Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional

[Gergar12]

Try just flipping the two parties in the original hypothetical - if you were an LGBTQ web designer and say Westboro Baptist wanted you to build a website for them, should you be required to build a website supporting their virulently homophobic message? Religion is a protected class, therefore you should not be allowed to refuse right?

Because that's what both the cake case and this case were about in essence - the line drawn is being required to engage in speech.

No, what we are really angry about is that there seems to be one set of rules for one party, and other for another party. Even the wording is off for many of the cases. For example one of the cases a Post Office Worker wanted Sunday off, but couldn't get it, but he can now get it due to him being Christian, and that ruling stated you must be from an old religion, and it must not impact business too much which is very subjective and means if we feel like it or if your a republican you can get away with skipping work, but if your a liberal who believes in a newer religion like say a religion that worships the flying onion monster(yes I know the original example involves spaghetti), or the simulation hypothesis you're screwed. It's completely arbitrary and weighted toward conservatives. It's like saying to a new company of equal size to an older company no you don't get to do X, Y, Z because your new.

 

[Trunkage]

Try just flipping the two parties in the original hypothetical - if you were an LGBTQ web designer and say Westboro Baptist wanted you to build a website for them, should you be required to build a website supporting their virulently homophobic message? Religion is a protected class, therefore you should not be allowed to refuse right?

Because that's what both the cake case and this case were about in essence - the line drawn is being required to engage in speech.

I'm going to assume that you think moderation is bad based on this comment

 

[gorfias]

"The Westboro Baptist couple just wanted a wedding website" is a different argument than "The Westboro Baptist couple wanted a virulently homophobic wedding website" and it's disingenuous to argue that the gay wedding website is equivalent to the latter.

Especially considering that the case was entirely fictional to begin with, down to the roots of "the wedding website designer never designed a website for anybody, much less got an ask from a gay couple"

Theoretically, the Court isn't supposed to rule on hypotheticals where the plaintiff has zero standing, but that's one of those pesky "norms" that right wing operatives love showing isn't actually a rule

I recall someone saying if you met Miranda, you would hate him. He was filth. But they made a ruling based upon principals that apply even to people and situations you may hate.

I think the principal is still sound. The government cannot compel you to engage in speech. Is that not something you can get behind?

 

[Silvanus]

I think the principal is still sound. The government cannot compel you to engage in speech. Is that not something you can get behind?

In truth, they wouldn't have been truly compelled to engage in speech.

They started a business offering that speech as a service, and were granted a business license on that basis. If they then refuse to provide the service in a nondiscriminatory manner, they're not fulfilling the terms of their licence agreement.

They have the option to refuse. But their license is issued on the understanding they'd provide the service. So refusal means they're not fulfilling the requirement of their license to provide a service in a nondiscriminatory way, meaning refusal should mean the licence goes bye-bye.

 

[gorfias]

In truth, they wouldn't have been truly compelled to engage in speech.

They started a business offering that speech as a service, and were granted a business license on that basis. If they then refuse to provide the service in a nondiscriminatory manner, they're not fulfilling the terms of their licence agreement.

They have the option to refuse. But their license is issued on the understanding they'd provide the service. So refusal means they're not fulfilling the requirement of their license to provide a service in a nondiscriminatory way, meaning refusal should mean the licence goes bye-bye.

Your logic would invite a totalitarian dictatorship, which is a concern libertarian minded people have about big government. Put in any legal right in your situation. You got a business license. The license means you have to stay in that state. You have to give up your gun rights. Government may enter your home without cause. And in this case, it now means they can compel you to engage in speech with which you disagree. A really bad idea.

 

[Silvanus]

Your logic would invite a totalitarian dictatorship, which is a concern libertarian minded people have about big government.

Bullshit. Business licenses already come with obligations in every country on the planet. Nondiscrimination is one of them, in most free societies, including in the US. In fact, you'll notice that as a pretty solid trend, those that allow unfettered business discrimination tend to be the more authoritarian, totalitarian ones.

Put in any legal right in your situation. You got a business license. The license means you have to stay in that state. You have to give up your gun rights. Government may enter your home without cause. And in this case, it now means they can compel you to engage in speech with which you disagree. A really bad idea.

No, not a single one of those follows. The business licence solely affects your actions and obligations in the course of conducting that business. Continue to exercise all your freedoms in your own time, but if you sign up to provide a service, you... have to provide the service.

