SCOTUS LGBTQ Ruling? No thread?

[crackattack 520]

2 hours ago, Fireballer said:

 

Y’all are morons.  She was challenging the constitutionality of a Colorado state statute that made her hesitant to exercise her 1A. She doesn’t have to prove that she suffered direct damages from it. 

You're doing yeomans work in here. Some in here have no clue what this is about. They just think gays will die tomorrow, or can't get web design services in Colorado, or something dumb like that. Absolutely ridiculous. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,009]

4 hours ago, crackattack said:

You're doing yeomans work in here. Some in here have no clue what this is about. They just think gays will die tomorrow, or can't get web design services in Colorado, or something dumb like that. Absolutely ridiculous. 

It's what they do. They can't think for themselves so they let the DNC do it for them.

Everyone thinks slavery was abolished after the civil war, but the DNC has kept it alive and well with their own followers!

[Engorgeous George 2,271]

On 6/30/2023 at 7:54 PM, squistion said:

She doesn't even have a website. This is based on a hypothetical situation for her, if she did have a website and then if she were asked to do something for a gay wedding. 

Case never should have gotten to SCOTUS, as she has no standing to bring suit as she has suffered no damages.

I have not yet read the ruling.  I agree generally that the Supremes are only to rule when there is a case or controversy, which seems to be your opoint.  You seem to believe there was not a ripe case or controversy here.  I wonder whether there was.  As I understand matters the State of Colorado issued a ruling or finding.  The business owner appealed and the ruling was confirmed.  She exhausted her remedies at state law.  The ruling acted analogously to prior restraint.  It chilled her free speech by demanding compelled speech.  Is this not an analog of past prior restraint cases? Does this not still preserve the concept of public accomodation for all essential services applying, as it seems to, to only expressive artistic services, services quite different from gas, food, lodging, medical services and the like?

[GutterBoy 2,898]

21 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

 

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

Should colleges be allowed to admit whoever they want based on their beliefs?

[Dizkneelande 1,094]

Any normal person would say “ok this person sucks for not designing my pedo webpage or put 2 dudes sucking on a cake, I’ll find someone that will.” Instead, the miserable activists leftists only want to destroy those that defy their perverted ideology. Too bad losers. 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

15 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

Any normal person would say “ok this person sucks for not designing my pedo webpage or put 2 dudes sucking on a cake, I’ll find someone that will.” Instead, the miserable activists leftists only want to destroy those that defy their perverted ideology. Too bad losers. 

It also didn't happen.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,309]

1 hour ago, GutterBoy said:

Should colleges be allowed to admit whoever they want based on their beliefs?

sure as long as they are private and not govt funded

were allowed to have HBCUs, but no other races get them

[squistion 2,105]

14 hours ago, dogcows said:

Thank you for this. That was the exact point I was trying to make. The court is supposed to have standing in order to rule. Well, they have decided they have standing even in imaginary cases. This makes them like a super-legislature of unelected, lifetime appointees. And half the conservative members are unashamedly in the pockets of billionaires.

The concept of standing is something every law student learns in their first year of law school. 

"In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case."

That isn't the case here as it involves a hypothetical situation that was made up, which didn't happen, and which might never have happened (she claims to have received an email, but the person she claims sent it says that is false).

SCOTUS gave an unprecedented advisory opinion here on something that didn't involve an actual dispute between parties.   

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,236]

Trump lawsuits concerning the election get shot down by blue state courts, liberals say the court has spoken. Things don’t go the liberals way in the highest court in the land, it’s illegitimate. Seems right. 

[squistion 2,105]

28 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Trump lawsuits concerning the election get shot down by blue state courts, liberals say the court has spoken. Things don’t go the liberals way in the highest court in the land, it’s illegitimate. Seems right. 

They got ultimately shot down by all courts. There were 50+ suits, none of them were successful no matter what venue they were filed in.

[dogcows 1,030]

44 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

sure as long as they are private and not govt funded

were allowed to have HBCUs, but no other races get them

HBCU’s don’t discriminate based on race. You do know that, right? The H stands for historically.

 

[BuckSwope 654]

On 6/30/2023 at 12:16 PM, RogerDodger said:

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

Ah, the ultimate goal! 

[dogcows 1,030]

47 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Trump lawsuits concerning the election get shot down by blue state courts, liberals say the court has spoken. Things don’t go the liberals way in the highest court in the land, it’s illegitimate. Seems right. 

TRUMP!

[Hardcore troubadour 15,236]

18 minutes ago, squistion said:

They got ultimately shot down by all courts. There were 50+ suits, none of them were successful no matter what venue they were filed in.

So Trump sued in states that he won? Which ones? 

[Cdub100 3,884]

8 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

It's what they do. They can't think for themselves so they let the DNC do it for them.

Everyone thinks slavery was abolished after the civil war, but the DNC has kept it alive and well with their own followers!

Because they can't think for themselves they also can't create for themselves. Which is why they twist and bastardize legacy media.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,309]

25 minutes ago, dogcows said:

HBCU’s don’t discriminate based on race. You do know that, right? The H stands for historically.

 

ahh ok sure, and yes I know exactly what it stands for, I am sure their admissions to Asians is off the charts

 

[dogcows 1,030]

Just now, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

ahh ok sure, and yes I know exactly what it stands for, I am sure their admissions to Asians is off the charts

 

I have no idea what you’re arguing for here. Do you want racial quotas at colleges or something?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,309]

1 minute ago, dogcows said:

I have no idea what you’re arguing for here. Do you want racial quotas at colleges or something?

