Originally published at: A gay customer's request to a Christian designer has gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Turns out it's probably fake. | Boing Boing
…
7 Likes
For religious fundies of all denominations, that ticket to heaven gives them license to lie and cheat here on Earth. American Xtianists have been particularly inventive in extending this credo into politics and policy.
30 Likes
Was ChatGPT involved in inventing this one? /s
It sounds like the lawyers should be severely censured over this.
16 Likes
get straight back to business
I prefer to get back to gay business
20 Likes
Apparently those 10 Commandments that Christians tout are not really commandments, more like loose suggestions really? Or is it that there is an opt-out code when you need to ignore them to get your desired result?
Seems kind of…what’s the word I’m thinking of…oh yeah, I’ve got it…hypocritical.
14 Likes
Isn’t this fraud? For potential financial gain, as the photographer is probably getting market benefits from bigots?
11 Likes
SCOTUS just ruled in favor of the potential web designer.
7 Likes
Sotomayor’s dissent … she’s pissed.
Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants
a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse
to serve members of a protected class. Specifically, the
Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website-
design company from a state law that prohibits the com-
pany from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if
the company chooses to sell those websites to the public.
The Court also holds that the company has a right to post a
notice that says, “ ‘no [wedding websites] will be sold if they
will be used for gay marriages.’ ”
“What a difference five years makes.” Carson v. Makin,
596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip
op., at 5). And not just at the Court. Around the country,
there has been a backlash to the movement for liberty and
equality for gender and sexual minorities. New forms of
inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion. This
is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar. When the civil
rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in
public life, some public establishments refused. Some even
claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional
rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on
this Court decisively rejected those claims.
31 Likes
The doctrine of the Roberts conservative majority SCOTUS is settling in. As far as I can see, it amounts to:
-
Prioritise the rights of corporate “persons” over those of actual humans as often as possible. Make rare exceptions in property rights cases that have gained the interest of affluent right-wingers (e.g. “I never thought eminent domain would eat my face!”). Roberts drives the agenda, with the help of the other conservative Justices.
-
Hand Xtianists and bigots as many victories as possible, rolling back any social justice initiative put in place since the 1960s and reducing the scope of the Establishment Clause at any opportunity. Alito and Thomas push this agenda, with help from the other conservatives and craven assent by Roberts.
-
Avoid ruling in favour of blatant and obnoxious power grabs by Republicans (e.g. gerrymandering, independent state legislature theory) to preserve an illusion of the court’s dignity and impartiality. The conservatives know this is a lock because the liberal Justices can be counted on to do the right thing.
-
Trust that, despite rule 3, rules 1 and 2 will be enough to keep the GOP and its widely unappealing agenda relevant and electable in the face of demographic changes (also therefore preserving the SCOTUS’s own conservative majority).
This decision basically conforms with rules 1 and 2.
32 Likes
When I run D&D games for my friends, when presented with options of which way to go in the dungeon they never go straight. They go “gaily forward”
14 Likes
My polycule is a mix of overlapping sexualities, none of whom are straight. At intersections, rather they’re physical or only in games, we “proceed queerly ahead!”
13 Likes
It seems super weird that, like, no one on either side went and confirmed this guy was real or not.
Ah, as Green Day said in Jaded:
Always move forward
Going straight will get you nowhere
1 Like
Stolen identity, too.
13 Likes
Since orgs like Alliance Defending Freedom and the like can now create cases based on theoretical conflicts, I expect a case permitting a (not-yet-opened) restaurant owner to refuse service to non-white people, on the basis that only Caucasians attended the wedding at Cana, will be accepted in the Court’s next session. And SCOTUS will uphold his right, but note that this aspect of 1A religious freedom only applies to Christians because the Founders didn’t originally recognize other religions.
6 Likes
the Founders didn’t originally recognize other religions.
They did, of course, but SCOTUS’ conservatives would reject the evidence under the long-standing legal principle of “LOLOL Fuck you I do what I want.”
12 Likes
Because too much of that will undermine democracy to the point of making SCOTUS superfluous.
6 Likes
I’m gay. So can I discriminate against evangelicals now?
9 Likes
Exactly. This case and the coach-praying-on-the-field case both had blatant misrepresentations of the facts, and the Sinister Six just swallowed and regurgitated them. Lying for Jesus again.
7 Likes
and can businesses refuse service to black people again? 
6 Likes
No, only Christians can discriminate against everyone, but no one can do anything to hurt their feelings. Christians are a protected group.
7 Likes
