Reply to SCOTUS sided with Christian Web Designer

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "SCOTUS sided with Christian Web Designer"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The Supreme Court is intended to protect rights not limit them. Here, rights have been limited under the guise that other rights are being protected. It’s absurd.

Also, there was reportedly no live controversy at the time. And that’s what people are talking about with regard to standing.  There are complex reasons that are very important as to why there needs to be an actual person who actually believes they are being discriminated against before they can take legal action.   (verse a purported fear that it could happen in the future.)

For the purposes of discussion, even excluding the “ political” make up of the court, this decision could’ve been very different, and made much more sense if there was actually a gay couple who was trying to force this purportedly devout Christian woman to create a “marriage” website for them.   (Even then, it’s a stretch to claim that a website designer’s freedom of expression or speech is being impaired because she would move a couple of templates around.)

The point is most likely if she had said, “I’m a devout Christian and I don’t want to design a website for you”, a real gay couple would likely say “you’re a jerk” and “I’m gonna find someone else.”

It just feels like the whole intention of this case was to take advantage of the current make up of the court.[/quote]

Exactly.  The whole thing was manufactured and orchestrated.  There was never any actual injured party, there was no gay couple, there was no demand to create a website, the state never compelled the designer to do anything.  The whole thing was a lie.  And I believe the reason it ended up in SCOTUS is because the lower courts tossed the lie, so they kept appealing it to higher courts until they landed it in a SCOTUS that was favorable to them.  It's incredibly sleazy to manipulate the system like this, and further adds to the illegitimacy of this SCOTUS majority.  It's a complete sham.   And at risk of "constitutional crisis" and while not directly advocating for it, I do think state and local jurisdictions, as well as other branches of government would be well in their rights to just start ignoring these Supreme Court rulings until some form of oversight, judicial review and legitimacy is restored to the court if they chose to do so.[/quote]

AZ attorney general has said she’s going to ignore it. Love that.

As for standing, I don’t even think she needed a fake gay person. She presented it she herself was the injured party who would be fined or jailed or whatever if she set up her site the way she (probably falsely and total BS) wanted to according to her plan. So it wasn’t some person suing her; I think she essentially sued Colorado to get an injunction against enforcing its law against her so that she could freely open her site up without fear of being punished. That’s different entirely from being sued for failing to provide a services.

[b]Again total BS but that’s what the case was[/b].[/quote]
That still isn't proper standing.[/quote]

The law doesn’t require you to “break the law” in order to challenge a statute. There is a law on the Colorado books that would have put her at risk of punishment. Whether you like it or not, she was allowed to challenge it before putting herself in “harm’s way.” I don’t think anyone believes this lady’s BS but that’s the way it goes. I guarantee she’ll make some kind of dumb statement that she’s decided not to make the websites at all after this! [/quote]
I hope she gets sued into the ground for fraud. You can’t just invent nonsense about a real person. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics