|
VitalSigns posted:Sexual orientation is a protected class under Colorado law yes i did, thank you. though ultimately the 1A issues remain regardless, the crux of my... potential problem, I guess I would put it? Basically, I'm concerned about how the court can develop a legally correct decision that doesn't unduly burden the first amendment in terms of compelling speech while also not discriminating against gay people. I'm not actually sure if threading that particular needle is possible and obviously the best answer is to say gently caress it and protect against discrimination, but I'm not sure it's the most correct answer. The Iron Rose fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Jun 28, 2017 |
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 08:42
|
|
Cat Army 
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
Currently the courts make a distinction between compelled conduct (which the government can, and also has to be able to do just for society to function) and compelled speech, and I think this is the right approach. If you don't recognize this distinction, you end up in some weird places: is filling out a tax return "compelled speech" and therefore a violation of my 1A right to refuse to write anything that  big gubmint wants me to?If you do recognize this distinction, then doing your taxes or providing goods and services is conduct, not speech, and serving black people at my lunch counter isn't an inherent political expression endorsing integration, any more than filling out my 1040 is a political endorsement of a progressive income tax. Nor is a wedding cake for a certain couple an inherent political endorsement of Catholic marriage or interfaith marriage or miscegenation or gay marriage. Now if that cake bears certain written messages or expressive symbols, that could (and has) been considered speech: the Colorado court cited a case where a baker's right not to print anti-gay scriptures on a cake was upheld because he could show he made other Christian-themed cakes and was therefore not discriminating on the basis of the customer's religious faith, but on the particular content of the speech they wanted him to put on the cake. So it's possible that Masterpiece baker here would have a case if he refused certain specific requests like writing "marriage equality now" or "down with cishet patriarchy", but he never got the chance because he said right off the bat he wouldn't make any wedding cake for the gay couple simply because they were gay and not because of anything in particular they wanted on their cake. I also thought the Kentucky T-shirt case the Colorado court cited that I quoted in an earlier post was interesting, where the right not to print materials promoting gay sexual relationships was upheld because they also refused to do promotions for straight sexual themes like strip clubs etc, one of the few times it seems the religious objection was a consistent principle and not a pathetic fig leaf for "ew gays" bigotry. It's pretty easy to legally avoid making moral and political statements you disagree with assuming that's your actual goal, and not the perpetuation of discrimination against the wrong kind of people which is usually the goal in these cases. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
One largely unnoticed thing: the Supreme Court told idiot Steven Donziger to get hosed. No, the courts of the US won't help you enforce a 9 billion dollar fraud attempt  ugh its Troika fucked around with this message at 12:37 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:One largely unnoticed thing: the Supreme Court told idiot Steven Donziger to get hosed. No, the courts of the US won't help you enforce a 9 billion dollar fraud attempt Just read up on this, basically he sued Chevron and hid evidence and they counter sued for all the money?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
To be more specific, Donziger had expert evidence and court decisions ghost written, and bribed a judge and several politicians to get the ruling he wanted. It all unravelled when he lost a RICO lawsuit in a US court over the case, and ever since then has been bouncing between various nations like a pinball, trying to hang the judgement on Chevron (he's barred from doing so in US courts).
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/senatorshoshana/status/880042414257446912
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
she's right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Yes, because we are a Kennedy retirement or one liberal justice death away from Conservative Nightmare Permanent Rule
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yes, because we are a Kennedy retirement or one liberal justice death away from Conservative Nightmare Permanent Rule 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yes, because we are a Kennedy retirement or one liberal justice death away from Conservative Nightmare Permanent Rule 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:never knew that the cake boss (cakeboss!) was a homophobe. http://www.thedailybeast.com/cake-boss-transgender-disaster there's a reason that rear end in a top hat isn't hosting bakers vs fakers anymore. he's legitimately toxic as hell. don't watch cake boss.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Is this thread really going to turn into this level of poo poo posting?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
So It Goes posted:Is this thread really going to turn into this level of poo poo posting? I would hope that DnD can count correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
I too beg for the suppression of personal freedoms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Just openly fess up to your insistence that gay marriage and abortion are not human rights, Troons and Cocks. Be a loving man and own up to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:http://www.thedailybeast.com/cake-boss-transgender-disaster yikes i just meant that as a joke. had no idea it really happened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
So It Goes posted:Is this thread really going to turn into this level of poo poo posting? Just mirroring contemporary American political discourse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Just openly fess up to your insistence that gay marriage and abortion are not human rights, Troons and Cocks. Be a loving man and own up to it. There's no such thing as human rights. There are, however, some rights guaranteed by the constitution. Those two aren't among them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
LOL http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/06/28/gorsuch_s_first_anti_gay_dissent_has_a_huge_factual_error.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:Ehh, they have a bit of an argument in that being forced to cater an event that promotes speech you disagree with can be seen as forcing you to endorse that speech. -Compelling- a certain kind of speech is a little I look forward to Thomas's writings on this case, where he states that the cake shop was in the right and that actually, separate but equal was ok too and forced integration is a 1A violation. The ruling should be "when you're a public business serving the public you can't just break the law and use your religion as a shield" but the Conservative majority absolutely believes that should be possible as we saw with Hobby Lobby and the "lol actually, this ruling is really broad" bullshit stuff from it. esquilax posted:Do the bakers actually have any chance under the free exercise clause? The RFRA doesn't apply and I don't think the conservatives want to overturn Smith. Considering the right wing is aggressively pushing to make the US a (white) Christian theocracy you're being fairly optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 19:20
|
|
.
