SCOTUS LGBTQ Ruling? No thread?

[Fireballer 2,410]

49 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The question being raised by many is: did the courts change their mind on standing because of the fake gay couple that found its way into the court record part-way through the process? Or was it simply legal disagreements at different levels of the judiciary?

If the former, then a fraud is at least one reason why they won the case.

If the latter, then anybody can challenge any law at any time, whether or not it actually affects them. Which basically allows the SCOTUS to be an unelected legislature. They don’t like a law? They don’t even need an injured party; they can just change it. Article III of the constitution need not apply I guess. But hey, they are the Supremes and I’m not, so I can’t do much about it.

No that’s not what this means.  She had standing because of the Chilling Effect.  It influenced her behavior, or lack thereof. You don’t get standing just because you want to challenge a law.  

[squistion 915]

3 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

No that’s not what this means.  She had standing because of the Chilling Effect.  It influenced her behavior, or lack thereof. You don’t get standing just because you want to challenge a law.  

It influenced her behavior to make up a fake email of a potential gay customer (who isn't gay and does web design business himself, so he would never need her services). Sorry, a potential worry of what hypothetically might happen in the future has never given one standing before. 

Under your logical, anyone would have standing to bring an action under any law if they imagined it might impact them and influence their behavior in the future, with the outcome being hundreds of frivolous lawsuits or actions filed by those who have not suffered damages or might never suffer damages.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,821]

So if I went to a film studio and said I want to pay for a movie to be made made that is contrary to the beliefs of the film studio would that be ok? Also, I think this whole thing is dumb. Stupid country.  

[squistion 915]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So if I went to a film studio and said I want to pay for a movie to be made made that is contrary to the beliefs of the film studio would that be ok? Also, I think this whole thing is dumb. Stupid country.  

That is a completely non-sensical analogy.

What does that have to do with anything that has been discussed in the thread? 

[Fireballer 2,410]

8 minutes ago, squistion said:

It influenced her behavior to make up a fake email of a potential gay customer (who isn't gay and does web design business himself, so he would never need her services). Sorry, a potential worry of what hypothetically might happen in the future has never given one standing before. 

Under your logical, anyone would have standing to bring an action under any law if they imagined it might impact them and influence their behavior in the future, with the outcome being hundreds of frivolous lawsuits or actions filed by those who have not suffered damages or might never suffer damages.

So please explain the Chilling Effect, Squire.

[Ultra Max Power 214]

47 minutes ago, MDC said:

Really? Lot of righties in this thread are spiking the football because an imaginary business can deny service to a theoretical gay couple.

Congrats?

Again, that isn't what this ruling is about. It's preserving the freedom of speech via content creation. 

This wasn't a denial of imaginary services ruling. 

Yes, LGBTQ is a protected group, but their protections can't tread on other people's constitutional rights.  That is something a lot of conservatives are happy to see.

[MDC 5,933]

2 minutes ago, Ultra Max Power said:

Again, that isn't what this ruling is about. It's preserving the freedom of speech via content creation. 

This wasn't a denial of imaginary services ruling. 

Yes, LGBTQ is a protected group, but their protections can't tread on other people's constitutional rights.  That is something a lot of conservatives are happy to see.

Ah yes, the free speech rights among content creators - always a hot topic at the GC. Geeks are also Very Concerned about gun violence in Chicago.  

[Ultra Max Power 214]

38 minutes ago, squistion said:

It influenced her behavior to make up a fake email of a potential gay customer (who isn't gay and does web design business himself, so he would never need her services). Sorry, a potential worry of what hypothetically might happen in the future has never given one standing before. 

Under your logical, anyone would have standing to bring an action under any law if they imagined it might impact them and influence their behavior in the future, with the outcome being hundreds of frivolous lawsuits or actions filed by those who have not suffered damages or might never suffer damages.

The whole LGBTQ argument with this is a hypothetical!!! It never happened.

[Ultra Max Power 214]

4 minutes ago, MDC said:

Ah yes, the free speech rights among content creators - always a hot topic at the GC. Geeks are also Very Concerned about gun violence in Chicago.  

I mean someone started a thread on it and half are lost in msm propaganda.

[squistion 915]

25 minutes ago, Ultra Max Power said:

Again, that isn't what this ruling is about. It's preserving the freedom of speech via content creation. 

This wasn't a denial of imaginary services ruling. 

Yes, LGBTQ is a protected group, but their protections can't tread on other people's constitutional rights.  That is something a lot of conservatives are happy to see.

Oh yes it was. The email she said was sent to her by a gay manrequesting her services was fake.

[bostonlager 2,479]

3 hours ago, MDC said:

I was told Republicans no longer cared about the gays.  

