CSNbbs

Quote:Amidst all the rightful focus on government censorship and election interference, another major story is brewing over at the Supreme Court. On Monday, the Justices heard oral arguments in a case centering on a web designer who has religious objections to making websites for same-sex couples.

Naturally, Lorie Smith, who runs a company called 303 Creative, is based in Colorado. That state has become ground zero for religious liberty cases, made infamous by its persecution of cake baker Jack Phillips.

During the oral arguments, the conservative justices seemed to lean toward siding with Smith, who has asserted that it violates her religious beliefs to be forced to make websites for gay marriages. Two exchanges stuck out to me as providing some insight into why the winds are blowing in that direction.

The first involved Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who managed to elicit this nonsensical word salad from Colorado’s Solicitor General.

The amount of doublespeak there is simply incredible. Colorado has created a system where business owners can discriminate against religious people but religious people aren’t allowed to observe their own beliefs in their everyday lives. The arbitrary distinction of “status” is simply a cheap excuse to legalize ideological hypocrisy. Barrett’s line of questioning was obviously meant to highlight that, and she succeeded.

My favorite exchange of the day involved Justice Neil Gorsuch, though. While asking the solicitor general about Jack Phillips’ case, he managed to perfectly expose the dystopian nature of Colorado’s laws. The above doesn’t cover everything of note said, so be sure to listen to the entire thing.

Gorsuch actually started things off by correcting the solicitor general’s description of the case, which was satisfying on its own. He then moved to address the Colorado law’s protection of religious liberty, stating with a lot of snark that it’s supposed to do so “in theory.” That lead the solicitor general to make the incredible statement that there had been no instance of the law not respecting religious liberty.

For understandable reasons, Gorsuch wasn’t really interested in hearing such obvious nonsense, noting that Jack Phillips had been put through a re-education program for honoring his religious convictions. That left the solicitor general stammering in an attempt to explain how it wasn’t a re-education program even though its purpose was to re-educate.

Listening to that, Gorsuch is pretty obviously going to side with the web designer, and that’s the proper decision given that the basic tenets of religious liberty are at stake here. It’s not hard to judge where Barrett is going to end up either, and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are slam dunks if history is any guide. That really just leaves Justice Kavanaugh as the swing vote because Justice Roberts will do what he always does, which is be a coward who attempts to carve out some unworkable middle ground.

When the Jack Phillips case was decided four years ago, the court chickened out, essentially giving him the win on a technicality that didn’t address the root issue. Unfortunately, the harassment of Phillips and others continues to this day. Hopefully, the Supreme Court is ready to put an end to the insanity with a decisive decision.

Link


BREAKING: Supreme Court weighs compelled speech versus free speech in case of Christian Colorado web designer who opposes same-sex marriage

Quote:On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of 303 Creative LLC v Ellen’s, a case relating to a Colorado website designer’s claims that the state’s discrimination laws would violate free speech rights protected under the First Amendment.

According to SCOTUSblog, 303 Creative LLC owner Lorie Smith, a devout Christian, wants to expand her business to include building wedding websites but does not want to design websites for same-sex weddings and announce publicly on her website that the company would not be undertaking these projects.

Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), states that "Coloradans are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of all goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered to the public, regardless of protected class."

Smith argues that "applying CADA to her would violate the First Amendment because it would require her to create messages that are inconsistent with her religious beliefs, and it would bar her from announcing those beliefs on her website," according to SCOTUSblog.

Smith has said that her decision to undertake a project is not related to the identity of the person requesting the work, but rather the message that would be conveyed. For example, Smith said she would "happily" design a website for an LGBTQ customer running an animal shelter, but would not take on clients promoting messages inconsistent with her Christian beliefs, like promoting same-sex marriage.

A similar case was handled in 2018, where justices ruled narrowly in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a custom cake for a same-sex couple because he believed it would violate his religious beliefs.

Attorney Kristen Waggoner with Alliance Defending Freedom, representing Smith, told the court that the state declares Smith’s "speech a public accommodation, and insists that she create and speak messages that violate her conscience."