Nope I want colleges to admit what they want. Exactly what the scotus approved 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,236]

They want you to ignore the sub standard education many black kids are getting from the schools run by liberals. 

[Fireballer 2,641]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

The concept of standing is something every law student learns in their first year of law school. 

"In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case."

That isn't the case here as it involves a hypothetical situation that was made up, which didn't happen, and which might never have happened (she claims to have received an email, but the person she claims sent it says that is false).

SCOTUS gave an unprecedented advisory opinion here on something that didn't involve an actual dispute between parties.   

 

OMG…you can’t be serious

[squistion 2,105]

17 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So Trump sued in states that he won? Which ones? 

Whatever state they were filed in they never went beyond they never survived the appeal process which involved circuit courts of more than one state (some I believe were taken to SCOTUS)

[squistion 2,105]

2 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

OMG…you can’t be serious

Ask someone you know who is an attorney.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,236]

6 minutes ago, squistion said:

Whatever state they were filed in they never went beyond they never survived the appeal process which involved circuit courts of more than one state (some I believe were taken to SCOTUS)

So the courts spoke, as you all like to remind everyone.  So how come when the highest court in the land  makes a ruling it’s considered illegitimate? Only your side is entitled to question rulings  I guess. The other side has to shut up and take it.  

[GutterBoy 2,898]

14 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Nope I want colleges to admit what they want. Exactly what the scotus approved 

That's not what the scouts approved.

[Fireballer 2,641]

Just now, squistion said:

Ask someone you know who is an attorney.

Some attorneys are idiots.  Furthermore, there a variety of elements that give you standing. Look of the Chilling Effect.    Evidently you didn’t dig into Wiki deep enough.  You’re welcome.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,309]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

That's not what the scouts approved.

Affirmative action is exactly that. Everyone gets treated fairly. Schools can still approve whoever they want 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Affirmative action is exactly that. Everyone gets treated fairly. Schools can still approve whoever they want 

So nothing is gonna change?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,309]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

So nothing is gonna change?

Yep. They are now not required to give favorable treatment to dumber people 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Yep. They are now not required to give favorable treatment to dumber people 

Who required this?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,309]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

Who required this?

Affirmative action. Required lower standards for people of different races. That’s exactly what the case was about. Asians had to get much higher scores to get into college in the name of stupidity. I mean diversity 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

Just now, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Affirmative action. Required lower standards for people of different races. That’s exactly what the case was about. Asians had to get much higher scores to get into college. 

I think you need to educate yourself on this subject before posting again.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,309]

7 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I think you need to educate yourself on this subject before posting again.

wait so you actually think the requirements were the same for blacks and asians?

MSNBC tell you that dumb dumb?

 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

6 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

wait so you actually think the requirements were the same for blacks and asians?

MSNBC tell you that dumb dumb?

 

I don't even think you understand how colleges accept applicants.  Jesus.

[squistion 2,105]

32 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So the courts spoke, as you all like to remind everyone.  So how come when the highest court in the land  makes a ruling it’s considered illegitimate? Only your side is entitled to question rulings  I guess. The other side has to shut up and take it.  

They had never done this before. This was unprecedented. Based a decision entirely on a hypothetical that was made up of imagined possible damages in the future and not on an actual fact situation.

[squistion 2,105]

35 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Some attorneys are idiots.  Furthermore, there a variety of elements that give you standing. Look of the Chilling Effect.    Evidently you didn’t dig into Wiki deep enough.  You’re welcome.

Not on a made up hypothetical situation, that has never given anyone standing before this ruling. 

[jerryskids 6,710]

I learned in this thread that Squistion and his far Left activist sources know better than SCOTUS which cases SCOTUS can or cannot hear.   

[Fireballer 2,641]

38 minutes ago, squistion said:

Not on a made up hypothetical situation, that has never given anyone standing before this ruling. 

Hey man, there’s nothing against the law about being wrong.  Please continue until your heart is content.

[dogcows 1,030]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

Not on a made up hypothetical situation, that has never given anyone standing before this ruling. 

Actually, the court last year ruled against a hypothetical new EPA rule… but yes it’s very rare.

As rare as it’s been in the history of the court, THIS court has done it twice in 2 years. They are clearly trying to push an agenda, and do not want to wait for actual cases in order to do so.

Elena Kagan pointed it out in her dissent last year and this year:

Quote

When the case was argued in December, Justice Elena Kagan said the lack of a detailed record was a source of frustration.

“It really depends on the facts and on what exactly Ms. Smith is being asked or compelled to do, and that matters,” Justice Kagan said. “And we have a case without any of that in it.”

She had similar qualms last year when the court cut back on the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to combat climate change, although there was as yet no regulation in place for the court to review.

In dissent, Justice Kagan wrote that the court’s eagerness to decide the case anyway was telling. “This court could not wait — even to see what the new rule says — to constrain E.P.A.’s efforts to address climate change,” she wrote.

Remember when conservatives were AGAINST “judicial activism”?

[squistion 2,105]

37 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Hey man, there’s nothing against the law about being wrong.  Please continue until your heart is content.

We can't expect anyone to respect the law when a wrong decision like this, that sanctions discrimination and takes aways rights (first time ever) by SCOTUS of a protected minority group. 

[dogcows 1,030]

Here’s a possible solution for those disappointed by the ruling against debt cancellation. Use this ruling on religious freedom to your advantage!