Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.

Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.

Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.

Not really.

Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.

Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.

Good post, Sir!

I can't imagine forcing someone that does not like me or my beliefs to do business with me. Would rather give my business to someone that wants my business. Let the market work.

I thought his opinion was among the most beautiful explications of the importance of the American experiment and the freedoms critical to maintaining a peaceful, dynamic, diverse culture.

It was a national embarrassment that the president and other key leaders seek to de-legitimize the Court the moment it no longer becomes an anti-democratic legislative body for regressives. Biden continually demonstrates he may be the worse, most divisive, and frankly moronic president in American history. It is probably lost on most that everything he says about the GOP is projection.

It's a great day for free speech. Would like to see some love for free exercise, but I'll take it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's a great day for free speech. Would like to see some love for free exercise, but I'll take it.

---

Yeah free exercise is gonna get a workout from the Satanic Church abortion cases.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's a great day for free speech. Would like to see some love for free exercise, but I'll take it.

---

Yeah free exercise is gonna get a workout from the Satanic Church abortion cases.

---

Depending on how you define religion. Theoretically the originalists could have a chance to flex on that one. Could just as well be decided on compelling interest though.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's a great day for free speech. Would like to see some love for free exercise, but I'll take it.

---

Yeah free exercise is gonna get a workout from the Satanic Church abortion cases.

---

Depending on how you define religion. Theoretically the originalists could have a chance to flex on that one. Could just as well be decided on compelling interest though.

---

How so? Scientology gets to be a religion and they're brand new compared to El Diablo

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's a great day for free speech. Would like to see some love for free exercise, but I'll take it.

---

Yeah free exercise is gonna get a workout from the Satanic Church abortion cases.

---

Depending on how you define religion. Theoretically the originalists could have a chance to flex on that one. Could just as well be decided on compelling interest though.

---

Almost any deeply or sincerely held belief is religious.

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

HuMcK said:

---

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

---

Wrong.

The lower courts that ruled the other way had no issues with standing.

The straight progressive poser from SF played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.

Her web business was real. Her foray into wedding web designs was new, but it was clear Colorado would force her to create websites for gay weddings.

quash said:

---

Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.

Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.

Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.

Not really.

Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.

Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.

---

Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.

HuMcK said:

---

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

---

The courts "legitimacy" has been in shambles for years. One could argue that the current trajectory started with the liberal justices who found a never before recognized "right of privacy" to justify abortion for all. That did lasting damage to the legitimacy of the court.

And of course before that was the liberal court's legal contortions to justify FDR's social agenda through unprecedented use of the commerce clause. That far worse than anything liberals can complain about today. But of course you ignore those decisions while focusing on the present conservative justices. Ever the partisan.

HuMcK said:

---

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

---

Gay advocacy group seek Christian businesses they could exploit. Like there aren't plenty of bakeries run gays.

Notice how in these situations you haven't heard of Christian, Muslim, etc., demanding a gay baker to make a cake with "marriage is between a man and a woman", "Men can't get pregnant", etc.

Liberals can be violent.

sombear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

---

Wrong.

The lower courts that ruled the other way had no issues with standing.

The straight progressive poser from SF played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.

Her web business was real. Her foray into wedding web designs was new, but it was clear Colorado would force her to create websites for gay weddings.

---

I don't understand. Stewart played what game? He says he's a web designer, better than Lorie at 303, married with a kid, not in the same state, and his supposed request came the day after she filed her case.

FLBear5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.

Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.

Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.

Not really.

Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.

Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.

---

Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.

---

I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.

Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.

Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.

Not really.

Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.

Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.

---

Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.

---

I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)

---

Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.

Mothra said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

---

The courts "legitimacy" has been in shambles for years. One could argue that the current trajectory started with the liberal justices who found a never before recognized "right of privacy" to justify abortion for all. That did lasting damage to the legitimacy of the court.

And of course before that was the liberal court's legal contortions to justify FDR's social agenda through unprecedented use of the commerce clause. That far worse than anything liberals can complain about today. But of course you ignore those decisions while focusing on the present conservative justices. Ever the partisan.

---

I actually agree with you. One could argue the Court's legitimacy began to crumble in Marbury v. Madison, where it granted itself unconstitutional powers.