"She’s not asking this court to create new law, but to apply its precedent. Colorado first says this case is about a sale. It’s not about a sale. The state forces Ms. Smith to create speech, not simply sell it. Next, Colorado says it can compel speech on the same topic, but Ms. Smith believes opposite-sex marriage honor scripture, and same-sex marriage contradicts it," said Waggoner.

Justice Sonia Sotomayer argued that these "standard websites," listing information like dates, locations, and registries, are not listing any sort of "ideology," and that the website would theoretically be the same if it was a "same-gender" couple versus an "opposite-gender" couple.

"There’s really nothing about the content of this speech," Sotomayer told Waggoner.

"No, it’s not about the use," said Waggoner. "It’s about when a person is creating speech, it is what is the message they are expressing."

"The Hurley framework asked this court to first look at is their speech, and there clearly is words, graphics, texts, videos, pictures, that’s speech, and it’s generally protected. The second is to ask, is the speaker’s message affected? And when you’re requiring a speaker to create a message to celebrate something that they believe to be false, you’re compelling their speech and it’s affecting their message," Waggoner said.

Waggoner later stated that even if the wedding websites are the same for two different couples of different identities, the meaning behind the website changes.

Justice Karan questioned how the website could be seen as the creators message when it’s the engaged couple that is sending the website to their family and friends. "So how has it become your message?"

"In the same way that it is a message of a ghostwriter who writes an anonymous press release or a book, it is still that writer’s speech. The whole point of the compelled speech doctrine is to ensure that it’s the — " Waggoner responded, before being interrupted.

Kagan questioned "where’s the line," noting people who may disagree with interracial marriages or marriages between people who are disabled.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned Waggoner as to whether her client would create a website for two heterosexual individuals who met at work, fell in love, and divorced their current partners to be with each other.

Waggoner responded that no, she doesn’t believe that her client would create a website for this couple, as it is a message that she doesn’t agree with fundamentally.

Questioning those attorneys representing the state, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted a hypothetical about a publishing house that refuses to publish pro-life positions.

"I’ve been thinking about publishing house that says we’re not going to publish, we support pro-choice positions, we’re only going to publish books that support pro-life positions, or that we support same-sex marriage and we’re not going to publish books that take a different position on same-sex marriage," he said.

The attorney stated that a publishing house is not a public accommodation as described under Colorado law "for precisely the level of selectivity and choice that goes into it."

"But if it were a public accommodation, it would still have a First Amendment right, correct?" Kavanaugh questioned.

"Yes," the attorney responded, "because what all the public accommodation law says is you can’t turn someone away because of who they are," adding that

During questioning of the state, Justice Barrett brought up the hypothetical situation of a paper or outlet honoring Pride Month by choosing to only publish marriage announcements of same-sex couples.

"Let’s say a newspaper is running, as many newspapers do, runs marriage announcements. So, you know, the New York Times says that such announcements which it picks have to satisfy its normal editorial standards. Let’s just say that the newspaper, for Gay Pride Month, decides that it’s going to run, to promote and recognize same-sex marriage, only same-sex marriage announcements, turns away heterosexual announcements, not because it disparages or disagrees with opposite-sex unions, but because it’s trying to promote something else. Can it do that?"

The attorney said that Barrett’s hypothetical is a "hard one," seeing that "normally the marriage announcements are considered to be a public accommodation, but your interim hypothetical introduces a layer of editorial discretion."

Barrett noted that they would seemingly be a layer of editorial discretion at all times, because "we can’t run every marriage announcement that comes in."

"In that circumstance, if the sole basis for picking and choosing is a protected characteristic, The New York Times couldn’t say that we’re going to have this month, we’re going to run opposite-sex weddings, next month we’re just going to run white people weddings."

At the center of arguments was whether the speech at the center of the case is free speech or compelled speech, meaning whether the state of Colorado had "compelled" Ms. Smith to write messages that she fundamentally disagrees with.

