Odd that the resident “lawyer” hasn’t chimed in on these rulings yet.

Such a fraud.

(06-30-2023 05:21 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-30-2023 05:18 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Fair decision. The court ruled that you cannot be compled to promote an agenda against your beliefs

The designer was not given permission to refuse to provide services to those that are gay. The designer cannot be compelled to promote gay marriage.

Justice Gorsuch spelled this out wonderfully in his opinion

welp, it appears elon has finally screwed his pooch....

I'm not joining twatter...

posting twatter threads are now nothing different than paywall bs...

y'all have fondued fonzies with that bs...

I noticed that also.

(06-30-2023 05:31 PM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  Odd that the resident “lawyer” hasn’t chimed in on these rulings yet.

Such a fraud.

(06-30-2023 12:13 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  What a happy way to end Pride Month.

Excellent point!

Progressives Seize on SCOTUS Case to Threaten to Refuse Service to Christians; I Completely Support Them

Quote:Two big criticisms have been directed against the 303 Creative decision. First, the critics claim that 303 Creative was a “hypothetical” case because 303 Creative’s owner sued for an injunction before Colorado could slap her with a fine. Here is an example of this. I have no idea who “Kaivan Shroff” is when he’s up and has his trousers on, but this is his take.

This is dumb for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court decides if the cases it takes are hypothetical, not some Twitter rando. If it takes a case, the case is, de facto, not hypothetical, in the opinion of a majority of the Court. Second, this case had been heard at the district court level and was taken on appeal from the Tenth Circuit, whose decision the Supreme Court reversed. Obviously, the case was not hypothetical.

The second line of attack is that the 303 Creative is based on the incoherent dissent by Sotomayor, who turned a very simple case briefed by both sides on the government’s ability to make citizens hold a certain viewpoint into one of public accommodations, see Gorsuch Savages Sotomayor’s Brain-Melting Dissent in the 303 Creative Case. As Gorsuch said, the 303 Creative decision has zero to do with public accommodations as the designer had no problem serving homosexual clients.

It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case. Much of it focuses on the evolution of public accommodations laws, post, at 7–13, and the strides gay Americans have made towards securing equal justice under law, post, at 14–17. And, no doubt, there is much to applaud here. But none of this answers the question we face today: Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?

Here is a Twitter rando parroting an argument made a few thousand times yesterday but with the lack of introspection to understand they were being low IQ derivative and not an edgelord.

For the record, I’m opposed to public accommodations laws based on liberty and free association grounds. If your magenta hair and ear gauges gross me out, I should have a right to tell you to shove off when you show up in my business. The only thing damaged by that interaction is my wallet. And if you don’t want me in your business, I don’t want to be there. As my friend and colleague, Jim Thompson replied to this twit:

The era of the Woolworth’s lunch counter is over. In fact, the left is leading the charge in this direction (see The Sarah Sanders and the Red Hen Restaurant Story Takes Turn Directly Where You Thought It Would). Where possible, I give my business to Christian and conservative businesses. I don’t shop at places that wear their progressiveness on their sleeve; looking at you, Starbucks. I don’t go to stores displaying “PRIDE” signage (theological note, this is very appropriately named as pride is the sin that got Lucifer booted from Heaven). I won’t buy an Anheuser-Busch beverage even for someone else. I’m definitely not going to eat food made by openly gay caterers or hire any business that makes their sexual aberrations part of their business model. I haven’t returned to those businesses that required a face mask once the government mandate ended. In fact, the quicker the left goes in this direction, the quicker we will be able to easily identify businesses that adhere to traditional values and keep our money with like-minded Americans.

So, as far as I’m concerned, withhold services all you wish. There are plenty of businesses run by normal people who aren’t controlled by the random twitches emanating from their crotch. I’d much rather send my money in their direction than subsidize values and beliefs I find to be abhorrent.

Bravo! Conservatives are just starting to realize the power that their $$ has and being discerning regarding where to spend it. This isn't the end, it is just beginning.

(06-30-2023 12:47 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  You know, I don't know why these cases (along with the wedding cake) even come about. Seems both sides are a bit wacky.

