|
Main Paineframe posted:No, you can't kick LGBT folks out of your barber shop, but you can refuse to shave "I ♥ GAY MARRIAGE" into someone's head. Do you have to show any sort of consistency? If someone later films you shaving "Hail Satan" into someones head and not giving a poo poo can you still claim the "BuT mY ReLiGiOn!" exemption?
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 02:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
IT BURNS posted:I think it's also possible to do a 30-year payback for balances after a certain point. She probably has at least a loan to the specific institution and a federal loan if she's talking about multiple balances. The whole system is incredibly rapacious and predatory. Federal loans are typically issued each financial aid year and sometimes even every quarter/semester depending on how they do disbursements. Then you have different types of fed loans like subsidized and unsubsidized... grad plus etc that all show up as their own individual balances.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 02:18
|
|
|
Yeah the Dems are only interested in conducting business. The Republicans want chaos, madness, and to tear down everything and make everything worse. Progressives want to rule and have the ideas and policy but welp the people don't vote for them enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 02:18
|
|
|
banned from Starbucks posted:Do you have to show any sort of consistency? If someone later films you shaving "Hail Satan" into someones head and not giving a poo poo can you still claim the "BuT mY ReLiGiOn!" exemption? Trying to poke holes in the "bona fide religious belief" is a fools errand, since they really do actually hate gays as part of their religion
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 02:23
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Ok, so time to pump out all sorts of campaign ads in 2024 that say "ok, you want student loan debt relief? Better get your rear end to the polls and vote democrat." They just need to cross the last 0 off of 2020 and pencil in a 4 beside it. Easy peasy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 03:07
|
|
|
RPATDO_LAMD posted:Trying to poke holes in the "bona fide religious belief" is a fools errand, since they really do actually hate gays as part of their religion There's no hate quite like (evangelical) Christian love.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 03:43
|
|
|
DeathMuffin posted:Or let's pick a related and more likely example - what is the difference between this ruling and a stylist refusing to cut a trans woman's hair in a style that they consider too "feminine" Another problem is if you're just a feminine cis man who wants mermaid beach waves, and the barber tells you they don't serve transfolk, there's very little you can do to prove you are a feminine cis man and not a transwoman. This seems like this opens the door to trans witch hunts that are gonna hurt way more cis people (especially cis queer ppl) than trans ones, a la the 9-Year-Old Girl With Short Hair Left Sobbing After Being Attacked for Being Trans. I'm furious and terrified at the same time. I ALREADY moved once two years ago just to get to a more LGBT friendly area. And it's not getting better. XboxPants fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Jul 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 05:38
|
|
|
Curious what folks think: Would things be better or worse if folks had to openly state what their religion prevents them from doing. Just sort "Welcome to 303 creative, FYI I don't do sites for gay people because I'm Christian" Its helpful for bigots to openly declare themselves, but it also may get depressing, especially in red states. Like having people just hang up Nazi flags all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 16:21
|
|
|
I bet you can't fire an employee who won't build a website for a gay couple even if you, yourself as the owner, want to provide it to the couple.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 16:39
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:Curious what folks think: Would things be better or worse if folks had to openly state what their religion prevents them from doing. Just sort "Welcome to 303 creative, FYI I don't do sites for gay people because I'm Christian" Your hypothetical is just describing how America actually worked, with regards to race relations, before the civil rights act.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I bet you can't fire an employee who won't build a website for a gay couple even if you, yourself as the owner, want to provide it to the couple. That would be a weird discussion. They would claim first amendment protection but would say that they refuse to do the job which is why you are firing them, not their religion. We all know that this court would be willing to side with the employee but I think it could go either way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 17:30
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:That would be a weird discussion. They would claim first amendment protection but would say that they refuse to do the job which is why you are firing them, not their religion. Easy. Are they a Christian? They would side with them. Anyone else? Lol, lmfao