In closing, Waggoner said, "this right to be free from government coercion of speech is also foundational to our self government, and to the free and fearless pursuit of truth."

"In the end, it is not Ms. Smith who is asking you to change the law, but Colorado. This court should affirm again the public accommodation laws cannot be used to compel speech, and this includes artistic expression, photography, painting, calligraphy, and films, forms of media that the lower courts have shockingly refused, refused to recognize this speech when it comes to marriage."

There are laws that you can't discrimante on people race, disabilities, sex and all that. Isn't this woman in Colorado being a prejudice for refusal to serve people if they prefer the same sex?

(12-05-2022 03:36 PM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]There are laws that you can't discrimante on people race, disabilities, sex and all that. Isn't this woman in Colorado being a prejudice for refusal to serve people if they prefer the same sex?

Laws (state and federal statutes) are not the Constitution. The Constitution is supreme. If an anti-discrimination law violates the Constitution (e.g. freedom of speech, religion etc) then that law is invalid.

This case will hopefully see a common sense rule established, which I'm still disappointed that Justice Kennedy didn't do with the Colorado cake case. Private service providers are not the government, and should be free to decline to provide creative services for any client they don't want to serve. It's very easy - are you selling preproduced goods/services to the public, or are you being asked to use your skills and creativity to design and produce a custom product?

A bakery selling cakes out of a display case has to sell them to everyone who can pay until the cakes run out, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the cake. That same bakery does not have to accept the job of designing and creating a cake for anyone, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the cake.

An architect selling books of blueprints from a storefront has to sell them to everyone who can pay until the books are gone, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the plans. That same architect does not have to accept the job of designing and building a structure for anyone, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the structure.

It shouldn't be hard to distinguish between goods on offer for sale to the public and the contracting for creative, expressive goods and services. To answer Justice Sotomayor's question, yes the bakers can refuse to make cakes for interracial weddings and weddings involving a disabled person too. Let private individuals and businesses decide who they will provide creative services for, and let the market decide whether or not to patronize them based upon those decisions.

why not dig to the crux and sue every whitey for whitey flighty...

none of any of this should have ever seen any court...

100% dipshite-landia at its finest...

(12-05-2022 04:43 PM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ]This case will hopefully see a common sense rule established, which I'm still disappointed that Justice Kennedy didn't do with the Colorado cake case. Private service providers are not the government, and should be free to decline to provide creative services for any client they don't want to serve. It's very easy - are you selling preproduced goods/services to the public, or are you being asked to use your skills and creativity to design and produce a custom product?

A bakery selling cakes out of a display case has to sell them to everyone who can pay until the cakes run out, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the cake. That same bakery does not have to accept the job of designing and creating a cake for anyone, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the cake.

An architect selling books of blueprints from a storefront has to sell them to everyone who can pay until the books are gone, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the plans. That same architect does not have to accept the job of designing and building a structure for anyone, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the structure.

It shouldn't be hard to distinguish between goods on offer for sale to the public and the contracting for creative, expressive goods and services. To answer Justice Sotomayor's question, yes the bakers can refuse to make cakes for interracial weddings and weddings involving a disabled person too. Let private individuals and businesses decide who they will provide creative services for, and let the market decide whether or not to patronize them based upon those decisions.

Remarkably, you have hit upon the answer and it's relatively simple. I agree with you in this particular matter.

The couple cannot compel others to believe something that goes against other's religious beliefs and be complicit in promoting that message. Congress shall make NO law infringing on the freedom of religion or the expression thereof. That is where this falls. No law means NO law....go somewhere else to get your website designed.

If the justices are reading, could save them a lot of work on writing the decision.

(12-05-2022 04:43 PM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ]This case will hopefully see a common sense rule established, which I'm still disappointed that Justice Kennedy didn't do with the Colorado cake case. Private service providers are not the government, and should be free to decline to provide creative services for any client they don't want to serve. It's very easy - are you selling preproduced goods/services to the public, or are you being asked to use your skills and creativity to design and produce a custom product?

