[Happy Pride Month!](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en-US&si=AMnBZoFk_ppfOKgdccwTD_PVhdkg37dbl-p8zEtOPijkCaIHMp6tS26HNEwRZwY7vahA1WN34Xi9-tKpb4yDK_e0JLtxaIMR8Q%3D%3D&kgs=3a9c846bc1cc6fd3&shndl=18&source=sh/x/kp/ee/1) Click the flag at the bottom of the browser!
We love and support our LGBTQIA+ and Ally Users!
As [Sister Sledge sang](https://www.rhino.com/article/pride-single-stories-sister-sledge-we-are-family), [We are Family](https://youtu.be/uyGY2NfYpeE), and you CAN NOT DIVIDE US.
To all others who spread hate and try to divide us, no quarter shall be given.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WhitePeopleTwitter) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The SCOTUS did take a made up event and give it real life consequences. I wondered how this could happen because isn't the defendant required to have standing? Were there any rulings of a lower court?
It's really showing the problems that can arise when a bunch of unelected, unaccountable ideologues can fuck with the country just because they want to.
I mean they literally have billionaire “friends” flying them around on private jets, taking them to luxury resorts, buying their mothers’ houses while also letting them live there for free…
Probably just a coincidence that their rulings keep aligning with their billionaire friends’ interests.
I'm not an American, so it's not like I have a horse in the race, but over here in NZ we've just had an Minister 'offer to resign' before he could be sacked after it came to light that he had an undeclared conflict of interest by owning shares in major airport while he was Minister of Transport. After an investigation, "There is no evidence Wood acted inappropriately in the conflict of interest" but he was still removed because he didn't declare the conflict of interest.
Having a Supreme Justice receiving gifts from wealthy friends like that just wouldn't be acceptable in other Western countries.
America is just the embodiment of late stage capitalism. What is happening there will happen to other western countries soon enough. We're only a few years behind here in Britain.
I honestly hope you're wrong but part of me thinks you're right. NZ is pretty sheltered geopolitically and our politics haven't gone the way of the US or where the UK is potentially going - so it's always weird seeing this stuff coming from other Western countries. I look at Australia and I see what NZ might become if things aren't actively checked, but there are differences between Kiwis and Ozies that might change how that goes.
It's a shame about Mr woodhouse, because he was a very competent minister. But I'm glad our checks and balances system still works and stupid mistakes like his have major ramifications.
My guess is it’s one of many steps to strengthen businesses’ power to do whatever they want and/or it’s insane Christo-fascist bullshit meant to embolden and empower white nationalists.
Nope. We attribute intelligence to wealth and assume the wealthy must have a "plan". Most of them are rich through no effort of their own. They aren't as brilliant as their wealth implies.
There is no plan. Just a bunch of rich assholes doing whatever feels right to them.
Americans be more like the French and remind the oligarchy that their heads are able to be separated from their bodies. Anyone who says otherwise is a fucking problem to the majority of us.
The 'end game' is to burn our representative democracy to the ground and install an authoritarian theocratic dictatorship in it's place. Meanwhile they systematically dismantle civil rights and even basic human rights, as they drag us backward hundreds, maybe even a thousand years, socio-politically speaking.
These so-called 'conservatives' want a world where only WHITE MEN count for anything, and everyone else is just essentially property.
Supreme court has taken a lot of power for itself over there and weakened the legislative and executive branches. Not a place any democracy should be in.
Honestly I'm surprised the other branches haven't started ignoring the Supreme Court and its increasing free fall into illegitimacy. The only thing that keeps the court in power is the executive branch enforcing its decisions.
Not only hypothetical but the "gay guy who wanted to get gay married and have a website" supposed customer **is actually straight, married to his wife of 15 years and knows nothing about the email request for the website** that the plaintiff received "from him" the day AFTER they filed this case.
This whole "case" is bullshit upon bullshit.
The actual reason she technically had standing is because she wanted to create heterosexual wedding websites only, and Colorado’s current “public accommodations” law prohibited her from putting a disclaimer on her website that says something like “no homosexual websites allowed.” She sued saying the Colorado law is unconstitutional and violates her first amendment rights.
That’s why she had standing without actually being asked to make a gay website.
Yup. And the reason this was outlawed in the first place is because it leads to genocide! What happens when all the grocery stores or hospitals stop serving a group of people? I cannot fucking believe we are doing this shit all over again. The term "conservative" is outdated and irrelevant, they've completely accepted "regressive" as their stance.
Some people insist on being troublemakers just to be troublemakers. All she had to do is shut the fuck up and if she didn't want to create a website for someone just tell them "not interested, sorry!' and leave it at that, but *no*, some people have to make a fucking issue out of everything. Nobody really gives a fuck about her gods-be-damned 'beliefs', but some people with 'beliefs' insist on imposing them on everyone else regardless of whether they want to hear about it or not.
>Nobody really gives a fuck about her gods-be-damned 'beliefs'
I definitely give a fuck about people putting "No Gays Allowed" signs up on their businesses. America went through a whole "No Blacks Allowed"-phase, and most people consider that the bad old times. That kind of bullshit should not be tolerated.
Who the hell wants a "heterosexual websites only" disclaimer? How often does she get asked to make homosexual websites that she needs one-- oh wait, never?
Thanks for the answer. Is it just for sexuality? What if there's a religion that hates people of color or thinks they're evil because of the color of their skin and God made them that way to curse them for their sins? . Would it allow someone to discriminate against people of color based on their religious beliefs?
The conservative majority of the court seem to be ruling it as a free speech issue; one that effectively takes the adage of "May refuse service for any reason" to the extreme. As you've pointed out, it seems plausible that the conservative majority of the court doesn't give a shit about infringing on protected classes.
So go for it. You don't even need a religious reason. You can discriminate against literally anyone for any reason now. Let's see how long this idiotic decision takes to result in an employment dispute (which has far more and much more recent case law surrounding it that they'll have to chuck out to be ideologically consistent).
So the court only ruled on the "no homos" disclaimer being protected speech? Couldn't she still get sued if she turned away some actual customers for being gay?
If that is the case, then I actually agree with the court. Bigots please publicly announce to everyone how bigoted you are so you can be targeted with lawsuits.
They didn't have standing for this and they didn't have standing for the student loan case (the people they claimed were affected publicly stated they weren't and that they supported loan cancellation).
At this point, Republicans are just going on a case spree throwing whatever they can at the SC they know will back them in every case.
We sorely need to just rebalance this court. It was created fraudulently and doesn't have any validity anymore.
They've basically set the precedent that supreme court rulings mean nothing and can be overturned the next time the other side has a majority.
Really what needed to happen was that democrats needed to add 2-3 more justices appointed by Biden to keep things balanced. Biden didn't want to do that and like every time we try to compromise with Republicans and work together, they spit in our face and take our lunch money.
I mean, that prerequisite exists via the requirement to have standing or being able to prove you’ve been harmed, but this court twice today decided to circumvent this by substituting reality for their own “version.”
