Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,476
7,050
118
Country
United States
Cause the US hasn't regressed that far just yet. Give it time.
I mean, we got a two-fer in 2019. It's inevitable that this is gonna pop up again
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,072
6,371
118
Country
United Kingdom
I am aware. It simply does not have the effect you think It does in reality. In reality, religion as a protected characteristic doesn't afford people the right to break other laws or obligations.

2) I think you should review the concept of strict scrutiny https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/strict scrutiny
This isn't a response. We know for a fact that anti-discrimination laws do not carve out an exception for people to refuse service on the basis of race, by the usage of a religious excuse. Now why do you believe a different standard applies/should apply for gay people? Is there a hierarchy of protected characteristics? Or should we just now allow fucking discrimination?
 
Last edited:

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,040
3,034
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Crimes revealed during catholic confession?
I would point out that the Supreme Court has created many, many contradictions that break under any stress as many are mutually exclusive

They aren't making decisions to create a good set of clear laws. They are lobbying
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,615
830
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Cake Shop ruling only said that the State of Colorado was acting in a discriminatory way, it pushed the actual decisions down the road. Until now, specifically
And... what's wrong with the cake shop ruling?

Not while the legacies are still around, no.
All the hypocritical cutouts

Lmao, it's cute how you think that's what's happening here. The sort of prospective Asian American student who thinks they didn't get in because of the tiny numbers of black people still think that way about California schools, and they haven't had affirmative action for a while now
So are you actually trying to argue affirmative action isn't a racist policy?

Why is it always about African Americans and Asians Americans instead of Europeans?

Do you think that Asians Americans are smarter than African Americans?
That not what they said. Because there are a lot of racial decisions that universities can make with touching Affirmative Action

Like...

Some universities have abandoned SATs. You know what happened? The demographics of the universities shifted to be closer to the general population

Let's take this to an example that doesn't involve race but genetics instead. So you do get offended at the word racism

Autistic students didn't do well on SATs. So they were deemed as dumb. But then we found some mitigating factors like ability to deal with large groups, bright lights, not being able to touch something, written language barriers etc. Even school uniforms can not meet the needs of these students. They might not be able to pick up on social context clues in text and decide on an incorrect assumption.

Thus they can't score their potential on SATs unless they are changed to meet those needs. They actually weren't dumb, the testing situation made them look dumb

A similar sort of idea for people from different ethnic groups. Social cues are different or languages are different. This can even hurt conservatives or lefties because its usually written by liberals who have a certain world view that isnt shared by everyone. It can benefit different regions

How you write a test can affect test result. Your performance can be dimished by the test you take

This has been known and documented before CRT was a thing. It's that old. It's not just racist, it's also elites, benefiting the rich over others
I don't think either group are inherently smarter, but I'm willing to guess if you tested all of any one group against another group, one group would on average be smarter.

Autism is a disorder, race isn't a disorder. I'm sure there's some very minor issues in wording for a question here and there, but it's also something you'd never be able to get completely rid of and tests are just needed for evaluation purposes. I'm sure a question that references sports will be ever-so-slightly be answered better overall for students that are into sports. The notion that tests are holding back minorities because of wording is, I'm sure, technically true but it's so minor compared to the much much much bigger reasons it's barely a drop in the bucket. Focusing on those much bigger reasons with also naturally smooth out the very minor test bias as well.

Also something like a liberal or conservative world view shouldn't be present in class let alone present on questions on a test.

Lastly, are you either for or against affirmative action?

