Apologies if this is the wrong community for this! Feel free to delete if it is.
Also, this is a big blow to lgbt anti discrimination but it also is a blow to a lot of others as well The way this decision is going to backfire and the fact it will be able to applied against not just lgbt people has not been thought through, at all.
The problem is actually that it has been thought through, extensively. The cruelty is the point. Also, nobody ever asked this “web designer” to design a website for a LGBTQIA+ wedding. This is a created farce, about a “what if”. This person creates templates, and doesn’t want LGBTQIA+ to be able to buy them as anyone else could. Conservative donors cherry picked this to ride it up the line to get their time in front of the corrupt, broken SCOTUS.
This allows a person to say that, if they FEEL that whatever their work is is a demonstration of art or self expression, they can limit who receives it… A.K.A. “I put love into the food I make at this diner I own, and my religion is for white, Christians only. We don’t serve food to none of the other non-whites. You need to leave!”
Like I said, it will backfire. When people get refused service for MAGA hats or because of being Christian they will throw a fit but they dug the hole for themselves here.
It’s awful and I agree though. It’s disgusting and the cruelty is the point. But the way this is going to be use against them is going to make things so messy and petty.
When people get refused service for MAGA hats or because of being Christian they will throw a fit but they dug the hole for themselves here.
You’re presuming that the laws will be applied equitably, which is unlikely to be the case.
Like I said, it will backfire. When people get refused service for MAGA hats or because of being Christian they will throw a fit but they dug the hole for themselves here.
No, it won’t. Laws are not applied equally in the U.S. This ruling exists purely for regressive states to use as a tool to exclude and victimize anyone not in the white christian republican demographic.
Not only did this woman not make websites (and it was just a hypothetical essentially), apparently the person cited for wanting a website for his gay wedding is a straight, married man. So they just made up a nonexistent person for someone’s nonexistent job and now there’s a law about it.
How did this pass muster as having standing?
You’re asking about the same court who found standing for striking down the student debt thing?
in other words, this iteration of SCOTUS finds standing insofar as it fits their political whims regardless of actual legal grounding (unfortunately).
