Something about a Supreme Court decision just now

[CannonStreak]

I hope this is okay to make, since this is LGBT stuff, and if not, this can be locked.

To make things clear, there was a case of this marriage website owner refusing to do something for a same sex marriage couple. Now, it went to the Supreme Court, and just now, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the website owner who refused to do anything for the same sex couple.

Now, first off, I want to say that same sex couples, or LGBT people are people too, and they should not have to go through any of this, let alone a dumb decision of the Supreme Court.

On that note, I think the Supreme Court is starting to become a joke, or at least with its current members. First, overturning abortion, and now this, and maybe the recent affirmative action, too. I think the Supreme Court is starting to look like it is not needed due to these decisions, and with that, I think that if it cannot be removed in any way, I think it needs reform, as in making it so that the Justices of the Supreme Court are not serving for life or that they are appointed in another way. Plus, it is said that the Supreme Court Justices have to not have committed a crime to become a Justice. I think that is flawed, because not only does everyone do bad in their life in some way, as we all make mistakes, but just because one does not do any crime in their life does not mean they are good.

What do you all think of this? Here is the article for what happened, by the way.

Supreme Court sides with designer opposed to making same-sex wedding websites in case over LGBTQ rights and free speech

The court said the First Amendment prohibits the state from forcing the designer to express messages that are contrary to her closely held religious beliefs.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Nah]

It's a completely bull**** decision, though not an unexpected one given the court's far-right makeup. The US Supreme Court has always been an institution of questionable legitimacy, given that it's an entity whose members are not elected by the people yet get to serve for as long as they want without any required attempts at retaining their position, while also having the ability to, without any repercussions for themselves, create or cause nation-wide change on little more than the whim of 5 to 9 people. The Supreme Court is not and never has been an impartial and unbiased arbiter of the Constitution--there never has been nor ever will be a truly impartial, unbiased human being--yet people still pretend to believe that the justices are such.

Neil Gorsuch writes that "The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands", yet this is obviously a load of **** given that conservatives have been restricting free speech and such over the past several years, what with their bans of even mentioning that LGBTQ people even exist, banning of books they don't like, wanting to force Christianity on everyone else, etc.

And more importantly than that, something that people really need to understand and accept is that....not all viewpoints have merit, not all opinions are valid, not everything is complex and nuanced. There are things that should not be up for debate, things that never should be tolerated, and there's no legitimate subjectivity to that. The idea that we should tolerate the intolerable and respect ideologies that have absolutely no ****ing respect for the happiness of innocent people that have been oppressed for millennia is a large reason why we still see widespread bigotry to this very day.

Reform is not happening, the US is far too corrupt for any meaningful reform on any issue to have a chance.

 

[CannonStreak]

It's a completely bull**** decision, though not an unexpected one given the court's far-right makeup. The US Supreme Court has always been an institution of questionable legitimacy, given that it's an entity whose members are not elected by the people yet get to serve for as long as they want without any required attempts at retaining their position, while also having the ability to, without any repercussions for themselves, create or cause nation-wide change on little more than the whim of 5 to 9 people. The Supreme Court is not and never has been an impartial and unbiased arbiter of the Constitution--there never has been nor ever will be a truly impartial, unbiased human being--yet people still pretend to believe that the justices are such.

Neil Gorsuch writes that "The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands", yet this is obviously a load of **** given that conservatives have been restricting free speech and such over the past several years, what with their bans of even mentioning that LGBTQ people even exist, banning of books they don't like, wanting to force Christianity on everyone else, etc.

And more importantly than that, something that people really need to understand and accept is that....not all viewpoints have merit, not all opinions are valid, not everything is complex and nuanced. There are things that should not be up for debate, things that never should be tolerated, and there's no legitimate subjectivity to that. The idea that we should tolerate the intolerable and respect ideologies that have absolutely no ****ing respect for the happiness of innocent people that have been oppressed for millennia is a large reason why we still see widespread bigotry to this very day.

Reform is not happening, the US is far too corrupt for any meaningful reform on any issue to have a chance.

I am quite aware it is not happening, but even then, it is still needed, and would benefit the country more.

 

[StoicPhantom]

Cases like this are tricky because it really rides the line between denying access to an establishment and forcing someone to provide services they don't want to provide. For example, if this was a Neo-Nazi group wanting a Jewish web designer to design a website promoting Nazi ideology, would that change anything for the posters in this topic? Nazi ideology is protected under the First Amendment so that too would be considered discrimination had this been ruled the other way.

But think of the broader impact this could have on artists. What if you take commissions and someone wanted to commission artwork that would satisfy their furry diaper inflation kink? Perhaps you personally wouldn't mind, but there a lot of people that probably wouldn't want to be forced to make that.

In general, I think SCOTUS went about this in an incredibly stupid way, especially the dissenting opinions. There needs to be a distinction here between discriminating against a person and discriminating against an idea. I'm not really sure how I would classify a wedding in this context, but it feels less like discriminating against a person and more not wanting to participate in events related to homosexuality. But it is definitely incredibly difficult to say one way or the other.

While I sympathize with the overall sentiment in avoiding avenues that could lead to marginalizing an already marginalized community, I'm also concerned about the broader implications a ruling like this could have for worker rights. Business and Labor are very broad categories and it's hard to ride this line without potentially infringing on people's right to work how they please. Denying access to a food establishment based on sexual orientation is obviously wrong, but preventing an artist from choosing what they want to work on is also wrong.

I feel like in this case it is easier to seek out less bigoted sources than to make a broad ruling that could have enormous implications for labor rights. Because if you say that people are not allowed to refuse work you're basically forcing them into slavery at that point. If this lady refused to take on the job without disclosing her reasons why, would refusing this have been considered valid? Or is refusing work from anyone associated with the LGBT considered not ok because it could potentially be discrimination against their sexuality or gender? I don't personally like the implications of dictating when people can and cannot refuse to work.

 

[Alicorn]

SCOTUS dropped the ball on this one. From what I heard the woman in question hasn't even made the website she is just proposing a hypothetical.

I feel this opens the door for more discrimination because if you can discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation you can discriminate against someone based on religion, nation of origin etc. It opens the door to a lot of questions that Robert's court is responsible for setting into motion.

 

[StoicPhantom]

nation of origin

I mean the entire western world just had one giant purge on anything and anyone Russian.