SCOTUS LGBTQ Ruling? No thread?

[TheNewGirl 1,066]

I am a little shocked you guys haven't posted about this third ruling. 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/supreme-court-303-creative-lgbtq-rights-colorado/index.html

 

Quote

 

“All manner of speech – from ‘pictures, films, paintings, drawings, and engravings,’ to ‘oral utterance and the printed word’ – qualify for the First Amendment’s protections; no less can hold true when it comes to speech like Ms. Smith’s conveyed over the Internet,” Gorsuch said. 

In dissent, Sotomayor said the decision will undermine the government’s compelling interest in ensuring that all Americans have equal access to the public marketplace.

 

 

Unless this is a moon landing and I missed it somewhere else. 

 

[Ultra Max Power 214]

I don't think Sotomayor even understood the case.

[RogerDodger 797]

No gay cakes, no gay websites.  MSM reporting that we'll not have to provide services for blacks next.

[zsasz 216]

15 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

No gay cakes, no gay websites.  MSM reporting that we'll not have to provide services for blacks next.

That's the next step.  

[Ultra Max Power 214]

Except this case wasn't about providing services. 

[Fireballer 2,423]

1 minute ago, Ultra Max Power said:

Except this case wasn't about providing services. 

Exactly

[TheNewGirl 1,066]

Just now, Ultra Max Power said:

Except this case wasn't about providing services. 

Nope; no one got their services "taken away" and Americans still have equal access to those services. 

There are several services out there to create web pages, wedding cr@p, etc. Find one that is specific to LGBTQ. 

[Tree of Knowledge 912]

So next time one of these lefties demands that I provide a link, I will cite this ruling. 

[Fireballer 2,423]

MSM is getting sucked into this as being anti-LGBT.Q. Literally anyone can be a “ victim” of this.  An atheistic trans person can refuse being compelled to produce a website they don’t want to.  Morons.

[squistion 975]

We predicted this would happen if Trump became President, that he would appoint SCOTUS Justices who are anti-LGBTQ rights.

 

[Fireballer 2,423]

1 minute ago, squistion said:

We predicted this would happen if Trump became President, that he would appoint SCOTUS Justices who are anti-LGBTQ rights.

 

How is this specifically anti LGBTQ?

[GutterBoy 2,422]

It sucks, it's wrong, but the hope is that there are enough people out there willing to support everyone in their communities, so that lgbtq don't have to hire bigots to work for them

[squistion 975]

Just now, Fireballer said:

How is this specifically anti LQBTQ?

They can be discriminated against for who they are. 

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

31 minutes ago, Ultra Max Power said:

I don't think Sotomayor even understood the case.

 

Amy Coney Barrett is, IMHO, the best pure legal mind on the Court right now. It's unfortunate that she will be dismissed because she was essentially vetted and seasoned through the Federalist Society Conservative Catholic pipeline. 

Brown Jackson is wholly unqualified. She's a full blow zealot. 

Elena Kagan is compromised. She's a free vote for whatever the Clintons want and she doesn't even try to make it a secret. Her dissents sound like she's writing a new script for the MCU. 

Kavanaugh is a legitimate pervert. It's the worst kept secret in the high level legal world. 

John Roberts is the human personification of a piece of dried out French Toast. 

Sotomayor is not an activist and she's not a leftist. I believe she's genuine in her liberal views, but IMHO she's not qualified to sit on SCOTUS. Unlike Kagan and Brown Jackson though, she has no open malice in her methodology. 

Alito and Thomas showed they could be bought. It's indefensible. Thomas, plus Kamala Harris, Maxine Waters, Sheila Brown Jackson, Cori Bush, Patrisse Cullors, Sharpton and how many others have set back black Americans in this country for how long? I feel so badly for the black community overall that there doesn't seem to be at least just one pure shining example of real integrity in and around professional politics. Maybe Wesley Hunt in Texas. Possibly Ben Carson. 

There were better choices than Gorsuch

Point to note, at one point, Jennifer Granholm was on the DNC's short list once. That tells you how mediocre this generation of SCOTUS has become. 

The GOP will choose someone from the FedSoc assembly line. 

The DNC will push forward anyone who can be controlled. 

The idea of selecting a purely stellar jurist is too long gone and it's a great tragedy. ACB just happens to be a brilliant legal mind, it wasn't her first major selling point though, which is also pretty sad. 

[Ultra Max Power 214]

[avoiding injuries 1,237]

4 minutes ago, squistion said:

We predicted this would happen if Trump became President, that he would appoint SCOTUS Justices who are anti-LGBTQ rights.

 

Can’t wait for him to get back in so he can do more good for the country. 

[Fireballer 2,423]

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

They can be discriminated against for who they are. 

Who else can be?

[RogerDodger 797]

29 minutes ago, zsasz said:

That's the next step.  