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/opinion/editorials/supreme-court-affirmative-action-decision.html NYT had an article from the entire editorial board on SCOTUS' decsion on AA... it mentions whites and blacks a lot... and mentions asians (the plaintiffs in the case) a grand total of 0 times. LMAO. How is that even possible to do without being incredibly intellectually dishonest? Liberals have this weird thing where they refuse to even mention Asians when it comes to AA. The amount of times i've heard about how this decision is a victory for 'white supremacy' and 'whites stand to benefit the most' on twitter is bonkers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Easy. Are they a Christian? They would side with them. Anyone else? Lol, lmfao This is how I feel about Harvard not caring about diversity. I'm clearly ignorant about the legal process, but the racist/pro white male Christian slant that ivy leagues and courts share made this feel like a charade to me and most people I know. Knowing now how completely wrong I was - was this ruling justified and evidence based?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 20:33
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I bet you can't fire an employee who won't build a website for a gay couple even if you, yourself as the owner, want to provide it to the couple. If you have a reasonable way to build that website without involving that employee, then the Civil Rights Act would require you to do that, under the very same religious accommodation rules that routinely protect the rights of non-Christians. Outside of that, there's no law protecting what you're describing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
How is Missouri harmed by the forgiveness of federal student loans, in a way that is different from loans being paid off? If MOHELA is merely a servicer on these, as a nonprofit their costs decreasing shouldn't be considered an injury, but then obviously I'm misunderstanding something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 04:55
|
|
|
You aren't. That is why these shouldn't have been cases in the first place. They only got up to SCOTUS, and one of them won, because the 6 Republican judges wanted Biden to lose no matter how stupid the theory or inadequate the legal reasoning
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 05:15
|
|
|
Yeah, this is judicial Calvinball. They made the decision based on their desired outcome, and rationalized it after. It's a fig leaf justification, the quality of the argument in the decision isn't relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 05:18
|
|
|
AvesPKS posted:How is Missouri harmed by the forgiveness of federal student loans, in a way that is different from loans being paid off? If MOHELA is merely a servicer on these, as a nonprofit their costs decreasing shouldn't be considered an injury, but then obviously I'm misunderstanding something. What you're misunderstanding is that the SCOTUS will do what it wants, when it wants, and nobody's going to stop them. Suing on behalf of MOHELA without their involvement in and of itself should've resulted in the case being tossed but conservatives have spent decades ensuring conservative judges work towards a desired goal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 05:41
|
|
|
AvesPKS posted:How is Missouri harmed by the forgiveness of federal student loans, in a way that is different from loans being paid off? If MOHELA is merely a servicer on these, as a nonprofit their costs decreasing shouldn't be considered an injury, but then obviously I'm misunderstanding something. Servicers are paid a fixed amount per loan so paying off a bunch of loans early isn't different than someone paying it off themselves except that millions wouldn't have done so at once like what would have happened with forgiveness. So it is a financial hit to them that wouldn't have existed outside the order.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 06:52
|
|
|
AvesPKS posted:How is Missouri harmed by the forgiveness of federal student loans, in a way that is different from loans being paid off? If MOHELA is merely a servicer on these, as a nonprofit their costs decreasing shouldn't be considered an injury, but then obviously I'm misunderstanding something. MOHELA is paid by the federal government to service those loans, with enough of a profit that Missouri can apparently take the excess money and spend it on other things. If the number of loans decreases significantly, then those payments decrease, and that loss of revenue is what established standing for MOHELA. The only hard part is extending that standing from MOHELA to Missouri, but past precedent is unclear there. As the dissent pointed out, the courts have regularly held that "A plaintiff ... cannot rest its claim to judicial relief on the 'legal rights and interests' of third parties". On the other hand, the majority was able to cite a couple of cases in which quasi-independent government-created corporations were treated by the courts as functional extensions of the state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 06:59
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:MOHELA is paid by the federal government to service those loans, with enough of a profit that Missouri can apparently take the excess money and spend it on other things. If the number of loans decreases significantly, then those payments decrease, and that loss of revenue is what established standing for MOHELA. Trying to determine the logic behind them determining standing is a bit like augury at this point. The law says what they want it to say for their current purpose. It might not tomorrow. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 07:49
