Supreme Court Decisions Expected Today

[rightwinger]

Somewhat apples and oranges. Whereas not everyone has the same skin color everyone does indeed possess a genetic sex. So there's really no discrimination here... Since the person refusing the service is not looking at the skin color he is merely exercising his right not to propagate a sexual habit that he disagrees with. There is no discrimination here.

You providing a service has nothing to do with your customers sexual habits

It is none of your business

 

[justoffal]

You providing a service has nothing to do with your customers sexual habits

It is none of your business

Unless of course they force it in your face in fact asking you to become a willing participant which you then have a right to refuse. It's really no different than the mass boycotts that people pull on different companies because of who they support. In the end a customer has a right to decide where to spend his money and a vendor has a right to decide where to spend his effort. It really can't work any other way.

 

[rightwinger]

Unless of course they force it in your face in fact asking you to become a willing participant which you then have a right to refuse. It's really no different than the mass boycotts that people pull on different companies because of who they support. In the end a custom has a right to decide where to spend his money and a venda has a right to decide where to spend his effort. It really can't work any other way.

When has anyone ever asked you to be a part of their sexual acts?

If you offer services to the public, you do not get to discriminate

 

[justoffal]

When has anyone ever asked you to be a part of their sexual acts?

If you offer services to the public, you do not get to discriminate

One does not have to be invited to a ménage à trois to feel as though one is contributing to something they disagree with... Any more than people with refuse to buy Bud light are being asked copy Dylan Mulvaney.
We all act on knowledge. If the baker or service vendor of whatever service doesn't have the knowledge he's probably better off. If he does gain the knowledge he has a right to act on that knowledge. If he is being asked to use his profession to support an activity he disagrees with one of the ways he can express his disagreement is by refusing to provide the service. I personally think it's unwise for anyone to be in business who is not willing to serve every custom of that walks through the door. But that's just me.

 

[rightwinger]

One does not have to be invited to a ménage à trois to feel as though one is contributing to something they disagree with... Any more than people with refuse to buy Bud light are being asked copy Dylan Mulvaney.
We all act on knowledge. If the baker or service vendor of whatever service doesn't have the knowledge he's probably better off. If he does gain the knowledge he has a right to act on that knowledge. If he is being asked to use his profession to support an activity he disagrees with one of the ways he can express his disagreement is by refusing to provide the service. I personally think it's unwise for anyone to be in business who is not willing to serve every custom of that walks through the door. But that's just me.

As a business owner, you have no right to tell people who they should love

 

[justoffal]

As a business owner, you have no right to tell people who they should love

I don't think that's what the business owner is doing. The business owner is telling himself that he doesn't agree with the activity and doesn't want to be a part of it. I don't think he's telling anyone what they should or shouldn't do He's telling himself what he thinks he should or shouldn't do. This is strongly akin to a person wearing a Trump T-shirt in a restaurant and being asked to leave.

Jo

 

[Concerned American]

I don't think that's what the business owner is doing. The business owner is telling himself that he doesn't agree with the activity and doesn't want to be a part of it. I don't think he's telling anyone what they should or shouldn't do He's telling himself what he thinks he should or shouldn't do. This is strongly akin to a person wearing a Trump T-shirt and a restaurant and being asked to leave.

Jo

I don't see it that way, although I agree with your point. A restaurant that refuses service to someone wearing MAGA gear is not the same as forcing a baker to design and create a cake that promotes a degenerate lifestyle with which the baker is morally opposed.

 

[justoffal]

I don't see it that way, although I agree with your point. A restaurant that refuses service to someone wearing MAGA gear is not the same as forcing a baker to design and create a cake that promotes a degenerate lifestyle with which the baker is morally opposed.

Yeah.....I get it.... On the one hand you have a circumstantial event....the Trump Shirt, on the other hand there is more than likely some forethought in the other scenario.
Jo

 

[TemplarKormac]

When has this court done that?

Only strips rights when it disagrees with his myopic worldview.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Because, what you describe are non immutable traits and that is your right. Gay is also not immutable

Gay people claim it’s immutable. Since I’m straight, I’m not going to disagree with them.

 

[HeyNorm]

Gay people claim it’s immutable. Since I’m straight, I’m not going to disagree with them.

