Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional

[gorfias]

Ronald "cracked down on protests" Reagan? Ronald "War on Drugs" Reagan? Ronald "crushed the air traffic controller strike" Reagan is your champion of smaller government?

EDIT: Hell even his own library has to admit that his economic policies harmed minorities, if you want to keep trying for the "The democrats are th real racists" argument, though that probably doesn't matter as you're fine with the governmet discriminating against your actual relationship.

Long term, Reagan is thought to have set off an economic engine that took us from Carter's malaise to the booming 90s which benefited everyone. ITMT: black people did benefit from Trump's economy. The Democrats? They can take them for granted, telling them they aren't black if they act like they are free to make their own choices.
My personal values lean libertarian. Of course I would be against government discriminating against me. I think race conscious admissions did that. Now it has been held to be unconstitutional and we can see who is coming down on which side of this issue.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Long term, Reagan is thought to have set off an economic engine that took us from Carter's malaise to the booming 90s which benefited everyone. ITMT: black people did benefit from Trump's economy. The Democrats? They can take them for granted, telling them they aren't black if they act like they are free to make their own choices.
My personal values lean libertarian. Of course I would be against government discriminating against me. I think race conscious admissions did that. Now it has been held to be unconstitutional and we can see who is coming down on which side of this issue.

*Except for military academies, and university admissions aren't "the government".

Reagan's economics were great short-term**. Now, vulture capitalists are hollowing out companies and we have one-in-a-lifetime economic crashes every decade as a direct result. You get that *we* are the "long-term", right?

**Terms and conditions apply, not applicable for the working class or minorities, middle class may see some shrinkage, labor is not allowed to coordinate

 

[Schadrach]

Yes. It's very interesting that SCOTUS decides to accept the principles of affirmative action as legitimate... and then restrict their use.

They didn't recognize it as legitimate though, not including military academies was less "it's legitimate but you can't do it" and more "we're staying out of military affairs", which is the same reason why National Coalition For Men vs Selective Service was killed off, while the order that did that one outright acknowledged that NCFM probably had a solid case.

Plus, of course, we know the designer is fine with weddings. Their issue is the characteristics of the people it's for.

This would be why my example was a wedding for overt homophobes who were definitely going to make that homophobia part of their wedding announcement.

To build off tstorm's example, make it a wedding for our alleged successful example of conversion therapy where in the wedding announcement he calls out having been brought forth from his sin of being homosexual by conversion therapy and into the light of God in the holy union of monogamous heterosexual matrimony.

Of course, that wouldn't be an appropriate example either, because any example where the hypothetical LGBTQ+ web designer would find the content seriously objectionable because they are LGBTQ+ is not something either you or TheMysteriousGX is going to be comfortable saying they should be legally forced to write and publish for someone else, just because they write and publish some things for some people.

You're not listening, then. I'm not saying "this is how it used to be". I'm saying that right now, as it stands, business owners are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics such as the race of the person who requests their services. The owner's religion is not a defence. That's factually how it stands, and the vast majority of people think that's correct.

However, the SCOTUS have now carved out an exception to single out gay people.

No, they've carved out an exception when the service in question requires the business owner to engage in speech. It's both broader (doesn't just apply to gays) and narrower (only applies to speech) than singling out gay people.

 

[Schadrach]

So, if a person thinks that there isn't a God, they can discriminate against Christians?

They can certainly refuse to write and publish religious statements, or refuse to make any kind of creative work whatsoever for religious purposes or a religious group. And the cake ruling and this one would back them up.

But if we're talking about a case that doesn't involve speech, then no and there's nothing in this case that would suggest otherwise.

You say that but the longest serving Senator in the history of my state was both A) A Democrat and B) Notorious for having been an active member of the KKK pretty much up to the day that being involved with the KKK would cost him more votes than it won him. Which was maybe a few years later than the party views on social issues had led to the KKK switching parties.

But then given our history with unionization, we were going to vote Dem regardless of who ran right up until the Dems started attacking the largest industry in the state. Now we're one of the reddest states as a consequence. I'll give you a hint: our state rock is black and flammable and the kind of person who obtains it is on the state seal.

 

[Silvanus]

This would be why my example was a wedding for overt homophobes who were definitely going to make that homophobia part of their wedding announcement.

To build off tstorm's example, make it a wedding for our alleged successful example of conversion therapy where in the wedding announcement he calls out having been brought forth from his sin of being homosexual by conversion therapy and into the light of God in the holy union of monogamous heterosexual matrimony.

Of course, that wouldn't be an appropriate example either, because any example where the hypothetical LGBTQ+ web designer would find the content seriously objectionable because they are LGBTQ+ is not something either you or TheMysteriousGX is going to be comfortable saying they should be legally forced to write and publish for someone else, just because they write and publish some things for some people.

They're not appropriate analogies because the nature of the event itself is very obviously different. They go far beyond the characteristics of the people who ask.