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:Curious what folks think: Would things be better or worse if folks had to openly state what their religion prevents them from doing. Just sort "Welcome to 303 creative, FYI I don't do sites for gay people because I'm Christian" It should require a Papal decree listing exactly what the church officially declares "against the religion" Without a note from Francis you gotta make that gay cake buddy
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 08:15
|
|
|
In oral arguments ACB asked why MOHELA wanted nothing to do with this suit and the lawyer hemmed and hawed, and when she tried to nail him down and ask why MOHELA wasn’t made to be a part of this, he replied that it was “a matter of state politics” It’s at 2:25 https://youtu.be/aNkfq3PUHVE
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 11:54
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:Yeah, this is judicial Calvinball. They made the decision based on their desired outcome, and rationalized it after. And in Robert's case, whine about being called out on it. In an official ruling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 13:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:MOHELA is paid by the federal government to service those loans, with enough of a profit that Missouri can apparently take the excess money and spend it on other things. If the number of loans decreases significantly, then those payments decrease, and that loss of revenue is what established standing for MOHELA. Those fictions are what SCOTUS majority used to establish standing (active voice), after the lower courts ruled there was no standing. In fact, MOHELA had not paid any money to Missouri's capital improvement fund for more than a decade, and MOHELA stood to *make* money under the Biden plan: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/missouris-student-loan-corporation-help-doom-bidens-debt-relief-plan-rcna72000
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 14:09
|
|
|
banned from Starbucks posted:It should require a Papal decree listing exactly what the church officially declares "against the religion" Without a note from Francis you gotta make that gay cake buddy Conservative Catholics in the US (and probably elsewhere) hate Francis and think he's undermining Catholicism. That these Catholics are a bunch of apostates wouldn't be a good argument about their garbage beliefs not being real and no SCOTUS in the history of the US is going to rule that only "official" religious dogma gets protection. Other branches of Christianity, Evangelism in particular, don't care what the Catholic Pope has to say about anything either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 14:33
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Another problem is if you're just a feminine cis man who wants mermaid beach waves, and the barber tells you they don't serve transfolk, there's very little you can do to prove you are a feminine cis man and not a transwoman. This seems like this opens the door to trans witch hunts that are gonna hurt way more cis people (especially cis queer ppl) than trans ones, a la the 9-Year-Old Girl With Short Hair Left Sobbing After Being Attacked for Being Trans. The ironic/bizarre dimension to stories like this is how the right loves to use the narrative of "when I was a kid, some girls were tomboyish or liked their hair short but they were still a girl," and now the tomboys are being labeled as sports-stealing trans kids groomed by sex-pest adults. At what point does someone look in the mirror and figure out they're the only one causing a commotion? Also, lol at their side of the story being "we weren't yelling AT the kid, we were just calling for a ref to confirm a nine-year-old's genitals out loud and in front of everyone, that's all, what's the big deal." Mister Fister posted:Since we're talking about SCOTUS' ruling on student loan forgiveness... Back when Jaime Harrison was challenging Lindsey Graham’s senate seat in South Carolina, I made a point of watching their debate to see how they actually speak to one another. Jaime brought up student loans and how he had been paying off a giant loan up through the present day, so he wanted to champion debt relief for others as well. Lindsey flipped the topic right on its head by pointing out that Jaime was a well-paid consultant before getting into politics and made over a million dollars, and that he could’ve paid his debt whenever he wanted. Jaime said that comment smacked of racism, but imo the damage was done: the debt was a tool for relating to The Common People and not an actually urgent call to arms from Someone Who Knows What It’s Like These Days. Pro tip: whenever someone in power/wealth complains about their student loans, what they’re not saying is, “The interest on my loan is low enough that I make way more profit staying invested than I lose to the loan.” I’m fine with student loan forgiveness, it’s just weird to me when someone making seven figures pretends they suffer as much from 5-6 figure debt as a GrubHub driver whose interest payments are biting into their ability to make rent. Mister Fister posted:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/opinion/editorials/supreme-court-affirmative-action-decision.html https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1674426520100814848 I’ve been seeing plenty on social media about this decision representing lack of solidarity among the races and how the POC label betrays the fact that black people seemingly have to toil in isolation for any gains while white supremacy builds model minority myths about everyone else… what about that chart, then? Is it poorly sourced, or do asian kids bust their butts for fewer/lesser opportunities? (Two things can be true at once, of course, but The Discourse doesn’t allow that.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