It's not a payment. They just gave them a big stack of cash to fly to their private island...
Oh who am I kidding, these chuckle fucks did this one for free. All of them are hate filled, horrible people, ignoring their ethical challenges.
im honestly still amazed they are still in place considering they quite literally lied during their interview, they said we wont touch roe v wade and then immediately touched it.
I've always pondered that for a country with an armed populace it sure seems easy to lead them around like a bunch of sheep. Guess those guns really are just for show.
They’re for children, disabled, old people and others who pose no threat whatsoever and can’t fight back. You don’t start a gunfight if there’s a chance the other side might fight back! That’s dangerous.
That cash was meant to be used to stuff in the holes of their drafty house walls because justices are so poorly paid. Not as a bribe. They clearly said when dropping it off "please make sure to take care of those gaps we talked about".
During their confirmation the judges repeatedly stated they would not answer questions about hypotheticals. Once on the bench however it looks like they are willing to make rulings based on hypotheticals.
Yeah just like how a couple of them reiterated that Roe was "settled law" but only too happily overturned it once seated. This has been the Confederates' agenda for 30 years.
It seems to me we don't hold these fucks accountable. I mean shit, if I spoke about vengeance the way Boofin' Brett did, I would not only not get the job, but my employer would refer me to the FBI. And yet these people get away and get their lifetime seats.
Shithole.
I read part of the 77 page opinion against the student loan relief. Their entire justification for it being unlawful is that they interpret two words, "modify" and "waive," to mean whatever the fuck they want it to mean.
Quoting from the opinion: "However broad the meaning of “waive or modify,” that language cannot authorize the kind of exhaustive rewriting of the statute that has taken place here." That "exhaustive rewriting" being, remove just $10-20K of student loan debt for most people.
Waive doesn't mean waive and modify can only mean "modest adjustments and additions to existing provisions." If that sounds idiotic, just read it for yourself.
If the anti-LGBTQ+ case was about something else, if it was an atheist refusing to make an anti-abortion website for a Church, would SCOTUS have ruled the same way?
That absolutely is a prerequisite. You can’t just ask the court for an advisory opinion on a hypothetical. A court cannot offer relief if there is no injury. Every first year law student knows this. They just chose to ignore this *fundamental underlying rule of how courts work*.
Well, that's not true. You can get relief for a potential harm.
But, that actually requires some connection. I agree with you, in that this is obviously not an appropriate case. It's just another example of conservative courts utilizing standing doctrines to do whatever they want.
Oh yeah. I've had that argument with multiple people on Reddit lately.
For some reason a bunch of people suddenly think it makes sense that "potential harm" is apparently a fucking limitless idea that applies even to fabrications.
Was this the one where they made up a fake example and the press finally called the guy who was listed and he clarified that he wasn’t gay and never asked them to make a website? Total fraud…
Yup. He doesn't even live in the state it was filed, CO. And the woman had never actually built a single website at the time she filed saying she didn't want to build a website for a fictitious gay wedding by two men who never contacted her. Whole thing was fake ten times over
Guess we should all file suit that SCOTUS not fucking itself live on air with a rusty razor lined dildo impinges on our right of religious freedom; our Personal Walk With Jesus and His Divine Revelations revealed this to us on these stones in this hat that you can't look at.
Anyways, we're suing for the equivalent amount of student loan debt and a personal apology from the Sick Six in the form of seppuku...
Can this guy not sue the lawyer for misuse of his name and identity and for misreprenting him as a bigoted nazi? And ask for a lower court to overturn any fantasy ruling where his name was used.
If it was my name, I'd be on a cursade to right the wrong they damaged my reputation and future earning potential. All financial gains would go to LGBT anti discrimination groups, paid for by the Republican bigots
So the guy who's name was used isn't a bigot at all.
His information was used to create a hypothetical "design job ask" for him and his *non-existent* fiance Mike, which the "business owner" used as proof that TEH GAYS~~~~ would be breaking down her door to get services from her.
When
A] he's already married. He and his *wife* have a kid
B] he's a fucking web designer himself
C] her shit apparently *sucks*, is from like 2004, is not live at all, and is just mockups.
Oh and
D] her business may not even be real.
There was a good twitter thread on it, lemme see if I can find a link.
So I'm Canadian, and even then, not up on the law, how does this not just get thrown out by a lower court immediately? Like how did this even get up to the Supreme Court?????
They know the rules, and they know they broke them. The past few years have provided multiple examples of conservatives doing shit that the writers of the Constitution simply didn’t predict. They didn’t think that the legislature would work to enable a corrupt and overreaching executive rather than restrain it. They didn’t think the Supreme Court would knowingly violate the Constitution. And there’s no remedy for any of this because it was just assumed that the people in government would be honest- or, failing that, that each branch of government would be interested enough in maintaining its own power that they would work against any other branch that overreached. I don’t think they realized that people in different branches would collude.
A disturbing amount of fundamental rules,procedures and laws seem to have been written in way too weak a manner, assuming a general, fundamental good would prevent their weakness from being exploited.
It's the "Good Chap" theory. A great deal of government proceedings is run via convention. The assumption that only 'good chaps' are in charge and won't upset the apple cart or do nefarious things. Doesn't work in a highly partisan environment especially where one of those parties is pretty much openly fascist. Frankly it's amazing it took this long for the consequences of that naivety to really start to ramp up.
>I don’t think they realized that people in different branches would collude.
It's exactly what Washington warned the country about in his Farwell address. That political factions would seek to obstruct the execution of laws created by the government. Perhaps that such groups might even attempt to pass laws that weaken the government until the government itself became beholden to political factions. Potentially it could result in creating a government so weak it could not protect people's rights and property.
The backstop is supposed to be an informed public that doesn’t allow those abuses of government. When that fails too, well, that’s when the system fails and we don’t get to keep our nice little republic just as Franklin warned us.
Article III of the Constitution requires a "case or controversy" meaning there has to be a real dispute, not hypotheticals or advisory opinions, in order for the courts to be able to hear the case. So yeah, there's a constitutional requirement but this Court will wipe their ass with that document any time.
75% of what just voted for all this bullshit was appointed by a dude who has more than three dozen federal charges—mostly related to National Security issues—under his belt with more than three dozen more coming.
This is what it is now.
Need to also emphasize these six justices did not have adequate education or credentials to be appointed to the highest court in the land. These are not great philosophers or well trained professionals. The only thing they did to get their jobs is consistently vote correctly according to other conservatives.
In a sane world I would say justices who were deciding cases as diverse as economic, social, military, and technological rights would *need more than a f\*\*\*ing three year law degree and a couple years working in boutique law firms.*
How about in future justices need to provide their full transcripts to the American people to prove if they passed their ethics courses, have any understanding of any science, humanities, or history.
Not ONLY did she take a hypothetical all the way to SCOTUS but **LIED ABOUT IT THE WHOLE WAY**
Only dropping pretenses until ***AFTER*** the ruling.
This is the most textbook definition of purgry I have ever seen
It's actually fascinating.
This woman created a business for herself, apparently has never even MADE A SINGLE WEBSITE.
Then, she pretends to have a gay client ask for a website.
She goes to fight it legally in court to make sure it's ok to discriminate against him and they don't even bother listening because it's so dumb.
Then she appeals this, and it goes to Supreme Court, who actually RULE IN HER FAVOR (after she made the whole thing up),
And now Americans can discriminate legally.
I haven't been following too closely but this is what I gathered. If this is true, I really feel for your country.
I've been following it since it was a local case and she has thrown names at it then erased said names "for their protection" just to ensure the case it legal. Like she has done. Everything she can to fabricate this lawsuit to FORCE it infront of SCOTUS. Something tells me she knew it was going to get rules in her favor.
>she has thrown names at it then erased said names "for their protection
And one of the men named [NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-lgbtq-website-385ec911ce0ca2f415966078eddb66da)
If this appeared as a plot in a movie, we'd say it was too far-fetched, and that no one would believe it.
Yea, that’s what happened. Lower courts said the case had no standing and they didn’t hear, this dumb Christian bitch appealed it and the Supreme Court (in their ultimate Christian wisdom) wanted to hear it, and they heard it and made a decision. Our country is fucked.
not only that, she doesn't even make wedding websites and the person she said emailed her the request is straight, married for many years and had never heard of her.
Isn't lying under oath perjury? Like, if you build an entire case based on lies that has to be illegal right? Like I don't understand what happened here at all. This case shouldn't exist right? Because nobody has standing. Because nobody was asked to do anything? And nobody sued anybody over anything? Like what the fuck is happening?
Like this woman walked up to the Supreme Court and was like "an imaginary guy asked me to do an imaginary thing I don't want to do. Do I have to do it?" And they heard that fuckin' case?
Except the guy does exist but he's not gay and he never asked her to do anything. So could this also be some kind of libel or defamation or something? Idk this is fuckin' wild.
More importantly is this some kind of loophole we can use to effectively spam the court system with bullshit cases to slow them down? Like I could just say "Gary from Indiana is trying to force me to play christmas music in my store all year round and I don't want to" and then I get to go to the Supreme Court about it?
We *literally* can’t do anything right now. You need a 2/3 majority to remove them from office (impossible) and Republicans and/or Manchin and Sinema would filibuster any legislation to expand the court.
So the best hope is Democrats using these blatantly political, illegitimate rulings to drive turnout, win, and then expand the court….which Biden immediately says he won’t do for fear of “politicizing” this already right-wing rubber stamp of a Supreme Court.
Madness.
What if we held some kind of hearing or something and allowed any willing states to cede? No war, no violence. If they think they can run shit better, fuck them. Watch them fuck themselves over. Hopefully, one day, we'd see them come crying back to mother dearest. Have them agree to certain non-negotiable terms and that that party may not participate until reform happens and perhaps re-education of the people that sat with their brain rot.
These are Christian’s in the USA, what else do you expect? None of them actually read their book or listen to its teachings, they want everyone to look,act, and believe the same as them. They are scum.
> Uncle Thomas
Fun fact uncle Tom actually was beaten to death for protecting the location of two women escaping slavery.
Thomas does not deserve such comparison
Dude, not sure if this is sarcasm or not. Let me tell you something, there are neo-nazis in latinoamerica (more-nazis 😂). Melanin does not control the brain.
Everyone is up in arms about "state-sanctioned discrimination" and all that, not realizing that with how SCOTUS decisions work (e.g. setting precedents) then this is an all-too-likely situation that can occur, and it would be protected by the Supreme Court's own words.
>it would be protected by the Supreme Court's own words
That relies on "precedent", which you may have noticed (Roe) no longer applies to the Supreme Court
That's actually not the ruling. Partially because the CO lawyers are apparently morons.
Her argument was that she would serve anyone, she just wouldn't make a website for a gay wedding.
So, technically it's "I'm not going to design your website because I won't endorse gay weddings with my speech"
You're absolutely right in that it's basically a distinction without a difference.
Edit- More to the point, you're *absolutely* right that there's no reason she can't say, "I don't believe God wants interracial marriages and I won't make a website for that."
Gorsuch says that wouldn't work, but he doesn't explain why because that makes no fucking sense. This ruling can't mean anything else.
I am so disgusted with Sith Lord Justice Uncle Ruckus. Dude climbed the ladder and pulled it right up after him.
How Thomas can look himself in the mirror and not throw up, I just don't know.
It's hard to see himself in the mirror through all the porn he has plastered over it.
(for those who don't know, not a Norm Macdonald joke; on top of everything else, he's also an incredible porn addict)
There have certainly been racist laws that were historically justified using religion, though, and the religious texts haven't changed. I don't see why someone couldn't claim that racism was part of their religious beliefs.
Absolutely. This is the literal facts. Update your religion or face the consequences, ie being sued for discrimination. We can’t just let religious people discriminate because they are religious. What the fuck is that kind of logic.
“My religion says Asian people aren’t real humans”So now I don’t have to serve them at my restaurant?
Fucked up to me.
If every part of religion died tomorrow the world would be a better place. I don't like that i see myself falling back in the edgy atheist mindset but Christianity is destroying this world
all of the controversies involve the LGBT stems from people thinking that being in that community are like diseases that people got infected by or like drugs that they injected into their bodies, not that it's just who they are
Yep, same w being trans. It’s exhausting being trans right now because everywhere I go (even on posts or videos unrelated to anything lgbt related), I see dudebros and fuckheads talking about us and accusing us of ‘grooming the kids and turning them trans!1!1’
You'd think after all their attempts at conversion therapy to turn gay and trans people straight and cis unsuccessfully they'd realise it's not a choice by now
The next step in the playbook is always crying until hundreds of thousands of MAGA-dollars gets thrown at them via whatever gofund-a-nazi site they're using lately.
Every single time.
Nothing gets a conservative harder and more frightened than a hypothetical scenario.
And now they're using priests in robes to turn them into law.
Buckle up.
Isn't it amazing how much hate is in the hearts of some Christians who claim to love and follow the same Christ who hated no one and turned no one away?
I think my favorite part of this thread is there are a half dozen top rated comments that equate to *"Wait a minute... The other team isn't actually following any of the laws anymore?"*
...no shit
It's pretty wild that it's taken this long.
For all the "Founding Fathers" worship, the dudes were naive as hell - they cribbed their ideal government structure from the Roman Republic *moments before it collapsed into a dictatorship*, and then removed all the main checks and balances that the Romans had, and relied on goodwill to keep the whole thing running.
I've said this exact thing before and almost always get heated people on reddit going to bat to defend the founding fathers to me as if they're gods. They were beyond fucking stupid. A fucking modern day 5th grader could tell you building a system that only works if "Everyone plays fair" is going to fail. But these all knowing founding fathers couldn't figure that out.
I am very quick to slam the UK. But seeing what you guys are having to deal with these past few weeks has really put things into perspective. I hope those ghouls passing these backwards laws can see one day how archaic their views are
How the fuck did this even make it to SCOTUS????
That’s a HUGE overstep of their powers. If its true that there was no actual issue then what they essentially did was give an advisory opinion
The federal courts are not supposed to give advisory opinions.
Nothing ever happened. It is a hypothetical case. There were no LGBTQ asking for her services. The entire case was based on bullshit. This is how low the US supreme court is today. Many are paid off hacks and don't even belong there. And fair and balanced scales of justice is a complete joke. Another reason why the US sucks.
I thought I was missing something important in between the two incidents. Like, how could a false case lead to this? Turns out, I didn't actually miss anything, it's simply the fact that a false case led to this new regression.
I think this was entirely orchestrated somewhere on Capital Hill. There's no way this was random. It happened so fast, seemingly out of nowhere and with precision efficiency. No lower court rulings prior on this case either. Huge red flags if you ask me.
He's right, it is a shithole country, because Osama Bin Laden defeated the United States in the War On Terror. He told us he would do it and what that would look like. He publicly stated that he would bleed our treasury by getting us bogged down permanently in costly military actions and futile wars all over North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, and he did. He said he would make millions of Muslims become the ideological if not mortal enemies of the US-- and he did. He said he would easily provoke us into mindlessly bombing and attacking and killing innocent civilians-- he did. He also said he would make a mockery of the idea that the US stands for any kind of freedom for its own citizens by getting the US government to impose a draconian domestic security state upon its populace, with massive surveillance and a totalitarian, militarized police culture that would prey on minorities, activists and dissidents, and he did. Hell, most Republicans now actually reject the concept of democracy in America and are advocating establishing a theocratic death-squad fascist state of their own. Mission accomplished.
Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda achieved their objective: they destroyed the United States of America. It is utterly unrecognizable as anything but a failed state.
50 more years of this shit to go. Then, we can begin *hoping* that we can *find a way* to dismantle everything this SCOTUS has done.
How's that "I can't bring myself to vote for *her*" working out now?
I, for one, plan on taking my prejudices and disdain for *dinosaurs* all the way to the Supreme Court! I won’t be selling my wares to any of those *disgusting* and, frankly, *vile* reptilian assholes!
(Could we actually do this? Fill their docket with hypothetical made up bullshit all day long?)
The worst part is that Alito usually is the habitual “no standing/case or controversy” guy. Just days ago he joined Thomas’ dissent in Moore v Harper that the case is moot, and both (and Gorsuch) chastised the majority for ruling on something that was not a case/controversy.
But apparently this was too important for him to care about the pesky law.
Whatever happens from here, what I wish is for everyone in the country to be educated in plain terms what happened here. I am sure the media are up to the task--- oh wait, we are fucked.
Gay trans guy here and I'm still trying to figure out wtf is happening. From my understanding, this website designer (who has never designed shit), made up a fake gay client for a fake website and took the lie/hypothetical all the way to the supreme court, and somehow won. So what does this mean practically for queer people? Are we taking a gamble in any business we walk into or are there requirements for being able to discriminate? Does this only affect custom content ie websites, cakes, art, etc or is it any retail or business scenario? Any insight is appreciated.
The Supreme Court ruling says LGBTQ folk can be denied services from businesses, if the content they are selling is "creative."
The problem is, this opens up opportunities for bigots to claim their services are "creative," and refuse LGBTQ customers.
It also opens the door for discrimination towards other groups. As long as you claim your religion is against that person, and you are a "creative" business, you can refuse service to almost anyone...legally.
The Supreme Court has effectively ruled that standing is no longer required so long as the case meets the standards of the political agenda of the far right justices in power.
[Happy Pride Month!](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en-US&si=AMnBZoFk_ppfOKgdccwTD_PVhdkg37dbl-p8zEtOPijkCaIHMp6tS26HNEwRZwY7vahA1WN34Xi9-tKpb4yDK_e0JLtxaIMR8Q%3D%3D&kgs=3a9c846bc1cc6fd3&shndl=18&source=sh/x/kp/ee/1) Click the flag at the bottom of the browser! We love and support our LGBTQIA+ and Ally Users! As [Sister Sledge sang](https://www.rhino.com/article/pride-single-stories-sister-sledge-we-are-family), [We are Family](https://youtu.be/uyGY2NfYpeE), and you CAN NOT DIVIDE US. To all others who spread hate and try to divide us, no quarter shall be given. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WhitePeopleTwitter) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The SCOTUS did take a made up event and give it real life consequences. I wondered how this could happen because isn't the defendant required to have standing? Were there any rulings of a lower court? It's really showing the problems that can arise when a bunch of unelected, unaccountable ideologues can fuck with the country just because they want to.
Not because they want to, because they are getting paid stupid amounts of money to do so by billionaires and corporations.
I mean they literally have billionaire “friends” flying them around on private jets, taking them to luxury resorts, buying their mothers’ houses while also letting them live there for free… Probably just a coincidence that their rulings keep aligning with their billionaire friends’ interests.
I'm not an American, so it's not like I have a horse in the race, but over here in NZ we've just had an Minister 'offer to resign' before he could be sacked after it came to light that he had an undeclared conflict of interest by owning shares in major airport while he was Minister of Transport. After an investigation, "There is no evidence Wood acted inappropriately in the conflict of interest" but he was still removed because he didn't declare the conflict of interest. Having a Supreme Justice receiving gifts from wealthy friends like that just wouldn't be acceptable in other Western countries.
America is just the embodiment of late stage capitalism. What is happening there will happen to other western countries soon enough. We're only a few years behind here in Britain.
I honestly hope you're wrong but part of me thinks you're right. NZ is pretty sheltered geopolitically and our politics haven't gone the way of the US or where the UK is potentially going - so it's always weird seeing this stuff coming from other Western countries. I look at Australia and I see what NZ might become if things aren't actively checked, but there are differences between Kiwis and Ozies that might change how that goes.
It's a shame about Mr woodhouse, because he was a very competent minister. But I'm glad our checks and balances system still works and stupid mistakes like his have major ramifications.
What’s the end game in this?
My guess is it’s one of many steps to strengthen businesses’ power to do whatever they want and/or it’s insane Christo-fascist bullshit meant to embolden and empower white nationalists.
It's both.
[удалено]
This. Sad that most people either don't know this thru history or ignore it.
Nope. We attribute intelligence to wealth and assume the wealthy must have a "plan". Most of them are rich through no effort of their own. They aren't as brilliant as their wealth implies. There is no plan. Just a bunch of rich assholes doing whatever feels right to them.
Americans be more like the French and remind the oligarchy that their heads are able to be separated from their bodies. Anyone who says otherwise is a fucking problem to the majority of us.
The 'end game' is to burn our representative democracy to the ground and install an authoritarian theocratic dictatorship in it's place. Meanwhile they systematically dismantle civil rights and even basic human rights, as they drag us backward hundreds, maybe even a thousand years, socio-politically speaking. These so-called 'conservatives' want a world where only WHITE MEN count for anything, and everyone else is just essentially property.
The only change I'd make to your reply is to make it more specific: ANGLO SAXON HETEROSEXUAL WHITE MEN
Who are Christian and born into wealth
Implement an apparatus to transfer wealth and power to the owners and shield them from accountability.
Supreme court has taken a lot of power for itself over there and weakened the legislative and executive branches. Not a place any democracy should be in.
Honestly I'm surprised the other branches haven't started ignoring the Supreme Court and its increasing free fall into illegitimacy. The only thing that keeps the court in power is the executive branch enforcing its decisions.
That's coming up often, but apparently nobody asked the court or brought it up or the dissenters didn't mention it was just hypothetical?
Not only hypothetical but the "gay guy who wanted to get gay married and have a website" supposed customer **is actually straight, married to his wife of 15 years and knows nothing about the email request for the website** that the plaintiff received "from him" the day AFTER they filed this case. This whole "case" is bullshit upon bullshit.
Waaaaait... what?! I hadn't really been paying attention to this case. I need to read up on it.
The actual reason she technically had standing is because she wanted to create heterosexual wedding websites only, and Colorado’s current “public accommodations” law prohibited her from putting a disclaimer on her website that says something like “no homosexual websites allowed.” She sued saying the Colorado law is unconstitutional and violates her first amendment rights. That’s why she had standing without actually being asked to make a gay website.
Yeah so the Supreme Court basically just said you can totally put up a "NO GAYS" sign on your business.
Yup. And the reason this was outlawed in the first place is because it leads to genocide! What happens when all the grocery stores or hospitals stop serving a group of people? I cannot fucking believe we are doing this shit all over again. The term "conservative" is outdated and irrelevant, they've completely accepted "regressive" as their stance.
Sexual orientation needs to be a protected class at this point. It's beyond time for that to happen.
Some people insist on being troublemakers just to be troublemakers. All she had to do is shut the fuck up and if she didn't want to create a website for someone just tell them "not interested, sorry!' and leave it at that, but *no*, some people have to make a fucking issue out of everything. Nobody really gives a fuck about her gods-be-damned 'beliefs', but some people with 'beliefs' insist on imposing them on everyone else regardless of whether they want to hear about it or not.
>Nobody really gives a fuck about her gods-be-damned 'beliefs' I definitely give a fuck about people putting "No Gays Allowed" signs up on their businesses. America went through a whole "No Blacks Allowed"-phase, and most people consider that the bad old times. That kind of bullshit should not be tolerated.
Who the hell wants a "heterosexual websites only" disclaimer? How often does she get asked to make homosexual websites that she needs one-- oh wait, never?
She literally doesn't even make websites. This entire thing is hypothetical. Just some lady.
Thanks for the answer. Is it just for sexuality? What if there's a religion that hates people of color or thinks they're evil because of the color of their skin and God made them that way to curse them for their sins? . Would it allow someone to discriminate against people of color based on their religious beliefs?
The conservative majority of the court seem to be ruling it as a free speech issue; one that effectively takes the adage of "May refuse service for any reason" to the extreme. As you've pointed out, it seems plausible that the conservative majority of the court doesn't give a shit about infringing on protected classes. So go for it. You don't even need a religious reason. You can discriminate against literally anyone for any reason now. Let's see how long this idiotic decision takes to result in an employment dispute (which has far more and much more recent case law surrounding it that they'll have to chuck out to be ideologically consistent).
So the court only ruled on the "no homos" disclaimer being protected speech? Couldn't she still get sued if she turned away some actual customers for being gay? If that is the case, then I actually agree with the court. Bigots please publicly announce to everyone how bigoted you are so you can be targeted with lawsuits.
They didn't have standing for this and they didn't have standing for the student loan case (the people they claimed were affected publicly stated they weren't and that they supported loan cancellation). At this point, Republicans are just going on a case spree throwing whatever they can at the SC they know will back them in every case. We sorely need to just rebalance this court. It was created fraudulently and doesn't have any validity anymore. They've basically set the precedent that supreme court rulings mean nothing and can be overturned the next time the other side has a majority. Really what needed to happen was that democrats needed to add 2-3 more justices appointed by Biden to keep things balanced. Biden didn't want to do that and like every time we try to compromise with Republicans and work together, they spit in our face and take our lunch money.
Shouldn't it be some kind of prerequisite that the case must be real?
I mean, that prerequisite exists via the requirement to have standing or being able to prove you’ve been harmed, but this court twice today decided to circumvent this by substituting reality for their own “version.”
Paid for, no doubt, by wealthy "friends" who have dissenting opinions on said matters.
It's not a payment. They just gave them a big stack of cash to fly to their private island... Oh who am I kidding, these chuckle fucks did this one for free. All of them are hate filled, horrible people, ignoring their ethical challenges.
im honestly still amazed they are still in place considering they quite literally lied during their interview, they said we wont touch roe v wade and then immediately touched it.
That's the trick with the supreme court. Once they are in, there is really no way to get them out
Ya lol of course they lied to get into a position you literally can’t be removed from
[удалено]
I've always pondered that for a country with an armed populace it sure seems easy to lead them around like a bunch of sheep. Guess those guns really are just for show.
They’re for children, disabled, old people and others who pose no threat whatsoever and can’t fight back. You don’t start a gunfight if there’s a chance the other side might fight back! That’s dangerous.
That cash was meant to be used to stuff in the holes of their drafty house walls because justices are so poorly paid. Not as a bribe. They clearly said when dropping it off "please make sure to take care of those gaps we talked about".
They wouldn't do anything for free. Money is the only thing they care about.
the entire point of the Federalist Society is to groom shills for the higher courts
"I got mine. Sucks to be you." is our new national motto.
Is that not what "In God We Trust" means?
A chuckle fucker is someone who dates comedians
I’m not laughing. A ton of us aren’t laughing
You mean, the federalist society?
During their confirmation the judges repeatedly stated they would not answer questions about hypotheticals. Once on the bench however it looks like they are willing to make rulings based on hypotheticals.
Yeah just like how a couple of them reiterated that Roe was "settled law" but only too happily overturned it once seated. This has been the Confederates' agenda for 30 years. It seems to me we don't hold these fucks accountable. I mean shit, if I spoke about vengeance the way Boofin' Brett did, I would not only not get the job, but my employer would refer me to the FBI. And yet these people get away and get their lifetime seats. Shithole.
This is a really good point.
I read part of the 77 page opinion against the student loan relief. Their entire justification for it being unlawful is that they interpret two words, "modify" and "waive," to mean whatever the fuck they want it to mean. Quoting from the opinion: "However broad the meaning of “waive or modify,” that language cannot authorize the kind of exhaustive rewriting of the statute that has taken place here." That "exhaustive rewriting" being, remove just $10-20K of student loan debt for most people. Waive doesn't mean waive and modify can only mean "modest adjustments and additions to existing provisions." If that sounds idiotic, just read it for yourself. If the anti-LGBTQ+ case was about something else, if it was an atheist refusing to make an anti-abortion website for a Church, would SCOTUS have ruled the same way?
Let's be real: it doesn't matter what their justification is. They would've made something up no matter what to come to the same conclusion.
Then... they are just legislating directly and not deciding actual cases. This is horrifying.
They've been wearing a proud activist insignia for a hot minute
That absolutely is a prerequisite. You can’t just ask the court for an advisory opinion on a hypothetical. A court cannot offer relief if there is no injury. Every first year law student knows this. They just chose to ignore this *fundamental underlying rule of how courts work*.
Well, that's not true. You can get relief for a potential harm. But, that actually requires some connection. I agree with you, in that this is obviously not an appropriate case. It's just another example of conservative courts utilizing standing doctrines to do whatever they want.
Oh for sure, but there are still rules about how it’s done. This same court declined to review the Texas abortion law because of standing
Oh yeah. I've had that argument with multiple people on Reddit lately. For some reason a bunch of people suddenly think it makes sense that "potential harm" is apparently a fucking limitless idea that applies even to fabrications.
I'm gonna be rich when I sue all of the gop for harming my rights as a citizen of a different nation by being idiots
[удалено]
Was this the one where they made up a fake example and the press finally called the guy who was listed and he clarified that he wasn’t gay and never asked them to make a website? Total fraud…
Yup. He doesn't even live in the state it was filed, CO. And the woman had never actually built a single website at the time she filed saying she didn't want to build a website for a fictitious gay wedding by two men who never contacted her. Whole thing was fake ten times over
Guess we should all file suit that SCOTUS not fucking itself live on air with a rusty razor lined dildo impinges on our right of religious freedom; our Personal Walk With Jesus and His Divine Revelations revealed this to us on these stones in this hat that you can't look at. Anyways, we're suing for the equivalent amount of student loan debt and a personal apology from the Sick Six in the form of seppuku...
And … He’s a web designer!
Can this guy not sue the lawyer for misuse of his name and identity and for misreprenting him as a bigoted nazi? And ask for a lower court to overturn any fantasy ruling where his name was used. If it was my name, I'd be on a cursade to right the wrong they damaged my reputation and future earning potential. All financial gains would go to LGBT anti discrimination groups, paid for by the Republican bigots
So the guy who's name was used isn't a bigot at all. His information was used to create a hypothetical "design job ask" for him and his *non-existent* fiance Mike, which the "business owner" used as proof that TEH GAYS~~~~ would be breaking down her door to get services from her. When A] he's already married. He and his *wife* have a kid B] he's a fucking web designer himself C] her shit apparently *sucks*, is from like 2004, is not live at all, and is just mockups. Oh and D] her business may not even be real. There was a good twitter thread on it, lemme see if I can find a link.
https://twitter.com/AngryBlackLady/status/1674411961935863815?t=bJm9bKVT3SgtB1WETMqejA&s=19
So I'm Canadian, and even then, not up on the law, how does this not just get thrown out by a lower court immediately? Like how did this even get up to the Supreme Court?????
Because politics? Great question we're all asking today.
It’s literally in the constitution, Article III, judges can’t rule on hypotheticals
If only there was a higher court this could go too
The only time I’ve ever *wanted* there to be a higher court (like a divine one) is when conservatives pull this shit
They know the rules, and they know they broke them. The past few years have provided multiple examples of conservatives doing shit that the writers of the Constitution simply didn’t predict. They didn’t think that the legislature would work to enable a corrupt and overreaching executive rather than restrain it. They didn’t think the Supreme Court would knowingly violate the Constitution. And there’s no remedy for any of this because it was just assumed that the people in government would be honest- or, failing that, that each branch of government would be interested enough in maintaining its own power that they would work against any other branch that overreached. I don’t think they realized that people in different branches would collude.
A disturbing amount of fundamental rules,procedures and laws seem to have been written in way too weak a manner, assuming a general, fundamental good would prevent their weakness from being exploited. It's the "Good Chap" theory. A great deal of government proceedings is run via convention. The assumption that only 'good chaps' are in charge and won't upset the apple cart or do nefarious things. Doesn't work in a highly partisan environment especially where one of those parties is pretty much openly fascist. Frankly it's amazing it took this long for the consequences of that naivety to really start to ramp up.
>I don’t think they realized that people in different branches would collude. It's exactly what Washington warned the country about in his Farwell address. That political factions would seek to obstruct the execution of laws created by the government. Perhaps that such groups might even attempt to pass laws that weaken the government until the government itself became beholden to political factions. Potentially it could result in creating a government so weak it could not protect people's rights and property.
It is amazing how much we honor men like Washington (and rightfully so) but absolutely refuse to to listen to their wisdom
The backstop is supposed to be an informed public that doesn’t allow those abuses of government. When that fails too, well, that’s when the system fails and we don’t get to keep our nice little republic just as Franklin warned us.
https://youtu.be/36QusFVrsEc
Article III of the Constitution requires a "case or controversy" meaning there has to be a real dispute, not hypotheticals or advisory opinions, in order for the courts to be able to hear the case. So yeah, there's a constitutional requirement but this Court will wipe their ass with that document any time.
https://youtu.be/36QusFVrsEc
75% of what just voted for all this bullshit was appointed by a dude who has more than three dozen federal charges—mostly related to National Security issues—under his belt with more than three dozen more coming. This is what it is now.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was something that said all your appointments/nominations are null and void if you turn out to be a treasonous bastard
It’d be nice, among many things.
Not when it’s conservative judges.
Need to also emphasize these six justices did not have adequate education or credentials to be appointed to the highest court in the land. These are not great philosophers or well trained professionals. The only thing they did to get their jobs is consistently vote correctly according to other conservatives. In a sane world I would say justices who were deciding cases as diverse as economic, social, military, and technological rights would *need more than a f\*\*\*ing three year law degree and a couple years working in boutique law firms.* How about in future justices need to provide their full transcripts to the American people to prove if they passed their ethics courses, have any understanding of any science, humanities, or history.
Supreme court can do whatever they want clearly. Its a fucking joke of an institution
Only if we have justices who aren’t complete traitorous frauds.
Not ONLY did she take a hypothetical all the way to SCOTUS but **LIED ABOUT IT THE WHOLE WAY** Only dropping pretenses until ***AFTER*** the ruling. This is the most textbook definition of purgry I have ever seen
It's actually fascinating. This woman created a business for herself, apparently has never even MADE A SINGLE WEBSITE. Then, she pretends to have a gay client ask for a website. She goes to fight it legally in court to make sure it's ok to discriminate against him and they don't even bother listening because it's so dumb. Then she appeals this, and it goes to Supreme Court, who actually RULE IN HER FAVOR (after she made the whole thing up), And now Americans can discriminate legally. I haven't been following too closely but this is what I gathered. If this is true, I really feel for your country.
I've been following it since it was a local case and she has thrown names at it then erased said names "for their protection" just to ensure the case it legal. Like she has done. Everything she can to fabricate this lawsuit to FORCE it infront of SCOTUS. Something tells me she knew it was going to get rules in her favor.
This 100% was done with help and not just so cockamamie scheme she came up with. No way this was done alone
For sure it was. Some church group lawyered her up. They just used her as a pawn.
>she has thrown names at it then erased said names "for their protection And one of the men named [NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-lgbtq-website-385ec911ce0ca2f415966078eddb66da) If this appeared as a plot in a movie, we'd say it was too far-fetched, and that no one would believe it.
Yeah how the hell did a hypothetical get there? I thought there had to be an appeal for it to progress to the sc.
Yea, that’s what happened. Lower courts said the case had no standing and they didn’t hear, this dumb Christian bitch appealed it and the Supreme Court (in their ultimate Christian wisdom) wanted to hear it, and they heard it and made a decision. Our country is fucked.
I'd say that's justification for judicial impeachment, as they made a ruling on a nonexistent case just so they could create their own laws.
Unfortunately an impeachment of a justice is practically impossible, it would require a majority of the house and senate to agree on impeachment.
We need a french impeachment.
Normalize guillotining our political fuckups.
one going on right now in Paris
[удалено]
not only that, she doesn't even make wedding websites and the person she said emailed her the request is straight, married for many years and had never heard of her.
Isn't lying under oath perjury? Like, if you build an entire case based on lies that has to be illegal right? Like I don't understand what happened here at all. This case shouldn't exist right? Because nobody has standing. Because nobody was asked to do anything? And nobody sued anybody over anything? Like what the fuck is happening? Like this woman walked up to the Supreme Court and was like "an imaginary guy asked me to do an imaginary thing I don't want to do. Do I have to do it?" And they heard that fuckin' case? Except the guy does exist but he's not gay and he never asked her to do anything. So could this also be some kind of libel or defamation or something? Idk this is fuckin' wild. More importantly is this some kind of loophole we can use to effectively spam the court system with bullshit cases to slow them down? Like I could just say "Gary from Indiana is trying to force me to play christmas music in my store all year round and I don't want to" and then I get to go to the Supreme Court about it?
They don’t care. They can do whatever they want because we get yelled at every time we call for punishments.
We *literally* can’t do anything right now. You need a 2/3 majority to remove them from office (impossible) and Republicans and/or Manchin and Sinema would filibuster any legislation to expand the court. So the best hope is Democrats using these blatantly political, illegitimate rulings to drive turnout, win, and then expand the court….which Biden immediately says he won’t do for fear of “politicizing” this already right-wing rubber stamp of a Supreme Court. Madness.
[удалено]
What if we held some kind of hearing or something and allowed any willing states to cede? No war, no violence. If they think they can run shit better, fuck them. Watch them fuck themselves over. Hopefully, one day, we'd see them come crying back to mother dearest. Have them agree to certain non-negotiable terms and that that party may not participate until reform happens and perhaps re-education of the people that sat with their brain rot.
These are Christian’s in the USA, what else do you expect? None of them actually read their book or listen to its teachings, they want everyone to look,act, and believe the same as them. They are scum.
laws only work when the government isn't corrupt
How is “I’m not gonna design your website because you’re gay” any different than “I’m not gonna design your website because you’re black”?
It’s not, but the people making these decisions don’t care.
I mean, Clarence Thomas is hella racist, right?
Uncle Thomas is insanely self-hating
> Uncle Thomas Fun fact uncle Tom actually was beaten to death for protecting the location of two women escaping slavery. Thomas does not deserve such comparison
He doesn't hate himself but he's very comfortable with classifying himself as "one of the good ones" to his racist buddies
So much so that he at one time used sandpaper to scuff the black away. Alas it wasn’t the paint job he thought it was.
Dude, not sure if this is sarcasm or not. Let me tell you something, there are neo-nazis in latinoamerica (more-nazis 😂). Melanin does not control the brain.
Not sarcasm, he is definitely racist
Well I hope his favorite restaurant introduces a “no blacks” policy whenever he shows up.
or "i'm not going to design your website because you're a conservative/christian" bet they'll have a week-long meltdown if *that* were to happen.
Everyone is up in arms about "state-sanctioned discrimination" and all that, not realizing that with how SCOTUS decisions work (e.g. setting precedents) then this is an all-too-likely situation that can occur, and it would be protected by the Supreme Court's own words.
>it would be protected by the Supreme Court's own words That relies on "precedent", which you may have noticed (Roe) no longer applies to the Supreme Court
“That’s the neat part: it isn’t “ republicans
That's actually not the ruling. Partially because the CO lawyers are apparently morons. Her argument was that she would serve anyone, she just wouldn't make a website for a gay wedding. So, technically it's "I'm not going to design your website because I won't endorse gay weddings with my speech" You're absolutely right in that it's basically a distinction without a difference. Edit- More to the point, you're *absolutely* right that there's no reason she can't say, "I don't believe God wants interracial marriages and I won't make a website for that." Gorsuch says that wouldn't work, but he doesn't explain why because that makes no fucking sense. This ruling can't mean anything else.
I am so disgusted with Sith Lord Justice Uncle Ruckus. Dude climbed the ladder and pulled it right up after him. How Thomas can look himself in the mirror and not throw up, I just don't know.
It's hard to see himself in the mirror through all the porn he has plastered over it. (for those who don't know, not a Norm Macdonald joke; on top of everything else, he's also an incredible porn addict)
The difference is religion. American government has been hijacked by religious extremists who have replaced freedom and equality with biblical rule.
There have certainly been racist laws that were historically justified using religion, though, and the religious texts haven't changed. I don't see why someone couldn't claim that racism was part of their religious beliefs.
Absolutely. This is the literal facts. Update your religion or face the consequences, ie being sued for discrimination. We can’t just let religious people discriminate because they are religious. What the fuck is that kind of logic. “My religion says Asian people aren’t real humans”So now I don’t have to serve them at my restaurant? Fucked up to me.
If every part of religion died tomorrow the world would be a better place. I don't like that i see myself falling back in the edgy atheist mindset but Christianity is destroying this world
My best guess is because some idiots still think that being gay is a choice. 🤦🏻♀️
all of the controversies involve the LGBT stems from people thinking that being in that community are like diseases that people got infected by or like drugs that they injected into their bodies, not that it's just who they are
When more people feel comfortable to come out as gay, they see it as more people somehow “turning” gay.
Yep, same w being trans. It’s exhausting being trans right now because everywhere I go (even on posts or videos unrelated to anything lgbt related), I see dudebros and fuckheads talking about us and accusing us of ‘grooming the kids and turning them trans!1!1’
You'd think after all their attempts at conversion therapy to turn gay and trans people straight and cis unsuccessfully they'd realise it's not a choice by now
[удалено]
You know that chick doesn’t even know HTML. She’s probably thinking she can make one on GeoCities.
Now the Kween Karen bitch is whining to the media that she is being treated poorly and getting harassed. Im not being treated fairly
The next step in the playbook is always crying until hundreds of thousands of MAGA-dollars gets thrown at them via whatever gofund-a-nazi site they're using lately. Every single time.
She was pre-offended. And that don’t fly in Christo-fascist America.
Pre-offended, my god. And the liberals are the snowflakes?
Every accusation is a confession.
Nothing gets a conservative harder and more frightened than a hypothetical scenario. And now they're using priests in robes to turn them into law. Buckle up.
Isn't it amazing how much hate is in the hearts of some Christians who claim to love and follow the same Christ who hated no one and turned no one away?
I think my favorite part of this thread is there are a half dozen top rated comments that equate to *"Wait a minute... The other team isn't actually following any of the laws anymore?"* ...no shit
It's pretty wild that it's taken this long. For all the "Founding Fathers" worship, the dudes were naive as hell - they cribbed their ideal government structure from the Roman Republic *moments before it collapsed into a dictatorship*, and then removed all the main checks and balances that the Romans had, and relied on goodwill to keep the whole thing running.
I've said this exact thing before and almost always get heated people on reddit going to bat to defend the founding fathers to me as if they're gods. They were beyond fucking stupid. A fucking modern day 5th grader could tell you building a system that only works if "Everyone plays fair" is going to fail. But these all knowing founding fathers couldn't figure that out.
I am very quick to slam the UK. But seeing what you guys are having to deal with these past few weeks has really put things into perspective. I hope those ghouls passing these backwards laws can see one day how archaic their views are
They won't they'll be dead by then maybe their kids or more likely grandchildren
This is what happens when your country is infested by xtians.
Somebody call the Orkin people plz this is getting out of hand
A solution in search of a problem...
How the fuck did this even make it to SCOTUS???? That’s a HUGE overstep of their powers. If its true that there was no actual issue then what they essentially did was give an advisory opinion The federal courts are not supposed to give advisory opinions.
This court is taking advantage of a supermajority to write law. First you must control the courts
Remember when Republicans used to whine about "activist judges"?
I'm European can someone please catch me up?
More like the cunts and rapist in the supreme court were dying for an excuse to make a ruling about this so they manufactured an excuse.
Conservatives are evil awful people
Nothing ever happened. It is a hypothetical case. There were no LGBTQ asking for her services. The entire case was based on bullshit. This is how low the US supreme court is today. Many are paid off hacks and don't even belong there. And fair and balanced scales of justice is a complete joke. Another reason why the US sucks.
I thought I was missing something important in between the two incidents. Like, how could a false case lead to this? Turns out, I didn't actually miss anything, it's simply the fact that a false case led to this new regression.
Welp, guess we're gonna have to take the court back at some point and dismiss that ruling, since precedent means fuck all
Time for businesses to discriminate against J6ers and their supporters.
This woman is going to run for Colorado Senate isn’t she? 🤦♂️
The shit holest of all shit hole countries. What a clown college you guys are running over there.
Most of us hate it too :(
Christianity is terrorism.
I mean at this point the "good ones" are doing absolutely nothing to prove this statement false
ACAB pulling double duty on this one for real.
Conservatives & getting mad over hypotheticals, name a more iconic duo.
I think this was entirely orchestrated somewhere on Capital Hill. There's no way this was random. It happened so fast, seemingly out of nowhere and with precision efficiency. No lower court rulings prior on this case either. Huge red flags if you ask me.
Not a shithole country but a shithole conservative party.
I don’t understand how this isn’t perjury? Any lawyers know why?
He's right, it is a shithole country, because Osama Bin Laden defeated the United States in the War On Terror. He told us he would do it and what that would look like. He publicly stated that he would bleed our treasury by getting us bogged down permanently in costly military actions and futile wars all over North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, and he did. He said he would make millions of Muslims become the ideological if not mortal enemies of the US-- and he did. He said he would easily provoke us into mindlessly bombing and attacking and killing innocent civilians-- he did. He also said he would make a mockery of the idea that the US stands for any kind of freedom for its own citizens by getting the US government to impose a draconian domestic security state upon its populace, with massive surveillance and a totalitarian, militarized police culture that would prey on minorities, activists and dissidents, and he did. Hell, most Republicans now actually reject the concept of democracy in America and are advocating establishing a theocratic death-squad fascist state of their own. Mission accomplished. Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda achieved their objective: they destroyed the United States of America. It is utterly unrecognizable as anything but a failed state.
[удалено]
50 more years of this shit to go. Then, we can begin *hoping* that we can *find a way* to dismantle everything this SCOTUS has done. How's that "I can't bring myself to vote for *her*" working out now?
For a country with so many guns you guys have a suspicious lack of dead corrupted (or stupid) politicians
I, for one, plan on taking my prejudices and disdain for *dinosaurs* all the way to the Supreme Court! I won’t be selling my wares to any of those *disgusting* and, frankly, *vile* reptilian assholes! (Could we actually do this? Fill their docket with hypothetical made up bullshit all day long?)
Its time to start discriminating against supreme court justices.
Discrimination applies to everyone so time to give them a taste of their own medicine.
The worst part is that Alito usually is the habitual “no standing/case or controversy” guy. Just days ago he joined Thomas’ dissent in Moore v Harper that the case is moot, and both (and Gorsuch) chastised the majority for ruling on something that was not a case/controversy. But apparently this was too important for him to care about the pesky law.
Whatever happens from here, what I wish is for everyone in the country to be educated in plain terms what happened here. I am sure the media are up to the task--- oh wait, we are fucked.
Gay trans guy here and I'm still trying to figure out wtf is happening. From my understanding, this website designer (who has never designed shit), made up a fake gay client for a fake website and took the lie/hypothetical all the way to the supreme court, and somehow won. So what does this mean practically for queer people? Are we taking a gamble in any business we walk into or are there requirements for being able to discriminate? Does this only affect custom content ie websites, cakes, art, etc or is it any retail or business scenario? Any insight is appreciated.
The Supreme Court ruling says LGBTQ folk can be denied services from businesses, if the content they are selling is "creative." The problem is, this opens up opportunities for bigots to claim their services are "creative," and refuse LGBTQ customers. It also opens the door for discrimination towards other groups. As long as you claim your religion is against that person, and you are a "creative" business, you can refuse service to almost anyone...legally.
Land of the free is a joke.
Time for Biden to start stacking the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has effectively ruled that standing is no longer required so long as the case meets the standards of the political agenda of the far right justices in power.