Here is what I want you to do. Instead of them being homosexuals, replace an instances in that case with them being African Americans instead. Is the cake shop owner allowed to treat people like that if their religious beliefs are against African Americans. What about European Americans? Can you refuse service if your religion is against Europeans?
Treat them like what? The cake owner was fine with selling them a cake. When you get into art, it is really a grey area because then you are forcing the artist to do something they may not want to. Is a director able to force an actor/actress to get nude for a scene that wasn't previously agreed to? Can you force a painter to paint a portrait of Hitler if they don't want to? Can you force a restaurant chef to make you some custom order that isn't on the menu? I'm sure in Chicago, there's hot dog places that won't put ketchup on a hot dog as that's a big thing in Chicago and I like a hot dog with just ketchup on it and nothing else. Am I able to force them to prepare a hot dog with ketchup if they don't want to? Can you force Taylor Swift to sing something she doesn't want to? In like 99.99999% of businesses, this isn't a thing that comes up because you go to like Best Buy and buy a TV or need a plumber to fix a leak, you aren't paying for anything artistic. The cake shop thing, I feel falls under art. I'm not sure if the wedding website does especially if it's just making a webpage and placing pictures (taken or created elsewhere) on it, sounds like just a service to me akin to a plumber. if the website designer is making custom graphics, then that makes some sense at least.
 
Last edited:

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
2,170
421
88
Country
US
"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.
Tone it down a hair, but still in line with their extremely homophobic message, so a wedding of Jim and Jane, of one man and one woman only as intended by the one true god who shall smite the sodomites who do otherwise for their dark and sinful ways much as He smited New Orleans with hurricane Katrina" (that's about as far as it can be toned down and still channel their views - these are the people who protest military funerals with signs that God Hates F*gs after all)? You agree our hypothetical queer web designer should be required to produce such a site if they produce any wedding site for anyone?

EDIT: Dog pushed submit while I was typing, good thing she's really cute.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,476
7,050
118
Country
United States
Tone it down a hair, but still in line with their extremely homophobic message, so a wedding of Jim and Jane, of one man and one woman only as intended by the one true god who shall smite the sodomites who do otherwise for their dark and sinful ways much as He smited New Orleans with hurricane Katrina" (that's about as far as it can be toned down and still channel their views - these are the people who protest military funerals with signs that God Hates F*gs after all)? You agree our hypothetical queer web designer should be required to produce such a site if they produce any wedding site for anyone?

EDIT: Dog pushed submit while I was typing, good thing she's really cute.
You honestly think that's equivalent to your average gay wedding site? Celebrating the death and destruction that came to New Orleans with hurricane Katrina?

If that's as far as you can tone it down, then you should very clearly be able to see the difference, yeah?
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,476
7,050
118
Country
United States
And... what's wrong with the cake shop ruling?
Nothing. It's just not what you think it is. Which isn't surprising
So are you actually trying to argue affirmative action isn't a racist policy?
Sure. There's value in the student body and resulting professional class having the same demographic mix as the general population. That's why the Supreme Court *didn't* ban it for military academies. You can see this value when looking at, say, black people being able to talk to black doctors to avoid the racism in the medical field. More black engineers might end up helping prevent obvious flaws like motion sensors not being able to pick up darker skin tones, etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,372
1,958
118
Country
USA
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?
I'm not sure interracial couples would be off the hook. Things are changing.

I am aware. It simply does not have the effect you think It does in reality. In reality, religion as a protected characteristic doesn't afford people the right to break other laws or obligations.



This isn't a response. We know for a fact that anti-discrimination laws do not carve out an exception for people to refuse service on the basis of race, by the usage of a religious excuse. Now why do you believe a different standard applies/should apply for gay people? Is there a hierarchy of protected characteristics? Or should we just now allow fucking discrimination?
Your responses appear to be, "golly, everything used to be a certain way.". As I write above, things are changing. It used to be legal to use race as a determinant as to who got into a given school or not. Now it isn't.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,157
969
118
Country
USA
You honestly think that's equivalent to your average gay wedding site? Celebrating the death and destruction that came to New Orleans with hurricane Katrina?