No, they've carved out an exception when the service in question requires the business owner to engage in speech. It's both broader (doesn't just apply to gays) and narrower (only applies to speech) than singling out gay people.

Except that, in practice, it does just mean denial of service for gay people. That's why it's a circumvention of the right to equal treatment, rather than a straightforward refusal to comply.

 

[Trunkage]

They can certainly refuse to write and publish religious statements, or refuse to make any kind of creative work whatsoever for religious purposes or a religious group. And the cake ruling and this one would back them up.

But if we're talking about a case that doesn't involve speech, then no and there's nothing in this case that would suggest otherwise.

So there are a first Eucharist cake or Baptism cake. Something happens infrequently and you might, as a cake designer, have to make up. I.e. you would be forcing them to make a Christian themed cake

And you are totally fine with Christians being banned from having a this style of cake

 

[Trunkage]

You say that but the longest serving Senator in the history of my state was both A) A Democrat and B) Notorious for having been an active member of the KKK pretty much up to the day that being involved with the KKK would cost him more votes than it won him. Which was maybe a few years later than the party views on social issues had led to the KKK switching parties.

But then given our history with unionization, we were going to vote Dem regardless of who ran right up until the Dems started attacking the largest industry in the state. Now we're one of the reddest states as a consequence. I'll give you a hint: our state rock is black and flammable and the kind of person who obtains it is on the state seal.

You are saying this like we dont already know Dems are terrible

Having two right wing parties in a country with no alternative is a terrible idea

 

[Eacaraxe]

Ronald "cracked down on protests" Reagan? Ronald "War on Drugs" Reagan? Ronald "crushed the air traffic controller strike" Reagan is your champion of smaller government?

You forgot the part where he played an integral role in a CIA/DoD/White House conspiracy to illegally trade firearms to terrorists, to raise money for Nicaraguan death squads. And the part where his buddies in the financial sector ran the market into the ground, and got them all bailouts. You might remember them as the events before and after "blaming gays for AIDS".

Not to mention dropping an atomic fucking bomb on US public mental health care.

Oh, and then there's that whole part where his administration and the DoD armed, trained, and funded the people who'd later go on to form al-Qaeda. And the whole Grenada thing, which you might know as "when Reagan wagged the dog to divert attention away from the Beirut bombing".

How about supporting South African apartheid and vetoing sanctions? Speaking of vetoes, he vetoed farm relief during the '80s recession too, which led to a repossession and eviction wave.

You say that but the longest serving Senator in the history of my state was both A) A Democrat and B) Notorious for having been an active member of the KKK pretty much up to the day that being involved with the KKK would cost him more votes than it won him. Which was maybe a few years later than the party views on social issues had led to the KKK switching parties.

This guy?

 

[tstorm823]

Meaning their specific issue is with the characteristics of the people. Making it discrimination.

It is discrimination in the sense of discerning the difference, but not against the characteristics of the people.

They can think whatever they like, but it is. And abusive practices are obviously a different ballpark altogether, and should receive no constitutional protection.

"I say so, therefore it is" isn't a good argument.

 

[Silvanus]

It is discrimination in the sense of discerning the difference, but not against the characteristics of the people.

...it's literally using the characteristic of the people to determine whether they get served.

"I say so, therefore it is" isn't a good argument.

Indeed, but I'm not trying to put forward an argument as to why it is. I'm simply taking it as read. Similarly if your analogy had involved a cake with a pro-gaslighting message on it, I wouldn't bother to make an argument to establish that gaslighting is abusive.

 

[Trunkage]

No, but they can decline to build their church website.

I literally do not believe you. Mainly because you've done things like banning abortions because that is YOUR morality and pretend it should be everyone else's. You have shown plenty of times that Christians deserve a special place above everyone else

You have shown your hand, you are now being dealt your consequences

Otherwise, not building a church website based on them being Christians is clearly discrimination, so your sentence doesn't even make sense

 

[tstorm823]

Otherwise, not building a church website based on them being Christians is clearly discrimination, so your sentence doesn't even make sense

Yes, you're allowed to discriminate. It's not an inherently bad thing to discriminate, and certainly not illegal, with only specific kinds of discrimination outlawed.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, you're allowed to discriminate. It's not an inherently bad thing to discriminate, and certainly not illegal, with only specific kinds of discrimination outlawed.

Such as with protected characteristics. Except in this carved-out exception.

 

[tstorm823]

Such as with protected characteristics. Except in this carved-out exception.

That's not true. The list of things that those classes are protected from are the exceptions. The vast majority of things are not protected from.

 

[Asita]

This would be why my example was a wedding for overt homophobes who were definitely going to make that homophobia part of their wedding announcement.

To build off tstorm's example, make it a wedding for our alleged successful example of conversion therapy where in the wedding announcement he calls out having been brought forth from his sin of being homosexual by conversion therapy and into the light of God in the holy union of monogamous heterosexual matrimony.

Of course, that wouldn't be an appropriate example either, because any example where the hypothetical LGBTQ+ web designer would find the content seriously objectionable because they are LGBTQ+ is not something either you or TheMysteriousGX is going to be comfortable saying they should be legally forced to write and publish for someone else, just because they write and publish some things for some people.

