Can't we get some consensus on some issues here. I'm sick of this website being a game "where we win and they lose" can we talk?

[Leweman]

Affirmative action, religion and student loans were the latest things. Can we discuss using the Constitution and whatever else to come to a realistic end game? Let's not get personal. It's hard, I know. Just want to discuss it. I think they were all good rulings. I know others disagree. I just don't see how.

 

[SaxonJackson]

1) Affirmative Action literally took skin color and sex into account when the law of the land makes racism and sexism illegal. It was a literal conflict of interest and a contradictory message for the American public. It should have never been implemented in the first place.

2) The 1st Amendment of the constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Nobody should infringe upon another person's right to believe in God and the Bible and Christ (or any other religion, for that matter). If a cake baker or web designer chooses not to do something that goes against his/her religion, then the case is already closed based on the 1st Amendment.

3) When I sign a contract to buy something or pay for a service, it is up to me and me alone (unless I have a co-signer) to pay for what I agreed to pay for. I can't expect someone else to pay for my goods. That would be downright disrespectful of others and self-centered.

 

[basquebromance]

Affirmative action, religion and student loans were the latest things. Can we discuss using the Constitution and whatever else to come to a realistic end game? Let's not get personal. It's hard, I know. Just want to discuss it. I think they were all good rulings. I know others disagree. I just don't see how.

i'm here for you! i'm here for Trump! i'm here for Biden! i'm here for love! i'm here for life! let's get some consensus going! LET'S RUMBLE!

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

1) AA was precedent that was implemented to correct discriminatory imbalances. Like it or not, when held up next to each other, people of color are at a distinct disadvantage to white people. Unfortunately, the SC has taken us back to pre-1960's. I expect some form of AA to be reinstated in my lifetime.

2) This one is a bit more nebulous. Especially in light of the fact that the so called person at the center of this case, 1) Isn't gay (happily married), 2) Never made himself part of the case. So one wonders how it got this far? Looks like straight up misrepresentation. My chief complaint with this ruling is now you're on the slippery slope of greenlighting straight up discrimination.

Legitimacy of 'customer' in Supreme Court gay rights case raises ethical and legal flags

A Christian graphic artist who the Supreme Court said can refuse to make wedding websites for gay couples pointed during her lawsuit to a request from a man named “Stewart” and his husband-to-be.

apnews.com

3) Proving the broken clock is right twice a day theory, I agree with this ruling. While I am in favor of student loan relief (especially where predatory loan practices were undertaken), only Congress holds the power of the purse. Anything on this matter should be resolved through legislation..which let's face, has about as much chance of happening as me becoming President.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

1) AA was precedent that was implemented to correct discriminatory imbalances. Like it or not, when held up next to each other, people of color are at a distinct disadvantage to white people. Unfortunately, the SC has taken us back to pre-1960's. I expect some form of AA to be reinstated in my lifetime.

2) This one is a bit more nebulous. Especially in light of the fact that the so called person at the center of this case, 1) Isn't gay (happily married), 2) Never made himself part of the case. So one wonders how it got this far? Looks like straight up misrepresentation. My chief complaint with this ruling is now you're on the slippery slope of greenlighting straight up discrimination.

Legitimacy of 'customer' in Supreme Court gay rights case raises ethical and legal flags

A Christian graphic artist who the Supreme Court said can refuse to make wedding websites for gay couples pointed during her lawsuit to a request from a man named “Stewart” and his husband-to-be.

apnews.com

3) Proving the a broken clock is right twice a day theory, I agree with this ruling. While I am in favor of student loan relief (especially where predatory loan practices were undertaken), only Congress holds the power of the purse. Anything on this matter should be resolved through legislation..which let's face, has about as much chance of happening as me becoming President.

.




Except when the job goes to a vastly less qualified POC. Ask me how I KNOW this.




.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

.

As my Japanese husband used to say in the ancient tongue of his ancestors, "Rotsa Ruck".

Grooming children? There IS no middle ground. The only acceptable POV is NO.

Whenever Trump's name comes up, it is as predetermined as the sunrise that someone will come in with snotty barbs. When half of us cannot hear the man's name without being triggered, there is no more to say.

Refusal to compromise on one's morals is not a sin.


Who can think of more examples?

.

Except no is talking about grooming. Not the OP. Not anyone. Just you.
What's with your fascination on this subject? You stumble into the wrong thread?

 

[2aguy]

1) AA was precedent that was implemented to correct discriminatory imbalances. Like it or not, when held up next to each other, people of color are at a distinct disadvantage to white people. Unfortunately, the SC has taken us back to pre-1960's. I expect some form of AA to be reinstated in my lifetime.

