SCOTUS LGBTQ Ruling? No thread?

[5-Points 2,809]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

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

Cutting off boobs & junk at a pre-pubecent age. Those kids can't make those decisions. 

Tomboys have always been a thing. Most of them grow out of it, given the chance. Removing breast tissue and internal organs offers no chance of reconsideration when they actually get through puberty and realize they are who they are. 

Encouraging a kid to cut off his peemus because he plays with his sister's dolls and doesn't show an interest in sports or competition or any stereotypical "boy" activities before his nuts drop. 

Like it or not, that sort of thing is happening and it is being championed instead of being cautioned against. 

Life changing alterations shouldn't be taken lightly. And, lately, for some reason, they seem to be encouraged on a whimsical basis. 

 

 

[GutterBoy 2,502]

1 minute ago, 5-Points said:

Cutting off boobs & junk at a pre-pubecent age. Those kids can't make those decisions. 

Tomboys have always been a thing. Most of them grow out of it, given the chance. Removing breast tissue and internal organs offers no chance of reconsideration when they actually get through puberty and realize they are who they are. 

Encouraging a kid to cut off his peemus because he plays with his sister's dolls and doesn't show an interest in sports or competition or any stereotypical "boy" activities before his nuts drop. 

Like it or not, that sort of thing is happening and it is being championed instead of being cautioned against. 

Life changing alterations shouldn't be taken lightly. And, lately, for some reason, they seem to be encouraged on a whimsical basis. 

 

 

Yeah I'm pretty sure we all agree that no one should coerce kids into sex change operations, nor do I believe this is happening.

[5-Points 2,809]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

Yeah I'm pretty sure we all agree that no one should coerce kids into sex change operations, nor do I believe this is happening.

There are doctors performing the procedures. On minors. Should they be allowed to do so? 

[GutterBoy 2,502]

5 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

There are doctors performing the procedures. On minors. Should they be allowed to do so? 

That's the debate right?  I personally don't think they should, I think waiting to 18 is fine, but I'm not a doctor or a parent of a transgender child.

[Hardcore troubadour 13,012]

47 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

That's a common thing amongst self-proclaimed Christians. Many feel they're righteous in their beliefs. When, actually, God might disagree. I wouldn't include HT in that group. I don't think he is judgemental against an adult's chosen lifestyle. He just doesn't approve of forcing those choices on children before they have a chance to decide for themselves. 

No sensible person should have a problem with that. 

Correct. 

[Hardcore troubadour 13,012]

15 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Yeah I'm pretty sure we all agree that no one should coerce kids into sex change operations, nor do I believe this is happening.

Except for the ones saying they were coerced. And suing. 

[5-Points 2,809]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

That's the debate right?  I personally don't think they should, I think waiting to 18 is fine, but I'm not a doctor or a parent of a transgender child.

I don't think there should be a debate. I think any reasonable person can agree that children, or their psycho parents, shouldn't be allowed to make life altering, irreversible, changes before the person undergoing the procedure is past the age of consent. Unless that procedure is a life saving procedure. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,782]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

 

WaPo? 

"Wapo Confirms" is an oxymoron.  The only thing they ever confirm is what their leftists masters tell them which propaganda to "confirm". 

They're no better than Joseph Goebbels run media. GTFO with your propaganda.  

[Casual Observer 597]

2 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

So you think in order to be Christian you have to attend mass frequently?  Typical judgemental Catholic.

Oh.  I thought this was keeping holy the sabbath.

[Casual Observer 597]

1 hour ago, 5-Points said:

"Judge not, lest ye be judged."

He wasn't for or against it. He knew it wasn't up to him. 

This would have fallen under the ban on sexual immorality.  If I'm not mistaken, the Jews of Jesus's day would have stoned homos.  If you're a Christian, you believe that Jesus is God and ultimately judges everyone.  The "judge not lest ye be judged" of Matthew Ch. 7 is not an injunction against judging.  The full quote is "Judge ye not, lest ye be judged.  For with what measure you use will be measured back to you."  The quote means essentially that if you're going to be hard on other people, expect them to be hard on you.

[5-Points 2,809]

17 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

This would have fallen under the ban on sexual immorality.  If I'm not mistaken, the Jews of Jesus's day would have stoned homos.  If you're a Christian, you believe that Jesus is God and ultimately judges everyone.  The "judge not lest ye be judged" of Matthew Ch. 7 is not an injunction against judging.  The full quote is "Judge ye not, lest ye be judged.  For with what measure you use will be measured back to you."  The quote means essentially that if you're going to be hard on other people, expect them to be hard on you.

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. 

 

[jerryskids 5,442]

5 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

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

Yep, I'm sure.  Then again, I'm not using your Leftist MSM generated descriptors for what happened.   