A bakery selling cakes out of a display case has to sell them to everyone who can pay until the cakes run out, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the cake. That same bakery does not have to accept the job of designing and creating a cake for anyone, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the cake.

An architect selling books of blueprints from a storefront has to sell them to everyone who can pay until the books are gone, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the plans. That same architect does not have to accept the job of designing and building a structure for anyone, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the structure.

It shouldn't be hard to distinguish between goods on offer for sale to the public and the contracting for creative, expressive goods and services. To answer Justice Sotomayor's question, yes the bakers can refuse to make cakes for interracial weddings and weddings involving a disabled person too. Let private individuals and businesses decide who they will provide creative services for, and let the market decide whether or not to patronize them based upon those decisions.

I agree. Good explanation.

Ketanji Brown Jackson Suggests Christmas Classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” is Fodder For White Supremacists in Oral Arguments Over Free Speech Case (AUDIO)

Quote:nter Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson…

Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn’t know what a woman is but she’s apparently a movie critic?

And a racist.

KBJ used the Christmas classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” to argue the First Amendment case.

“I want to do video depictions of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life,’ and knowing that movie very well, I want to be authentic, and so only white children and families can be customers for that particular product. Everybody else can, I’ll give to everybody else I’ll sell them anything they want, just not the ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ depictions,” Ketanji Brown Jackson said. “I‘m expressing something, right? For the purposes of that speech. I can say anti-discrimination laws can’t make me sell ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ packages to non-white individuals.”

”This business wants to express its own view of nostalgia about Christmases past by reproducing classic 1940’s and 1950’s Santa scenes, they do it in sepia tone and they are customizing each one,” Ketanji Brown Jackson said.

Unbelievable!

AUDIO:

(12-05-2022 03:36 PM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]There are laws that you can't discrimante on people race, disabilities, sex and all that. Isn't this woman in Colorado being a prejudice for refusal to serve people if they prefer the same sex?

You left out religion. You cant discriminate based on religion. You also cant infringe on ones right to practice their religion. Frankly, I find cases where individual constitutional rights bump into one another the most interesting. To be clear, the website creator is not saying he would not create sites for this couple---he is saying he wont create this one specific type of site that conflicts with his religious beliefs. So---he's not discriminating against the people (he'll do any other kind of website work for this couple), he just wont do the specific job that conflicts with his religious beliefs (and he wont do that kind of job for anyone gay or not).

My sense is---these kinds of cases where both people have constitutional rights in play----the ruling should be made on the basis of a solution that does the least damage to ones rights. In this case, you can either make a guy do something he finds to be incompatible with his religion---or you can have the couple simply find another website builder to create their site. To me, there is no question which way this ruling should go. If the guy was saying----I wont work for gay people---that would be different. But this is more like---"I wont do that kind of work." Its kind of a fine line---but there is a clear difference.

(12-05-2022 04:43 PM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ]This case will hopefully see a common sense rule established, which I'm still disappointed that Justice Kennedy didn't do with the Colorado cake case. Private service providers are not the government, and should be free to decline to provide creative services for any client they don't want to serve. It's very easy - are you selling preproduced goods/services to the public, or are you being asked to use your skills and creativity to design and produce a custom product?

A bakery selling cakes out of a display case has to sell them to everyone who can pay until the cakes run out, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the cake. That same bakery does not have to accept the job of designing and creating a cake for anyone, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the cake.

An architect selling books of blueprints from a storefront has to sell them to everyone who can pay until the books are gone, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the plans. That same architect does not have to accept the job of designing and building a structure for anyone, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the structure.

It shouldn't be hard to distinguish between goods on offer for sale to the public and the contracting for creative, expressive goods and services. To answer Justice Sotomayor's question, yes the bakers can refuse to make cakes for interracial weddings and weddings involving a disabled person too. Let private individuals and businesses decide who they will provide creative services for, and let the market decide whether or not to patronize them based upon those decisions.

That sounds about right. I think it comes down to differentiating between a seller refusing service to someone based on a characteristic i.e. being gay, straight, white, black, from Mars or from Neptune and a seller being forced to violate their religious principles by doing something that can be construed as endorsing a life-style her religion proscribes, thus making it a violation of her religious liberties.