2) This one is a bit more nebulous. Especially in light of the fact that the so called person at the center of this case, 1) Isn't gay (happily married), 2) Never made himself part of the case. So one wonders how it got this far? Looks like straight up misrepresentation. My chief complaint with this ruling is now you're on the slippery slope of greenlighting straight up discrimination.

Legitimacy of 'customer' in Supreme Court gay rights case raises ethical and legal flags

A Christian graphic artist who the Supreme Court said can refuse to make wedding websites for gay couples pointed during her lawsuit to a request from a man named “Stewart” and his husband-to-be.

apnews.com

3) Proving the broken clock is right twice a day theory, I agree with this ruling. While I am in favor of student loan relief (especially where predatory loan practices were undertaken), only Congress holds the power of the purse. Anything on this matter should be resolved through legislation..which let's face, has about as much chance of happening as me becoming President.

1) No....racism is racism. You do not end racism by implementing racism and simply changing who is the target of that racism.

2) No, you are not greenlighting discrimination, in fact, you are protecting the Right codified in the First Amendment that protects religious worship.

3) The solution to the student loan debt problem is to get government out of the student loan business......if banks had to worry about people paying back their loan for a degree in 18th Century Lesbian poetry....they wouldn't be giving that individual a loan for 250,000 dollars for that degree.......

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

1) No....racism is racism. You do not end racism by implementing racism and simply changing who is the target of that racism.

2) No, you are not greenlighting discrimination, in fact, you are protecting the Right codified in the First Amendment that protects religious worship.

3) The solution to the student loan debt problem is to get government out of the student loan business......if banks had to worry about people paying back their loan for a degree in 18th Century Lesbian poetry....they wouldn't be giving that individual a loan for 250,000 dollars for that degree.......

1) Then you just continue racism. If you believe the playing field will be level, that's more than a bit naive. The ruling comes off as just plain cruel. We both know it will always bend to the white side. That's just reality.
2) My chief complaint against this ruling is that the person named never was part of the action. He's not even gay. That's misrepresentation, straight up. So...what was being decided again here? Religion was never under attack here.
3) As I said, I agree with this ruling. I don't have anything to add to those comments.

 

[2aguy]

1) Then you just continue racism. If you believe the playing field will be level, that's more than a bit naive. The ruling comes off as just plain cruel. We both know it will always bend to the white side. That's just reality.
2) My chief complaint against this ruling is that the person named never was part of the action. He's not even gay. That's misrepresentation, straight up. So...what was being decided again here? Religion was never under attack here.
3) As I said, I agree with this ruling. I don't have anything to add to those comments.

No.....you simply stop using skin color as a metric.

The ruling was the only sane one....you do not end racism by practicing racism against different skin colors.

If you want more black, and hispanics to get into elite colleges, you don't fix the problem by discriminating against asians...you fix the problem by fixing the elementary and high schools in democrat party controlled cities that refuse to teach them reading, writing and math.....

Considering the facts of the case....you need to read the actual ruling...

Lorie Smith wants to expand her graphic design business, 303 Creative LLC, to include services for couples seeking wedding websites. But Ms. Smith worries that Colorado will use the Colorado Anti-Discrimi- nation Act to compel her—in violation of the First Amendment—to cre- ate websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse.

To clarify her rights, Ms. Smith filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create websites celebrating marriages that defy her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions be- tween one man and one woman.



CADA prohibits all “public accommodations” from denying “the full and equal enjoyment” of its goods and services to any customer based on his race, creed, disability, sexual orientation, or other statutorily enumerated trait. Colo. Rev. Stat. §24–34–601(2)(a). The law defines “public accommodation” broadly to include almost every public-facing business in the State. §24–34–601(1). Either state officials or private citizens may bring actions to enforce the law. §§24–34–306, 24–34– 602(1). And a variety of penalties can follow any violation.
Before the district court, Ms. Smith and the State stipulated to a number of facts: Ms. Smith is “willing to work with all people regard- less of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gen- der” and “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sexual orientation; she will not produce content that “contra- dicts biblical truth” regardless of who orders it; Ms. Smith’s belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is a sincerely held conviction; Ms. Smith provides design services that are “expres- sive” and her “original, customized” creations “contribut[e] to the over- all message” her business conveys “through the websites” it creates; the wedding websites she plans to create “will be expressive in nature,”

will be “customized and tailored” through close collaboration with in- dividual couples, and will “express Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s message celebrating and promoting” her view of marriage; viewers of Ms. Smith’s websites “will know that the websites are her original art- work;” and “[t]here are numerous companies in the State of Colorado and across the nation that offer custom website design services.”
Ultimately, the district court held that Ms. Smith was not entitled to the injunction she sought, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Held: The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees. Pp. 6–26.
=======
Ms. Smith seeks to engage in protected First Amendment speech; Colorado seeks to compel speech she does not wish to provide.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

Where does the gay person fit into that?

