SCOTUS LGBTQ Ruling? No thread?

[squistion 2,197]

2 minutes ago, dogcows said:

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:

Remember when conservatives were AGAINST “judicial activism”?

And it must be called judicial activism when it ignores centuries of legal precedent. 

[iam90sbaby 2,610]

Libtards have the oval office but it still feels like we're winning far more often, mainly because of Trumps supreme court appointees. Thanks Trump!

[iam90sbaby 2,610]

36 minutes ago, dogcows said:

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:

Remember when conservatives were AGAINST “judicial activism”?

Yes we're pushing an agenda, you gonna cry about it?

[Fireballer 2,642]

36 minutes ago, squistion said:

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. 

You’re to much bro.  You’re ignorance is astounding, even for a Footballguys refugee.  You can’t even understand the standing in this case, so I guess I’m not surprised you dont understand anything else.

[GutterBoy 2,899]

9 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

You’re to much bro.  You’re ignorance is astounding, 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,420]

57 minutes ago, dogcows said:

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

 

Then only Jews will have to pay their debts.  

[Fireballer 2,642]

22 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I chuckled. Good catch

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,099]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

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. 

Even if that was the case (it's not), you m'fers haven't respected the law for decades.  GTFO.

[squistion 2,197]

3 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Even if that was the case (it's not), you m'fers haven't respected the law for decades.  GTFO.

It is the case. 

[HellToupee 1,773]

17 minutes ago, squistion said:

It is the case. 

Meatball Ron backed up what I’ve told you about Donald

 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,099]

28 minutes ago, squistion said:

It is the case. 

It's not, despite your tears and fake outrage.  I can't even give you an "A" for effort since you've been pulling the same drama day in, day out for the last 20 years in the other forum and now this one.  Your one trick pony show is tired, old and lame.  It didn't work for the last 20 years won't work now in here and you certainly weren't fooling anyone. 

You don't have the protection of the mods in here so there is no one you can run to and get suspended/banned because someone looked at you cross-eyed.

[RogerDodger 798]

9 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

Ah, the ultimate goal! 

[RogerDodger 798]

54 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

It's not, despite your tears and fake outrage.  I can't even give you an "A" for effort since you've been pulling the same drama day in, day out for the last 20 years in the other forum and now this one.  Your one trick pony show is tired, old and lame.  It didn't work for the last 20 years won't work now in here and you certainly weren't fooling anyone. 

You don't have the protection of the mods in here so there is no one you can run to and get suspended/banned because someone looked at you cross-eyed.

100%

Except hes already got the best poster in geek club history suspended.   FBGs rejects are a cancer.  

[squistion 2,197]

53 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

100%

Except hes already got the best poster in geek club history suspended.   FBGs rejects are a cancer.  

I haven't gotten anybody suspended here and the mod(s) can verify that. 

[squistion 2,197]

15 hours ago, HellToupee said:

Meatball Ron backed up what I’ve told you about Donald

 

Pot calling the kettle black. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,099]

1 minute ago, squistion said:

I haven't gotten anybody suspended here and the mod(s) can verify that. 

You got the mods here on speed dial already?

Amazing.

[squistion 2,197]

11 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

You got the mods here on speed dial already?

Amazing.

I have yet to report one person on this forum...and what would be the point after seeing what is allowed? It seems like anything goes here.

It is nice in a way that this forum is pretty much unmoderated as I have yet to be suspended (Joe B in the PSF gave me a time out about every two weeks) but it may explain why this place doesn't have a fraction of the traffic of some competing sites. 

[jerryskids 6,792]

19 hours ago, dogcows said:

 

Remember when conservatives were AGAINST “judicial activism”?

Conservatives are for a single point of activism:  actively fighting against the constant activism of the Leftist cult in their attempt to destroy our culture of community and sacrifice and replace it with a selfish, hedonistic culture controlled by the State.

I'd say it was a good week on that front.   

[MDC 7,407]

On 6/30/2023 at 2:16 PM, GutterBoy said:

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

Maybe I’m stupid, but I think the Civil Rights Act guarantees public accommodations to protected groups based on minority status and religion. The CRA has never protected people on the basis of sexual orientation, so it would be legal to deny services to same sex couples but not black people for example.

I only read the OP’s article so correct me if I’m wrong. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,420]

12 hours ago, squistion said:

I haven't gotten anybody suspended here and the mod(s) can verify that. 

You know who the mods are? I’ve been here a while and I don’t. How did you get to know them so fast? 

[Fireballer 2,642]

24 minutes ago, MDC said:

Maybe I’m stupid, but I think the Civil Rights Act guarantees public accommodations to protected groups based on minority status and religion. The CRA has never protected people on the basis of sexual orientation, so it would be legal to deny services to same sex couples but not black people for example.

I only read the OP’s article so correct me if I’m wrong. 

The court is clear that this would not be denying services. That would be illegal. It’s preventing the violation of the 1st amendment through Colorados state law. 

[GutterBoy 2,899]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

I have yet to report one person on this forum...and what would be the point after seeing what is allowed? It seems like anything goes here.