If that's as far as you can tone it down, then you should very clearly be able to see the difference, yeah?
I'll tag in, I can analogize this for you, without any death or destruction, just one people celebrating what another may disagree with:

Instead of a wedding, imagine someone wants a cake or a website to celebrate their conversion from being gay. They went through conversion therapy, and are really excited to be straight now, and want to celebrate with friends and family. Should a gay person who does not believe in effective conversion therapy be obligated to create a product in celebration of its success?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,072
6,371
118
Country
United Kingdom
Your responses appear to be, "golly, everything used to be a certain way.". As I write above, things are changing. It used to be legal to use race as a determinant as to who got into a given school or not. Now it isn't.
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.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,072
6,371
118
Country
United Kingdom
I'll tag in, I can analogize this for you, without any death or destruction, just one people celebrating what another may disagree with:

Instead of a wedding, imagine someone wants a cake or a website to celebrate their conversion from being gay. They went through conversion therapy, and are really excited to be straight now, and want to celebrate with friends and family. Should a gay person who does not believe in effective conversion therapy be obligated to create a product in celebration of its success?
Celebrating abuse is not exactly neutral or analogous to a wedding.

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

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,372
1,958
118
Country
USA
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.
Is it only about gay people? Do you think they would hold it legal to compel someone to, say, support inter-racial marriage even if they think it violates their religion? If they stick to the principals of this decision, I'd think not.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,372
1,958
118
Country
USA
If. One of the Supreme Court, IIRC, is in an inter-racial marriage, none are openly gay.
I'm in an inter racial marriage myself but our government scares the hell out of me. I'm happy to see some curbs on their power, even if it is against my own interests.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,131
3,870
118
I'm in an inter racial marriage myself but our government scares the hell out of me. I'm happy to see some curbs on their power, even if it is against my own interests.
The SCOTUS isn't a curb on the government's power. It's an extension of whichever party has the most members in it, currently the GOP. So it's a hindrance to what the Democrats claim to be in favour of, like equality and justice and other things they like talking about.

In no way is the SCOTUS protecting you from big government or whatever, unless you are desperately keen on hating LGBT people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,072
6,371
118
Country
United Kingdom
Is it only about gay people? Do you think they would hold it legal to compel someone to, say, support inter-racial marriage even if they think it violates their religion? If they stick to the principals of this decision, I'd think not.
Firstly: providing a service to people regardless of their characteristics is not "compelling support" for anything. Its just providing the same service regardless of who it's for. My existence is not a contentious political statement.

But that aside: of course they wouldn't apply the same rationale for interracial marriage, because this isn't about principles. A SCOTUS with a Republican majority acts as an extention of the Republican Party's legislative wing. This has happened specifically because gay marriage is a culture war issue popular among conservatives. See how they didn't "stick to their principles" about how plaintiffs have to have standing?
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,372
1,958
118
Country
USA
Firstly: providing a service to people regardless of their characteristics is not "compelling support" for anything. Its just providing the same service regardless of who it's for. My existence is not a contentious political statement.

But that aside: of course they wouldn't apply the same rationale for interracial marriage, because this isn't about principles. A SCOTUS with a Republican majority acts as an extention of the Republican Party's legislative wing. This has happened specifically because gay marriage is a culture war issue popular among conservatives. See how they didn't "stick to their principles" about how plaintiffs have to have standing?
The court is saying if the "service" you reference is advancing communication, it is a constitutional right to decline.
I do think the person that brought this case preemptively must be a really interesting (read loony) person though.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
The court is saying if the "service" you reference is advancing communication, it is a constitutional right to decline.
I do think the person that brought this case preemptively must be a really interesting (read loony) person though.
The situation as I understand is an order came in, they took it to court to refuse, and the order later turned out to be fake.

This is easily a set-up: anyone could have put that fake order in. All it needs is a business owner with convictions who wants to play ball; then one person to trigger that business owner to start the case.

Consider that a lot of these cases are essentially the work of very wealthy lobbying interests prodding, probing, bankrolling. Do you think setting that ball rolling themselves with a fake order would be above them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias