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

Why not?

 

I'm sure history will not be kind.

Driven by foolishness or hatred? Make your pick. Maybe both.

 

Since the facts in this supreme court decision now appear to be based on hypotheticals and the plaintiffs lies, a court with integrity would move to vacate their decision and take up a new case in the future based on actual damages and actual facts. But we know this court doesn't have integrity and will not vacate since it is the outcome they wanted to deliver because of partisan interests.

 

Can you imagine how creative future partisan rulings can get if the court can allow rulings based on sheer hypotheticals, the absence of any real damages and untruths (lies)?

 

your examples are "‘Asian, no service,’ or ‘Gay, no service,’ or ‘Buddhist, no service." What would be the "message" of Asians, gays, or Buddhists that a creative person would find abhorrent enough to object to? whereas I can imagine lots of people would object to the tenets of National Socialism

 

Interesting but it doesn't seem to preclude a baker refusing to make wedding cakes with non-cis figures because said baker would rather be known to be "the baker who refuses to lend his voice and creative energy to LGBT for [religious] reasons" rather than the baker who does queer cakes...

On a lighter note, Sir Patrick Stewart

 

I'm not understanding you point. You seem to believe an ideology (national socialism) is a protected class. It is not.

 

no. the protected class is a separate issue that you brought up. I remain interested in the narrow point the case was decided upon, which is based upon the distinction made by Gorsuch: "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." The key word there is "message."

As a hypothetical, and because you brought it up, I speculated as an additional issue (again, you brought it up) that National Socialism could be considered a religion under the "protected class" rubric. I do not believe this has ever been tested. But to claim that your examples were "more realistic" than the nazi hypothetical did not seem to me to be a reasonable claim as examples of "discrimination based on {the} message."

 

Big difference. Being a Nazi is a choice.

 

not that much of a difference for purposes of this decision

 

riot wise 2024 may be worse than 2020, particularly if Trump getsnominated and Biden dies. There will also be some very violent counterprotesting

 

So I should start buying ammo in bulk now or wait another year?

 

Neo-nazis are not a protected class. Try again. How about if a web designer refused a black couple or an interracial couple?

 

you're not understanding the point being made

 

let's go back and adjust the examples that @txtony provided to make them actually more realistic in relation to the actual Supreme Court decision at hand, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.

to make this relevant to this case, let us imagine a web designer who is a genuine devil-worshipping Satanist whose authentically held religious worldview and set of beliefs centers on devil worship and a sincere belief in Lucifer. In this set of particulars, the Satan-worshipping web designer might in fact object to putting a web site together for the Buddhist, whose belief in peace, love, and understanding stands in 100% opposition to web designer's sincerely held religious belief in violence, hate, and misunderstanding.

Then and only then would an example provided by @txtony make any sense within the context of a discussion of this particular case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.




***

 

Yes I am. Gender identity is a protected class. Just like race. So if someone said their religion forbids them from performing services for an interracial marriage it is the same exact thing as not performing for LGBTQ.

 

It's not narrow.

Gorsuch argues that forcing Lorie Smith to create a message on a website that goes against her beliefs would infringe upon her constitutional rights to freedom of thought and expression. Thus, he allows her to discriminate against gay individuals, whom she says she doesn't want to serve. Based on Gorsuch's argument, anyone can bring similar suits against other protected classes such as race, sex, nationality, or religion, and should be allowed to refuse services to those protected classes.

I bring up examples of other protected classes. You brought up neo-Nazi ideology, but that's not a protected class. Now, they can try to claim to be one, but no court would accept that. Businesses have always had the right to exercise some level of discretion in choosing the work they take on, but not if it is discriminatory based on protected classes such as race, sex, religion, or nationality. In the Nazi example, businesses could already refuse to create content with Nazi ideology. However, with this SCOTUS ruling, businesses can now also refuse services to protected classes.

A Christian who doesn't like Muslims (not uncommon) can now refuse to create content for a Muslim, and vice versa. An American who doesn't like Mexicans (not uncommon) can refuse to create content for American Mexicans. An atheist who doesn't like Christians (not uncommon) can refuse to create content for Christians.

 

Private web-based entities (or non-web-based entities, for that matter) shouldn't have to allow any content they don't want to allow.

 

the decision is that narrow

here are the facts that no one disputes on page 1:



There is no "blacks need not apply" language here; there is "no Irish need apply" language here; there is no language that suggests "Asian, no service,’ or ‘Gay, no service,’ or ‘Buddhist, no service."

This is simply a ruling that says the government cannot compel someone to create content that violates her conscience. The appropriate analogy would be someone not wishing to create nazi content; someone not wishing to create pro-war content if a pacifist; someone not wishing to create Buddhist content if a devil-worshipping Satanist; etc.

If you would like to fit your examples to the actual issue decided in this case, then you should try to do so. I'll consider whatever you come up with.

this is 100% FACTUALLY UNTRUE. See above excerpt from page 1 of the decision.

no, again a factually incorrect statement

no, you are misreading the decision

no--potential refusal depends on the content itself, NOT on the Muslim identity of the client him/herself

no, it depends on the content itself

no, again it would depend on the content itself.

The reporting and understanding of this case in the press and elsewhere has been abysmal. Worse than most other cases.

 

There were no facts in this case, instead it was decided at best on a hypothetical and at worst a complete lie.

On top of this, replace gay with Muslim. A web site creator claims she can’t as a matter of conscious create a web site celebrating a Muslim event.

Replace gay with Jewish (“they killed Christ”). Replace with German (“the Holocaust”), with autistic person, with a mixed race married couple. As long as the web site creator can suggest that they have a belief it’s against their conscience this court would allow them to deny service. Even if no actual Muslim, Jew, German, autistic, or mixed race married couple ever approached them.