That is false. Do listen to anyone that tells you otherwise. It has nothing to do with the children. We simply don't like gheys. 

[Baker Boy 1,499]

39 minutes ago, MDC said:

Ah yes, the free speech rights among content creators - always a hot topic at the GC. Geeks are also Very Concerned about gun violence in Chicago.  

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Ronald Reagan

[Ultra Max Power 214]

6 minutes ago, squistion said:

Oh yes it was. The email she said was sent to her by a gay manrequesting her services was fake.

It wasn't. Per Gorsich

 

fundamental question: "Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?"

[MDC 5,933]

22 minutes ago, bostonlager said:

That is false. Do listen to anyone that tells you otherwise. It has nothing to do with the children. We simply don't like gheys. 

I know.  

[Hardcore troubadour 12,821]

2 hours ago, squistion said:

That is a completely non-sensical analogy.

What does that have to do with anything that has been discussed in the thread? 

People create websites.  People create movies. Get it now Libtard? 

[squistion 915]

31 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

People create websites.  People create movies. Get it now Libtard? 

But movie studios don't offer their services to the public to make films for them, do they?

You are terrible at analogies, you just quit making them rather than these apples and oranges comparisons that make absolutely no sens. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,821]

11 minutes ago, squistion said:

But movie studios don't offer their services to the public to make films for them, do they?

You are terrible at analogies, you just quit making them rather than these apples and oranges comparisons that make absolutely no sens. 

Sure they do. I show up with a script and money to pay for it. What’s the difference? 

[squistion 915]

10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Sure they do. I show up with a script and money to pay for it. What’s the difference? 

Unlike a service offered on a website, making a movie is not a service movies studio provide to the public for whoever shows up with some money and wants to make a film. If they don't wish to make a film with private financing, they can't be forced to do so, and there is no right being denied the party who wants to make the film that they could bring an action on. 

[RogerDodger 797]

7 minutes ago, squistion said:

Unlike a service offered on a website, making a movie is not a service movies studio provide to the public for whoever shows up with some money and wants to make a film. If they don't wish to make a film with private financing, they can't be forced to do so, and there is no right being denied the party who wants to make the film that they could bring an action on. 

I used artists who make paintings as an example earlier. But movies work too.  You cant force a baker, painter, website developer or movie making company to put your gay party on a cake, painting, website or movie.  Too bad for you, hurray for American freedom.   

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

4 hours ago, MDC said:

Really? Lot of righties in this thread are spiking the football because an imaginary business can deny service to a theoretical gay couple.

Congrats?

 

 

 

There was an assassination attempt on Kavanaugh. The activist MSM buried the story. Part of the reason that the protests happened in front the private homes of SCOTUS was that there was a leak by one of the clerks, which has never happened before.  This very likely hardened Kavanaugh in his positions. Mazie Hirono basically called Coney Barrett a wh0re to her face. While ACB had to be stoic about it, it also likely hardened her to the radical left. I don't agree with Thomas and Alito taking favors and grift from corporate interests, that being said, they were already hard line Conservative. 

If you threaten SCOTUS and don't finish the job, expect them to "flex" a little. To remind everyone that you can't just go around trying to incite fringe radicals to assassinate one of them. And that's exactly what happened. There are some rulings from SCOTUS on gerrymandering and immigration that are technically NOT a win for the Conservative base. But no one talks about those cases. 

I don't agree with what McConnell did to Merrick Garland. But nothing justifies Garland just sitting on the sidelines enabling sitting SCOTUS to be targeted like they were. 

Let's be honest about the logistics of this situation. You can't change SCOTUS unless someone retires or dies. Since it's no lock that Team Blue will hold POTUS in 2024, and that Thomas and Alito might offer strategic retirements to ensure young Conservatives hold the Court, clearly there is a backdoor push to try to intensify the pressure to get someone to retire ( i.e. going after Thomas' wife in public, she might be sort of a loon, but you aren't supposed to go after families like that) or to keep drumming up a fringe radical to make an assassination attempt. 

Let's also not pretend that the DNC, Team Blue HQ and the Obama/Biden regime wouldn't have been privately ecstatic if the assassin had finished the job with Kavanaugh. 

Team Blue came looking for a fight with the Conservative Catholics on SCOTUS. Now they have one.  

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,609]

19 minutes ago, squistion said:

Unlike a service offered on a website, making a movie is not a service movies studio provide to the public for whoever shows up with some money and wants to make a film. If they don't wish to make a film with private financing, they can't be forced to do so, and there is no right being denied the party who wants to make the film that they could bring an action on. 

Pretzel logic sounds great in your head, doesn't it?  When you actually say it you look ridiculous.  

Just like on the other board, you sit here and make excuses and try to say that the EXACT SAME processes are not exactly the same because...PROPAGANDA!... so you can fit it into your narrow world view.  GTFO with your nonsense.

[MDC 5,933]

7 minutes ago, Blue Horseshoe said:

 

 

 

There was an assassination attempt on Kavanaugh. The activist MSM buried the story. Part of the reason that the protests happened in front the private homes of SCOTUS was that there was a leak by one of the clerks, which has never happened before.  This very likely hardened Kavanaugh in his positions. Mazie Hirono basically called Coney Barrett a wh0re to her face. While ACB had to be stoic about it, it also likely hardened her to the radical left. I don't agree with Thomas and Alito taking favors and grift from corporate interests, that being said, they were already hard line Conservative. 

If you threaten SCOTUS and don't finish the job, expect them to "flex" a little. To remind everyone that you can't just go around trying to incite fringe radicals to assassinate one of them. And that's exactly what happened. There are some rulings from SCOTUS on gerrymandering and immigration that are technically NOT a win for the Conservative base. But no one talks about those cases. 

I don't agree with what McConnell did to Merrick Garland. But nothing justifies Garland just sitting on the sidelines enabling sitting SCOTUS to be targeted like they were. 

Let's be honest about the logistics of this situation. You can't change SCOTUS unless someone retires or dies. Since it's no lock that Team Blue will hold POTUS in 2024, and that Thomas and Alito might offer strategic retirements to ensure young Conservatives hold the Court, clearly there is a backdoor push to try to intensify the pressure to get someone to retire ( i.e. going after Thomas' wife in public, she might be sort of a loon, but you aren't supposed to go after families like that) or to keep drumming up a fringe radical to make an assassination attempt. 

Let's also not pretend that the DNC, Team Blue HQ and the Obama/Biden regime wouldn't have been privately ecstatic if the assassin had finished the job with Kavanaugh. 

Team Blue came looking for a fight with the Conservative Catholics on SCOTUS. Now they have one.  

Tldr

[Casual Observer 597]

On 7/2/2023 at 7:10 PM, 5-Points said:

As I recall, growing up in a Missionary Baptist family, Jesus was the son of God and judgment was the sole purveyorship of God, himself. 

 

No, unless you're some kind of Arian.  Baptists also believe that God is the Trinity, made up of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  These are the basics.

[Engorgeous George 1,235]

On 7/2/2023 at 12:31 PM, GutterBoy said:

Not really.  If you understand how college admissions work, it's giving AA preferential treatment based on their circumstances.  Nothing wrong with trying to make things more fair.  It's not a deciding factor, there is not "Solely" based on race

More fair?

[Engorgeous George 1,235]

On 7/2/2023 at 12:43 PM, GutterBoy said:

Will be interesting to see where it stops.  No gays allowed in restaurants next?  Chef's dishes are free speech?

Public accomodation may have an element of essential services.  Food, lodging, utilities, medical care.  It may not entail optional, artistic services.  i can't make Taylor swift of dead and company write a song about me, but i can demand servicve at a gas station or restaurant.

[Engorgeous George 1,235]

On 7/2/2023 at 12:56 PM, dogcows said:

People are going to push this as far as they can get away with. How are lower courts supposed to interpret what is expression? What if I make pizza, and it offends my deeply held beliefs for straight people to eat it? Each pizza is a work of art because the pepperoni I toss on there never lands in exactly the same place twice.

What about a gay bar that wants a sign for their bar in a small town? Let’s say there’s only one sign-maker in town and they decide it offends their sensibilities to make a sign for them?

One could come up with countless examples that abuse this ruling. 

I imagine in this day and age or internet commerce they could easily find clountless sign makers ready, willing, eager even to make their sign ande to ship it next day.  As for your pizza, i suppose you would have to call it artisan pizza.  That would leave straight folk, like me, having to eat crappy Dominoes pizza, Digiornos or learning how to make our own.  I do alright making my own but I worked in a rocky rococcos for two years in college.  Not everyone could do as well as clould I.

[Engorgeous George 1,235]

On 7/2/2023 at 12:54 PM, GutterBoy said:

Listened to a podcast this weekend suggesting this is just a small step in a greater move to restrict civil rights even further, can't remember exactly why, not a lawyer.

I have no worries along the lines.  i believe this to be hysteria to fire up the base.  If I did see it happening I would push back strenuously.

[Engorgeous George 1,235]

On 7/2/2023 at 1:46 PM, GutterBoy said:

You don't sound like a bigot.  Unfortunately we have lots of bigots that own businesses.  I said it before my hope is that we've come far enough as a society and have enough good people in this country whereas these activist judges and bigots can't negatively affect the good people.