I'm not sure about the free speech aspect, I guess it may be relevant.

(12-05-2022 07:19 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote: [ -> ]Ketanji Brown Jackson Suggests Christmas Classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” is Fodder For White Supremacists in Oral Arguments Over Free Speech Case (AUDIO)

Quote:nter Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson…

Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn’t know what a woman is but she’s apparently a movie critic?

And a racist.

KBJ used the Christmas classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” to argue the First Amendment case.

“I want to do video depictions of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life,’ and knowing that movie very well, I want to be authentic, and so only white children and families can be customers for that particular product. Everybody else can, I’ll give to everybody else I’ll sell them anything they want, just not the ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ depictions,” Ketanji Brown Jackson said. “I‘m expressing something, right? For the purposes of that speech. I can say anti-discrimination laws can’t make me sell ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ packages to non-white individuals.”

”This business wants to express its own view of nostalgia about Christmases past by reproducing classic 1940’s and 1950’s Santa scenes, they do it in sepia tone and they are customizing each one,” Ketanji Brown Jackson said.

Unbelievable!

AUDIO:

Then don’t watch it you racist skag…

(12-05-2022 07:19 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote: [ -> ]Ketanji Brown Jackson Suggests Christmas Classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” is Fodder For White Supremacists in Oral Arguments Over Free Speech Case (AUDIO)

Quote:nter Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson…

Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn’t know what a woman is but she’s apparently a movie critic?

And a racist.

KBJ used the Christmas classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” to argue the First Amendment case.

“I want to do video depictions of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life,’ and knowing that movie very well, I want to be authentic, and so only white children and families can be customers for that particular product. Everybody else can, I’ll give to everybody else I’ll sell them anything they want, just not the ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ depictions,” Ketanji Brown Jackson said. “I‘m expressing something, right? For the purposes of that speech. I can say anti-discrimination laws can’t make me sell ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ packages to non-white individuals.”

”This business wants to express its own view of nostalgia about Christmases past by reproducing classic 1940’s and 1950’s Santa scenes, they do it in sepia tone and they are customizing each one,” Ketanji Brown Jackson said.

Unbelievable!

AUDIO:

What a moron. This is what you get when you go after someone simply because they check off a box or two, with no consideration for their qualifications.

People who think like she does are attempting to dissect our history while applying the standards of today rather than the prevailing standards of the times they point to, it's wrong.

(12-05-2022 09:15 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-05-2022 07:19 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote: [ -> ]Ketanji Brown Jackson Suggests Christmas Classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” is Fodder For White Supremacists in Oral Arguments Over Free Speech Case (AUDIO)

Quote:nter Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson…

Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn’t know what a woman is but she’s apparently a movie critic?

And a racist.

KBJ used the Christmas classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” to argue the First Amendment case.

“I want to do video depictions of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life,’ and knowing that movie very well, I want to be authentic, and so only white children and families can be customers for that particular product. Everybody else can, I’ll give to everybody else I’ll sell them anything they want, just not the ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ depictions,” Ketanji Brown Jackson said. “I‘m expressing something, right? For the purposes of that speech. I can say anti-discrimination laws can’t make me sell ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ packages to non-white individuals.”

”This business wants to express its own view of nostalgia about Christmases past by reproducing classic 1940’s and 1950’s Santa scenes, they do it in sepia tone and they are customizing each one,” Ketanji Brown Jackson said.

Unbelievable!

AUDIO:

What a moron. This is what you get when you go after someone simply because they check off a box or two, with no consideration for their qualifications.

People who think like she does are attempting to dissect our history while applying the standards of today rather than the prevailing standards of the times they point to, it's wrong.

Proof that idiots exist at all levels of society.

(12-05-2022 09:13 PM)450bench Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-05-2022 07:19 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote: [ -> ]Ketanji Brown Jackson Suggests Christmas Classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” is Fodder For White Supremacists in Oral Arguments Over Free Speech Case (AUDIO)

Quote:nter Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson…

Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn’t know what a woman is but she’s apparently a movie critic?