Space Fish posted:https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1674426520100814848 Those numbers don't mean too much without knowing the number of applicants. Looking at the Harvard posted class of 2026 demographics, 15% is African American, 12% is Hispanic or Latino, and 28% is Asian American. For reference, a Google search of US demographics from the census says 13% of the US population is Black or African American, 19% is Latino or Hispanic, and 7% is Asian Alone. There is 3% of the population listed as two or more races. So this may shock you but someone is being a bit intellectually dishonest on the Internet
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 16:39
|
|
|
Gotta free up those spots for more rich kids that get accepted no matter what. Oops I mean legacy students. Got to keep that legacy up of us being a school for rich kids only.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 16:43
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Gotta free up those spots for more rich kids that get accepted no matter what. Oops I mean legacy students. Got to keep that legacy up of us being a school for rich kids only. Ya there's a reason private schools like Harvard want to performatively use race in admissions rather than use family income.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:Trying to determine the logic behind them determining standing is a bit like augury at this point. The law says what they want it to say for their current purpose. It might not tomorrow. Or you could just read the decision, in which they explain in painstaking detail the exact legal reasoning they used to rule the way they did. Sometimes that legal reasoning may be flawed or inconsistent, but when someone asks a very specific question about how the majority arrived at the legal conclusion they did, we can cite (and then criticize) the exact legal reasoning they used.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:MOHELA is paid by the federal government to service those loans, with enough of a profit that Missouri can apparently take the excess money and spend it on other things. If the number of loans decreases significantly, then those payments decrease, and that loss of revenue is what established standing for MOHELA. Raldikuk posted:Servicers are paid a fixed amount per loan so paying off a bunch of loans early isn't different than someone paying it off themselves except that millions wouldn't have done so at once like what would have happened with forgiveness. So it is a financial hit to them that wouldn't have existed outside the order. What I concluded from their logic, is that loans exist for the benefit of the servicers (not the borrower, holder or original lender) and for no other apparent reason. Or, to me, that's the logic that their argument for standing turns on. How else could it make sense to ascribe injury as a result of no longer servicing a loan? In what other scenario would that hold true? Because they don't hold the loan, just service it. So, to me, any time a person pays off a loan early, aren't they depriving the servicer of revenue in exactly the same way? I just never realized that guaranteeing revenue was a thing that, not doing it is something an injury could be extracted from. If employees at company A with MOHELA loans get pay raises and those people start paying off their loans faster, could Missouri sue company A for depriving them of revenue? Could Missouri sue over the PSLF (not that they would win)? I can't see how that's any different. If MOHELA is a nonprofit, where's the hit? Shouldn't their staffing be dependent on volume of work anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
Space Fish posted:Back when Jaime Harrison was challenging Lindsey Graham’s senate seat in South Carolina, I made a point of watching their debate to see how they actually speak to one another. Jaime brought up student loans and how he had been paying off a giant loan up through the present day, so he wanted to champion debt relief for others as well. Lindsey flipped the topic right on its head by pointing out that Jaime was a well-paid consultant before getting into politics and made over a million dollars, and that he could’ve paid his debt whenever he wanted. Jaime said that comment smacked of racism, but imo the damage was done: the debt was a tool for relating to The Common People and not an actually urgent call to arms from Someone Who Knows What It’s Like These Days. Yup, a lot of people don't understand why rich folks might have a lot of debt: If your student loans are 4%, but say you invested all your money in a broad based index fund, say the S&P 500,, for example, the returns are like 7-10% over a long time horizon, it makes 0 sense for the wealthy person to pay off their loans. Hell, inflation alone can eat into those loans too. Hackan Slash posted:Those numbers don't mean too much without knowing the number of applicants. Looking at the Harvard posted class of 2026 demographics, 15% is African American, 12% is Hispanic or Latino, and 28% is Asian American. For