No, that wouldn't be an appropriate example because you've added extra criteria to it which substantively change the circumstances. You're equating the following:

1) A hypothetical gay couple asks someone to do some designs for their wedding.
2) A hypothetical "conversion therapy" couple asks someone to do some designs for their wedding, and dictated that those designs include specific messaging denigrating other demographics.

To be an appropriate example, it would have to be as follows:

1) A hypothetical gay couple asks someone to do some designs for their wedding.
2) A hypothetical "conversion therapy" couple asks someone to do some designs for their wedding.

Boom. Roughly equivalent scenarios. And all that was required was to remove the additional criteria that you had shoehorned in to try and draw equivalence between "denial of service based on the client's demographic characteristics" (illegal) and "denial of service based on the requested messaging for the job" (legal).

The reason your example is not appropriate is because you're crafting a scenario that would fall into the latter category, whereas the scenario this case is built around would very much fall into the former category. Those are not the same thing.

I'm within my rights to refuse service to someone on the grounds that I think they're an asshole and don't want to deal with them. Were I so inclined, I would be within my rights to refuse service to them for something as petty as holding a grudge against them from when they stole my lunch money in the first grade, or - more substantively - because they wanted me to present said service as a minstrel show. I'm not within my rights to refuse service to them because of their sex, ethnicity, nationality, orientation, religion, or disability. So I am not allowed to refuse service because a couple is homosexual, interracial, or interfaith, to use but a few examples.

To put it in different terms: Let's say that you interviewed for a position, and they rejected you because they simply felt another candidate was a better match for their corporate culture. That's entirely reasonable. However, if it turns out that their rationale for that was because of your...I don't know, religion? Your skin color? Or perhaps they just felt that you were a closeted gay, or maybe you said something that made them assume you were HIV positive...you get the idea. In any of those or similar cases, that would instead be a prime example of unlawful discrimination.

 

[Silvanus]

That's not true. The list of things that those classes are protected from are the exceptions. The vast majority of things are not protected from.

Uh-huh, and one of those things is supposed to be discrimination in service. Except when the SCOTUS judges have personal prejudices to indulge, it seems.

 

[Schadrach]

This guy?

There are four guys in that picture, so instructions unclear?

But specifically this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

Got his start in politics by organizing a KKK chapter, served in both houses of our state legislature then the House then 51 years as a Senator. Frankly, if he hadn't died in office we'd probably still be electing him. If you ever wonder why three Interstates all meet in Charleston, WV of all places, that would be his doing.

Boom. Roughly equivalent scenarios.

No, because the entire argument being made here is whether or not someone can be compelled to perform speech they object to related to the protected classes of a person trying to hire them. So, any scenario in which the hypothetical LGBTQ+ web designer is not being hired to write something they deeply object to is not a roughly equivalent scenario by definition, because that's the entire source of the issue.

 

[Silvanus]

No, because the entire argument being made here is whether or not someone can be compelled to perform speech they object to related to the protected classes of a person trying to hire them. So, any scenario in which the hypothetical LGBTQ+ web designer is not being hired to write something they deeply object to is not a roughly equivalent scenario by definition, because that's the entire source of the issue.

In your proposed analogy, you're making extraneous, non-wedding messaging ("we're X, we think Y") a core part of the request-- but that's not equivalent. Because we're not talking about wedding websites that necessarily make explicit or forthright arguments in favour of same sex marriage.

We're just talking about sites saying, "we're getting married"-- a message that they're absolutely fine with when it's other people, the sole difference being the speaker's characteristics.

So yes, the closer analogy would just be a simple wedding website, no extraneous messaging. But one where the nature of the person making the request pisses the business owner off for some reason.

 

[Asita]

No, because the entire argument being made here is whether or not someone can be compelled to perform speech they object to related to the protected classes of a person trying to hire them. So, any scenario in which the hypothetical LGBTQ+ web designer is not being hired to write something they deeply object to is not a roughly equivalent scenario by definition, because that's the entire source of the issue.

No, the entire argument here is that wanting to deny service to a couple because they're gay is not the same thing as wanting to deny service to a couple because of specifics of the requested service. In the former, the service is explicitly being denied because of who the client is, with no regard for its specifics of the request. In the latter, the service is explicitly being denied because of what specifics the client wants, with no regard for who the client is.

You're trying to draw equivalence by focusing on emotion, but that's not how it works. It's the circumstance, not the emotion that matters.

 

[Eacaraxe]

There are four guys in that picture, so instructions unclear?

But specifically this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

Yup, that's the one. The one holding hands with Joe "totally not a Dixiecrat, the Senator from Bank of America" Biden. Who would later go on to speak on Byrd's behalf when he finally did the rest of us the favor of finally shuffling off this mortal coil. He was only the third politician whose death I actively celebrated, after Strom Thurmond and Reagan. Fuck him.