Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP- I feel like the lawyer in this case essentially wrote the ruling that could pass constitutional muster in her head then backed into these fabricated facts to support an injunction.

Yes, this was a well-funded and well-orchestrated far-right activist maneuver, they easily spent $1m plus on this case to push it to the Supreme Court. Their primary backer was Alliance Defending Freedom, which has close ties to FedSoc and receives millions in funding from Erik Prince, Betsy DeVos and others. They have backed numerous other anti-LGBT lawsuits and anti-abortion lawsuits as well as trying to assist on GOP election-meddling lawsuits for the now-disgraced Ken Paxton. And of course they are full of their own supreme hypocrisies and ironies, such as one of their lead attorneys getting busted for child porn, the sicko actually made child porn films of her own 14 year old daughter being made to have sex with adult men. https://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/anti_gay_activist_guilty_of_child_pornography_after_videotaping_daughter/

Yes, and everyone should realize this can work both ways. At some point the Supreme Court might be considered a joke if they cannot see through these specious suits (regardless of political affiliation). Expect chaos after that..

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And as for it being a "narrow" ruling, that's belied by the dissenting opinion - the dissenting opinion clearly made the case that this could and would likely be a slippery slope leading to other forms of discrimination in business. The majority opinion is completely silent on that.

So, don't be surprised if MAGAs are indeed turned away from businesses. That slippery slope is real.

Didn't that already happen when the Little Red Hen diner turned away Sarah Huckabee for no better reason that she was a Trump appointee?
I don't even think the employees invoked "religious principle" as a reason. They just didn't like her politics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And as for it being a "narrow" ruling, that's belied by the dissenting opinion - the dissenting opinion clearly made the case that this could and would likely be a slippery slope leading to other forms of discrimination in business. The majority opinion is completely silent on that.

So, don't be surprised if MAGAs are indeed turned away from businesses. That slippery slope is real.

Didn't that already happen when the Little Red Hen diner turned away Sarah Huckabee for no better reason that she was a Trump appointee?
I don't even think the employees invoked "religious principle" as a reason. They just didn't like her politics.

As a Christian who was raised as a Catholic, the conservative policies of turning their backs on refugees, the sick, the poor and the elderly is a CLEAR violation of my religious principles and goes against EVERYTHING that Christ taught in the four Gospels, as it also goes against all of the teachings of St. Francis and many other major figures of the Church. It is my religious conviction that unless and until Republicans change their ways and embrace Christ, we as Christians cannot serve them.

Fellow Catholic here. They hate us. They write here on this forum over and over that they hate us. I'm not saying that you should hate them, but recognize that you're voting for people who literally hate everything you stand for, and are seeking to undermine a Catholic way of life in nearly all aspects.

Sorry but no. What we hate is when you think your religion should be reflected in the laws of our country. Believe whatever you want; keep religion out of politics. You don’t get to force other people to live according to your dogma, and when you do that people get pissed. Rightfully so.

This Supreme Court and imposing your religion on us is behind people now hating Catholics.

I had no opinion to favorable to the Catholic religion ten years ago; now? I will not be using any of your business services if you are Catholic or evangelical Christian. And I am Christian myself.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don't dispute that As a lawyer, whenever handling a constitutional issue the main question I have is not whether the facts and law are on my side -- but who the judge is. Carter and Obama appointees are good for defending affirmative action and the like, but you're not likely to win with Reagan and Bush appointees. There are several hot button issues like that - but the penulum does swing back and forth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP- I feel like the lawyer in this case essentially wrote the ruling that could pass constitutional muster in her head then backed into these fabricated facts to support an injunction.

Yes, this was a well-funded and well-orchestrated far-right activist maneuver, they easily spent $1m plus on this case to push it to the Supreme Court. Their primary backer was Alliance Defending Freedom, which has close ties to FedSoc and receives millions in funding from Erik Prince, Betsy DeVos and others. They have backed numerous other anti-LGBT lawsuits and anti-abortion lawsuits as well as trying to assist on GOP election-meddling lawsuits for the now-disgraced Ken Paxton. And of course they are full of their own supreme hypocrisies and ironies, such as one of their lead attorneys getting busted for child porn, the sicko actually made child porn films of her own 14 year old daughter being made to have sex with adult men. https://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/anti_gay_activist_guilty_of_child_pornography_after_videotaping_daughter/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And as for it being a "narrow" ruling, that's belied by the dissenting opinion - the dissenting opinion clearly made the case that this could and would likely be a slippery slope leading to other forms of discrimination in business. The majority opinion is completely silent on that.

So, don't be surprised if MAGAs are indeed turned away from businesses. That slippery slope is real.

Didn't that already happen when the Little Red Hen diner turned away Sarah Huckabee for no better reason that she was a Trump appointee?
I don't even think the employees invoked "religious principle" as a reason. They just didn't like her politics.

As a Christian who was raised as a Catholic, the conservative policies of turning their backs on refugees, the sick, the poor and the elderly is a CLEAR violation of my religious principles and goes against EVERYTHING that Christ taught in the four Gospels, as it also goes against all of the teachings of St. Francis and many other major figures of the Church. It is my religious conviction that unless and until Republicans change their ways and embrace Christ, we as Christians cannot serve them.

Fellow Catholic here. They hate us. They write here on this forum over and over that they hate us. I'm not saying that you should hate them, but recognize that you're voting for people who literally hate everything you stand for, and are seeking to undermine a Catholic way of life in nearly all aspects.

