Conservative SCOTUS is a ****ing joke but it’s not funny

I've been wondering if critics would feel the same way if a far-right neo-nazi group demanded a web designer put together a web site for its neo-nazi recruitment program, and the power of the United States government compelled that designer to write glowing ad copy for the nazis

 

at oral argument supreme courts justices pose hypotheticals. Hypotheticals are most certainly part of law

 

Wiki partially answered my assumptions… now what? Lol. There was in fact no injury. Someone lied.

“In Federal District Court, Colorado sought dismissal because Smith had not received such requests for service and thus had no justiciable injury. Several months later, the ADF added a sworn statement that a same-sex wedding request had been submitted to Smith's website. However, the name, email, and phone number on the form belonged to a married heterosexual man who states he never submitted such a request, as reported by The New Republic the day before the Supreme Court's decision. The ADF stated on June 30, 2023, that they believe the name was submitted to Smith's website by "a third party or a troll" using the man's personal details, but they were unable to run a background check to confirm the identity to avoid violating other state laws.”

 

neo nazi isn’t a constitutionally protected class

 

the decision was a First Amendment decision about the web designer's rights

to your point, however, if one considers National Socialism as a religion, then the Nazi belief system would quality as a protected class

 

to discriminate against a protected class

 

again, I added the line above:

to your point, however, if one considers National Socialism as a religion, then the Nazi belief system would quality as a protected class--just as atheism and agnosticism are protected

 

If it’s not about a protecting class then private web based entities also shouldn’t have to allow content they they deem offensive. That would be their free speech right then.

 

If they are considered a religion, they are protected. But, of course, they aren’t.

But let’s make this more realistic.

You have the right to post a sign that says, ‘No shoes, no service,’ but not (until yesterday) a sign that says, ‘Asian, no service,’ or ‘Gay, no service,’ or ‘Buddhist, no service.

 

I like others obviously had heard about this case. I looked up another article that said the case was hypothetical. I don't remember that from previous reports but what is the point of this article, that the web designer was using a real person's name in the lawsuit who happened to be a former CNN employee?

 

It was known that the stupid cake case was based on fake facts for awhile and rhis was mentioned in the hearing iirc, and it's in the Court record but the Sct (esp Gorsuch) just decided to make up its own version.


Rogue Sct does whatever it wants bc no accountability - that means delivering what Leonard Leo and his financiers want.

 

Please refer to the wiki reference I mentioned earlier. Someone provided false information. In reality, there were no gay couples who asked for service. The case should not have gone forward because no actual harm occurred.

 

I do not believe your examples below are more realistic

 

Am predicting some gay couples writing hilarious online reviews now though.

What a dumb ho. At the end of her days, she can pass quietly, reflecting on her biggest accomplishment: "I told a big lie to win one for teh bigotry." Here's hoping she enjoys the stench of brimstone.

WWJD, indeed. Definitely try to single people out, narrow their options, and try to avoid them.

 

The case was always hypothetical apparently but the article here says that a real person was actually listed and thats the point of the article in the article.

I'm really questioning the article. It doesn't point out that the case was hypothetical and it seems like it's unaware. Poor reporting, but like I wrote i heard about this case but now only realize it was hypothetical

 

good summary that neatly summarizes what the case was actually about versus what people mistakenly think it implies

Supreme Court says 1st Amendment entitles web designer to refuse same-sex wedding work



excerpt (bold emph added):

By a 6-to-3 vote, the court sided with Lorie Smith, a Colorado web designer who is opposed to same sex marriage. She challenged the state’s public accommodations law, claiming that by requiring her to serve everyone equally, the state was unconstitutionally enlisting her in creating a message she opposes.

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed with her. Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch drew a distinction between discrimination based on a person’s status–her gender, race, and other classifications–and discrimination based on her message.

“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation,” he said, “it is that the government may not interfere with an ‘uninhibited marketplace of ideas.'” When a state law collides with the Constitution, he added, the Constitution must prevail.

The decision was limited because much of what might have been contested about the facts of the case was stipulated–namely that Smith intends to work with couples to produce a customized story for their websites, using her words and original artwork. Given those facts, Gorsuch said, Smith qualifies for constitutional protection.

He acknowledged that Friday’s decision may result in “misguided, even hurtful” messages. But, he said, “the Nation’s answer is tolerance, not coercion. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.”
​

more at the link

 

Trashy telenovela plots on Telemundo are starting to run dry.

 

Not hypothetical to start with. It was a real case that turns out to be fake.

“In Federal District Court, Colorado sought dismissal because Smith had not received such requests for service and thus had no justiciable injury. Several months later, the ADF added a sworn statement that a same-sex wedding request had been submitted to Smith's website. However, the name, email, and phone number on the form belonged to a married heterosexual man who states he never submitted such a request, as reported by The New Republic the day before the Supreme Court's decision. The ADF stated on June 30, 2023, that they believe the name was submitted to Smith's website by "a third party or a troll" using the man's personal details, but they were unable to run a background check to confirm the identity to avoid violating other state laws.”