rage baiting incredulous republicans to boost views, this dude is playing 5D chess lmfao
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
110 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
138 readers
3 users here now
@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.
founded 1 year ago
Who?
Potential snitch in the Sopranos.
False equivalence, he's not being forced to do anything.
Lady is a shit stain let's be clear but she is well within her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds. in fact her being honest about her bigotry is a good thing as it allows others to avoid her.
her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds
Usually true, except when it comes to discrimination against people of protected class for being under that protected class, which is why this ruling is so concerning.
The reality is that this sort of discrimination happens all the time under the guise of other rationale and is hard to stamp out (see: real estate redlining, gerrymandering, employment and rental discrimination, etc.), but theoretically a disenfranchised person with documentation can still seek recourse under the law.
This ruling (as well as the general apprehension around queer people living publicly) has laid the groundwork for christofascism to further underclass those (and other marginalized) communities and makes the violent rhetoric coming from "family values" white supremacist extremists more palatable to the public.
It is incredibly dangerous and further damages whatever remains of SCOTUS' credibility.
Being gay or trans isn't a protected class. The First Amendment and US Constitution trumps a class of anything.
It is a protected class
The first amendment is the thing you're missing with all of this. People can discriminate against gay people. But only if it takes away their first amendment. The courts ruled that art should not be forced. So they don't have to serve gay people. But if someone is selling a car, that has nothing to do with art.
It is not a protected class at the federal level. It is in many states.
However, part of the argument in favor of making same sex marriage a right, as ordered in Obergefell, so that no state can refuse to marry same sex couples, is that the only difference between an opposite sex couple and a same sex couple is the sex of one of the people. Hence, the discrimination is on the basis of sex, which is a protected class federally.
Why that same argument wouldn't apply to the more recent web designer case is beyond me.
What about a Subway sandwich artist? Can they refuse black people?
Homophobes hate gay people because of their sex. Not them having sex, but that they are the same sex and Ina relationships ship.
Sex is a protected class in the US, so logically sexuality would be covered by any common sense reading of the law.
Also the SCOTUS decision is pure bullshit as any creative work I causing commercial business is creative work and the free speech justification is bullshit.
Do you think a resturant refusing to serve black people would be okay?
They literally just said they think that's OK. You don't need to ask. This person thinks it's perfectly fine for a business to refuse service for any reason. They think it's fine to refuse service for nationality, race, gender, religion, disability, social caste, physical attractiveness, or whatever.
Which in the US us explicitly illegal as clearly outlined in civil rights legislation, but the current court would probably throw that out too as long as the person discriminating is a white Christian.
I 100% disagree with the ruling, but this is apparently what the court had to say. They effectively sectioned out "expressive services" as able to discriminate, versus non-expressive services, like restaurants , which are still covered by the first amendment.
The decision suggests that artists, photographers, videographers and writers are among those who can refuse to offer what the court called expressive services if doing so would run contrary to their beliefs. But that’s different from other businesses not engaged in speech and therefore not covered by the First Amendment, such as restaurants and hotels.
That distinction is horsecrap. A hotel manager can be forced to offer their wedding package for a gay wedding and a chef can be forced to cook for a gay wedding because they run venues that have been declared "nonexpressive" by 6 people who don't know the first thing about those professions. But a website designer cannot be forced to sell websites while running a website shop.
They don't believe in that distinction. They're just taking a step towards outright illegalizing queerness. They'll tear down that separation as soon as doing so can result in more discrimination.
Nonsense. They legalized gay weddings a handful of years ago. Be queer all you want.
Apparently you can be too queer for this lady to make your website, bit the cake decorator, DJ, caterer, wedding planner, dress designer and everyone else involved aren't real artists.
Is cooking not an expressive service... what about a really good mechanic with some flair... it Def covers lawyers and would most likely apply to ER nurses and doctors... this is fucked when you follow it to their intended conclusion...
Here's the thing. Her business isn't real. There is no "wedding website" business model and the person she alleged asked her to make a website for his gay wedding is straight and has been married to a woman for 15 years. This entire sham business exists for the sole purpose to get the court to rule against Colorado's anti-discrimination laws.
I am surprised that this is not being talked about more. It's a fake case, the situation never happened, some cash changed hands and our sham of a court made this ruling to set a precedent.
The future is dark.
100% this. I read the article about the fake request for service a couple of days before I switched to kbin. it was really incomprehensible to me that the supreme Court would even hear the case given the false allegations. it was just to set the precedent.
she is well within her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds.
I'm glad to see there's some common ground.
view more: next ›