Let's take a look at another form of speech. Imagine someone is employed as a reporter-- and receives the legal protections that come with that (privileged access, a reporter pass, compensated travel etc). They then say it's.... against their principles to, uhrm, report on politics or culture. Will you tell me that because the government cannot "compell them to speak", they're therefore legally solid to keep on in that job, and to continue enjoying the privileged access and financial benefits of the job?

Or even more basic: the government cannot force you to give up your private property, can it?! But... if you get a business licence on the understanding that you'll exchange your goods for money, and then you refuse to do so whenever the person is black, then yeah, you're violating the terms of your licence.

 

[gorfias]

Bullshit. Business licenses already come with obligations in every country on the planet. Nondiscrimination is one of them, in most free societies, including in the US. In fact, you'll notice that as a pretty solid trend, those that allow unfettered business discrimination tend to be the more authoritarian, totalitarian ones.



No, not a single one of those follows. The business licence solely affects your actions and obligations in the course of conducting that business. Continue to exercise all your freedoms in your own time.

OK, so, can I legally do business without the license? Because I don't like the strings you are attaching to it. So, I'd just be supporting my right to not be compelled to engage in certain speech. I don't think that would fly.

A Jew could insist on a Christian creating a website denouncing his own faith and vice versa. Muslims would have to advertise liquor I can't think of an end to how much mischief could be caused were this decision not made.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

OK, so, can I legally do business without the license? Because I don't like the strings you are attaching to it. So, I'd just be supporting my right to not be compelled to engage in certain speech. I don't think that would fly.

It's called "freelancing" and people do it everyday. Business licenses come with extra perks and responsibilities.

A Jew could insist on a Christian creating a website denouncing his own faith and vice versa. Muslims would have to advertise liquor I can't think of an end to how much mischief could be caused were this decision not made.

A Jew could insist on a wedding website. Insisting on discriminatory language is a different can of worms and I wish you people would stop conflating that with gay people existing. Gay people existing is not hate speech

EDIT: also, absolutely buck-fucking wild that you're trying a "but what if Jews wanted to be mean to Christians" argument when every shred of historical precedent for the United States shows that a decent chunk of Christianity over here has just immediately reawakened it's ancient, deeply held beliefs that Jews are of the devil and race mixing is a sin

 

[Silvanus]

OK, so, can I legally do business without the license? Because I don't like the strings you are attaching to it. So, I'd just be supporting my right to not be compelled to engage in certain speech. I don't think that would fly.

You can't run a business without a business licence in pretty much any existing country, no. And they always come with obligations.

A Jew could insist on a Christian creating a website denouncing his own faith and vice versa. Muslims would have to advertise liquor I can't think of an end to how much mischief could be caused were this decision not made.

Denouncers of faith and alcohol proprietors are not protected characteristics. Choosing what to make dependent on what it is is distinct from choosing what to make dependent on who it's for.

 

[gorfias]

It's called "freelancing" and people do it everyday. Business licenses come with extra perks and responsibilities.

A Jew could insist on a wedding website. Insisting on discriminatory language is a different can of worms and I wish you people would stop conflating that with gay people existing. Gay people existing is not hate speech

EDIT: also, absolutely buck-fucking wild that you're trying a "but what if Jews wanted to be mean to Christians" argument when every shred of historical precedent for the United States shows that a decent chunk of Christianity over here has just immediately reawakened it's ancient, deeply held beliefs that Jews are of the devil and race mixing is a sin

But having a business comes with perks. You're unnecessarily adding strings to it.

I am Jewish in a mixed marriage and my family has absolutely said and done mean things to my wife. I will concede I spend a lot of time watching videos on Bitchute and the comment section can get pretty Jew hate filled. I also spend a lot of time muting them.

You can't run a business without a business licence in pretty much any existing country, no. And they always come with obligations.



Denouncers of faith and alcohol proprietors are not protected characteristics. Choosing what to make dependent on what it is is distinct from choosing what to make dependent on who it's for.

Denouncers of other faiths could dang well be exercising part of a religion and a protected class. What if certain demographics are more likely to drink? I concede that would be a harder case to make. Suppose I go for a job and don't get it because while they say they do not discriminate against Jews, no one who ever wears a yarmulke can ever work for them.

The gays in this case were not discrimated for who they were but for what they wanted.

Like, if the same gay people said they wanted a site to post recipes, would the business have said they could do it but will not because they wont work for gays? I don't think the web people would win such a case.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

But having a business comes with perks. You're unnecessarily adding strings to it.

Those would be the "and responsibilities" part i mentioned

Suppose I go for a job and don't get it because while they say they do not discriminate against Jews, no one who ever wears a yarmulke can ever work for them.

That's damn near every job with a superfluous "can lift 50 lbs" requirement.

The gays in this case were not discrimated for who they were but for what they wanted.

There were no gays in this case

 

[Silvanus]

Denouncers of other faiths could dang well be exercising part of a religion and a protected class.

Then their religion is a protected characteristic; their wish to denounce others is not. Belonging to a religion doesn't grant one exemptions for behaviours which are otherwise disallowed.

For instance, if someone runs a shop and refuse to serve black people, they're breaking the law, regardless of whether they claim their religion makes it necessary.

What if certain demographics are more likely to drink?

Legally irrelevant.

Suppose I go for a job and don't get it because while they say they do not discriminate against Jews, no one who ever wears a yarmulke can ever work for them.

Depends on the jurisdiction. In France, the law would probably side with the employer. In Germany, the law would probably side with the applicant.

The gays in this case were not discrimated for who they were but for what they wanted.

Quick reminder that "the gays" in this case did not exist. The individual named in the supposed website request never asked for a website to be made, and never sued. The Web designer (or someone else) fabricated the request.

Like, if the same gay people said they wanted a site to post recipes, would the business have said they could do it but will not because they wont work for gays? I don't think the web people would win such a case.

The hypothetical request-- a website for a wedding-- would have been exactly the same product as had been granted for countless straight couples. The only difference was the sex and orientation of the requesters.

 

[Trunkage]

Try just flipping the two parties in the original hypothetical - if you were an LGBTQ web designer and say Westboro Baptist wanted you to build a website for them, should you be required to build a website supporting their virulently homophobic message? Religion is a protected class, therefore you should not be allowed to refuse right?

Because that's what both the cake case and this case were about in essence - the line drawn is being required to engage in speech.

Since you didn't reply, I'll make my point clearer

We discriminate against hateful language all the time. Social media can't ban gay people just for celebrating a marriage. Because it's not hateful, despite what the Jordan Petersons of the world think

They CAN ban comments that homosexual people make if they say something like 'kill all heteros'

Due to anti-discrimination laws, social media companies are being forced to act this way. They might have some leeway to decide what is hateful, but there is still enforcement

These same laws apply to all businesses. So, for example, if a gay worker says, 'kill all heteros' to a customer, they might be investigated and get fired. This could even happen when just talking to other colleagues.

The message is the problem. The hatefulness is

And before you claim that the rules are the same for gay people, I want to note that most gay people don't say 'kill all heteros' specifically because they get punished any time they speak about minor stuff like 'it's better to be homo than hetero' as that is usually claimed as hate speech

Two last things
1) Stop pretending that hating gay people is a religious ideal. It's not. People claim it's a religious ideal because they want to be bigots without getting criticized. It's a smoke screen to bamboozle you. You're falling for it
2) Stop pretending that noting that gay people getting married is tantamount to a hate crime. It is beyond ridiculous

 

[gorfias]

Numbered for clarity:

1) Then their religion is a protected characteristic; their wish to denounce others is not. Belonging to a religion doesn't grant one exemptions for behaviours which are otherwise disallowed.

2) For instance, if someone runs a shop and refuse to serve black people, they're breaking the law, regardless of whether they claim their religion makes it necessary.


3) Legally irrelevant.



4) Depends on the jurisdiction. In France, the law would probably side with the employer. In Germany, the law would probably side with the applicant.



5) Quick reminder that "the gays" in this case did not exist. The individual named in the supposed website request never asked for a website to be made, and never sued. The Web designer (or someone else) fabricated the request.



The hypothetical request-- a website for a wedding-- would have been exactly the same product as had been granted for countless straight couples. The only difference was the sex and orientation of the requesters.

1) I think this is legally irrelevant.
2) The decision to not serve black people would be subject to what is called, "strict scrutiny". You better have a really good, material, relevant reason to do so.
3) Incorrect as I later describe. If you support the position that you do NOT discriminate against Jews but will never hire a person that wears, for instance, a yarmulke, the result is the same. You are still exposed to strict scrutiny from the court.
4) But what do you think a US court would do? What are the principals? I would write, they would find you are unconstitutionally discriminating against Jews.
5) I'd think the principals (don't force me to publish views with which I disagree, compelling speech) would still be primary.