If you are in business, if someone is willing to patronize you, normally to take their money and provide your service.

I don't go to gay bars. Why do gays go to christian web designers and bakers ???

Simple. To push their agenda and normalize their rather unique *ahem* circumstance.

If I didn’t want to do the work, whatever it was I’d simply say, no thanks. Time wouldn’t provide for that, but thank you!

The swishes take you to court and you say I didn’t have the time. How’s a judge gonna decide otherwise how much of my time I want to devote to this stuff?

(06-30-2023 02:25 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-30-2023 02:24 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(06-30-2023 01:05 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(06-30-2023 12:47 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  You know, I don't know why these cases (along with the wedding cake) even come about. Seems both sides are a bit wacky.

If you are in business, if someone is willing to patronize you, normally to take their money and provide your service.

I don't go to gay bars. Why do gays go to christian web designers and bakers ???

Simple. Because they want to cause trouble.

< checking my "schedule" >
"Nope. Sorry. Already booked solid that whole month. The following? Yup, booked too."

Just because "you want" means nada.
"I want" Bobby Flay to cook all my meals. Ain't gonna happen. I can't afford him and he ain't moving to North Dakota. Should he have to move to ND and cook for free?

muh line is, "sorry, I'm fully burdened at this point." ... the blank stare in return is priceless...,

Woop! You two ^^^ beat me too it…

(07-01-2023 01:09 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-30-2023 12:47 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  You know, I don't know why these cases (along with the wedding cake) even come about. Seems both sides are a bit wacky.

If you are in business, if someone is willing to patronize you, normally to take their money and provide your service.

I don't go to gay bars. Why do gays go to christian web designers and bakers ???

Simple. To push their agenda and normalize their rather unique *ahem* circumstance.

If I didn’t want to do the work, whatever it was I’d simply say, no thanks. Time wouldn’t provide for that, but thank you!

The swishes take you to court and you say I didn’t have the time. How’s a judge gonna decide otherwise how much of my time I want to devote to this stuff?

This is tantamount to me insulting the waiter, cook, barber, auto mechanic or anyone that gives a service for your money. If those that frequent these people are okay with it then go for it but if the gay crowd doesn't want a conservatives money who's at a loss here? Would I trust a flaming queer for any of those services if they are intent on disliking conservatives because they don't share the same ideology? Heck, I would feel weird if a gay guy was touching my head or giving me a massage (I've never had one, I just used this as an example), brrrrr, gross...or I might feel a tingle, bwahahahaha, I thought that was funny.

One thing I've learned is that you do not speak about politics or religion to people that may screw you up in some way...like spit in your food.

(06-30-2023 01:05 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(06-30-2023 12:47 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  You know, I don't know why these cases (along with the wedding cake) even come about. Seems both sides are a bit wacky.

If you are in business, if someone is willing to patronize you, normally to take their money and provide your service.

I don't go to gay bars. Why do gays go to christian web designers and bakers ???

Simple. Because they want to cause trouble.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner. That same dynamic can be applied to an endless array of issues for them. They are boundless in their energy and fully committed to the cause, unaware of it though they may be. Most are mindless drones carrying out mandates from their gods.

(06-30-2023 01:50 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  You guys are killing me today

This place has been highly entertaining and even more informative than usual for the last few days.

Sotomayor is a dummy.

I don't agree with Kagan all the time but she's very sharp.

The other one was an affirmative action screw up.

(07-02-2023 02:58 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Sotomayor is a dummy.

I don't agree with Kagan all the time but she's very sharp.

The other one was an affirmative action screw up.

Kagan is simply a Socialist. The other two just aren't very smart. I wouldn't hire Sotomayor to write a letter for me. I don't think she's capable without help.

Sotomayor is stupid (although she was the deciding vote in our favor on the one SCt case where I have had any involvement [worked on amicus brief]).
Kagan is a socialist/commie.
Brown Jackson is a stupid socialist/commie.

(07-01-2023 06:56 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-30-2023 01:50 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  You guys are killing me today

This place has been highly entertaining and even more informative than usual for the last few days.

I'm no longer allowed to say names, but there are folks here that are NOT being entertained.

(07-02-2023 04:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Sotomayor is stupid (although she was the deciding vote in our favor on the one SCt case where I have had any involvement [worked on amicus brief]).
Kagan is a socialist/commie.
Brown Jackson is a stupid socialist/commie.

and you (of all folk) want to expand the court (per district, IIRC) ... no, thank you...

(07-02-2023 04:39 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-02-2023 04:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Sotomayor is stupid (although she was the deciding vote in our favor on the one SCt case where I have had any involvement [worked on amicus brief]).
Kagan is a socialist/commie.
Brown Jackson is a stupid socialist/commie.

and you (of all folk) want to expand the court (per district, IIRC) ... no, thank you...

Note that under my proposal, Brown Jackson (and probably Kagan) would have been ineligible. Those places would have had to go to judges from the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, or 11th Circuits, or the Federal Circuit. One from the 9th Circuit could have been as loony as Kagan or Brown Jackson, but anybody from any of the other circuits would likely have been significantly more conservative.

I see some potentially interesting strategic decisions. Let's say you are a republican president filling a vacancy, and there are 4 unrepresented circuits--5th, 9th, 11th, and Federal. You could very easily find a conservative from the 5th or 11th. But let's say you have a very conservative candidate who happens to be from the 9th. Appointing him/her would take away a slot that democrats could ordinarily count on filling with a flaming liberal, but when he/she leaves the court, that seat would almost invariably swing hard left. So do you go with someone from the 5th or 11th, figuring you are locking in a conservative vote, or do you go with the one from the 9th, figuring you are upsetting the democrat establishment in the short run, but with the certainty that seat will swing hard left when it comes vacant again.

(07-02-2023 04:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2023 04:39 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-02-2023 04:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Sotomayor is stupid (although she was the deciding vote in our favor on the one SCt case where I have had any involvement [worked on amicus brief]).
Kagan is a socialist/commie.
Brown Jackson is a stupid socialist/commie.

and you (of all folk) want to expand the court (per district, IIRC) ... no, thank you...

Note that under my proposal, Brown Jackson (and probably Kagan) would have been ineligible. Those places would have had to go to judges from the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, or 11th Circuits, or the Federal Circuit. One from the 9th Circuit could have been as loony as Kagan or Brown Jackson, but anybody from any of the other circuits would likely have been significantly more conservative.

I see some potentially interesting strategic decisions. Let's say you are a republican president filling a vacancy, and there are 4 unrepresented circuits--5th, 9th, 11th, and Federal. You could very easily find a conservative from the 5th or 11th. But let's say you have a very conservative candidate who happens to be from the 9th. Appointing him/her would take away a slot that democrats could ordinarily count on filling with a flaming liberal, but when he/she leaves the court, that seat would almost invariably swing hard left. So do you go with someone from the 5th or 11th, figuring you are locking in a conservative vote, or do you go with the one from the 9th, figuring you are upsetting the democrat establishment in the short run, but with the certainty that seat will swing hard left when it comes vacant again.

I'll simply counter that I could pay off any of the aforementioned/additional loons if req'd...

let's say you're at the head of the table ... I'm the guy you come to when you don't wan't to know the 'hows or the whys' ... be glad I'm not a dippo....

now that the exodus has begun and muh mail-it-inns are proving 'too popular', you're gonna tell me I'm supposed to trust how today's hierarchy will continue as 'drawn'?!

sorry, ol' wise one, I'll pass on that 'chewy' they toss the woofy woofs backed in the corner....

The problem I see with the SCt is way too much groupthink--not much intellectual diversity. That's how Roberts and others can go left at bizarre times. A conservative in New England is a leftist in Texas.

Except for Barrett, they all went to law school at either Harvard or Yale. Except for Barrett (7th) and Gorsuch (10th), they all came to the SCt from northeastern establishment circuits/jurisdictions--Sotomayor from 2nd, Alito from 3rd, Roberts, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Brown Jackson from DC Circuits, and Kagan from Solicitor General. In a nation that is plurality Protestant Christian, all justices are either Roman Catholic or Jewish.

The SCt does not represent the USA. That's why I have made my proposal.