US Democrats upset that the Supreme Court has voted, by majority, that racism isn't ok anymore

gai
Dis86 said:
That's not trans extremism. That's basic trans ideology. It's what people are losing their careers over.
Click to expand...

Oh every trans person thinks like that do they? Funny I know 2 trans women and they both believe trans women shouldn't be allowed in women's sports.

The problem with some of you guys is you're just as extreme as the people you claim to hate for their extreme views. Caracus is a perfect example of that. He can't see it but its there for all to see in his angry posts like the one above.

And that just isn't the same as Evangelical Christians attempting to force their beliefs on a whole nation
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
gai


Oh every trans person thinks like that do they? Funny I know 2 trans women and they both believe trans women shouldn't be allowed in women's sports.

The problem with some of you guys is you're just as extreme as the people you claim to hate for their extreme views. Caracus is a perfect example of that. He can't see it but its there for all to see in his angry posts like the one above.

And that just isn't the same as Evangelical Christians attempting to force their beliefs on a whole nation
Click to expand...

If it's an extreme view then why are people being arrested and sacked because of opposition to it?
 
Last edited:
Colonel_Klinck said:
Glad to see this is finally blowing up. It should have been thrown out of the first court it entered. You have to be actually harmed to have standing, not just maybe I'll be harmed at some point in the future. And if she did indeed lie and create the person who asked for a website then that should be perjury.
Click to expand...
That's just a copy/paste of the newrepublic article you linked previously isnt it, just under the banner of the washington post now.

C Kent said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
C Kent said:
That's just a copy/paste of the newrepublic article you linked previously isnt it, just under the banner of the washington post now.
Click to expand...

You need standing. You can't sue saying I might be harmed at some point in the future, you need to be actually harmed. That they kept his name out of it is irrelevant. The name was used in 2017 to create standing but then the Colorado Civil Rights Commission took up the case. Without that created name though there was no case.

And he was the deputy AG for the US so I think he knows a little bit more about the law than you or I. If courts are going to start allowing people to sue for hypotheticals it would be chaos and go against Article III

One of the requirements that courts have read into Article III, the portion of the U.S. Constitution establishing the judicial branch, is that a plaintiff must have “standing” to bring a case in federal court. Article III standing doctrine traces back to a pair of Supreme Court cases in the 1920s—Fairchild v.
Click to expand...
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
You need standing. You can't sue saying I might be harmed at some point in the future, you need to be actually harmed. That they kept his name out of it is irrelevant. The name was used in 2017 to create standing but then the Colorado Civil Rights Commission took up the case. Without that created name though there was no case. And he was the deputy AG for the US so I think he knows a little bit more about the law than you or I. If courts are going to start allowing people to sue for hypotheticals it would be chaos and go against Article III
Click to expand...
From the article you linked:

Smith filed a “pre-enforcement challenge” to the Colorado statute because state would have probably moved against her if she had posted a statement about her intention to refuse service to same-sex couples on her website.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said a lower court found that a reasonable assumption because of Colorado’s actions in other cases regarding same-sex marriages. On the merits, the court majority said the state of Colorado could not compel her to design any such site because it would “force her to convey messages inconsistent with her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman.”

Even if the existence of Stewart’s request wasn’t real, the justices did not seem to regard it as legally relevant to considering Smith’s case. The justices who disagreed didn’t raise it as an issue. Writing for the dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court was denying protection for LGBTQ+ people. “The opinion of the court is, quite literally, a notice that reads: ‘Some services may be denied to same-sex couples.’”
Click to expand...
It would seem that all 9 judges that sit on the SCOTUS disagree with the Deputy AG, which is hardly surprising given the nature of the ruling.

edit - for clarity's sake when I say all 9 judges, I mean in reference to the existence or not of 'Stewart and Mike'.
 
Last edited:
C Kent said:
From the article you linked:


It would seem that all 9 judges that sit on the SCOTUS disagree with the Deputy AG, which is hardly surprising given the nature of the ruling.

edit - for clarity's sake when I say all 9 judges, I mean in reference to the existence or not of 'Stewart and Mike'.
Click to expand...

Did the judges know that the person was created though? Would that have affected their thoughts on this cases?

If not then they have created precedent and you no longer require to have been harmed to have standing to bring a case before federal courts. Activist groups should jump on this and flood the courts with hypothetical cases
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Interesting thread on people bringing cases on exactly this after the Civil Rights Act




This could actually happen now. A department store offering portraits could decline their services to anyone who doesn't fall into "traditional families"
Click to expand...
Its already been explained but she isn't 'denying service' to same sex couples, the ruling is essentially stating that custom 'art' falls under free speech and as such she has a constitutional right to not produce something that goes against her religious beliefs. A department store offering portraits to everyone and then denying that service to 'someone who doesn't fall into "traditional families"' would be discrimination.
 
Last edited:
Colonel_Klinck said:
Did the judges know that the person was created though? Would that have affected their thoughts on this cases?
Click to expand...
It's seemingly irrelevant to the case.
Colonel_Klinck said:
If not then they have created precedent and you no longer require to have been harmed to have standing to bring a case before federal courts. Activist groups should jump on this and flood the courts with hypothetical cases
Click to expand...
I expect they will, the activists already target christians (no other religions I might add) with requests that go against their beliefs - more considering the average activist is spouting **** that is false and seems to think the ruling is giving the ok to deny someone based on a protected characteristic, which it isnt.
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
I never said the US but Canada, the UK, other European countries. Yes. I note you don't deny people are losing their jobs over it though.
Click to expand...
Actually, the US too. Michigan has just passed a law where if you dont use the 'correct' pronouns of someone you can be fined and ultimately go to jail. Thats not open to being abused at all, no sirree
 
Last edited:
C Kent said:
Its already been explained but she isn't 'denying service' to same sex couples, the ruling is essentially stating that custom 'art' falls under free speech and as such she has a constitutional right to not produce something that goes against her religious beliefs. A department store offering portraits to everyone and then denying that service to 'someone who doesn't fall into "traditional families"' would be discrimination.
Click to expand...

So a department store closes its portrait services down and then re-opens it saying it only serves traditional families.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
So a department store closes its portrait services down and then re-opens it saying it only serves traditional families.
Click to expand...
Same as a white person wanting to be a member of an black or Asian association, or any other race that wants to join an association of a specific race.

When it comes to having ivf heterosexual should be placed at the front of the queue if they is spare capacity the rest can be given the option.
 
Last edited:
C Kent said:
Actually, the US too. Michigan has just passed a law where if you dont use the 'correct' pronouns of someone you can be fined and ultimately go to jail. Thats not open to being abused at all, no sirree
Click to expand...

That will be struck down in the courts and they know it. Lots of legislatures pass laws knowing they will end up in court as they want to get them to the SC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom