Now with the Colorado ruling saying that religion can override public accommodation laws

[HikerGuy83]

Or perhaps SCOTUS has decided, fuck it, we're going full right now. And Civil War will ensue.

Or maybe they are following the Constitution.

Civil war ? Hyperbole much ?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There is really nothing worse than forcing an artist to create against their will or create something they disagree with. It's what Hitler and Mussolini did. Obama did it too.

 

[scruffy]

The SCOTUS is violating precedent.
Stare decisis means we should stand by the way things were already decided.
It gives society continuity and predictability.
By the SCOTUS throwing out Roe vs Ware and anti discrimination laws, the SCOTUS has invalidated itself.
It clearly has gone rogue, and will have to be put down most likely.

The SCOTUS has no authority to issue an injunction against the state.
The SCOTUS is supposed to rule using existing law, not to over turn precedent without any basis in law.

Horseshit.

The Supremes INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION, nothing more, nothing less.

There is absolutely no requirement anywhere, for the Supremes to rule in favor of existing law. This particular piece of bullshit sprang up early in the Reconstruction, and I'm sure you can guess why.

Stare decisis is WAY overrated. Why confine us to the mistakes of the past? Lord knows the Supremes have made enough mistakes.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Or maybe they are following the Constitution.

Civil war ? Hyperbole much ?

And what happens when the Constitution is contradictory?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Sure. Caught you in ANOTHER bald faced lie. You have no credibility.

If you think it's a lie that copyright infringement is illegal than I don't know what to tell you, other than to stop breathing.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Given recent SCOTUS rulings it's pretty clear freedom of religion is going to win.

 

[justoffal]

Wrong.
If you are a cop, can you decide who you do not want to protect?
If you are a banker, do you get to redline against some ethnic minority you don't like?
If you run the only gas station in town, can you refuse anyone, based on religion, race, political affiliation, etc.?

You can have all the beliefs you want as long as they do not harm others.
But once you are open for business to the public, then you can no longer discriminate without harming people.
And causing harm is inherently illegal.

Apples and oranges....
Police....
Bank.....
Gas Station....

Wrong.
There is nothing at all about speech in the case or the ruling.
It was about deliberately refusing service, the same as not serving Blacks at a lunch counter in Selma.
It is inherently illegal because it causes harm.

Not the same....
Food Service is a basic human need.... everyone eats no matter who they are or how they identify. Asking someone to use their artistic talent to confirm something that violates their conscience is NOT a basic human need. It's a control freak attack on someone else's right to choose.

 

[HikerGuy83]

And what happens when the Constitution is contradictory?

Are you asking about what happens when there is an apparent conflict ?

I think Gorsuch torched his opposition in his closing remarks on that one.

 

[Rigby5]

A comedian is selling his talent as a comedian. No different than a cake decorator selling talent decorating wedding cakes.

No, there is no similarity at all, because no one needs a comedian, but they do need things like a wedding cake, a mortgage, food, the right to sit in the front of the bus, a right to a college education, the right to be treated at the same hospitals, etc.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No, there is no similarity at all, because no one needs a comedian, but they do need things like a wedding cake, a mortgage, food, the right to sit in the front of the bus, a right to a college education, the right to be treated at the same hospitals, etc.

What a mish mash whatever

 

[MarathonMike]

How long will it be before some business refuses service to black people because they say it's against the owner's religion?

How long before an employer gets to refuse to hire a woman because the business owner's religious belief is that a woman should be at home serving her husband and raising children?

And how many other laws will get to be ignored on the basis of a religious claim?

What ruling? This is the Politics Forum, not the Rubber Room. Post a link

 

[Rigby5]

Apples and oranges....
Police....
Bank.....
Gas Station....

Not the same....
Food Service is a basic human need.... everyone eats no matter who they are or how they identify. Asking someone to use their artistic talent to confirm something that violates their conscience is NOT a basic human need. It's a control freak attack on someone else's right to choose.

There is SOME merit to the artistic argument, but not much with web sites, since they are so cookie-cutter.
The point is these days is that a wedding pretty much has to have a web site these days, so that people can look it up and find it.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Like the 'assholes' that wanted someone to bake a cake promoting homosexuality, that sued, rather than waking a block to a baker that would have made it, no questions asked?

Test

 

[EvilCat Breath]

No, there is no similarity at all, because no one needs a comedian, but they do need things like a wedding cake, a mortgage, food, the right to sit in the front of the bus, a right to a college education, the right to be treated at the same hospitals, etc.

All those things. When they are NOT entitled to is the artistic expression of someone else. So said the court.

 

[justoffal]

No, there is no similarity at all, because no one needs a comedian, but they do need things like a wedding cake, a mortgage, food, the right to sit in the front of the bus, a right to a college education, the right to be treated at the same hospitals, etc.

Fine.... Then let them get a wedding cake. It doesn't have to have a specific theme. It can just be a wedding cake.
It doesn't have to say Adam and Steve on it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you asking about what happens when there is an apparent conflict ?

I think Gorsuch torched his opposition in his closing remarks on that one.

I'm asking you, not Gorsuch

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Don't forget. I already went through this.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I'm asking you, not Gorsuch

I agree with Gorsuch.

 

[Rigby5]

Are you asking about what happens when there is an apparent conflict ?

I think Gorsuch torched his opposition in his closing remarks on that one.

I believe these are Gorsuch's closing remarks:
{...
"In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the court's majority opinion. "But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed."
...}

And he is clearly wrong because doing a web site is a silent activity, alone, sitting in front of a computer for about 20 minutes.
And no one has the right to speak what they think about someone else's wedding.

 

[HikerGuy83]

There is SOME merit to the artistic argument, but not much with web sites, since they are so cookie-cutter.
The point is these days is that a wedding pretty much has to have a web site these days, so that people can look it up and find it.

You can't be serious.