So do pedos.

 

[kyzr]

To paraphrase the majority's opinion, "Let's keep the advantage in college admissions where it belongs, with white kids."

That's only because black dads bail on their kids while white and asian dads nurture their kids.

 

[berg80]

Congress chose its words carefully, opting for expansive language that focused on equal protection and rejecting “proposals that would have made the Constitution explicitly color-blind.” A. Kull, The Color-Blind Constitution 69 (1992); see also, e.g., Cong. Globe 1287 (rejecting proposed language providing that “no State . . . shall . . . recognize any distinction between citizens . . . on account of race or color”). This choice makes it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment does not impose a blanket ban on race-conscious policies.

Simultaneously with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress enacted a number of race-conscious laws to fulfill the Amendment’s promise of equality, leav- ing no doubt that the Equal Protection Clause permits consideration of race to achieve its goal.
Meaning, in no uncertain terms, the premise of the majority's opinion in the AA case is a 100% incorrect read of the 14 A.

 

[Flash]

, leav- ing no doubt that the Equal Protection Clause permits consideration of race to achieve its goal.
.

You are confused Moon Bat. No it doesn't. Typical Libtard ignorance of the Constitution.

Libtards don't know any more about the Constitution than they know about History, Economics, Biology, Climate Science or Ethics.

 

[justoffal]

Congress chose its words carefully, opting for expansive language that focused on equal protection and rejecting “proposals that would have made the Constitution explicitly color-blind.” A. Kull, The Color-Blind Constitution 69 (1992); see also, e.g., Cong. Globe 1287 (rejecting proposed language providing that “no State . . . shall . . . recognize any distinction between citizens . . . on account of race or color”). This choice makes it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment does not impose a blanket ban on race-conscious policies.

Simultaneously with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress enacted a number of race-conscious laws to fulfill the Amendment’s promise of equality, leav- ing no doubt that the Equal Protection Clause permits consideration of race to achieve its goal.
Meaning, in no uncertain terms, the premise of the majority's opinion in the AA case is a 100% incorrect read of the 14 A.

That's the problem.... Those who are complaining about the decision don't want color blindness they want to be recognized as special and protected specifically for their skin color. There's no difference between that position and the position of the original white founders who excluded black people because of their skin color. That's not what the Constitution does.

 

[dblack]

Congress chose its words carefully, opting for expansive language that focused on equal protection and rejecting “proposals that would have made the Constitution explicitly color-blind.” A. Kull, The Color-Blind Constitution 69 (1992); see also, e.g., Cong. Globe 1287 (rejecting proposed language providing that “no State . . . shall . . . recognize any distinction between citizens . . . on account of race or color”). This choice makes it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment does not impose a blanket ban on race-conscious policies.

Simultaneously with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress enacted a number of race-conscious laws to fulfill the Amendment’s promise of equality, leav- ing no doubt that the Equal Protection Clause permits consideration of race to achieve its goal.
Meaning, in no uncertain terms, the premise of the majority's opinion in the AA case is a 100% incorrect read of the 14 A.

The goal of the 14th Amendment was equal rights, not "equity".

 

[Lisa558]

The goal of the 14th Amendment was equal rights, not "equity".

There will NEVER be equity (identical outcomes) until blacks reduce their OOW birthrate to that of whites. There’s no way a group can continue with behavior correlated with poverty and crime, and then expect to reach “equity” with a group that commits that behavior much less frequently.

 

[justoffal]

The goal of the 14th Amendment was equal rights, not "equity".

If it was possible to do equity you have to go all the way back to the beginning of history and find blame and make reparations to the point where reparations would no longer be reparations they would simply be ruin. By the way black slave owners would have to be included in those who would pay reparations also.

 

[dblack]

If it was possible to do equity you have to go all the way back to the beginning of history and find blame and make reparations to the point where reparations would no longer be reparations they would simply be ruin. By the way black slave owners would have to be included in those who would pay reparations also.

I don't think equity really means everyone gets the same deal. It just means that government decides what you get instead of society.

 

[Blaster]

Supreme Court to Biden: You can't just forgive $400 billion in student loan debt without asking Congress

Nancy Pelosi agrees.

reason.com