[squistion 1,000]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

WaPo? 

"Wapo Confirms" is an oxymoron.  The only thing they ever confirm is what their leftists masters tell them which propaganda to "confirm". 

They're no better than Joseph Goebbels run media. GTFO with your propaganda.  

Their leftist masters? Has anyone ever met someone who talks like that in real life? 

[GutterBoy 2,502]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Yep, I'm sure.  Then again, I'm not using your Leftist MSM generated descriptors for what happened.   

Do you want to attempt to describe what is hedonistic and selfish about any of those?  Should be good for a laugh

[jerryskids 5,442]

25 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Do you want to attempt to describe what is hedonistic and selfish about any of those?  Should be good for a laugh

Loan forgiveness:  making happy those who made questionable college choices at the expense of tax payers, including those who paid off their loans and/or worked to minimize those loans, and those who chose a non-college career.  As a bonus, helping to secure the current and future votes of said questionable college choice makers.  Hedonistic/selfish for both the poor choosers and the Left.

[GutterBoy 2,502]

5 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Loan forgiveness:  making happy those who made questionable college choices at the expense of tax payers, including those who paid off their loans and/or worked to minimize those loans, and those who chose a non-college career.  As a bonus, helping to secure the current and future votes of said questionable college choice makers.  Hedonistic/selfish for both the poor choosers and the Left.

A stretch but not bad.  Doesn't apply to the others though

[jerryskids 5,442]

4 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

A stretch but not bad.  Doesn't apply to the others though

You asked for "any".  Or did you forget what you posted 10 minutes ago.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,782]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

Their leftist masters? Has anyone ever met someone who talks like that in real life? 

Well we got one of your buddies here calling everyone that doesn't agree with him a cultist.

But I get that you want to throw up smoke screens and distract with inane conversations because the truth for you is like poison.  Heaven forbid you would ever argue the point.

[GutterBoy 2,502]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You asked for "any".  Or did you forget what you posted 10 minutes ago.

And I said not bad, so you're 1/3 accurate

  Congrats.  Better than usual

[jerryskids 5,442]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

And I said not bad, so you're 1/3 accurate

  Congrats.  Better than usual

Apparently you don't know the definition of "any".  But playing along, it's easy enough to sub in other groups for the other decisions, both the selected "preferred" group of the left and the victims of their selection.  

[squistion 1,000]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Well we got one of your buddies here calling everyone that doesn't agree with him a cultist.

But I get that you want to throw up smoke screens and distract with inane conversations because the truth for you is like poison.  Heaven forbid you would ever argue the point.

Talking about "their leftist masters" is something you would expect from that crazy right wing uncle you try to stay away from at family gatherings. That is so nuts sounding that you don't even hear it on Fox.

[dogcows 1,030]

Between this case and the student loan case, we see that the Supremes no longer care about standing. No plaintiff was actually hurt (or would be hurt) by the loan repayment. And the website case was about an imaginary website for an imaginary gay  couple.

I thought the mifepristone case would be tossed due to lack of standing. But it’s clear that no longer matters to the power-mad federalist society super legislature. So maybe they will decide they know more about medicine than the scientists at the FDA. They already claim to know more about climate science than the EPA.

Conservatives used to complain about “legislating from the bench.” But at least in past cases, actual cases with plaintiffs that suffered harm were brought. Now we literally have legislating from the bench, with no actual case needed.

[Ultra Max Power 214]

8 hours ago, dogcows said:

Between this case and the student loan case, we see that the Supremes no longer care about standing. No plaintiff was actually hurt (or would be hurt) by the loan repayment. And the website case was about an imaginary website for an imaginary gay  couple.

I thought the mifepristone case would be tossed due to lack of standing. But it’s clear that no longer matters to the power-mad federalist society super legislature. So maybe they will decide they know more about medicine than the scientists at the FDA. They already claim to know more about climate science than the EPA.

Conservatives used to complain about “legislating from the bench.” But at least in past cases, actual cases with plaintiffs that suffered harm were brought. Now we literally have legislating from the bench, with no actual case needed.

How would loans be forgiven without any financial impact to the average joe?  

Biden was trying to inappropriately apply the HEROS Act.  That part of the ruling won't change.  

[Hardcore troubadour 13,012]

Typical liberals. This government comes together and does the right thing to take care of our military as it concerns student loans while they are sent to fight with the HEROS act. Instead of going through the legislation like with that, these scumbags try and use that to buy votes by giving it to everyone. Just shows that they simply can’t be trusted.  

[Fireballer 2,425]

11 hours ago, dogcows said:

Between this case and the student loan case, we see that the Supremes no longer care about standing. No plaintiff was actually hurt (or would be hurt) by the loan repayment. And the website case was about an imaginary website for an imaginary gay  couple.

