• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

BarcaDeac said:
so can restaurants refuse to seat Black people or businesses refuse to hire Asians if it "disagrees" with their beliefs?
Click to expand...
It’s been a while but my understanding is the distinction here is that race is specifically mentioned in the civil rights act of 1964.

Also a quick read - I believe there’s a distinction drawn for first amendment purposes here between serving folks and being “forced” to provide expression that the business disagrees with (marriage references on the cake)
 
But again this case should never have made it to the Supreme Court. The company has never sold a wedding website to any customer at this point. They expanded to do so solely for the purposes of bringing a suit against the Colorado non discrimination act. Absolutely ridiculous
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
But again this case should never have made it to the Supreme Court. The company has never sold a wedding website to any customer at this point. They expanded to do so solely for the purposes of bringing a suit against the Colorado non discrimination act. Absolutely ridiculous
Click to expand...

So they are basically making up hypothetical injured parties and ruling based on that? I thought judicial activism was baaaad.
 
wakegrrl said:
Yeah, I'm curious as to how one protected group has "better" status than another, at least in the eyes of this Court.
Click to expand...
I believe the textual argument is that if congress specifically carves out a group versus the courts and state legislatures expanding those groups beyond the original intent. But I’ll have to read the whole thing in more detail (to the extent the majority even addresses this issue)
 
Liquid Karma said:
So they are basically making up hypothetical injured parties and ruling based on that? I thought judicial activism was baaaad.
Click to expand...
It’s not clear to me at all how this didn’t get raised in the courts below or if it did how it got here. Another thing I’ll read up on. But there doesn’t seem to be any dispute that this is a “pre-enforcement” decision and one the dissent points out
 
Liquid Karma said:
So they are basically making up hypothetical injured parties and ruling based on that? I thought judicial activism was baaaad.
Click to expand...
Yes. There’s an article a page or two ago where they looked into a “request” the web developer had received from an alleged same sex couple for a website and it looked like it was all made up for the purposes of this case.
 
Is the ruling basically that forgiveness would need to come from congress via the legislative process?
 
The actual impact of this discrimination case may not be that wide moving forward. Even the majority acknowledges that states can pass anti discrimination laws to protect “gay persons” and that “there are no doubt innumerable goods and services that no one could argue implicate the First Amendment.”

Again. Bad facts make bad law and this fact pattern is absurd
 
KingCurtis said:
Yes. There’s an article a page or two ago where they looked into a “request” the web developer had received from an alleged same sex couple for a website and it looked like it was all made up for the purposes of this case.
Click to expand...
Correct. One of the petitioners cited in the request is heterosexual, married, and said he never made such a request or was aware that his name was attached to this until a journalist called him to ask about it
 
Sincerely curious: are atheists a protected class?

If I ask a christian web designer to create a website for my outdoor recreation club - The Heathen Hikers - and they refuse, could I refuse to bake them a cake for their post-baptism celebration? Or would I have no standing to claim a sincerely held belief/religious conviction since I’m explicitly non-religious?
 
Liquid Karma said:
USSC ruled in favor of the web designer who refused to make a website for a same sex wedding.

Feels like a slippery slope to let religious fanatics use their faith as justification for discrimination.
Click to expand...
Yup; and that's the problem. The slippery slope that this ruling creates. If you read the case, the Owner was and is not refusing any Group her Services. She only insisted she shouldn't be forced to create web designs on her web site that challenge her religious beliefs. This is not a store Owner banning service to any Group, just controlling her advertising. Not something I would have done nor endorse but in itself, not beyond the scope of reason. But it does open as noted, a slippery slope.
 
The LGBTQ case is really weird to me when they declared it a protected class in regards to employment just a few years ago.

Feels like the USSC is doing their best to further divide this country.
 
ipitytheblue said:
Sincerely curious: are atheists a protected class?

If I ask a christian web designer to create a website for my outdoor recreation club - The Heathen Hikers - and they refuse, could I refuse to bake them a cake for their post-baptism celebration? Or would I have no standing to claim a sincerely held belief/religious conviction since I’m explicitly non-religious?
Click to expand...
I do not know that atheists are overall. They do have federal workplace protection
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top