It is nice in a way that this forum is pretty much unmoderated as I have yet to be suspended (Joe B in the PSF gave me a time out about every two weeks) but it may explain why this place doesn't have a fraction of the traffic of some competing sites. 

I'm probably the person that has gotten suspended the most here and I've never reported anyone.  The magas don't like to be insulted

[squistion 2,197]

17 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You know who the mods are? I’ve been here a while and I don’t. How did you get to know them so fast? 

Not personally and not by name. But the forum is moderated by one or more folks (I have seen some threads locked) so if I said something considered beyond the pale (whatever that might be) I am sure there would have been consequences. 

[GutterBoy 2,899]

56 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Conservatives are for a single point of activism:  actively fighting against the constant activism of the Leftist cult in their attempt to destroy our culture of community and sacrifice and replace it with a selfish, hedonistic culture controlled by the State.

I'd say it was a good week on that front.   

So affirmative action, protecting from discrimination, and helping people is selfish hedonistic culture.  You sure about that Jerry?

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,099]

3 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

So affirmative action, protecting from discrimination, and helping people is selfish hedonistic culture.  You sure about that Jerry?

Except that's not what you're doing. Virtual signaling doesn't help anyone. Hope that helps.

[MDC 7,407]

53 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

The court is clear that this would not be denying services. That would be illegal. It’s preventing the violation of the 1st amendment through Colorados state law. 

So the web designer can’t refuse service to gay people - she can only say she refuses their service?

Cornfused.  

[Fireballer 2,642]

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

So the web designer can’t refuse service to gay people - she can only say she refuses their service?

Cornfused.  

It’s not considered a service. Her “product” if you will, would be a very customized web design based on her own creative expression.  The court considers it protected by 1A.  The ruling was that no one could compel her to create “speech” in which she did not agree with.  

[5-Points 3,526]

47 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

So affirmative action, protecting from discrimination, and helping people is selfish hedonistic culture.  You sure about that Jerry?

That is the polar opposite of affirmative action. AA is state sanctioned discrimination based solely on race. 

And SCOTUS correctly kicked it to the curb. 

[Cdub100 3,906]

21 hours ago, dogcows said:

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

 

Dumb, Broke his own rule by taking the loan. So no this doesn't make sense and ain't even funny.

[5-Points 3,526]

1 minute ago, Cdub100 said:

Dumb, Broke his own rule by taking the loan. So no this doesn't make sense and ain't even funny.

It's dogfarts. Nothing he/she posts makes sense or is funny. 

[GutterBoy 2,899]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

Maybe I’m stupid, but I think the Civil Rights Act guarantees public accommodations to protected groups based on minority status and religion. The CRA has never protected people on the basis of sexual orientation, so it would be legal to deny services to same sex couples but not black people for example.

I only read the OP’s article so correct me if I’m wrong. 

This ruling essentially overrules the CRA based on free speech.  So all you have to do is argue that your free speech is being violated and you can deny service all you want, according to this ruling.

[Cdub100 3,906]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

This ruling essentially overrules the CRA based on free speech.  So all you have to do is argue that your free speech is being violated and you can deny service all you want, according to this ruling.

Imagine all the business people will get from all the denial of services companies.

[5-Points 3,526]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

This ruling essentially overrules the CRA based on free speech.  So all you have to do is argue that your free speech is being violated and you can deny service all you want, according to this ruling.

As it should be unless you're required by law, or oath, to do otherwise. Doctors, for example can't refuse care based on the patient's political beliefs. 

[GutterBoy 2,899]

16 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

That is the polar opposite of affirmative action. AA is state sanctioned discrimination based solely on race. 

And SCOTUS correctly kicked it to the curb. 

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

[MDC 7,407]

7 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

This ruling essentially overrules the CRA based on free speech.  So all you have to do is argue that your free speech is being violated and you can deny service all you want, according to this ruling.

Seems really questionable to me that this woman’s original web content would not be a public accommodation / product or service.

[GutterBoy 2,899]

7 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

As it should be unless you're required by law, or oath, to do otherwise. Doctors, for example can't refuse care based on the patient's political beliefs. 

saying that building a website is free speech is a stretch.

[5-Points 3,526]

4 minutes ago, 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

They didn't rule that you couldn't take hardships or life circumstances into account. They simply ruled that race, alone, couldn't be included in the deciding criteria. 

[GutterBoy 2,899]

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

Seems really questionable to me that this woman’s original web content would not be a public accommodation / product or service.

It is a public accomodation, but the court ruled its also free speech, so she doesn't have to create speech that she disagrees with.  It's a stretch for sure.

[GutterBoy 2,899]

Just now, 5-Points said:

They didn't rule that you couldn't take hardships or life circumstances into account. They simply ruled that race, alone, couldn't be included in the deciding criteria. 

true. 

[5-Points 3,526]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

saying that building a website is free speech is a stretch.

If the website goes against your personal beliefs and you have the courage of your convictions to refuse the money, that should be your right of refusal.