SCOTUS thread

Political and religious discussions go here. Tread lightly.
Post Reply
User avatar
ghostrunner
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 24905
Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm

SCOTUS thread

Post by ghostrunner »

This didn't get a lot of attention

The dissenters were Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito
User avatar
Joe Shlabotnik
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 17367
Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS thread

Post by Joe Shlabotnik »

SCOTUS sides with Colorado baker who refused gay wedding business. The vote was 7-2. Since this was a private business, I think I'd vote the same way. There are plenty of bakeries and not all are run by Christians. Let the market figure it out.
User avatar
Jocephus
99% conan clips
Posts: 56299
Joined: April 18 06, 5:14 pm

Re: SCOTUS thread

Post by Jocephus »

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:SCOTUS sides with Colorado baker who refused gay wedding business. The vote was 7-2. Since this was a private business, I think I'd vote the same way. There are plenty of bakeries and not all are run by Christians. Let the market figure it out.
i would agree i think. although to me, it's another reminder of how greasy religion is, can use it to explain your biases and thus you can't be judged by your peers, etc, because you know, god. i would hope religious freedom wouldn't extend to racism like...if the bakery said "i won't bake a cake for a black family" because of religious beliefs. then what?

that said, obviously there's got to be another bakery that will accept the transaction. i do wonder why people who are in the interest of making money allow their biases to prevent them from making money. i would think a capitalist would accept monies from anyone (on the surface at least). weird barrier to install as a business owner, to me.
User avatar
ghostrunner
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 24905
Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm

Re: SCOTUS thread

Post by ghostrunner »

Decision seems very specific to this case and not a final word on this issue
The U.S. Supreme court dodged a major ruling on the question of whether business owners can refuse services to gay individuals based on their religious objections.

In a case brought by a Colorado baker, the court ruled by a 7-2 vote that he did not get a fair hearing on his complaint because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstrated a hostility to religion in its treatment of his case.
User avatar
ghostrunner
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 24905
Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm

Re: SCOTUS thread

Post by ghostrunner »

User avatar
pioneer98
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 20606
Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Location: Low A Minors

Re: SCOTUS thread

Post by pioneer98 »

Jocephus wrote:
Joe Shlabotnik wrote:SCOTUS sides with Colorado baker who refused gay wedding business. The vote was 7-2. Since this was a private business, I think I'd vote the same way. There are plenty of bakeries and not all are run by Christians. Let the market figure it out.
i would agree i think. although to me, it's another reminder of how greasy religion is, can use it to explain your biases and thus you can't be judged by your peers, etc, because you know, god. i would hope religious freedom wouldn't extend to racism like...if the bakery said "i won't bake a cake for a black family" because of religious beliefs. then what?

that said, obviously there's got to be another bakery that will accept the transaction. i do wonder why people who are in the interest of making money allow their biases to prevent them from making money. i would think a capitalist would accept monies from anyone (on the surface at least). weird barrier to install as a business owner, to me.
The wedding cake is a really weird and dumb example since the stakes are so low. It's mind blowing and infuriating that the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to settle a squabble about a dang wedding cake. But discrimination happens all the time in places where there is a lot more at stake than dessert. It's like: why would a mortgage lender turn down an applicant just because they are black or latino? I think it's because these folks know that there are winners and losers in capitalism, and they want the winners to look more like their own racial/religious/ethnic group...The fear is, if they don't discriminate, then someday their own group may end up on the losing end more often.
User avatar
pioneer98
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 20606
Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Location: Low A Minors

Re: SCOTUS thread

Post by pioneer98 »

User avatar
pioneer98
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 20606
Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Location: Low A Minors

Re: SCOTUS thread

Post by pioneer98 »

The entire public sector is now "right to work". We're so [expletive].
User avatar
heyzeus
Everday Unicorn
Posts: 35336
Joined: April 21 06, 10:14 am
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS thread

Post by heyzeus »

I'll never for the life of me understand why the Democrats did not file a legal challenge to McConnell's refusal to hold confirmation hearings on Garland, in clear violation of the Constitutional requirement to do so.

That decision results in profound, transformative consequences for our country.
User avatar
thrill
bronoun enthusiast
Posts: 28679
Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Location: extremely online

Re: SCOTUS thread

Post by thrill »

heyzeus wrote:I'll never for the life of me understand why the Democrats did not file a legal challenge to McConnell's refusal to hold confirmation hearings on Garland, in clear violation of the Constitutional requirement to do so.
Because for some reason they still believe in the lie of centrist compromise and decorum. The republicans must think stuff like this from yesterday is hilarious:




In reality I think Obama handled the end of his administration about as bad as he possibly could have, including assuming that Mitch couldn't sandbag for another 8 years of Hillary.
Post Reply