 

[Silvanus]

Numbered for clarity:

1) I think this is legally irrelevant.

It's literally not, as the law already stands in most countries. Your religion is protected. Your actions, even if you claim them as part of your religion, are not.

2) The decision to not serve black people would be subject to what is called, "strict scrutiny". You better have a really good, material, relevant reason to do so.

I know it wouldn't be allowed. That's my point. It illustrates that religion doesn't just provide a legally-solid method of getting around nondiscrimination law. Now, why isn't that principle applying for gay people...?

3) Incorrect as I later describe. If you support the position that you do NOT discriminate against Jews but will never hire a person that wears, for instance, a yarmulke, the result is the same. You are still exposed to strict scrutiny from the court.

...#3 was the bit about drinking. If one demographic does something more than another, but it's not actually directly related to that demographic, then it's legally irrelevant.

4) But what do you think a US court would do? What are the principals? I would write, they would find you are unconstitutionally discriminating against Jews.

Yes, they probably would. That'd be the right call.

5) I'd think the principals (don't force me to publish views with which I disagree, compelling speech) would still be primary.

Sure, whatever. I was just pointing it out since you seemed to think they did exist.

(Though on a sidenote, there is a legal principle in the US that the complainant should have standing, and that people who have not been impacted by a law cannot sue to have it struck down. That's why this couple was fabricated in the first place. Seems the SCOTUS don't care about that principle if it allows them to rule on something they personally want struck down).

 

[gorfias]

1) It's literally not, as the law already stands in most countries. Your religion is protected. Your actions, even if you claim them as part of your religion, are not.



2) I know it wouldn't be allowed. That's my point. It illustrates that religion doesn't just provide a legally-solid method of getting around nondiscrimination law. Now, why isn't that principle applying for gay people...?



3) ...#3 was the bit about drinking. If one demographic does something more than another, but it's not actually directly related to that demographic, then it's legally irrelevant.

4) (Though on a sidenote, there is a legal principle in the US that the complainant should have standing, and that people who have not been impacted by a law cannot sue to have it struck down. That's why this couple was fabricated in the first place. Seems the SCOTUS don't care about that principle if it allows them to rule on something they personally want struck down).

1) I think you should review the concept of disparate impact: https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7#:~:text=United States, 395 U.S. 285,results in racial discrimination.” H.R.
2) I think you should review the concept of strict scrutiny https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/strict scrutiny
3) Again, disparate impact.
4) I'll have to review. I know with one of the 2020 election theft accusation cases, the court declined to hear a case as they thought a claim if proven still would not have changed the outcome of the election, Clarence Thomas dissented writing that this is the sort of thing that will come up again. Reviewing now.

EDIT: You do appear to be correct about the person preemptively suiting.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

2) I think you should review the concept of strict scrutiny https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/strict scrutiny

Explain why this applies to religious exemptions from black people but not religious exemptions from gay people

 

[Thaluikhain]

Explain why this applies to religious exemptions from black people but not religious exemptions from gay people

Cause the US hasn't regressed that far just yet. Give it time.

 

[gorfias]

Explain why this applies to religious exemptions from black people but not religious exemptions from gay people

Judgement call.
Example: In the US, laws against 1st degree murder result in a higher % of black people going to jail relative to Japanese people. The law therefore has a disparate impact upon black people and could be found to be unconstitutional. BUT, the law against 1st degree murder, in the opinion of a majority of the court, I suspect, would pass the concept of strict scrutiny. The disparate impact is warranted. If it isn't? Law would be struck down and that only happens based upon the judgement call of the court members.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Judgement call.
Example: In the US, laws against 1st degree murder result in a higher % of black people going to jail relative to Japanese people. The law therefore has a disparate impact upon black people and could be found to be unconstitutional. BUT, the law against 1st degree murder, in the opinion of a majority of the court, I suspect, would pass the concept of strict scrutiny. The disparate impact is warranted. If it isn't? Law would be struck down and that only happens based upon the judgement call of the court members.

Doesn't answer the question: How is the disparate impact warrented for a business having a religious exemption allowing them to discriminate against gay couples but not interracial ones?