 

I believe this hardware store will get sued, and successfully so.  I would take the case for any gay person denied service in this circumstance.

[dogcows 1,029]

18 hours ago, Blue Horseshoe said:

There was an assassination attempt on Kavanaugh. The activist MSM buried the story.

Are you friends with Tardcore? Always claiming stuff was “buried” when it clearly wasn’t.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/brett-kavanaugh-threat-arrest.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/08/kavanaugh-threat-arrest-justice/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics/man-arrested-near-brett-kavanaugh-home/index.html

Do those count as “MSM” sources to you? I heard the story on the radio too when I was driving that day, and saw it on TV news that evening.

As for the rest of your post, it reads like the weird speculations of a homeless conspiracy theorist holding up signs on a street corner.

[GutterBoy 2,291]

40 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

More fair?

I went to a public university.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,609]

2 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I went to a public university.

Right.  Glory Hole University based right at DNC HQ. 

[Baker Boy 1,499]

On 7/2/2023 at 2:25 PM, GutterBoy said:

What choices being forced on children are we talking about here?

1. It is not happening

[Hardcore troubadour 12,821]

49 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Are you friends with Tardcore? Always claiming stuff was “buried” when it clearly wasn’t.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/brett-kavanaugh-threat-arrest.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/08/kavanaugh-threat-arrest-justice/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics/man-arrested-near-brett-kavanaugh-home/index.html

Do those count as “MSM” sources to you? I heard the story on the radio too when I was driving that day, and saw it on TV news that evening.

As for the rest of your post, it reads like the weird speculations of a homeless conspiracy theorist holding up signs on a street corner.

What about all the people protesting at the judges home? That’s a crime you know. Looks like the DOJ buried it. 

[squistion 915]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

Are you friends with Tardcore? Always claiming stuff was “buried” when it clearly wasn’t.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/brett-kavanaugh-threat-arrest.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/08/kavanaugh-threat-arrest-justice/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics/man-arrested-near-brett-kavanaugh-home/index.html

Do those count as “MSM” sources to you? I heard the story on the radio too when I was driving that day, and saw it on TV news that evening.

As for the rest of your post, it reads like the weird speculations of a homeless conspiracy theorist holding up signs on a street corner.

And I remember at least one thread about it on PSA (it was probably talked about here too).

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,609]

29 minutes ago, squistion said:

And I remember at least one thread about it on PSA (it was probably talked about here too).

I also remember you insisting that LGBQ did not have ANY civil rights at all until Ivan had to call you out on it.  Then you tried to backtrack and looked all kinds of foolish. 

THAT is how much propaganda you read - you didn't even realize they DID have Civil Rights protection.   

[squistion 915]

1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I also remember you insisting that LGBQ did not have ANY civil rights at all until Ivan had to call you out on it.  Then you tried to backtrack and looked all kinds of foolish.  

THAT is how much propaganda you read - you didn't even realize they DID have Civil Rights protection.  

I never said that and I proved it because no one was ever able to come up with a link to the quote (or more importantly with anyone quoting my quote, which would still exist even if I had deleted the original post). Someone made a Straw Man argument and people like the JC professor Ivan ran with it falsely claiming that is what I said.

And it didn't make any sense that someone living in California, the state with the most legal protections for LGBTQ folks, would claim they have no civil rights in this country. 

[HellToupee 752]

35 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I also remember you insisting that LGBQ did not have ANY civil rights at all until Ivan had to call you out on it.  Then you tried to backtrack and looked all kinds of foolish. 

THAT is how much propaganda you read - you didn't even realize they DID have Civil Rights protection.   

I remember this as well 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,609]

33 minutes ago, squistion said:

I never said that and I proved it because no one was ever able to come up with a link to the quote (or more importantly with anyone quoting my quote, which would still exist even if I had deleted the original post). Someone made a Straw Man argument and people like the JC professor Ivan ran with it falsely claiming that is what I said.

And it didn't make any sense that someone living in California, the state with the most legal protections for LGBTQ folks, would claim they have no civil rights in this country. 

Yeah, you used the same ridiculous excuse in the other form too. Everyone saw you say it. It was proven that you said it and then you still insist that you didn't. But you did.

[GutterBoy 2,291]

2 hours ago, Baker Boy said:

1. It is not happening

Can't answer the question 

[squistion 915]

59 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Yeah, you used the same ridiculous excuse in the other form too. Everyone saw you say it. It was proven that you said it and then you still insist that you didn't. But you did.

Fine. Show me the link where it was proven. You can't because it never happened.