation to develop a website for a gay wedding |
Apparently no one ever actually asked her to do any such thing
https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court
| Quote: |
| Yes, that was his name, phone number, email address, and website on the inquiry form. But he never sent this form, he said, and at the time it was sent, he was married to a woman. “If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that,” Stewart explained. (Stewart’s last name is not included in the filing, so we will be referring to him by his first name throughout this story.) |
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16359
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/01/23 10:20 am ::: Re: The Supremes: Latest Hits |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| In today's decision to protect a certain Ms.Smith of Colorado from any obligation to develop a website for a gay wedding |
Apparently no one ever actually asked her to do any such thing
https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court
| Quote: |
| Yes, that was his name, phone number, email address, and website on the inquiry form. But he never sent this form, he said, and at the time it was sent, he was married to a woman. “If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that,” Stewart explained. (Stewart’s last name is not included in the filing, so we will be referring to him by his first name throughout this story.) |
|
The current court has, in multiple cases, decided standing does not matter as long as it can make the moves and policy it wants to.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/01/23 3:34 pm ::: Re: The Supremes: Latest Hits |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| In today's decision to protect a certain Ms.Smith of Colorado from any obligation to develop a website for a gay wedding |
Apparently no one ever actually asked her to do any such thing
https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court
| Quote: |
| Yes, that was his name, phone number, email address, and website on the inquiry form. But he never sent this form, he said, and at the time it was sent, he was married to a woman. “If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that,” Stewart explained. (Stewart’s last name is not included in the filing, so we will be referring to him by his first name throughout this story.) |
|
And that highlights another ominous layer to this ongoing shit show: scotus is now evaluating the constitutionality of *hypothetical* situations. No one actually did anything to actually cause her to squeal about her Christian rights. I'm no constitutional expert, but....aren't we meandering into the realm of The Thought Police? Is there any scotus precedent to this absurdity?
Now, if we're going to proactively judge things that *might* happen, isn't this
opening a Pandora's box of "....but what ifs...."? Gorsuch implied that this ought to be relegated to the realm of 'creative' services. But really: what if I'm a Muslim neurosurgeon, and I do not wish to risk getting blood of an infidel on my being....I certainly ought to be able to turn away any Christian/Jewish/etc. patients without being considered discriminatory.
Ahhh, yes. What might happen if CHRISTIANS are discriminated against? (Which they're constantly boo-hooing about anyway....)
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8947
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/01/23 4:26 pm ::: Re: The Supremes: Latest Hits |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
https://www.scotusblog.com/
Ohhhh, my. And the beat goes on.
In today's decision to protect a certain Ms.Smith of Colorado from any obligation to develop a website for a gay wedding, Gorsuch's opinion included in their ruling how he hoped "....that the court’s decision would provide similar protection to other business owners whose services involve speech, such as artists, speechwriters, and movie directors."
And seven years ago, a Colorado baker was excused from being obligated to create a wedding cake for a gay couple by an even more liberal court.
Happy Last Day of Gay Pride Month!
Now, frankly....I'm good with all that. Yep. Me, an out/proud gay man. And here's why: If I want a wedding cake or website for my gay wedding, I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY I'D WANT A HOMOPHOBE TO DO THAT SERVICE FOR ME. And since those fields of creativity have no shortage of gay entrepeneurs, patronize THEM, ferchrissake! So I say to all homophobe business people (hiding behind the guise of "Christianity") to stuff your product up your own holes.
Now. I can't WAIT for the same assholes to suddenly NEED a medical specialist (who happens to be gay or atheist, or Muslim) to provide a valuable service, and....be told by that specialist, "I'm not helping you, I don't help Christians!" |
This has to be the most illegitimate SCOTUS we've ever had.
Thomas & Beer-Boy should NOT be justices in any way, shape or form. Neither have the morals to even look at the Supreme Court Building, let alone be allowed inside.
_________________
"Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/03/23 5:09 pm ::: Re: The Supremes: Latest Hits |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| I can't WAIT for the same assholes to suddenly NEED a medical specialist (who happens to be gay or atheist, or Muslim) to provide a valuable service, and....be told by that specialist, "I'm not helping you, I don't help Christians!" |
Howee, you misunderstand the statutory and constitutional issue in the case, as does the vast majority of the media.
This was NOT a freedom of religion case (versus, say, a protected class). It was a freedom of speech case.
The parties stipulated to this in writing before suit began. Colorado agreed that the websites Smith would create were not just services, but were her "original and customized" personal "expressions". The constitutional guarantee of free speech covers all personal "expressions" of thought, whether those expressions are oral, written, artistic, or otherwise personally creative.
The parties also stipulated in writing that Smith would provide websites to anyone regardless of their race, creed, sexual orientation and gender, but that she would not create expressions (her own speech) for anyone that contradict her firmly held beliefs.
The parties having so stipulated, and the lower courts having agreed that the case involved "pure speech", this was an easy decision for the Supreme Court based on precedent.
What the First Amendment Free Speech clause guarantees all persons is this: The government (in this case, Colorado) cannot through its laws compel anyone to say anything that they don't want to say (express), nor can government silence anyone from saying (expressing) whatever they want to say--no matter that what they say may be wrong, disturbing, hurtful or hateful. Nor does the speaker's motive matter: The government can't make me say "I love WBB" or prevent me from saying "I hate WBB", no matter whether my thoughts are motivated by religion, politics, mistake, brain disease, or anything else.
Public accommodation laws that prohibit discrimination in providing non-expressive and necessary services--such as common carrier transportation, hotels, restaurants and gas stations--are constitutional.
Withholding of medical services is contrary to the medical ethics laws in all states, and can be regulated because the practice of medicine is not an exercise of engaging in pure speech.
All the judges in the lower courts agreed there was standing and that the case wasn't hypothetical. Parties are sometimes entitled to ask for preemptive injunctions if there is a "credible threat" of governmental legal action if they engage in certain conduct. Smith easily satisfied this injunction standard simply by listing the many attempts by Colorado to enforce its statute against similarly situated persons, including the baker in the famous Masterpiece Cakeshop case. The state did not dispute that they would enforce the law against her.
What you say about competitive practical conduct is true, and should be more influential on courts. Any businessperson who refuses to do business with Class X of people is just hurting their own pocketbook, and competitive businesses will be available or quickly spring up to do business with Class X. There is no shortage of website designers or bakers. |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/03/23 5:53 pm ::: Re: The Supremes: Latest Hits |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| I can't WAIT for the same assholes to suddenly NEED a medical specialist (who happens to be gay or atheist, or Muslim) to provide a valuable service, and....be told by that specialist, "I'm not helping you, I don't help Christians!" |
Howee, you misunderstand the statutory and constitutional issue in the case, as does the vast majority of the media.
This was NOT a freedom of religion case (versus, say, a protected class). It was a freedom of speech case. |
Thank you for the clarification. But also....isn't this a case of speech 'freedom' being motivated by one's religious 'freedom'? Not that it mattered, though....
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| The parties also stipulated in writing that Smith would provide websites to anyone regardless of their race, creed, sexual orientation and gender, but that she would not create expressions (her own speech) for anyone that contradict her firmly held beliefs. |
Wait. If she designs wedding websites, and she'd provide services to people regardless of orientation.....then why is she *here*? Isn't there something disingenuous about that?
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| What the First Amendment Free Speech clause guarantees all persons is this: The government (in this case, Colorado) cannot through its laws compel anyone to say anything that they don't want to say (express), nor can government silence anyone from saying (expressing) whatever they want to say--no matter that what they say may be wrong, disturbing, hurtful or hateful. Nor does the speaker's motive matter |
Therefore....I could take a seat by her business' door, on public space, and with a bullhorn loudly denounce Christians who discriminate? Day after day?
The constitutional parameters of "free speech" are very vague, imo. Aren't social media giants violating constitutional rights when they block someone who's posting 'hate speech'??
Coming full circle here - I DO understand one's right to NOT provide a service that violates their beliefs. If I was a website designer and someone approached me about designing a site for the purpose of demonstrating how to kill 'n grill puppies, I'd tell them to f**k off (AFTER I got their contact info so I could report them.)
And I also think about how far this case might have gotten if it had been a Muslim woman who refused to provide a service to any Christian entity. 
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
|
|