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:There's no such thing as human rights. There are, however, some rights guaranteed by the constitution. Those two aren't among them. So, it comes down to the fact that you are monstrously uneducated?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:There's no such thing as human rights. There are, however, some rights guaranteed by the constitution. Those two aren't among them. Just to be clear: The constitution itself says that it is not the arbiter of which rights exist, and that there exist numerous rights that are not enumerated in the constitution, and that those unnamed rights are guaranteed as well. So I mean, arguably, according to the constitution, they are. It's a pretty open ended guarantee. In the US, these additional rights are considered "human rights" and are still constitutionally protected (even if the modern Supreme Court is generally disinclined to argue that). I do know how much people like you actually despise that bit of the constitution though, and are happy with how much work has been over the years to tear it apart and neuter it. You are literally the sort of person the founders worried about when they wrote the bill of rights before being assured that no one could ever be that stupid especially since they specifically added an amendment to clarify the intent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
You are going to find that the sentiment "there's no such thing as human rights" will not garner you much support. I mean, sure, in a middle school playground sort of logic, I can state that I don't exist and that there's just a 48 year old pile of fat and water sitting in front of a computer right now. We're adults, however, and have moved past the kind of discussion that purposefully uses word play to weave around the common meaning of words. You're basically nuts if you actually *believe* in your core ideologies that human rights do not exist. Using that sentiment as a thought experiment or rhetorical tool is one thing, but it is quite another to respond to the challenge "Own up to the idea that you don't think abortion and gay marriage are human rights" with a sincere affirmative that is founded on the idea that human rights don't exist at all. Like, how do I convey to you how far outside the realm of sanity that phrase is? Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
I think that arguing with the guy who just trolls the thread and has about as much knowledge on the subject of the supreme court as trump does is probably not a good use of your time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Fine. It's really hard to ignore, though, when a significant fraction of the populace eats up what boils down to fishmech "But, actually" posting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:There's no such thing as human rights. There are, however, some rights guaranteed by the constitution. Those two aren't among them. The Goddamn Declaration of Independence posted:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. evilweasel posted:I think that arguing with the guy who just trolls the thread and has about as much knowledge on the subject of the supreme court as trump does is probably not a good use of your time. I keep forgetting which avatars I should ignore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
The Declaration of Independence carries no legal weight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The Declaration of Independence carries no legal weight. --Guy whose Twitter profile talks about American values Somewhere, deep in GBS, a Goon is probably pointing out, "But, actually, the Declaration of Independence indeed carries no legal weight, so human rights don't exist" without a shred of shame about the kind of mental gymnastics needed to maintain consistency his or her ideological frameworks. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The Declaration of Independence carries no legal weight. Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fé Railway Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150, 159-60 (1897) posted:The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law . . . it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:There's no such thing as human rights. There are, however, some rights guaranteed by the constitution. Those two aren't among them. You are the worst kind of American. Even if your country slides into a cyberpunk libertarian hellhole, and all the megacorps collude to ensure that no other political groups have access to mass communication, you'll still be telling us how freedom of speech has not been reduced because the first amendment only restricts the government and "hey, those private businesses have every legal right to determine what sort of communication happens on their platform." Freedom of speech is a human right. Your first amendment is intended to protect that human right. That is why your founders wrote it! This is also why much of the world hates your country, by the way. You have no problem going into a foreign land and violating the human rights of people there, often in contravention of local laws, but assholes like you say "well we never made a law here in America saying that we can't do that to you. Therefore it is legal and good."
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The Declaration of Independence carries no legal weight. Especially if you're not a white dude
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
well that's a neat quote to reverse-fishmech someone fishmeching over the declaration of independence 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Just to be clear: The constitution itself says that it is not the arbiter of which rights exist, and that there exist numerous rights that are not enumerated in the constitution, and that those unnamed rights are guaranteed as well. I was gonna post and then you did it better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
can't believe it only took one case for gorsuch to be even worse than i thought he'd be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
No you guys don't understand the Ninth amendment is just one of those parts of the constitution that doesn't mean or do anything. Just like "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
I agree with n10 c here. Rights are social and legal constructs, asserted as natural in a legal document. They don't exist outside of human desire to enforce them. This...isn't actually a particularly unusual position in legal or ethical theory. Strong/natural/absolute rights systems tend to be riddled with inconsistencies and logical regressions. This isn't a conservative position either. It's just not libertarian or (old-fashioned capital L) Liberal. It's just about every part of the ethics spectrum aside from the far end of the deontological end. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Jun 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I agree with n10 c here. Rights are social and legal constructs, asserted as natural in a legal document. They don't exist outside of human desire to enforce them. This...isn't actually a particularly unusual position in legal or ethical theory. Strong/natural/absolute rights systems tend to be riddled with inconsistencies and logical regressions. Yes but there's a bit of a leap from being a legal positivist to concluding that the U.S. constitution specifically does not protect, for example, gay marriage. But n10 cocks is willing to make that leap without actual knowledge or argument just on the basis of "golly it doesn't say anything about gay marriage in the constitution!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
You cant agree that they exist (obviously their existence is bound by human recognition, the same as nations and corporations and religions and they dont exist outside that recognition, we arent stupid, but i doubt anyone is going to say those things dont exist either) For that matter the rights defined in the constitution are no different so his statement that THOSE are real sort of belies your defense matching his intent, no?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I agree with n10 c here. Rights are social and legal constructs, asserted as natural in a legal document. They don't exist outside of human desire to enforce them. This...isn't actually a particularly unusual position in legal or ethical theory. Strong/natural/absolute rights systems tend to be riddled with inconsistencies and logical regressions. Nothing exists but your own thought patterns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
ulmont posted:I keep forgetting which avatars I should ignore. You could always report them and hope the mods ban them for being worthless garbage. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 01:12
|
|