If you're wanting to pull that thread then this is about racism. Not gender.
It's something new when they're being sacked for stating scientific fact. That stopped happening sometime around the time of galileo...
US Democrats upset that the Supreme Court has voted, by majority, that racism isn't ok anymore
- Thread starter Caracus2k
- Start date
If you're wanting to pull that thread then this is about racism. Not gender.
It's something new when they're being sacked for stating scientific fact. That stopped happening sometime around the time of galileo...
Yes, they do. Are you suggesting that if it available to the public they don't have a choice.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,190
- Location
- London, UK
What service are they selling to the public?
So you are saying men should be able to join women's swimming clubs? Adults join children's clubs?
A club or association isn't the same as a businesses offering services to the public. If a store opened a portrait service and denied that service to anyone who wasn't a heterosexual white couple or maybe a heterosexual black couple instead, you think that would be acceptable?
Yes.it is their choice, and the market will decide.
Given how glacial the US court system works it could well be a decade until it gets there, in the mean time that's a lot of potential people going to jail for their speech is it not? Which was your initial point.
Still discrimination and not what this ruling states is a constitutional right protected by 1a. I believe Placidcasual posed a situation to you about someone being aksed to make nazi paraphernalia, so same question: Should a Jewish shop owner that makes flags/t-shirts be forced to knock out merchandise with a nazi flag on it? You seem to be arguing that they should.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,190
- Location
- London, UK
Not if the first court it hits strikes it down. They can of course appeal it but the judge can still stop the law taking effect until the appeal process is complete.
How is it? The photographer is creating something. It is no different to someone creating a website. The photographer can simply say creating photographs of same sex couples goes against his 1st Amendment rights. I could see that cases the SC denied after the Civil Rights Act being bought again now but this time using religious beliefs for free speech claims based on race.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,190
- Location
- London, UK
Really? You think adults should be allowed to join children clubs and there is nothing the clubs can do to stop them? You can't see a problem with that?
The market will decide. If you as a father know this you will not send your child their.
Company goes under.
But then again children have special status.
Lots of feminists don't like trans.
Last edited:
Of course they are 2 different things. Which religions have racial inequality at their core?
You mean exactly how this case was struck down by the 1st court it hit? It would still be 'law' until it got all the way to the SC and then, maybe, found to be unconstitutional.
Are you saying you don't believe an adult that says they identify as a child? such a bigot
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,190
- Location
- London, UK
Ok a women's rape support association. You think they should be forced to allow men to join? How about rapists?
Trans?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,190
- Location
- London, UK
Maybe you should go back and read some of the cases bought to the SC after the Civil Rights Act where people said it was against their 1st Amendment to allow blacks to enter their premises ect. And I thought this case wasn't about religion but about freedom of speech?
If a law is struck down then the court stops it being enforced so no one is effected by it. If it gets to the SC and they then uphold it then it will start to effect people.
Are you saying you don't believe an adult that says they identify as a child? such a bigot
I think the idea that associations/clubs should be forced to accept everyone is stupid. Imagine an adult support association for victims of childhood sexual assault being forced to allow a convicted pedo to join. Talk of "the market will sort it out" is just daft.
You/twitter/reddit decided to bring religion and race into the discussion with the following "I could see that cases the SC denied after the Civil Rights Act being bought again now but this time using religious beliefs for free speech claims based on race." So I'm asking which religions have racial intolerance at their core and how would they use said religious beliefs to discriminate based on race? Where's the argument? Just parroting Sotomayor's dissent opinion isn't offering any reasons why, especially when her dissent on the case has been mocked/ridiculed and laughed at, not only by her fellow scotus judges but the wider community too.
Crossed wires I believe, my point was that it would be that the challenge would be struck down so the law would be enforced all the way until heard by the SC.
Aren't the majority of pedos themselves the victims of sa whilst a child? Sure I read that somewhere.
