1 edit
@vivify saidThe first private schools were catholic schools.
That's not the only area, it's just one example. Another would be in government-run facilities where head gear like hats are banned (like in a prison or the Senate floor, etc.)
These places usually have religious exceptions. A school can ban kids from wearing hats but can't ban hijab...though I'm not sure if this would apply to, say, a catholic school. That would be an ...[text shortened]... nteresting discussion whether they can fire gay teachers or ban outward displays of other religions.
They can do whatever they want, especially now that discrimination is perfectly legal.
I just wanna know if NYC is thinking about banning black people on the subways now. How long before Jim Crow is back? How about burning crosses on the lawns of gay people?
@wildgrass saidI just read the majority opinion and the case is far more limited than what has been suggested here.
At the very least, if you are illegally discriminating against a person or group for religious beliefs reasons, shouldn't you be required to prove that your belief is sincerely held? That doesn't seem to be the case here: the website designer had worked with gay people before, but refused this particular hypothetical project because they wanted to get married.
So, she do ...[text shortened]... news.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-web-designer-refused-work-sex-weddings-rcna68629
It did not hold that religious freedom trumps gay rights nor did it question, in general, the inclusion of gays in laws banning discrimination in public accommodations.
It held that where a business was engaged in "expressive activity", a public accommodations law could not compel it to include words that the seller objected to on religious grounds. This makes the case a "free speech" one; the website designer was creating custom content, not selling Big Macs.
Of course, the reach of what is or isn't "expressive content" in a commercial setting is ill-defined and the majority's reasoning is an invitation to future litigation testing the limits. But I'm not sure they're wrong in this specific case and if Gorsuch's well written opinion is confined to future factual patterns which closely align with this one going forward, I don't think the results will be as disastrous as some pundits suggest.
I do want to take a look at the dissent though.
@earl-of-trumps saidSo "No Blacks allowed" on the front door of the local Mickey D's enhances "freedom" and "liberty" and the government banning it causes "slavery"?
@wildgrass
A good topic, Wildgrass, and I come in from a different angle here.
Religion plays no role, as far as I am concerned. I am a Libertarian and I am all about *Freedom*
The government should not use force to get this webmaster to do what the customer wants, that's *slavery*
that simple
@no1marauder saidLOL…you creat a scenario that isnt even close to what was stated, and then question it?
So "No Blacks allowed" on the front door of the local Mickey D's enhances "freedom" and "liberty" and the government banning it causes "slavery"?
Just take what people say without ADDING to it
@mott-the-hoople saidMost right wing libertarians take the position that laws banning invidious discrimination by businesses are violations of their sacred "liberty" and unjustly restrict "freedom".
LOL…you creat a scenario that isnt even close to what was stated, and then question it?
Just take what people say without ADDING to it
If you or Earl want to oppose that position do so, but it's a logical reading of his post.
@earl-of-trumps saidI have to disagree. You think homeless people should be forced to find a job or go to prison. That's not freedom at all!
@wildgrass
A good topic, Wildgrass, and I come in from a different angle here.
Religion plays no role, as far as I am concerned. I am a Libertarian and I am all about *Freedom*
The government should not use force to get this webmaster to do what the customer wants, that's *slavery*
that simple
@suzianne saidWell, Suzianne,
The first private schools were catholic schools.
They can do whatever they want, especially now that discrimination is perfectly legal.
I just wanna know if NYC is thinking about banning black people on the subways now. How long before Jim Crow is back? How about burning crosses on the lawns of gay people?
all of that is a possibility, depending on how much the democrats have changed.
@no1marauder saidDifferent circumstances but your point is taken
So "No Blacks allowed" on the front door of the local Mickey D's enhances "freedom" and "liberty" and the government banning it causes "slavery"?
@athousandyoung saidForced to get a job *or* lose the homeless shelter protection, and possibly be arrested for vagrancy.
I have to disagree. You think homeless people should be forced to find a job or go to prison. That's not freedom at all!
@earl-of-trumps saidExactly. Arrested for vagrancy. That's just legalese that means being arrested for being homeless.
Forced to get a job *or* lose the homeless shelter protection, and possibly be arrested for vagrancy.
2 edits
@earl-of-trumps saidNone of that will come from democrats.
Well, Suzianne,
all of that is a possibility, depending on how much the democrats have changed.
It is part and parcel of right-wing Republicanism. Even the old-school Republicans won't stop it when it starts. They were too gutless to stop this first step. In for a penny, in for a pound.
I never thought I'd see an Uncle Tom on the Supreme Court, though.
@earl-of-trumps saidmaybe we could setup some nice camps where people would do jobs.
Forced to get a job *or* lose the homeless shelter protection, and possibly be arrested for vagrancy.
any jobs, really, even pointless ones
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidYou do realize that the woman who caused the case to be brought before the Supreme Court was lying about it, right?
LOL…you creat a scenario that isnt even close to what was stated, and then question it?
Just take what people say without ADDING to it