And a racist.

KBJ used the Christmas classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” to argue the First Amendment case.

“I want to do video depictions of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life,’ and knowing that movie very well, I want to be authentic, and so only white children and families can be customers for that particular product. Everybody else can, I’ll give to everybody else I’ll sell them anything they want, just not the ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ depictions,” Ketanji Brown Jackson said. “I‘m expressing something, right? For the purposes of that speech. I can say anti-discrimination laws can’t make me sell ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ packages to non-white individuals.”

”This business wants to express its own view of nostalgia about Christmases past by reproducing classic 1940’s and 1950’s Santa scenes, they do it in sepia tone and they are customizing each one,” Ketanji Brown Jackson said.

Unbelievable!

AUDIO:

Then don’t watch it you racist skag…

Sigh. This is why Ketanji has never had any business what so ever on the highest court in the land. "Its a Wonderful Life" is a great movie---but its not a religion. The business of shooting scenes from "Its a Wonderful Life" is not a protected religious practice and nobody with any sense would argue that it was. The most obvious corollary is the Catholic Church, which does not allow women to become priests. That policy is obviously discriminating solely on the basis of gender---but its also a clearly delineated and long held belief of a well known and established religion and is thus protected by the Constitution.

(12-05-2022 04:43 PM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ]This case will hopefully see a common sense rule established, which I'm still disappointed that Justice Kennedy didn't do with the Colorado cake case. Private service providers are not the government, and should be free to decline to provide creative services for any client they don't want to serve. It's very easy - are you selling preproduced goods/services to the public, or are you being asked to use your skills and creativity to design and produce a custom product?

A bakery selling cakes out of a display case has to sell them to everyone who can pay until the cakes run out, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the cake. That same bakery does not have to accept the job of designing and creating a cake for anyone, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the cake.

An architect selling books of blueprints from a storefront has to sell them to everyone who can pay until the books are gone, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the plans. That same architect does not have to accept the job of designing and building a structure for anyone, no matter who or for what purpose they want to use the structure.

It shouldn't be hard to distinguish between goods on offer for sale to the public and the contracting for creative, expressive goods and services. To answer Justice Sotomayor's question, yes the bakers can refuse to make cakes for interracial weddings and weddings involving a disabled person too. Let private individuals and businesses decide who they will provide creative services for, and let the market decide whether or not to patronize them based upon those decisions.

well stated +3

Independent contractor's body
Independent contractor's choice

Hell has frozen over. I agree with Gamenole.

well stated

(12-05-2022 09:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-05-2022 09:13 PM)450bench Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-05-2022 07:19 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote: [ -> ]Ketanji Brown Jackson Suggests Christmas Classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” is Fodder For White Supremacists in Oral Arguments Over Free Speech Case (AUDIO)

Quote:nter Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson…

Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn’t know what a woman is but she’s apparently a movie critic?

And a racist.

KBJ used the Christmas classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” to argue the First Amendment case.

“I want to do video depictions of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life,’ and knowing that movie very well, I want to be authentic, and so only white children and families can be customers for that particular product. Everybody else can, I’ll give to everybody else I’ll sell them anything they want, just not the ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ depictions,” Ketanji Brown Jackson said. “I‘m expressing something, right? For the purposes of that speech. I can say anti-discrimination laws can’t make me sell ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ packages to non-white individuals.”

”This business wants to express its own view of nostalgia about Christmases past by reproducing classic 1940’s and 1950’s Santa scenes, they do it in sepia tone and they are customizing each one,” Ketanji Brown Jackson said.

Unbelievable!

AUDIO:

Then don’t watch it you racist skag…

Sigh. This is why Ketanji has never had any business what so ever on the highest court in the land. "Its a Wonderful Life" is a great movie---but its not a religion. The business of shooting scenes from "Its a Wonderful Life" is not a protected religious practice and nobody with any sense would argue that it was. The most obvious corollary is the Catholic Church, which does not allow women to become priests. That policy is obviously discriminating solely on the basis of gender---but its also a clearly delineated and long held belief of a well known and established religion and is thus protected by the Constitution.