reference, a Google search of US demographics from the census says 13% of the US population is Black or African American, 19% is Latino or Hispanic, and 7% is Asian Alone. There is 3% of the population listed as two or more races. Historically, Harvard (and other ivy league schools) capped Asian applicants at around 15% to less than 20% (Harvard was usually around 18%). After the original lawsuit which exposed how Harvard gave tips to students based on race (and you have to remember, Harvard VIGOROUSLY tried to hide this data from the courts), the asian admit rates started to go up because everyone knew Harvard's method of knee capping asian students in the admissions process. Harvard's current percentage of the last incoming class is 28%. https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics I would say that's a MASSIVE jump from how many asians harvard has historically admitted before. Hypothetically speaking, if Yale/Princeton/Dartmouth, etc. had to reveal their secret admissions criteria/statistics, you would almost certainly see their asian admit rates jump like Harvard's, due to closer scrutiny/future lawsuits. Also, we saw what happened in California after Cali banned affirmative action back in the late 90's: Asian enrollment at the UC's shot up astronomically while Black/Hispanic enrollment cratered. Cali got around this by admitting the top performers from different high schools, which helped hispanic enrollment go back up, but because there aren't as many black kids in california (and predominantly black schools), the black enrollment didn't recover. Even with this backdoor affirmative action, Asian enrollment is still way up at the UC's. The different admit rates and finger-on-the-scale shenanigans are absolutely because of the differing academic performances between asians vs... well everyone else (even whites) Mister Fister fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jul 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
AvesPKS posted:If employees at company A with MOHELA loans get pay raises and those people start paying off their loans faster, could Missouri sue company A for depriving them of revenue? They could probably establish standing to sue, in the sense that they could point to a clear and specific impact those actions had on their activities. Nothing unusual about that, really. In order to actually win a lawsuit, however, they would also need to establish a clear rationale for those actions being illegal or unconstitutional. Usually, it's a lot easier to show standing than it is to make a case for something being outright illegal. The student loan case was kinda topsy-turvy that way, in that the general legal consensus seemed to have been "this is a bit of a stretch and no one has any idea whether the courts will buy it, but it seems like it'd be really hard for anyone to establish standing to challenge it so we probably don't have to worry about that".
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 20:05
|
|
|
Space Fish posted:I’ve been seeing plenty on social media about this decision representing lack of solidarity among the races and how the POC label betrays the fact that black people seemingly have to toil in isolation for any gains while white supremacy builds model minority myths about everyone else… what about that chart, then? Is it poorly sourced, or do asian kids bust their butts for fewer/lesser opportunities? (Two things can be true at once, of course, but The Discourse doesn’t allow that.) Harvard being racist against asians was the entire reason the lawsuit was originally filed. It was all funded by a right wing anti-affirmative action group, who presumably figured decreasing racism against asians was a small price to pay as long as they could increase racism against african americans to balance it out. And they knew they couldn't fund a lawsuit on behalf of white students since the optics would be bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 22:39
|
|
|
RPATDO_LAMD posted:Harvard being racist against asians was the entire reason the lawsuit was originally filed. Yeah but like, why didn't the left just throw Harvard under the bus and say hey, Affirmative Action is great, but obviously that shouldn't include using personality tests and face-to-face interviews that are specifically calibrated to exclude Asian Americans. This didn't have to be a zero sum game, affirmative action towards black Americans doesn't demand discrimination against Asian Americans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 23:10
|
|
|
It's kinda refreshing for an affirmative action case to have actual victims, rather than aspirational failsons who are certain their whiteness is the real reason they couldn't get into UTexas or wherever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 23:35
|
|
|
RPATDO_LAMD posted:Harvard being racist against asians was the entire reason the lawsuit was originally filed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2023 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
Squinty posted:Yeah but like, why didn't the left just throw Harvard under the bus and say... How would this possibly happen? Not at a high level - but in discrete execution. There isn't a unified left. There isn't a "democrat" set of universities and schools. There isn't a leftist council of education. A trusted speaker. There's not even consensus on ideas. So who would be throwing Harvard under the bus here?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2023 00:08
|
|