Where you mischaracterize is the fallacy that there are "conservative" justices. There are constitutional justices and political justices. You see on one side justices who "generally" rule consistently in line with a set of constitutional principles regardless of the issue it hand whether they support it or not. On the other side, the three token bimboms rule as if they have never darkened a law school class, which given affirmative action they never had to compete with the smart students. They constantly just vote based on politics with zero regard for the law or constititution.

The dangerous Orwellian authoritarianism and hypocrisy demonstrated by regressives continues to actually be a threat to democracy. From Senate decorum to executive power to SCOTS, the regressive left continues to demonstrate nothing is above its quest to retain power even if it means intellectual coups and undermining our institutions.

This SCOTUS more than any in a century behaves as the Court was intended - not as a legislative body used by regressive tyrants to undermine democracy but as an ally for the people as a check against tyranny.

HuMcK said:

---

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

---

Just as "racist" does not mean "disagrees with me" and "anti-trans" does not mean "believes in science" .... "legitimacy" does not mean "rules the way I want."

We all know that if the case were a gay plaintiff being forced to make a cake that read "I Believe in Science" you would have agreed with the decision. That's the difference between those that focus on principles vs. those obsessed with politics.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mothra said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

---

The courts "legitimacy" has been in shambles for years. One could argue that the current trajectory started with the liberal justices who found a never before recognized "right of privacy" to justify abortion for all. That did lasting damage to the legitimacy of the court.

And of course before that was the liberal court's legal contortions to justify FDR's social agenda through unprecedented use of the commerce clause. That far worse than anything liberals can complain about today. But of course you ignore those decisions while focusing on the present conservative justices. Ever the partisan.

---

I actually agree with you. One could argue the Court's legitimacy began to crumble in Marbury v. Madison, where it granted itself unconstitutional powers.

Where you mischaracterize is the fallacy that there are "conservative" justices. There are constitutional justices and political justices. You see on one side justices who "generally" rule consistently in line with a set of constitutional principles regardless of the issue it hand whether they support it or not. On the other side, the three token bimboms rule as if they have never darkened a law school class, which given affirmative action they never had to compete with the smart students. They constantly just vote based on politics with zero regard for the law or constititution.

The dangerous Orwellian authoritarianism and hypocrisy demonstrated by regressives continues to actually be a threat to democracy. From Senate decorum to executive power to SCOTS, the regressive left continues to demonstrate nothing is above its quest to retain power even if it means intellectual coups and undermining our institutions.

This SCOTUS more than any in a century behaves as the Court was intended - not as a legislative body used by regressive tyrants to undermine democracy but as an ally for the people as a check against tyranny.

---

Don't disagree with this.

Mothra said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mothra said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

---

The courts "legitimacy" has been in shambles for years. One could argue that the current trajectory started with the liberal justices who found a never before recognized "right of privacy" to justify abortion for all. That did lasting damage to the legitimacy of the court.

And of course before that was the liberal court's legal contortions to justify FDR's social agenda through unprecedented use of the commerce clause. That far worse than anything liberals can complain about today. But of course you ignore those decisions while focusing on the present conservative justices. Ever the partisan.

---

I actually agree with you. One could argue the Court's legitimacy began to crumble in Marbury v. Madison, where it granted itself unconstitutional powers.

Where you mischaracterize is the fallacy that there are "conservative" justices. There are constitutional justices and political justices. You see on one side justices who "generally" rule consistently in line with a set of constitutional principles regardless of the issue it hand whether they support it or not. On the other side, the three token bimboms rule as if they have never darkened a law school class, which given affirmative action they never had to compete with the smart students. They constantly just vote based on politics with zero regard for the law or constititution.

The dangerous Orwellian authoritarianism and hypocrisy demonstrated by regressives continues to actually be a threat to democracy. From Senate decorum to executive power to SCOTS, the regressive left continues to demonstrate nothing is above its quest to retain power even if it means intellectual coups and undermining our institutions.

This SCOTUS more than any in a century behaves as the Court was intended - not as a legislative body used by regressive tyrants to undermine democracy but as an ally for the people as a check against tyranny.

---

Don't disagree with this.

---

My bad - I stupidly thought I was replying to Huck, who for a moment made sense.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's a great day for free speech. Would like to see some love for free exercise, but I'll take it.

---

Yeah free exercise is gonna get a workout from the Satanic Church abortion cases.

