SCOTUS LGBTQ JUDGMENT

[Valcazar]

I don't think it's reasonable to say a case has to be specifically named in a decision to be considered overturned.

Sure.
But we don't know what he used in the book.
That's my point.

I know for a fact that people will use different stats to edge their case one way or another.
(That's not even getting into the fact that how courts decide which cases to hear has changed, which means you have to keep that in mind as well when comparing numbers.)

I'm just saying that "I looked it up and they aren't doing it more than before" is probably technically true but may be very irrelevant depending on what the definitions are.
It also says very, very little about how "activist" the court is because "overturned a previous decision" isn't a good measure anyway.

A wedding cake baker was told she couldn't refuse gay couples, but now a web designer has been told she can. Clearly this is a reversal unless you somehow think there's a fundamental difference between wedding cake and wedding website.

The wedding cake baker was told nothing of the sort by the Supreme Court.
They didn't comment on that at all.
He was told that the office that punished him acted inappropriately.

Besides, as I had stated, it was merely my opinion and attitude that changed. I don't feel any need to convince you.

That's fine.
You don't have to convince me.
And clearly my counter that the stats you are using may be untrustworthy isn't going to convince you to look at them deeper and see if they hold up.

 

[Gooseifur]

Neither did the exactly this case was based on though. It was a complete fabrications by the plaintiff.



People used the Bible to defend slavery too. And to deny women equal rights. You're saying people shouldn't have supported those civil rights movements because they might have trampled on people's religious beliefs?

Yes it was a fabrication but who's to say that she wouldn't have done a website for a gay person had it not been about gay marriage? That subject was never touched on. Equating slavery and women's rights to creating a website for gay marriage is ridiculous. I'm sure there are other people who would create a website a gay marriage. This isn't taking away anyone's rights. If you were gay and getting married why would you want to do business with these beliefs and pay them. I sure wouldn't

 

[DinkleMouse]

That in some countries the penalty for being gay is the death penalty. He asked me if I thought it was oK. I said it wasn't but some countries and their citizens do

That's my point though. What is the relevance of what other countries do to your comment?

 

[DinkleMouse]

Yes it was a fabrication but who's to say that she wouldn't have done a website for a gay person had it not been about gay marriage?

You were the one that rejected someone's post for being about hypotheticals, yet here you are making up your own?

Equating slavery and women's rights to creating a website for gay marriage is ridiculous.

But it's not ridiculous to point out in some countries they murder gay people? The civil rights movement wasn't about slavery. In fact slavery had long ended. It was essentially black people fighting for the same thing 2SLGBTQ+ people are now, and included things long being refused service on the basis of their race.

I'm sure there are other people who would create a website a gay marriage. This isn't taking away anyone's rights. If you were gay and getting married why would you want to do business with these beliefs and pay them. I sure wouldn't

This has been an argument to justify discrimination for as long as I've been alive. Surely you know it's a bad argument? It also doesn't apply given that this entire scenario was made up.

The question is under what circumstances can a business refuse service? Because under some circumstances they can, and under some they can't. And merely saying, "well if they don't want to serve you, you probably don't want to be served by them" or "I don't agree with it but they murder people in other places" doesn't help answer that question.

Either you think the law should let people refuse anybody for any reason, you think the law should let people refuse no one for any reason, or you think some things are acceptable and some aren't. Almost everyone falls on the last category. Which one are you in?

 

[richaceg]

Ya what's
What is going on down there is nothing short of insane - the SCOTUS has taken on a tactical assault to the laws of the land and nobody can stop them. At this rate the American version of sharia law will be in full effect by 2025. Are these the most pressing issues to the country today ?

OH please...you fucking support Gender affirming care for kids without the consent of parents and this somehow is the bigger problem for you? What are you fucking afraid of? How many businesses would really not cater to the LGBTQ movement? I'm pretty sure it's not a lot...LGBTQ have money too....this is nothing....go to Muslim countries and you will see how bad LGBTQ are being treated there.... right @Frankfooter

 

[richaceg]

But you live in Canada. Righties lose here every day of the week.

Its funny seeing right wingers in Canada vicariously enjoy the "victories" south of the border that does not apply to them.

look who's talking...maybe not you but majority of the posters here had a breakdown when Trump won...

 

[DinkleMouse]

And clearly my counter that the stats you are using may be untrustworthy isn't going to convince you to look at them deeper and see if they hold up.

I have neither the time nor the interest to dig more deeply into it (given the this is SCOTUS and not Canada), which is why I have no desire to try and convince anymore else. I'm certainly not looking into all 109 cases. Besides, your not even arguing if it's more common now, you're saying it might even be less common because one of the two didn't actually mention the others by name.

But when, in areas where I'm not an expert, I read the same thing from a large number of commentators covering the entirety of the political spectrum, and in this case with no dissent I might add, that generally satisfies me as to the facts. And I did say I read many sites but only linked to the one that started it.

Feel free to spend hours talking to people on forums about it to convince them precedent is being overturned more now if it interests you enough and that's what you think. My point, as I clearly stated, was that it was good enough for me and my mind was settled. If it took you all this back and forth to reach the conclusion I had explicitly told you (that my mind was settled), that's on you. Seems like an exercise in frustration if you do that day after day after day though.

 

[richaceg]

That's my point though. What is the relevance of what other countries do to your comment?

Isn't it ironic? we're talking about SCOTUS? another country's supreme court here yes?

