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

...hate to interrupt here...

...but hasn't the court recently ruled that new evidence discovered in a case already litigated does not change the verdict?

I may not know the particulars...

...(can't bluff or lie or con or pre-pay my way into an Ivy-league school anymore, and use their degree as cover for my dumb reverse-racist n!gg3rishness anymore)...

...but even if the law says such a review is possible, what's to stop the court from essentially coming up with the same decision?

Just asking, you know.

 

If there's a problem, it's the obvious and abiding one: religion and state are "separate but equal" entities in American society.

Moral issues and positions, basically.

The problem is that all of the money is green. And however you make money is however you make money.

Material consequences, at the end.

Won't be long before evangelical Christians start to complain about not being able to earn enough money to take care of their families in this dangerous woke graveyard that used to be America...

 

@AroundTheWorld
@J.R.

 

I guess she could, if she never allows any mention of gay marriage. But that's not much of a fan website with that kind of exclusionary stance towards gay couples.

 

It's legitimate, but the end result is nonetheless the same - she excluded gay couples.

This isn't about this case in particular, but it used to be that if you aren't comfortable with something, you would exclude yourself from it. If you are against killing animals, you would exclude yourself from working for a meat processing company. No one is forcing you to participate, but if you choose to do so, you can't force the company to comply with your beliefs and stop butchering animals. If you are against gay marriage, you can choose not to participate in making wedding websites for the public to avoid making website with gay marriage messages. No one has forced you to participate, but if you do, learn to separate your beliefs from your professional duties.

We all have beliefs, and at times we compromise them in our professions—sometimes it's minor, and sometimes it's major. If we can't handle it, we can always explore other professions. We don't impose our personal beliefs on the public or exclude members of a protected class to accommodate our beliefs. The trend is now we do that - those with power impose their (and it's almost always religious) beliefs onto the public and discriminate against protected class to accommodate their beliefs.

 

This is the tap dancing I'm tired of.

If you're going to support this decision, then you need to put your nuts on the dresser and just admit you want private businesses/citizens to be able to discriminate based on any reason they so choose.

I'm fine with it, btw. I'd rather know who I'm dealing with than support a bunch of bigots.

 

I hear that, but you and I (I don't think) are much at risk for denial of service anywhere.
Though, truth be told, I did get me some nasty stink eye at a central TX hobby lobby recently when shopping for my mom.
I asked Mrs. B-Bob, "how did they know I'm from a city?" And she said, "Are you kidding?"

 

I'm guessing the black turtleneck gave it away

 

I don't think the concern is getting your feelings hurt because some jerkoff who runs a gas station doesn't like "yer kind".

I think the concern is getting denied essential services. Which, in this day and age, feels extremely unlikely.

 

again, the issue with this case wasn't "refusal" or "denial" of service; rather it was about a Colorado state law that appeared to compel someone to engage in expressive communication for a client whose views he/she disagreed with.

To use txtony's example above, and only by analogy, this would be like a law that compelled an animal rights activist to create web copy for a slaughterhouse, or for a pro-hunting organization, or for an animal-fighting advocacy group. As such the logic alone does not by itself entail a protected class requirement or premise.

Gorsuch: “Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. . . . As this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong." Colorado's law, in other words, would “force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty.”

 

The expressive communication is the service.

Meaningless distinction.

 

Not that it should matter but I agree denying blacks hotel service in the fifties was a totally different issue than doing it today. However forcing businesses to not discriminate is a reason the world is different aside from your point that there are plenty of providers of essential services.

 

I agree with Os, that is the issue, that's the reason for her case but I also agree that she should expect people to want her to create something she disagrees with

 

obviously, no, because this is precisely the distinction the decision rests upon.

 

Telling me that the court disagrees with me isn't going to do much to change my mind about that.

 

no, you said "meaningless distinction":

obviously the distinction is perfectly meaningful in terms of the decision. The decision has nothing whatsoever to do with your state of mind.

 

The past is it's own ball of wax, but in today's world it feels like compelled association is at the very least unnecessary.

 

SCOTUS got it right. This is a win for everybody, I don't understand how folks are missing this point. It's the messaging that can't be forced on a person providing services, and that should always be up to the discretion of a person to never be forced to create messaging they don't agree with.