[iam90sbaby 2,149]

Business owners should be able to refuse service to whoever they please, it's their business. If a small business doesn't want to service chomos that's their prerogative 

[avoiding injuries 1,237]

1 minute ago, Ultra Max Power said:

Someone used the Twitter account of the 2nd biggest embarrassment to our country behind Biden to put this out. There is 0% of people that think John sent this. 

[Ultra Max Power 214]

1 minute ago, avoiding injuries said:

Someone used the Twitter account of the 2nd biggest embarrassment to our country behind Biden to put this out. There is 0% of people that think John sent this. 

Half of PA would disagree with you. 

[RogerDodger 797]

Pride month goes out with a BANG.  

[squistion 975]

 

[Ultra Max Power 214]

Now I'm unsure if the MSM is being willfully obtuse or trying to stoke flames, but these are some poor takes on the actual ruling. 

[GutterBoy 2,422]

5 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Pride month goes out with a BANG.  

Too bad your drunk driving incident didn't.

[Fireballer 2,423]

6 minutes ago, squistion said:

 

JFC you’re lost

[GutterBoy 2,422]

14 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Who else can be?

Anyone really.  You're arguing in favor of discrimination now?

[Voltaire 4,586]

12 minutes ago, Ultra Max Power said:

Hiring somebody to communicate by text for him during nap time was a good idea.

[RogerDodger 797]

3 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Too bad your drunk driving incident didn't.

  That was 25+ years ago.  I  think before MADD and all that dumb stuff.  Cost me $300.  Big whoop

But if it irritates you it was worth it.  

[jerryskids 5,401]

1 hour ago, TheNewGirl said:

I am a little shocked you guys haven't posted about this third ruling. 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/supreme-court-303-creative-lgbtq-rights-colorado/index.html

 

 

Unless this is a moon landing and I missed it somewhere else. 

 

The quote you included:

Quote

“All manner of speech – from ‘pictures, films, paintings, drawings, and engravings,’ to ‘oral utterance and the printed word’ – qualify for the First Amendment’s protections; no less can hold true when it comes to speech like Ms. Smith’s conveyed over the Internet,” Gorsuch said.

seems like a pretty broad license to discriminate.  While I believe in the first amendment, such rights come with responsibilities.  Hopefully we as a people can use this new power responsibly. 

[GutterBoy 2,422]

1 minute ago, RogerDodger said:

  That was 25+ years ago.  I  think before MADD and all that dumb stuff.  Cost me $300.  Big whoop

But if it irritates you it was worth it.  

Just shows your lack of character.  Along with all of your posts.

You know what else would irritate me?  If you lit yourself on fire.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,655]

23 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

It sucks, it's wrong, but the hope is that there are enough people out there willing to support everyone in their communities, so that lgbtq don't have to hire bigots to work for them

you support a Jew being forced to make a Nazi website, good to know

 

[GutterBoy 2,422]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

you support a Jew being forced to make a Nazi website, good to know

 

No, Nazis aren't a protected class in our society, nor should they be.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,655]

5 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

No, Nazis aren't a protected class in our society, nor should they be.

here is a clue

nobody should be a protected class in our society

ZERO PEOPLE

every person has the right to serve or not serve whoever they want in a private business based on their beliefs

I will clarify for you

you think its a good thing that a Christian conservative should be forced to build websites for cutting off kids junk

[RogerDodger 797]

4 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Just shows your lack of character.  Along with all of your posts.

You know what else would irritate me?  If you lit yourself on fire.

It shows your lack of substance.  You can't defend your position on its merits. And even if you could, you struggle mightily to communicate through written words.

[RogerDodger 797]

No sissymen wearing dresses allowed in my business.  

[Thornton Melon 549]

3 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

here is a clue

nobody should be a protected class in our society

ZERO PEOPLE

every person has the right to serve or not serve whoever they want in a private business based on their beliefs

I will clarify you

you think its a good thing that a Christian conservative should be forced to build websites for cutting off kids junk

Exactly...though I would stipulate that a corporation shouldn't be allowed to do this, at least under state law, but a small private entity...absolutely. 

[Ultra Max Power 214]

This was a protection for the first amendment ruling.

The victim mentality sees this as discrimination.

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

41 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

here is a clue

nobody should be a protected class in our society

 

 

The long game for the radical left is to keep inciting the fringe elements of their Party. Those who are deep into the murky zones that go beyond just political grifting, but into actual violence.

The purpose is to keep drumming up ACB, Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas and Roberts as some kind of rogue Court, so it incentives some psychopath to try to assassinate them. 

The DNC can only change the Court by

1) Winning POTUS ( Is that a lock for 2024?)

2) Forcing a Conservative Catholic on the Court to retire (What was tried with Thomas by going after his wife in public)

3) Triggering an assassination ( Which they are clearly trying right now, they aren't even trying to conceal it. Merrick Garland is letting it all happen)

4) Packing the Court ( which will start an open civil war, if Team Blue ever got the numbers in Congress, held POTUS during it, then engineered picking off Conservative Justices, there would be endless bloodshed over it) 

[League Champion 1,593]

Fetterman, the poor thing. Bless his little Liberal heart.