Sorry but no. What we hate is when you think your religion should be reflected in the laws of our country. Believe whatever you want; keep religion out of politics. You don’t get to force other people to live according to your dogma, and when you do that people get pissed. Rightfully so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don't dispute that As a lawyer, whenever handling a constitutional issue the main question I have is not whether the facts and law are on my side -- but who the judge is. Carter and Obama appointees are good for defending affirmative action and the like, but you're not likely to win with Reagan and Bush appointees. There are several hot button issues like that - but the penulum does swing back and forth.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And as for it being a "narrow" ruling, that's belied by the dissenting opinion - the dissenting opinion clearly made the case that this could and would likely be a slippery slope leading to other forms of discrimination in business. The majority opinion is completely silent on that.

So, don't be surprised if MAGAs are indeed turned away from businesses. That slippery slope is real.

Didn't that already happen when the Little Red Hen diner turned away Sarah Huckabee for no better reason that she was a Trump appointee?
I don't even think the employees invoked "religious principle" as a reason. They just didn't like her politics.

As a Christian who was raised as a Catholic, the conservative policies of turning their backs on refugees, the sick, the poor and the elderly is a CLEAR violation of my religious principles and goes against EVERYTHING that Christ taught in the four Gospels, as it also goes against all of the teachings of St. Francis and many other major figures of the Church. It is my religious conviction that unless and until Republicans change their ways and embrace Christ, we as Christians cannot serve them.

Fellow Catholic here. They hate us. They write here on this forum over and over that they hate us. I'm not saying that you should hate them, but recognize that you're voting for people who literally hate everything you stand for, and are seeking to undermine a Catholic way of life in nearly all aspects.

Sorry but no. What we hate is when you think your religion should be reflected in the laws of our country. Believe whatever you want; keep religion out of politics. You don’t get to force other people to live according to your dogma, and when you do that people get pissed. Rightfully so.

Anonymous wrote:DP- I feel like the lawyer in this case essentially wrote the ruling that could pass constitutional muster in her head then backed into these fabricated facts to support an injunction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And as for it being a "narrow" ruling, that's belied by the dissenting opinion - the dissenting opinion clearly made the case that this could and would likely be a slippery slope leading to other forms of discrimination in business. The majority opinion is completely silent on that.

So, don't be surprised if MAGAs are indeed turned away from businesses. That slippery slope is real.

Didn't that already happen when the Little Red Hen diner turned away Sarah Huckabee for no better reason that she was a Trump appointee?
I don't even think the employees invoked "religious principle" as a reason. They just didn't like her politics.

As a Christian who was raised as a Catholic, the conservative policies of turning their backs on refugees, the sick, the poor and the elderly is a CLEAR violation of my religious principles and goes against EVERYTHING that Christ taught in the four Gospels, as it also goes against all of the teachings of St. Francis and many other major figures of the Church. It is my religious conviction that unless and until Republicans change their ways and embrace Christ, we as Christians cannot serve them.

Fellow Catholic here. They hate us. They write here on this forum over and over that they hate us. I'm not saying that you should hate them, but recognize that you're voting for people who literally hate everything you stand for, and are seeking to undermine a Catholic way of life in nearly all aspects.

Sorry but no. What we hate is when you think your religion should be reflected in the laws of our country. Believe whatever you want; keep religion out of politics. You don’t get to force other people to live according to your dogma, and when you do that people get pissed. Rightfully so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And as for it being a "narrow" ruling, that's belied by the dissenting opinion - the dissenting opinion clearly made the case that this could and would likely be a slippery slope leading to other forms of discrimination in business. The majority opinion is completely silent on that.

So, don't be surprised if MAGAs are indeed turned away from businesses. That slippery slope is real.

Didn't that already happen when the Little Red Hen diner turned away Sarah Huckabee for no better reason that she was a Trump appointee?
I don't even think the employees invoked "religious principle" as a reason. They just didn't like her politics.

As a Christian who was raised as a Catholic, the conservative policies of turning their backs on refugees, the sick, the poor and the elderly is a CLEAR violation of my religious principles and goes against EVERYTHING that Christ taught in the four Gospels, as it also goes against all of the teachings of St. Francis and many other major figures of the Church. It is my religious conviction that unless and until Republicans change their ways and embrace Christ, we as Christians cannot serve them.

Fellow Catholic here. They hate us. They write here on this forum over and over that they hate us. I'm not saying that you should hate them, but recognize that you're voting for people who literally hate everything you stand for, and are seeking to undermine a Catholic way of life in nearly all aspects.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And as for it being a "narrow" ruling, that's belied by the dissenting opinion - the dissenting opinion clearly made the case that this could and would likely be a slippery slope leading to other forms of discrimination in business. The majority opinion is completely silent on that.

So, don't be surprised if MAGAs are indeed turned away from businesses. That slippery slope is real.

Didn't that already happen when the Little Red Hen diner turned away Sarah Huckabee for no better reason that she was a Trump appointee?
I don't even think the employees invoked "religious principle" as a reason. They just didn't like her politics.

As a Christian who was raised as a Catholic, the conservative policies of turning their backs on refugees, the sick, the poor and the elderly is a CLEAR violation of my religious principles and goes against EVERYTHING that Christ taught in the four Gospels, as it also goes against all of the teachings of St. Francis and many other major figures of the Church. It is my religious conviction that unless and until Republicans change their ways and embrace Christ, we as Christians cannot serve them.

Fellow Catholic here. They hate us. They write here on this forum over and over that they hate us. I'm not saying that you should hate them, but recognize that you're voting for people who literally hate everything you stand for, and are seeking to undermine a Catholic way of life in nearly all aspects.