Two rulings handed down today (should be non-paywalled links):
Discrimination is back on the menu!
2 Likes
This religious freedom case is less infuriating to me than the praying high school coach case.
2 Likes
They both suck.
2 Likes
Friendly disinformation reminder: Despite what lots of Republican politicians are claiming today, MLK was a supporter of affirmative action, and no, he wouldnât be happy with the ruling. E.g., from Why We Canât Wait:
Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic.
Or from Stephen Oatesâs award winning biography of King Let The Trumpet Sound
A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro
1 Like
Regardless of how you feel about the merits of the âreligious freedomâ case, you should be alarmed by todayâs decision. The plaintiffs didnât have standing. That the Supreme Court somehow found that the plaintiffs did have standing is shocking end evidence of this courts extremism.
The case was based on lie. No one ever requested the designer to make this website. Initial fillings completely made up the request.
Apparently you can now lie and sue based on hypotheticals (but only if the Supreme Courtâs corruption favors you).
5 Likes
Both were based on lies!
3 Likes
Speaking of âreligious freedomâ cases, the SC seems to be on a roll âŚ
Favored coach who leads prayers on 50 yard line after games,
Favored web designer who might, someday, have a gay client that wants a design for a wedding,
Required that states with voucher programs give money to religious schools (overriding some state constitutions),
Favored postal worker who wants Sundays off,
Time to start a religion!
Is it Christianity? Because otherwise I donât think you will get the results you want.
6 Likes
Yeah they did. All that is required for standing is a credible threat Colorado would enforce the lawâŚwhich they clearly would have. The dissenting opinion doesnât challenging standing at all, just that they were providing a service, not speech. Circuit court also found they had standing to sue.
This is silly. Just because the circuit court also deemed it so doesnât make it right. This is a totally fabricated case with zero merit and this ruling takes us down a very dangerous path imo. This says that there can be a lawsuit over pretty much any hypothetical situation that can be imagined. Itâs not healthy and has nothing to do with jurisprudence. Itâs a naked power grab.
2 Likes
Your understanding is wrong. From https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-6-1/ALDE_00012992/
In general, for a party to establish Article III standing, he must allege (and ultimately prove) that he has a genuine stake in the outcome of the case because he has personally suffered (or will imminently suffer): (1) a concrete and particularized injury; (âŚ)
The bar for standing is much higher than what was shown in this case, which amounted to âif I made wedding websites (I donât) and if a gay couple asked me to make one (none did) then the state would force me to (it never got this far).â
1 Like
True though that didnât require any prescience.
Even worse, there is a fictitious complaint within the court documents. That is, Smithâs attorneys claim to have received a request to make a website for a gay wedding, but the person who allegedly requested it happens to be a straight married man who says he has no idea what they are talking about. And oddly enough, the alleged request is the only one she has received to make any wedding website, straight or gay, and was placed the day after the lawsuit was filed. Hmmm.
3 Likes
From the unanimous SCOTUS Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus opinion:
When challenging a law prior to its enforcement, a plaintiff satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement where he alleges âan intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.
As mentioned in the articles linked, the claimed request wasnât even included in the initial filing (only added a part of a bunch of supporting documents later). The case was never based on this piece evidence and per the new republic article no one seemed to care about looking into it, because itâs pretty much irreverent to the points being argued. Seems pretty clear the requirements for standing were met (which as far as I can tell SCOTUS unanimous agrees with).
She wanted to make a website and exclude gay marriages. If she did, Colorado would have penalized her. Neither side disagreed on those statements of fact and that satisfies the standing requirement.
No, there needs to be a âcredible threat of prosecution.â
Iâm not disagreeing with you. Iâm disagreeing with the courts. Their reasoning is straight nonsense.
One strange aspect to the web designer case. If there had been an actual client, could that client have counter sued because of discrimination based on religion? Follow me a bit on this.
If the client were of the same religion as the web designer, there would be no problem. It is only because the business owner holds different beliefs that we got here in the first place. Forget the gay aspect, just focus on the discrimination. Itâs fundamentally on religious grounds. The plaintiff has flatly stated as much. Her problem is religious conviction.