---

Depending on how you define religion. Theoretically the originalists could have a chance to flex on that one. Could just as well be decided on compelling interest though.

---

How so? Scientology gets to be a religion and they're brand new compared to El Diablo

---

The originalist argument goes to the nature of the belief system more than its age. Religion in the Founders' time was understood as teaching virtue and reverence for God. Satanism does neither of those things. Some of its teachings and practices would have violated blasphemy laws, which were upheld well into the 20th century.

midgett said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

---

Gay advocacy group seek Christian businesses they could exploit. Like there aren't plenty of bakeries run gays.

Notice how in these situations you haven't heard of Christian, Muslim, etc., demanding a gay baker to make a cake with "marriage is between a man and a woman", "Men can't get pregnant", etc.

Liberals can be violent.

---

I don't have a problem with the ruling. You have a real problem with the plantiff.

1. She's doesn't make wedding websites
2. No one has asked to make a wedding website.

This not being the case, she has no damages.

quash said:

---

sombear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

---

Wrong.

The lower courts that ruled the other way had no issues with standing.

The straight progressive poser from SF played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.

Her web business was real. Her foray into wedding web designs was new, but it was clear Colorado would force her to create websites for gay weddings.

---

I don't understand. Stewart played what game? He says he's a web designer, better than Lorie at 303, married with a kid, not in the same state, and his supposed request came the day after she filed her case.

---

I don't buy his denial. It was his email. My best guess is he outsmarted himself. It was him or some elaborate plan to hack a random dude's email from SF. But, either way, it has no legal significance. One does not need actual damages to have standing. Heck, even if the plaintiff was involved in a fraudulent scheme, it would not change the ruling.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

midgett said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

---

Gay advocacy group seek Christian businesses they could exploit. Like there aren't plenty of bakeries run gays.

Notice how in these situations you haven't heard of Christian, Muslim, etc., demanding a gay baker to make a cake with "marriage is between a man and a woman", "Men can't get pregnant", etc.

Liberals can be violent.

---

I don't have a problem with the ruling. You have a real problem with the plantiff.

1. She's doesn't make wedding websites
2. No one has asked to make a wedding website.

This not being the case, she has no damages.

---

Wow they tricked the courts all the way to the Supreme Court with none of it being true? And then they ruled on it as wel?

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

midgett said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

---

Gay advocacy group seek Christian businesses they could exploit. Like there aren't plenty of bakeries run gays.

Notice how in these situations you haven't heard of Christian, Muslim, etc., demanding a gay baker to make a cake with "marriage is between a man and a woman", "Men can't get pregnant", etc.

Liberals can be violent.

---

I don't have a problem with the ruling. You have a real problem with the plantiff.

1. She's doesn't make wedding websites
2. No one has asked to make a wedding website.

This not being the case, she has no damages.

---

Wow they tricked the courts all the way to the Supreme Court with none of it being true? And then they ruled on it as wel?

---

And Juicy Smalls was attacked by MAGA supporters, the Covington kids attacked an peaceful Indian man, and the Russia Hoax was true and the Hunter Biden laptop Russian was disinformation.

HuMcK said:

---

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

---

Her case didn't depend on the request. The 10th Circuit's standing analysis was well supported by precedent, and apparently it was convincing enough that the state chose not to challenge it.

The real irony of this case is that Gorsuch ignores his own decision in Bostock. If Colorado ever decides to charge the designer with discrimination based on sex rather than sexual orientation, get the popcorn ready...it should be quite a show of mental gymnastics.

HuMcK said:

---

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

---

Who turned you into a full blown leftist?!

What media do you consume? At some point you bought into modern democrat and leftist rhetoric that well adjusted adults rightfully find repulsive. How did that happen?

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

---

Her case didn't depend on the request. The 10th Circuit's standing analysis was well supported by precedent, and apparently it was convincing enough that the state chose not to challenge it.

The real irony of this case is that Gorsuch ignores his own decision in Bostock. If Colorado ever decides to charge the designer with discrimination based on sex rather than sexual orientation, get the popcorn ready...it should be quite a show of mental gymnastics.

---

I don't understand your argument on Bostock. They are completely different issues.

Bostock held that Title VIII's prohibition of sex (gender) discrimination includes sexual orientation discrimination. It was an employment case. Employment is not speech or expression.

Far too many seemingly smart people are misinterpreting this case. It is not a broad license to refuse to serve or otherwise discriminate against LGBT or any other protected class. Rather, it is expressly limited to services that are speech/expression in nature.

FLBear5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.

Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.

Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.

Not really.

Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.

Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.

---

Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.

---

I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)

---

Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.

---

Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)

It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.

And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.

The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

---

Her case didn't depend on the request. The 10th Circuit's standing analysis was well supported by precedent, and apparently it was convincing enough that the state chose not to challenge it.

The real irony of this case is that Gorsuch ignores his own decision in Bostock. If Colorado ever decides to charge the designer with discrimination based on sex rather than sexual orientation, get the popcorn ready...it should be quite a show of mental gymnastics.

---

I don't understand your argument on Bostock. They are completely different issues.

Bostock held that Title VIII's prohibition of sex (gender) discrimination includes sexual orientation discrimination. It was an employment case. Employment is not speech or expression.

Far too many seemingly smart people are misinterpreting this case. It is not a broad license to refuse to serve or otherwise discriminate against LGBT or any other protected class. Rather, it is expressly limited to services that are speech/expression in nature.

---

There is not one regressive with a triple digit IQ. That is your core mistake. One inherently has to be a moron to adopt current regressive views.

Discrimination may or may not be wrong in some context, but a society where people can’t associate freely is a tyrannical society

There’s no moving the US “backward” or “forward.” I never signed up for that grand teleology. Pete should keep /his/ theocratic tendencies to himself https://t.co/kI6olGRB3y

— Blair Nathan (@Blair_A_Nathan) July 1, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

Discrimination may or may not be wrong in some context, but a society where people can’t associate freely is a tyrannical society

There’s no moving the US “backward” or “forward.” I never signed up for that grand teleology. Pete should keep /his/ theocratic tendencies to himself https://t.co/kI6olGRB3y

— Blair Nathan (@Blair_A_Nathan) July 1, 2023

---

I don't know if this dude is really this stupid or is just playing up to the low IQ, low information mouth-breathing regressives. I genuinely do wonder if they're actually this stupid or just playing up for the low information voters.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Discrimination may or may not be wrong in some context, but a society where people can’t associate freely is a tyrannical society

There’s no moving the US “backward” or “forward.” I never signed up for that grand teleology. Pete should keep /his/ theocratic tendencies to himself https://t.co/kI6olGRB3y

— Blair Nathan (@Blair_A_Nathan) July 1, 2023

---

I don't know if this dude is really this stupid or is just playing up to the low IQ, low information mouth-breathing regressives. I genuinely do wonder if they're actually this stupid or just playing up for the low information voters.

---

You genuinely wonder what?

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.

The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.

This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.

---

Her case didn't depend on the request. The 10th Circuit's standing analysis was well supported by precedent, and apparently it was convincing enough that the state chose not to challenge it.

The real irony of this case is that Gorsuch ignores his own decision in Bostock. If Colorado ever decides to charge the designer with discrimination based on sex rather than sexual orientation, get the popcorn ready...it should be quite a show of mental gymnastics.

---

I don't understand your argument on Bostock. They are completely different issues.

Bostock held that Title VIII's prohibition of sex (gender) discrimination includes sexual orientation discrimination. It was an employment case. Employment is not speech or expression.

Far too many seemingly smart people are misinterpreting this case. It is not a broad license to refuse to serve or otherwise discriminate against LGBT or any other protected class. Rather, it is expressly limited to services that are speech/expression in nature.

---

The 10th Circuit cites Bostock in discussing whether the designer's proposed conduct would likely violate CADA. The discrimination in Bostock wasn't based on sex, yet the Court held that it was "because of" sex. If charged under CADA, the designer would argue that she doesn't discriminate against gay customers but only against certain content. By Gorsuch's reasoning in Bostock, the state could argue the discrimination was still "because of" sexual orientation. To the 10th Circuit's observation I was adding that the state could just as easily charge her with sex discrimination, which is also covered by CADA. In that case the Bostock precedent would be even stronger.

Yeah, the court did not rule you can discriminate. It ruled that you can’t demand businesses owners to say and do things they don’t believe just because you offer to pay them. You can yas queen all you want, but I’m glad the First Amendment is still in effect. https://t.co/9s3xgWoBH3

— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) July 1, 2023