 

[scruffy]

1) AA was precedent that was implemented to correct discriminatory imbalances. Like it or not, when held up next to each other, people of color are at a distinct disadvantage to white people. Unfortunately, the SC has taken us back to pre-1960's. I expect some form of AA to be reinstated in my lifetime.

It is not the role of the judiciary to correct social injustice.

The judiciary is expressly forbidden from making law.

2) This one is a bit more nebulous. Especially in light of the fact that the so called person at the center of this case, 1) Isn't gay (happily married), 2) Never made himself part of the case. So one wonders how it got this far? Looks like straight up misrepresentation. My chief complaint with this ruling is now you're on the slippery slope of greenlighting straight up discrimination.

Legitimacy of 'customer' in Supreme Court gay rights case raises ethical and legal flags

A Christian graphic artist who the Supreme Court said can refuse to make wedding websites for gay couples pointed during her lawsuit to a request from a man named “Stewart” and his husband-to-be.

apnews.com

No one can be compelled to work.

Period.

3) Proving the broken clock is right twice a day theory, I agree with this ruling. While I am in favor of student loan relief (especially where predatory loan practices were undertaken), only Congress holds the power of the purse. Anything on this matter should be resolved through legislation..which let's face, has about as much chance of happening as me becoming President.

And there in lies the problem.

Congress has a 9% approval rating, for this exact reason.

I don't buy the "elections have consequences" bullshit.

You will adhere to the rule book, PERIOD. Your agenda will take a back seat to the rules. Period.

If you don't agree to that, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE and find a set of rules you agree with.

If you won't adhere to the rules, then neither will I, and in that case y'all are in big fucking trouble.

We have a way of changing the rules. Constitutional amendments are instructions to the justices on how they MUST rule.

The problem for you is, you have to convince 2/3 of the people it's a good idea, which you can't do if you're marginalizing half of America before you even start talking.

 

[2aguy]

It is not the role of the judiciary to correct social injustice.

The judiciary is expressly forbidden from making law.




No one can be compelled to work.

Period.




And there in lies the problem.

Congress has a 9% approval rating, for this exact reason.

I don't buy the "elections have consequences" bullshit.

You will adhere to the rule book, PERIOD. Your agenda will take a back seat to the rules. Period.

If you don't agree to that, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE and find a set of rules you agree with.

If you won't adhere to the rules, then neither will I, and in that case y'all are in big fucking trouble.

We have a way of changing the rules. Constitutional amendments are instructions to the justices on how they MUST rule.

The problem for you is, you have to convince 2/3 of the people it's a good idea, which you can't do if you're marginalizing half of America before you even start talking.

Congress has no role in this.....other than to take government out of the student loan business.....

These people took money on the promise they would pay it back.........

 

[22lcidw]

Except no is talking about grooming. Not the OP. Not anyone. Just you.
What's with your fascination on this subject? You stumble into the wrong thread?

We need to count our pennies. We do not in our nation. So, a 5-ounce champagne glass from government ways has a champagne bottle that is 25.4 ounces poured into the glass and continues until it is empty. So, it overflows, and the waste is massive. You still get 5 ounces though. Other nations suffer as to the wealth of them to degree that do this. Our politicians in a poorer nation would enable as an example Castro like people to come to power. They would get rid of the current authoritarians which would make many happy, however they would be the new ones. We must refresh freedoms.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

No.....you simply stop using skin color as a metric.

The ruling was the only sane one....you do not end racism by practicing racism against different skin colors.

If you want more black, and hispanics to get into elite colleges, you don't fix the problem by discriminating against asians...you fix the problem by fixing the elementary and high schools in democrat party controlled cities that refuse to teach them reading, writing and math.....

Considering the facts of the case....you need to read the actual ruling...

Lorie Smith wants to expand her graphic design business, 303 Creative LLC, to include services for couples seeking wedding websites. But Ms. Smith worries that Colorado will use the Colorado Anti-Discrimi- nation Act to compel her—in violation of the First Amendment—to cre- ate websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse.

To clarify her rights, Ms. Smith filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create websites celebrating marriages that defy her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions be- tween one man and one woman.



CADA prohibits all “public accommodations” from denying “the full and equal enjoyment” of its goods and services to any customer based on his race, creed, disability, sexual orientation, or other statutorily enumerated trait. Colo. Rev. Stat. §24–34–601(2)(a). The law defines “public accommodation” broadly to include almost every public-facing business in the State. §24–34–601(1). Either state officials or private citizens may bring actions to enforce the law. §§24–34–306, 24–34– 602(1). And a variety of penalties can follow any violation.
Before the district court, Ms. Smith and the State stipulated to a number of facts: Ms. Smith is “willing to work with all people regard- less of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gen- der” and “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sexual orientation; she will not produce content that “contra- dicts biblical truth” regardless of who orders it; Ms. Smith’s belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is a sincerely held conviction; Ms. Smith provides design services that are “expres- sive” and her “original, customized” creations “contribut[e] to the over- all message” her business conveys “through the websites” it creates; the wedding websites she plans to create “will be expressive in nature,”

will be “customized and tailored” through close collaboration with in- dividual couples, and will “express Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s message celebrating and promoting” her view of marriage; viewers of Ms. Smith’s websites “will know that the websites are her original art- work;” and “[t]here are numerous companies in the State of Colorado and across the nation that offer custom website design services.”
Ultimately, the district court held that Ms. Smith was not entitled to the injunction she sought, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Held: The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees. Pp. 6–26.
=======
Ms. Smith seeks to engage in protected First Amendment speech; Colorado seeks to compel speech she does not wish to provide.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

Where does the gay person fit into that?

I think the state of CO might have grounds for appeal here based on what looks like misrepresentation. ^Shrug^.

 

[toobfreak]

Affirmative action, religion and student loans were the latest things. Can we discuss using the Constitution and whatever else to come to a realistic end game? Let's not get personal. It's hard, I know. Just want to discuss it. I think they were all good rulings. I know others disagree. I just don't see how.

Simple. CONSENSUS:

1. Affirmative action was unconstitutional and race-based so, racist. It had to end. All people should be treated equal.
2. Religion is a protected personal right, so, none of anyone else's business.
3. Student loans you took out are your responsibility to pay back.

End of story.

 

[2aguy]

Simple. CONSENSUS:

1. Affirmative action was unconstitutional and race-based so, racist. It had to end. All people should be treated equal.
2. Religion is a protected personal right, so, none of anyone else's business.
3. Student loans you took out are your responsibility to pay back.

End of story.

Brevity is the Soul of Wit.........thank you............

 

[Independent thinker]

Affirmative action, religion and student loans were the latest things. Can we discuss using the Constitution and whatever else to come to a realistic end game? Let's not get personal. It's hard, I know. Just want to discuss it. I think they were all good rulings. I know others disagree. I just don't see how.

Good luck with that. The left don't give a shit about the Constitution. It's just a worthless piece of paper to them as they believe we should rule everything by simple majority popular votes. Therefore, no Constitution is needed.

 

[Mac-7]

1) AA was precedent that was implemented to correct discriminatory imbalances. Like it or not, when held up next to each other, people of color are at a distinct disadvantage to white people. Unfortunately, the SC has taken us back to pre-1960's. I expect some form of AA to be reinstated in my lifetime.

2) This one is a bit more nebulous. Especially in light of the fact that the so called person at the center of this case, 1) Isn't gay (happily married), 2) Never made himself part of the case. So one wonders how it got this far? Looks like straight up misrepresentation. My chief complaint with this ruling is now you're on the slippery slope of greenlighting straight up discrimination.

Legitimacy of 'customer' in Supreme Court gay rights case raises ethical and legal flags

A Christian graphic artist who the Supreme Court said can refuse to make wedding websites for gay couples pointed during her lawsuit to a request from a man named “Stewart” and his husband-to-be.

apnews.com

3) Proving the broken clock is right twice a day theory, I agree with this ruling. While I am in favor of student loan relief (especially where predatory loan practices were undertaken), only Congress holds the power of the purse. Anything on this matter should be resolved through legislation..which let's face, has about as much chance of happening as me becoming President.

AA existed to discriminate against white men

 

[Rawley]

1) AA was precedent that was implemented to correct discriminatory imbalances. Like it or not, when held up next to each other, people of color are at a distinct disadvantage to white people. Unfortunately, the SC has taken us back to pre-1960's. I expect some form of AA to be reinstated in my lifetime.

Just a bit more detail, AA was/is a specific judicial remedy used against a specific company/organization that had specific discriminatory practices. It was never intended to nor did it ever work to address perceived inequities in society in general. AA as practiced by Harvard and other colleges is never coming back - it was just straight up racial discrimination.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Affirmative action, religion and student loans were the latest things. Can we discuss using the Constitution and whatever else to come to a realistic end game?

The AA ruling was a good one as well as the student loan.

The two religion rulings were contradictory in my opinion. On one hand the Govt cannot force a baker to make a cake they do not wish to make, but at the same time they can force that same baker to give employees time off due to their religious needs.

Why should the Govt force an employer to care about the religious desires of an employee?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The left don't give a shit about the Constitution.