 

[richaceg]

We should always aim to be better. Why point to countries that can learn from us instead of looking to countries that we can learn from?

Oh definitely...there's a lot of work to be done both sides....

 

[DinkleMouse]

Isn't it ironic? we're talking about SCOTUS? another country's supreme court here yes?

Yes. And I'm specifically not mentioning Canadian jurisprudence either because the topic is the US Supreme Court. It's not irony to ask why your bringing up things that don't seem relevant to the topic at hand. It's called trying to understand your argument and rationale.

So again, I see no relevance in the idea that some places murder members of the queer community. Does it have any? Was this a "The US is better than that so it's ok" thing? Was it "I might not agree with being a bigot but as long as you're not murdering people I don't care"? Or does it have no bearing at all and you didn't bring it up for any reason?

 

[dirtydaveiii]

OH please...you fucking support Gender affirming care for kids without the consent of parents and this somehow is the bigger problem for you? What are you fucking afraid of? How many businesses would really not cater to the LGBTQ movement? I'm pretty sure it's not a lot...LGBTQ have money too....this is nothing....go to Muslim countries and you will see how bad LGBTQ are being treated there.... right @Frankfooter

how do you know what I support ? There is one thing I do not support : The open discrimination of people based on race gender or sexual preference. Its hilarious how you GQPs try to lump everyone that is against hate groups in the same categories aka the boogeymen created by Faux news

 

[richaceg]

Yes. And I'm specifically not mentioning Canadian jurisprudence either because the topic is the US Supreme Court. It's not irony to ask why your bringing up things that don't seem relevant to the topic at hand. It's called trying to understand your argument and rationale.

So again, I see no relevance in the idea that some places murder members of the queer community. Does it have any? Was this a "The US is better than that so it's ok" thing? Was it "I might not agree with being a bigot but as long as you're not murdering people I don't care"? Or does it have no bearing at all and you didn't bring it up for any reason?

Is the US better? LGBTQ has more rights in Canada and the US than most country...you bet they do...do they still need to work on making it better...you bet they do...are the LGBTQ better off somewhere else? I doubt it....this could be a minor setback for them...but was these really that bad? it's a consumer's market....just take your business elsewhere...

 

[richaceg]

how do you know what I support ? There is one thing I do not support : The open discrimination of people based on race gender or sexual preference. Its hilarious how you GQPs try to lump everyone that is against hate groups in the same categories aka the boogeymen created by Faux news

How do you know i'm GOP? ....c'mon....let's be honest h ere...we know what you support....

 

[DinkleMouse]

Is the US better? LGBTQ has more rights in Canada and the US than most country...you bet they do...do they still need to work on making it better...you bet they do...are the LGBTQ better off somewhere else? I doubt it....this could be a minor setback for them...but was these really that bad? it's a consumer's market....just take your business elsewhere...

I don't see how that helps me understand why the other poster brought up that "btw in some places they murder them".

 

[richaceg]

I don't see how that helps me understand why the other poster brought up that "btw in some places they murder them".

it does because US and Canada is the best place to be if you're LGBTQ and people are crying like SCOTUS just dropped a bomb on them...this was a big nothingburger...it just shows you everyone has rights....including businesses...SCOTUS made the right decision...

 

[DinkleMouse]

it does because US and Canada is the best place to be if you're LGBTQ and people are crying like SCOTUS just dropped a bomb on them...this was a big nothingburger...it just shows you everyone has rights....including businesses...SCOTUS made the right decision...

Ah. So you view is that straight white men in North America also shouldn't complain about anything either because in other places they might be treated worse. Got it. I'll be sure to remind you of that in future.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

But you live in Canada. Righties lose here every day of the week

Really?? Every day of the week??
Give us some daily examples, please

 

[mandrill]

Well, isn't it discrimination to refuse service to a homeless person based on attire because of a rule? Why is that acceptable but its not to refuse service to someone who goes against somebody's personal "rules" based on religion? The religious person may feel that their image and soul could be damaged by having to create a website for a gay marriage not to mention they might feel that they have committed a sin by doing this and be punished by God.

A person can change their attire and it's logically connected to the sort of atmosphere that a venue seeks to create and it is not an intrinsic part of the person concerned. So it's not "discrimination". Your argument has been discussed and dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada, among others.

The problem with religious beliefs is that they are not logically based. Catholic or Muslim dislike of gays is just bigotry with fancy clothes. So there should be standards of societal conduct which are applied to religious and non religious alike.

I live in Florida where there are a lot of religious people of all colours and most view being gay as a sin. I disagree with them. I keep telling them you can't help who you love or are attracted to but they have their beliefs that that hold onto and won't give up. They believe its against God's words

If they were sanctioned for those offensive beliefs, those beliefs would change. Once people believed that it was okay to kill someone who insulted you or fucked your wife behind your back. When enough people had been hanged for those murders, those offensive opinions died out quickly.

 

[mandrill]

Huge difference between killing someone and not designing a website and/or baking a cake.

Yup. And that's how and why the USSC gets away with its horseshit. People say "Who cares about baking a cake! It's trivial."

And so hate and discrimination survives and flourishes.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I mean LGBTQ people have full rights in Canada. Every day of the week. So that means right wingers who dont want that lose every day of the week?

I have never been against gay marriage.
Most conservatives I know dont give a rats ass either if gays get married.
We just want you to stop whipping out your dicks at Pride parades