Men aren't allowed to be nuns. No one has a problem with that. Priests are called "Father". Nuns are called "sisters". The Mother Superior or Abbess is the equivalent to a Bishop. Men and women have different roles in the Catholic Church. Believe me when I say when an Abbess walks into a room full of Priests, they stand up straight as a Private in the military does when a Captain walks into the room. They just have different roles, none being more important than the other.

The attorney for the plaintiff (the website designer) hit it on the head. In response to the a question from Kavanaugh, she said her client should be able to refuse service to even some heterosexual couples wanting a marriage site as the opposite would compel her client to create a message that she deeply did not feel she wished to promote.

All through the questioning of the website creators attorney, Justices Kagan, Brown, and Sotomayor fixed on *who* classes were that were being denied service. Gorsuch opened the door, and Kavanaugh charged through to show that it wasnt a *who* that was the issue here (same sex couples), but the website designer had the ultimate authority to decide on a *what* the issue was (marriages that she felt were antithetical to her beliefs, whether heterosexual, different sex, or same sex).

Her attorney then crushed it by saying -- this applies to everyone and gives everyone the freedom to not participate in creating speech or symbolic speech or messaging for those that they dont wish to promulgate that message. Then she massively crushed it by saying --- this allows a printer who is a deep Democrat to not make posters or pamphlets for a Republican candidate, it applies to allow a LBGT cake maker to not have to make a cake for an anti-gay event.

Earlier, when she was being pelted by Kagan and Brown about creating speech but not for blacks, she didnt flinch. She said that unequivocally there will be refusal to create speech or symbolic speech for what many consider to be bad hearted reasons. But, the issue can be 180'ed in that good hearted people will also not be forced to create speech for horrible causes.

She was awesome in her questioning session.

Gorsuch, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Alito helped set up that line of questions --- brought the softball to her. Which she pelted. Those 4 are a lock, and from other comments Thomas is as well.

Sotomayor simply squawked 'what about refusing black people at restaurants', and the attorney calmly pointed out that this wasnt based on refusing certain people, but refusing to create speech for certain things.

Brown was incoherent, but used 1950's-style photographers to try to shove this case into a 'discrimination against people' issue.

Kagan was more nuanced, but still tried to move the ball into 'refusing service to races and disabled' category.

This will be a 5-4 decision, or a 6-3 decision. I couldnt get a read on Roberts.

The audio to the hearing was pretty stellar. The main disappointing portion was the Co. Solicitor General was really weak voiced and I cant describe it any more than 'tiny'. And he got really flustered and balled up by Alito and Gorsuch a few times.

I think that the Co. Solicitor General is the son of Ted Olson, who was Solicitor General of the United States for Baby Bush, and considered one of the best Constitutional minds of recent history.

(12-06-2022 11:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]The attorney for the plaintiff (the website designer) hit it on the head. In response to the a question from Kavanaugh, she said her client should be able to refuse service to even some heterosexual couples wanting a marriage site as the opposite would compel her client to create a message that she deeply did not feel she wished to promote.

This will be a 5-4 decision, or a 6-3 decision. I couldnt get a read on Roberts.

it shouldn't be that close...

(12-06-2022 11:15 AM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-06-2022 11:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]The attorney for the plaintiff (the website designer) hit it on the head. In response to the a question from Kavanaugh, she said her client should be able to refuse service to even some heterosexual couples wanting a marriage site as the opposite would compel her client to create a message that she deeply did not feel she wished to promote.

This will be a 5-4 decision, or a 6-3 decision. I couldnt get a read on Roberts.

it shouldn't be that close...

The problem is that the three view it as 'discrimination against a group', while the others (and myself) view it as an issue of whether I should be compelled to perform a service (a service akin to speech) for a cause or an idea I do not subscribe to or hold a deeply felt feeling against.