I thought the mifepristone case would be tossed due to lack of standing. But it’s clear that no longer matters to the power-mad federalist society super legislature. So maybe they will decide they know more about medicine than the scientists at the FDA. They already claim to know more about climate science than the EPA.

Conservatives used to complain about “legislating from the bench.” But at least in past cases, actual cases with plaintiffs that suffered harm were brought. Now we literally have legislating from the bench, with no actual case needed.

Lucky for her no legal experts that work for the State of Colorado know what you know.  And to think, they could have saved gays all this persecution by simply tossing it based on her lack of standing.

[dogcows 1,030]

Just now, Fireballer said:

Lucky for her no legal experts that work for the State of Colorado know what you know.  And to think, they could have saved gays all this persecution by simply tossing it based on her lack of standing.

They actually DID dismiss the case but she kept appealing up. She had a Senator’s wife in her corner and magically the court decided they didn’t care about standing when it got to them. And somewhere along the line, information about a fake request to make a gay wedding site got into the record.

[Fireballer 2,425]

17 minutes ago, dogcows said:

They actually DID dismiss the case but she kept appealing up. She had a Senator’s wife in her corner and magically the court decided they didn’t care about standing when it got to them. And somewhere along the line, information about a fake request to make a gay wedding site got into the record.

It was literally dismissed up the chain based on her having no standing?

[dogcows 1,030]

3 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

It was literally dismissed up the chain based on her having no standing?

If your case is dismissed, you can challenge that, which she did. This started in 2016.

At some point, they came up with this fake gay couple. Not sure if that was part of the court record or just something they released to the press. Here’s the most detailed info I found on it so far.

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

Quote

The closest thing Smith had to an actual inquiry—the nonwedding of Stewart and Mike—arrived within 24 hours of her having filed a suit in which said inquiry would be potentially a helpful piece of supporting evidence. The inquiry floats through the filings only later, and still it remains. 

 

[MDC 6,005]

I was told Republicans no longer cared about the gays.  

[Fireballer 2,425]

2 minutes ago, dogcows said:

If your case is dismissed, you can challenge that, which she did. This started in 2016.

At some point, they came up with this fake gay couple. Not sure if that was part of the court record or just something they released to the press. Here’s the most detailed info I found on it so far.

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

 

Ok, I’ll ask again…was she found to have no standing by lower courts?

[Ultra Max Power 214]

7 minutes ago, MDC said:

I was told Republicans no longer cared about the gays.  

I don't think they do

[dogcows 1,030]

4 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Ok, I’ll ask again…was she found to have no standing by lower courts?

Yes… linking from the article:

Quote

When Smith and her attorneys, the Christian right group Alliance Defending Freedom, or ADF, brought this case for the first time, it was to the United States District Court in Colorado in 2016, and they lost.

 

[Fireballer 2,425]

2 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Yes… linking from the article:

 

So now you’re telling me you don’t know the difference between standing and losing a case? It almost seems like you think standing is the case going in your favor.  Trials don’t even go forward if you don’t have standing.

[dogcows 1,030]

7 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

So now you’re telling me you don’t know the difference between standing and losing a case? It almost seems like you think standing is the case going in your favor.  Trials don’t even go forward if you don’t have standing.

You clearly didn’t read the article or the linked legal documents in it. I’ll do a direct link for you: Here’s a court document from one of their appeals specifically stating that they lost the original case due to a lack of standing (page 10 is one example of that being clearly stated).

https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/303CreativeAppellateOpinion.pdf

[Ultra Max Power 214]

The case was ruled on and dismissed procedurally for standing.  The Judges did however say Smith has standing to challenge the Colorado statue. 

[dogcows 1,030]

7 minutes ago, Ultra Max Power said:

The case was ruled on and dismissed procedurally for standing.  The Judges did however say Smith has standing to challenge the Colorado statue. 

Yes, but to be clear: That standing ruling was the ruling of the 10th circuit, which overruled the lower court.

[Ultra Max Power 214]

6 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Yes, but to be clear: That standing ruling was the ruling of the 10th circuit, which overruled the lower court.

yes, because they thought the lower court got that wrong.  So did SCOTUS.  So to act like this case didn't have standing, just isn't correct. 

[dogcows 1,030]

Just now, Ultra Max Power said:

yes, because they thought the lower court got that wrong.  So did SCOTUS.  So to act like this case didn't have standing, just isn't correct. 

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.

[Ultra Max Power 214]

5 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.

The circuit ruled the law affects how she has to operate her business based on the threat of punishment and that allowed her to be an impacted party. 

Had nothing to do with the alleged fake couple. 

[MDC 6,005]

1 hour ago, Ultra Max Power said:

I don't think they do

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

Congrats?