SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[PleaseBlitz]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

What I also don’t understand is how this differs from the wedding cake case. Didn’t they decide the baker had to make the cake?

In the wedding cake case, the Court held that the Colorado Div of Civil Rights (or whatever) didn’t act neutrally towards religion, but didnt get to the core argument about whether a business can discriminate against people on religious grounds. Now, it appears, so long as your religion hates gay people, your business can discriminate against gay people. 
 

And, I haven't read the opinion, but I guess now businesses can have religious beliefs. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by PleaseBlitz

[Fergasun]

@tshile

They decided in favor in the Baker for the previous case. 

 

This plaintiff pre-emptively sued the same Colorado government body.

[tshile]

w00t! Student debt bailout has been struck down. 
 

Those were the 3 I cared about. Independent state legislature theory, AA, and the debt bailout program. 3-0. Now to go on vacation for the 4th

[ixcuincle]

 

 

 

 

[Fergasun]

People with student loans vote.  It's obvious which party was on their side. 

 

I don't even know how the states had standing to challenge.  This means states can bring all sorts of lawsuits regarding Federal funding actions.  I imagine the Court went with the "major questions" methodology... ie. this was never intended to cover a student loan bailout?

[Larry]

15 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

And if you're gay, do you want to have someone like Lorie Smith involved in your wedding?  Probably not.  And if you're Colorado, why would you try to force her to do something that she doesn't want to do?  The word fascist gets thrown around a lot by everyone who doesn't like something, but the state forcing a private business to perform a service they don't want to do seems like...well, fascism.  Even though Lorie Smith is probably fascist in her religious views.  FASCISM EVERYWHERE.

1). Yes. I can certainly see (and have expressed) the argument of "do you really want a wedding photographer who has to be taken to court, to force him to shoot your wedding?" 
 

2). However. I'm aware that the reason we have laws like this is because for a long time, no one would rent a hotel room to a black. Or a Jew. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

 

[Cooked Crack]

16 minutes ago, tshile said:

w00t! Student debt bailout has been struck down. 
 

L

So why do you think there was standing here?

[tshile]

17 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

 

I don't even know how the states had standing to challenge.  This means states can bring all sorts of lawsuits regarding Federal funding actions.  I imagine the Court went with the "major questions" methodology... ie. this was never intended to cover a student loan bailout?

the idea that you need a injured/harmed party to bring a suite, and the mental gymnastics that were required to get to scotus because of that requirement, certainly make the entire situation dubious. 
 

same with the wedding website designer given it seems to be true no one requested her to do the work she’s suing to not have to do…

 

so while I support the decisions it cannot be ignored there’s some shenanigans going on that even got the cases before scotus…

6 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

So why do you think there was standing here?

I think the EO was wrong. I’ve argued about it in the other thread for it. 
 

I get almost no one here agrees with me. And it’s not worth arguing anymore. And if anyone’s curious what I think (doubtful) they can go read it in those threads. 
 

but I’ve already addressed the question of standing a few times. Including my last post. 

[Cooked Crack]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

but I’ve already addressed the question of standing a few times. Including my last post. 

So you don't care that they just making **** up to come to a conclusion you agree with?

[PleaseBlitz]

43 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

And if you're gay, do you want to have someone like Lorie Smith involved in your wedding?  Probably not.  And if you're Colorado, why would you try to force her to do something that she doesn't want to do?

 

If I'm gay, I want a web designed/cake decorator to do their ****ing job without discriminating against me.  

[The Evil Genius]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

First up 6-3 ruling for Lorie Smith, the website designer. 
 

Colorado cannot force her to design a website with expressions she disagrees with (gay wedding thing)

 

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Not sure how i feel about this one. Yet more evidence that Christians always get their way with this ****ing court. 

 

Considering she faked the case to begin with...

[Corcaigh]

I read that she does not design wedding websites and she was not asked by a gay couple to design one for them. But she wanted the right to publish that if she did create wedding websites her religious beliefs meant she wouldn’t want to create one for a gay couple against her will.

 

Is this what the Supreme Court was ruling on?

23 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

If I'm gay, I want a web designed/cake decorator to do their ****ing job without discriminating against me.  

Lawyers aren’t a protected class so you can just **** off somewhere else with your cake/website aspirations.

[Jabbyrwock]

28 minutes ago, tshile said:

And if anyone’s curious what I think (doubtful) they can go read it in those threads. 

Spoiler

 

 

 

[tshile]

33 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

So you don't care that they just making **** up to come to a conclusion you agree with?

That’s not at all what I said. Not even close. 

[ixcuincle]

 

 

[PeterMP]

I will point out that there is good reason to think that an impeachment of at least Thomas is reasonable.  There's good evidence that he lied during in confirmation hearings, and then you add in some of the other stuff.

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/case-for-impeaching-clarence-thomas/

 

With the 6-3 decisions just removing him, I know doesn't help but with 5-4 having even a more centrist person on there would help.

 

I actually didn't think this was awful session by the court.  As has been pointed out, the affirmative action decision could have been more extreme.  

[ixcuincle]

Craig is right Biden should do something to the court to make it a level playing field. ****ing stacked ass court. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

Hypotheticals. Wtf.

 

How do hypotheticals have standing?

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by The Evil Genius

[The Evil Genius]

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

First up 6-3 ruling for Lorie Smith, the website designer. 
 

Colorado cannot force her to design a website with expressions she disagrees with (gay wedding thing)

 

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Not sure how i feel about this one. Yet more evidence that Christians always get their way with this ****ing court. 

 

Fwiw my opinion is that this is the right decision but businesses should be required to post their bigotry on their front door, web page, etc.  I certainly wouldn't do business there.  I think free market could snuff this out.

[tshile]

33 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

How do hypotheticals have standing?

I don’t really know much about the law but I thought you had to have a claim to harm or injury to do this. 
 

I don’t understand how this even got to scotus in the first place. I’m not even sure how the bell Colorado is involved if there was no person that tried to get work from her. 

27 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

well this is where my friends on the left are getting it wrong. 
 

this was not simply about denying service to someone of a protest class. 
 

this was about one persons rights (religion) going up against another persons rights (protected class)

 

Nothing about this means you can just deny service to a protected class. Each person here (even apparently a ficticious  person…) has their own rights on the line here. 
 

really sick of people saying things that just aren’t true. Especially when the person knows better. They’re just spreading misinformation to rile people up and they’re doing it on purpose. It’s hard hard to spread accurately

They did the same thing with their knee jerk reactions to the AA ruling the other day. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by tshile

[PeterMP]

10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

 

Fwiw my opinion is that this is the right decision but businesses should be required to post their bigotry on their front door, web page, etc.  I certainly wouldn't do business there.  I think free market could snuff this out.

 

History tells us with respect to things like racism and discrimination, this hasn't worked (very) well.  Places in the south that weren't serving blacks or were doing so in a back handed way weren't going out of business.  Especially if by "snuff out" you mean completely eliminate.  As businesses close or change, for the people left where that view point is important (e.g. not serving gays), their business becomes concentrated to those that cater to their view point.  The market might not support 20 businesses with that view point, but for a lot of things it will support 1 or 2.

[The Sisko]

17 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Generally, nobody can discriminate based on race.  Your local business can't say I'm not going to serve people of race X or treat you different in providing my services because you are race X.

Except when my religion says so.
 

16 hours ago, tshile said:

My understanding was that AA for college admissions was more about making up for disadvantages along the way. I realize there’s also racial bias but I think most universities either are cognizant of that, or if that’s really how they want to operate they find ways around things like this anyways (like doing the bare minimum to check the box but otherwise not living up to the intent)

 

so sticking with making up for true disadvantages - my suggestion is and has been (and I credit the board for being the place this was introduced to me, years back) is to decouple local real estate taxes from public school funding

 

theres a reason school district is a key driver in real estate pricing - families mostly try to get into the best district they can afford. This leads to community segregation (and I think it’s more socioeconomics related not racially related but our society still tends to pin problems on race instead of socioeconomics despite my continual insistence people change that mindset) where people with money are grouped together and people without money are grouped together and the result is poor people have underfunded schools while the higher you climb on the latter you get better school districts. 
 

Condition of school, supplies, and ultimately staffing issues (including quality of staff) are all driven by this. 
 

if we fix public schools to create more equitable situations we can narrow or even get rid of the gap that’s created at college admissions time. 
 

i also seem to recall college admissions started shifting towards favoring white males because there’s been a huge drop in white males applying for and being accepted to schools and it created a big disparity. We had a thread on it recently. 
 

unsurprisingly, some of the people outraged at that, are now outraged at this. They never were for diversity. Their motives were quite exposed when that news became trending for a few weeks. 
 

If the goal is that race shouldn’t play a role - then race shouldn’t play a role. Find solutions that don’t use race to treat people differently. 

And the people crowing about this decision will be the same ones whining about whites not getting in because asians are dominating the admissions process. These people, and seemingly you as well, aren’t concerned about fairness, just that the admissions process isn’t massively tilted toward white males anymore. Sadly, they’ll just have to be satisfied with a moderate tilt their way that in this case, will benefit asians more than themselves.

As for separating school funding from property tax, I’ve long said that’s a huge problem. However, it seems to escape you that race and class issues aren’t mutually exclusive. Systems can disadvantage people based on either or both. Moreover, did it ever occur to you that this regime may have been set up as a race neutral way to continue previous discriminatory policy?

The garbage SCOTUS decided in Washington v. Davis to hide from actual, empirical data about racial discrimination and give all but the stupidest racists a license to discriminate as long as they don’t yell out racial slurs or put their reasons in writing or whatever. This ruling and Milliken v. Bradley, among others  are completely in line with Washington v. Davis. Looked at across US history, what one sees is a steady reversal of overt racial policy only to be replaced with allegedly race neutral policies that nonetheless largely achieve the same goals, but with the occasional token to prove how racially neutral we are. Amazing coincidence!🤔 Once again, SCOTUS shows itself to be a garbage institution.

[tshile]

@The Sisko

you can take your predictable and usual bull**** rant and shove it 

 

you don’t know dick about what I do and don’t care about

 

and you’ve demonstrated repeatedly that in the face of someone explaining what they think and why, you’re all too happy to ignore that and make their opinions up for them

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by tshile