YATPRATRP - Yet another thread proving Republicans are the racist, homophobic and anti Semitic party

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,250
48,449
136
This does raise an obvious question though. If you can refuse service to a protected class on free speech grounds why couldn’t you refuse service based on religious grounds? It’s the same amendment.

Why can’t racists just say they think god hates black people and so they won’t follow any public accommodation laws? Since the government isn’t allowed to question the sincerity of your religious beliefs it seems that this ruling’s logic should eliminate one of the most significant accomplishments of the civil rights era.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,485
19,904
136
Personally I will discriminate against any Christian who votes Republican because that's against my new religion. If you are Christian and Republican you offend my sensibilities, I think it's unnatural and distasteful and frankly disgusting and goes against all my deeply held religious beliefs which are, Just don't be a shitty as Republicans and you'll be okay, Amen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soulcougher73

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
This does raise an obvious question though. If you can refuse service to a protected class on free speech grounds why couldn’t you refuse service based on religious grounds? It’s the same amendment.

Why can’t racists just say they think god hates black people and so they won’t follow any public accommodation laws? Since the government isn’t allowed to question the sincerity of your religious beliefs it seems that this ruling’s logic should eliminate one of the most significant accomplishments of the civil rights era.
Guaranteed this would have already occurred if it were socially acceptable to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,250
48,449
136
This is twice now where this SCOTUS has ruled that certain religious beliefs trump the rights of others in cases where the plaintiff either had no standing or the basis of the complaint had no merit.
Not sure if it’s the one you’re thinking of but also don’t forget the case of the football coach where SCOTUS completely fabricated the series of events they used to justify ruling in his favor. Straight out just made shit up.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
Not sure if it’s the one you’re thinking of but also don’t forget the case of the football coach where SCOTUS completely fabricated the series of events they used to justify ruling in his favor. Straight out just made shit up.
That is the one I was thinking of.

We need a Kermit the Frog sipping tea meme with the caption "Fabricating cases to get a SCOTUS ruling is the literal definition of legislating from the bench but that's none of my business."

Wait, here we go..
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,262
15,013
136
This does raise an obvious question though. If you can refuse service to a protected class on free speech grounds why couldn’t you refuse service based on religious grounds? It’s the same amendment.

Why can’t racists just say they think god hates black people and so they won’t follow any public accommodation laws? Since the government isn’t allowed to question the sincerity of your religious beliefs it seems that this ruling’s logic should eliminate one of the most significant accomplishments of the civil rights era.

Isn’t that the whole point (well on of them) of the first amendment, that government makes no laws respecting an establishment of religion?
 

gothuevos

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2010
1,923
1,673
136
That's kind of what we decided was not working well.

Should a Muslim caterer be forced to serve an event where they demand that pork be served?

Should a Jewish wedding photographer be forced to photograph a Nazi wedding?

I think the ruling leaves some room for nuance but I also think it's more of a complicated issue than some realize.

Fortunately it's 2023 and not 1960, so there are ample businesses and providers that people can turn to in the event something like this happens.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,285
33,564
136
Should a Muslim caterer be forced to serve an event where they demand that pork be served?

Should a Jewish wedding photographer be forced to photograph a Nazi wedding?

I think the ruling leaves some room for nuance but I also think it's more of a complicated issue than some realize.

Fortunately it's 2023 and not 1960, so there are ample businesses and providers that people can turn to in the event something like this happens.

If they do not normally serve such product no.

Nazis are not a protected class.

As the part owner of a business that must abide by public accommodation laws I disagree.

"Go somewhere else" is not a solution and may not be practical in a lot of places this would likely be an issue.
 

gothuevos

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2010
1,923
1,673
136
If they do not normally serve such product no.

Nazis are not a protected class.

As the part owner of a business that must abide by public accommodation laws I disagree.

"Go somewhere else" is not a solution and may not be practical in a lot of places this would likely be an issue.

I agree it's not always practical, but so many services are provided online these days that the comparisons to 1960 or whatever just don't hold as much weight.
 

GodisanAtheist

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
6,948
7,363
136
Should a Muslim caterer be forced to serve an event where they demand that pork be served?

Should a Jewish wedding photographer be forced to photograph a Nazi wedding?

I think the ruling leaves some room for nuance but I also think it's more of a complicated issue than some realize.

Fortunately it's 2023 and not 1960, so there are ample businesses and providers that people can turn to in the event something like this happens.

-Those examples are sort of telling. For both no (although why a Muslim caterer care about a wedding where pork is served is a totally different thing, they're not the ones eating it and likely not even handling it).

It's more like can a Muslim caterer allowed to refuse to serve a Christian wedding because they disagree with the lifestyle?

Or can a Jewish photographer refuse to photograph white people because they disagree with the lifestyle?

The examples were funny because they're both a thing people can make a choice on, while protected classes are specifically things that we have communally decided are not a choice, including sexual orientation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
24,992
4,337
136
I just read some of the decision regarding gay weddings. It is more limited than people are assuming. It has to do with expressive conduct and the 1A. The plaintiff is someone who designs websites for people's weddings. She is saying that she shouldn't be compelled to write content for websites celebrating gay weddings. The ruling doesn't affect public accomodations laws, like whether someone has to let you shop in their store.
What gets me is that apparently she was not being compelled to write content for something she was against - not at all. The man referred to in the suit says not only did he never ask her to do anything, he is happily married for 15 years now to a woman. He is also a web designer himself, so says he would have no need for her. He was unaware his info was being used in the case until this Wednesday.

