It's a pre-enforcement challenge bought by the owner of the graphic design business as she wants to expand into designing wedding websites, it's in the wapo article linked above..
Last edited:
US Democrats upset that the Supreme Court has voted, by majority, that racism isn't ok anymore
- Thread starter Caracus2k
- Start date
Soldato
The problem with AA is it was designed when it was just between white and black people.
The fact other races don't have problems with racial discrimination admissions puts a question mark on if AA is needed, especially now it's discriminating against other minority groups.
The fact other races don't have problems with racial discrimination admissions puts a question mark on if AA is needed, especially now it's discriminating against other minority groups.
Soldato
Yes I do think extremist religion is bad. Don't care if its Christian, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism. When you use your religion for bigoty then it should be called out. In fact I don't like extremism full stop, left and right extremes of politics are almost as bad. At least they don't try and claim a deity is telling them to behave like that though.
Soldato
I don't think it is needed today. It was in the past though. Lets not forget women were also included in AA, it wasn't just about race.
Permabanned
The Colonel doesn't spend all day reading and responding to stuff on the internet you know? He has a life....
Soldato
The SC is supposed to judge where there is a real case where harm has been caused. In the case of the website "designer" no request had been made so no harm had been caused. Subsequent to the initial filing, the suit was updated naming someone and providing contact details for them. A journalist recently contacted "Stewart" who allegedly wanted a wedding website for his wedding to "Mike". Stewart is happily married to a woman, has a child, lives in SF and is an actual website designer. He had made no request to the supposedly harmed bigot other designer.
If the filing is untrue, can the judgement stand?
In the case of the banning of the debt cancellation policy, again there is no harm other than to the taxpayers in general. Previously no suit has been allowed against how a government chooses to spend the taxpayers' monies for obvious reasons.
The SCOTUS has gone into areas never before under their jurisdiction and are making a mockery of their supposed "independence".
If the filing is untrue, can the judgement stand?
In the case of the banning of the debt cancellation policy, again there is no harm other than to the taxpayers in general. Previously no suit has been allowed against how a government chooses to spend the taxpayers' monies for obvious reasons.
The SCOTUS has gone into areas never before under their jurisdiction and are making a mockery of their supposed "independence".
So someone who follows the tenants of their faith is an extremist?
Able to provide a link?
If they try to disturb others with it, yes.
Soldato
When they use their religion as an excuse for bigotry then yes and the US has a massive problem with evangelical Christianity. They wish to impose their views on a whole nation.
Soldato
Associate
The Supreme court is now very right wing, they don't Judge on right or wrong anymore they judge on whos putting it through.
Roe v Wade, was case law, supposed to be set in stone but the Republicans got lucky and was able to fill it with a majority in their favour, Case law is now no longer any use in the supreme court, they tore up the rule book.
No law is safe now, the Republicans can win everything because if anyone rules against them they appeal it all the way to the supreme court who will side with them.
Roe v Wade, was case law, supposed to be set in stone but the Republicans got lucky and was able to fill it with a majority in their favour, Case law is now no longer any use in the supreme court, they tore up the rule book.
No law is safe now, the Republicans can win everything because if anyone rules against them they appeal it all the way to the supreme court who will side with them.
Last edited:
hmm, it seems that the validity of the gentleman in question doesn't matter as he was never brought up in the SCOTUS case, nor was he ever referenced as far as I can tell? he seems to have been brought up in a court filing in 2017 and then dropped/never mentioned again.
Last edited:
Soldato
Thanks this is the story I was trying to find the tweet about but couldn't. I saw someone retweet her story but couldn't remember who tweeted it and certainly couldn't remember her name.
Found it, thanks to Mike
Yes, I gathered this was the one you were on about, but as above it seems a bit of a nothing burger as the case brought in front of SCOTUS doesn't mention anyone by name, nor does it reference anyone having requested a same sex website, it deals in hypotheticals so to speak.
And before you say no one would ever ask a christian website designer to do a same sex website, you must remember thats what happened to the christian cake baker, incidentally some trans activists asked him to bake them a cake celebrating some trans person and he refused, and shock horror that ones going to court as they sued when he told them to do one. People will ultimately act maliciously.
Last edited:
Soldato
The point according to MSNBC is that SCOTUS is only supposed to act in real situations where harm has been caused, not hypotheticals.
The case was the designer Vs the state of Colorado wasn't it? Or specifically the director of Colorado's civil rights division. I'm sure if the case should never have made it all the way to the scotus then the 3 left leaning judges would have mentioned this, but they didnt.
Someone's upset the SC isn't full of 'progressive' activists that are going to push through the nonsense the Democrats having been trying on of late...
This is absolute nonsense of the highest order.
There had been 233 Supreme Court Decisions overturned before Roe v Wade was overturned.
Not many as an overall % of the decision made but some of the decisions overturned were quite quite notable like Lawrence v Texas which ruled that in almost all cases that anti sodomy laws (that were mostly used to target gay men) were unconstitutional, contrary to prior decisions.
Should that one of been 'set in stone'?
As always the politicians are playing the voters for fools.
Rather than relying on a Supreme Court Decision that was they knew was always risky the Democrats could have actually codified a federal right to abortion in actual Statue rather than and SC decision.
They had at least two times when they could have done so in the past few decades but didn't
Why?
Mostly because by falling to legislate for it they could continue to use it as an election issue because the 'right' to an abortion was always more at risk as long as the didn't legislate for it.
If they really cared for managing the rights of women whilst not going absolutely berserk and allowing the abortion of healthy, viable full or near full term foetuses they could have brought in a law and been like most of the rest of the developed world that allow elective abortions earlier on in pregnancies but have restrictions on later term ones.
Keeping the abortion issue a precarious one suited the Democrats.
The Supreme Court are just there for checks and balances. Roe v Wade was clearly a stretch to pull a 'right' to abortion from the constitution as it was already written....
The Democrats play you for a fool.
Biden doesn't give a **** about minorities (remember the racial jungle) or for the rights of gay people...
"Marriage is between a man and a woman and states must respect that.... why do we need a constitutional amendment?"
or any of the other groups the Democrats pander to.
He uses them and in doing so actually hurts them...
Just like the student loan issue.... Biden knew it had little to no chance of getting past the SC but why should he care if it doesn't? Because he'll use it as an election cudgel.
Even Pelosi knew years ago that no president, including Biden, had the power to cancel debts and that an act of congress would always be needed.
Biden knew he was acting in an unconstitutional manner but pushed on none the less because, as his record shows, he a fraudulent con man
Last edited:
Suspended
Is that not what trans people are trying to do with their outright lies and dismissal of biology and fact?
Last edited:
Soldato
Hmm you seem to have confused me with someone who defends trans extremism. I think you must be thinking of another poster.
Suspended
That's not trans extremism. That's basic trans ideology. It's what people are losing their careers over.