Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent to the right-wing majority’s unprecedented decision to let a would-be wedding website designer bar hypothetical LGBTQ couples from her services reads as a lament, weighed down by historic discrimination and current reactionary backlash.
What injury did this woman sustain? Does she have standing to ask for relief from something that might happen in the future?
The conservative bigots on the court make me want to punch the shit out of them.
Well the idea that some fags might want her to design a wedding website for them might mean she will burn in hell because it will piss off her omnipotent invisible sky daddy.
My business no longer serves practicing Christians.
It’s not their “identity” as Christians but the “behavior” of practicing.
"…The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims.”
(In direct contrast to the shitweasel cowards sitting there now.)
So-called slippery slope arguments are sometimes legitimate and sometimes illegitimate. There are religious protections in this country, even some that are IMHO downright kooky. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow (and protect) this discrimination opens the door for all kinds of discrimination based on “religious protections,” kooky, hateful, or not. Christians are many times unChristian, other so-called religious adherents stray from their alleged belief foundations. I am suggesting that this is a legitimate slippery slope argument that the SC seemingly did not consider.
Shorter: Right-wingers hate discrimination, providing the aggrieved are (preferably white) Christians. Everyone else can bugger off.
This obscene and brazenly corrupt supreme court is well aware of the goals and desires of their sponsors. They are paid to dance to a fascist tune and are quite happy to do so. Twelve happy feet tapping out the Discrimination Rag.
I do not know where or when but I can almost guarantee that this decision by the fascist 6 will suffer from the law of unintended consequenses. Case in point.
It will be interesting to watch the contortions these Justices will go through to back this web-designer when they are actively called out and boycotted and then sues the boycotters for religious discrimination.
Colorado need only change their law to require people advertise who they don’t serve.
The gays know not to ask, the allies know who not to give there money to.
Go Capitalism!
Deleted
These decisions should go over big with young people.
Sort of the inverse situation, anecdotally, Cecil B. DeMille produced The Ten Commandments specifically because it was a story filled with debauchery that would normally have been blocked by the censors. But since it was “based on scripture,” the censors were reluctant to object.
With the Utah complaint, it is nice to see that it’s at least forcing some Christian groups to face the consequences of their stated objections. They of course wanted to impose restrictions on other books and media, not the ones they agree with, but fair application of the law should be a basic tenet of any enlightened, sophisticated society.
Someone want to explain how this bullshit decision is any different from making black people use the side door, or sit in the back of the bus, or use “COLORED ONLY” water fountains? I mean, if we now have a first amendment right to discriminate against gay people, why stop there? Uncle Thomas needs to start using the side entrance to the court.
So the US Supreme Court today ruled that it’s legal for a Jewish business owner to refuse service to a Christian if they believe that serving Christians violates their “free speech” right to not support anything that offends their “sincerely held religious belief”?
Cool, cool…
Let’s take sex out of the gutter and put it back in the Bible where it belongs!