I don't know if any of that matters in the decision, but I am not liking it a bit that made up s**t is being used for Supreme Court cases.

 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,285
33,564
136
What gets me is that apparently she was not being compelled to write content for something she was against - not at all. The man referred to in the suit says not only did he never ask her to do anything, he is happily married for 15 years now to a woman. He is also a web designer himself, so says he would have no need for her. He was unaware his info was being used in the case until this Wednesday.

I don't know if any of that matters in the decision, but I am not liking it a bit that made up s**t is being used for Supreme Court cases.


Indeed the conservative majority seems not to care if the facts of the case are fabricated or even if they themselves have to fabricate new facts to arrive at the decision they want.

Then again what is really to be expected from people who are basically one step away from having their briefcases accidentally flip open in front of the press cartoon style and be shown loaded with cash and their excuse would be"well nobody was using it"?
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,099
5,578
146
What gets me is that apparently she was not being compelled to write content for something she was against - not at all. The man referred to in the suit says not only did he never ask her to do anything, he is happily married for 15 years now to a woman. He is also a web designer himself, so says he would have no need for her. He was unaware his info was being used in the case until this Wednesday.

I don't know if any of that matters in the decision, but I am not liking it a bit that made up s**t is being used for Supreme Court cases.


That's a new wrinkle, and will be very curious to see what happens. I hope that guy takes legal action. JFC, even as far as ridiculous kangaroo court bullshit our justice system is, this is a new level of incompetent absurdity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,137
8,065
136
I don't have a ChatGPT account, because decided I'm signed up for more than enough things that want personal information already, so hesitated about that one.

But am tempted to do so in order to ask it to come up with plausible-sounding Supreme Court constitutional arguments for a range of absurd positions, e.g. interested to see if it can produce an argument for 'ending democracy and instituting a furhrer', or 'legalising slavery' or 'decriminalising murder', complete with historical legal precedents and arguments from "history and tradition".
It's starting to seem as if you can get any answer you want out of the Constitution if you try hard enough.


(It's possible it would have to be limited to certain groups, e.g murder is only OK if you have a religious basis for it)
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,137
8,065
136
What gets me is that apparently she was not being compelled to write content for something she was against - not at all. The man referred to in the suit says not only did he never ask her to do anything, he is happily married for 15 years now to a woman. He is also a web designer himself, so says he would have no need for her. He was unaware his info was being used in the case until this Wednesday.

I don't know if any of that matters in the decision, but I am not liking it a bit that made up s**t is being used for Supreme Court cases.


From that linked article:
CNN reached out to Smith for comment. Kellie Fiedorek, a senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Smith, said in a statement that Smith “doesn’t do background checks on incoming requests to determine if the person submitting is genuine.”

“Whether Lorie received a legitimate request or whether someone lied to her is irrelevant,” Fiedorek said. “No one should have to wait to be punished by the government to challenge an unjust law.”

IANAL but I'm confused how that last comment is consistent with the whole concept of 'standing'?


In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless they can demonstrate that they are or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,721
13,537
146
Indeed the conservative majority seems not to care if the facts of the case are fabricated or even if they themselves have to fabricate new facts to arrive at the decision they want.

Then again what is really to be expected from people who are basically one step away from having their briefcases accidentally flip open in front of the press cartoon style and be shown loaded with cash and their excuse would be"well nobody was using it"?
I wonder if the guy who was falsely quoted in the case can now file a civil suit against the plantif and lawyers for slander/libel?
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,514
10,392
136
What gets me is that apparently she was not being compelled to write content for something she was against - not at all. The man referred to in the suit says not only did he never ask her to do anything, he is happily married for 15 years now to a woman. He is also a web designer himself, so says he would have no need for her. He was unaware his info was being used in the case until this Wednesday.

I don't know if any of that matters in the decision, but I am not liking it a bit that made up s**t is being used for Supreme Court cases.

Yep, Thomas signaled they would entertain any of these cases. Law based on interpretation of the constitution? It's what ever conservative cause that's been brewing in their septic tank of ideas.

 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: pmv

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,262
15,013
136
It seems like the basic argument is this: do businesses rights trump individual rights?

If you put profits before people the answer is easy.
If you think businesses are supposed to provide some sort of community benefit and are simply a construct created to protect individuals from personal liability then the answer is clear.

The compromise would be to let businesses decide who they can do business with so long as they aren’t discriminating a protected class.
 

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
24,992
4,337
136
Yep, Thomas signaled they would entertain any of these cases. Law based on interpretation of the constitution? It's what ever conservative cause that's been brewing their septic tank of ideas.

Wow. This just gets worse. According to that article, she didn't even make wedding websites and the so-called inquiry from Stewart was received the day AFTER she originally filed the suit. My word of the day for all this is UNCONSCIONABLE.
 

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
10,137
6,745
136
Wow. This just gets worse. According to that article, she didn't even make wedding websites and the so-called inquiry from Stewart was received the day AFTER she originally filed the suit. My word of the day for all this is UNCONSCIONABLE.

Wait can't we discriminate against Trumpanzees since its against our religion?
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,106
27,876
136
Should a Muslim caterer be forced to serve an event where they demand that pork be served?

Should a Jewish wedding photographer be forced to photograph a Nazi wedding?

I think the ruling leaves some room for nuance but I also think it's more of a complicated issue than some realize.

Fortunately it's 2023 and not 1960, so there are ample businesses and providers that people can turn to in the event something like this happens.
If you are a doctor, should you be forced to treat a convicted rapist?

Oh that's right