U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

Yeah but, she didn't die before gays got to marry each other, for instance

Same-sex marriage didn’t provide the equal rights that are desperately needed. That should have been the real objective, and now people are fucked. What’s the victory in being able to get married when shithole flyover states can still fire you for your sexuality or gender identity?

I don’t understand Americans’ obsessions with marriage, anyway. No one does it anymore in Canada or the U.K., as common law protections are more than adequate.

They aren't here, at least, not in all states.

I know. That’s crazy to me as well. In California, I registered for a domestic partnership with my opposite-sex partner. Anything to bypass that institution

Always liked this quote from the late Jane Rule:

"To be forced back into the heterosexual cage of coupledom is not a step forward but a step back into state-imposed definitions of relationship. With all that we have learned, we should be helping our heterosexual brothers and sisters out of their state-defined prisons, not volunteering to join them there.”

What’s the victory in being able to get married when shithole flyover states can still fire you for your sexuality or gender identity?

this isn't true.

I missed in the shuffle that the post office worker Sundays case was unanimous

I don’t understand Americans’ obsessions with marriage, anyway. No one does it anymore in Canada or the U.K., as common law protections are more than adequate.

― beamish13, Thursday, June 29, 2023 12:15 PM (fourteen minutes ago)

not to derail, but this isn't true in Quebec — unless you have children, you are not entitled to anything your name isn't on in a common-law separation

Xxxpost Agree with that being the ultimate goal, but there's the pesky part about US and state governments conferring rights to married couples that weren't afforded to domestic partners (including not having to pay imputed income tax for medical/dental benefits).

Some health plans also wouldn't cover domestic partnerships. Or only opposite sex DPs.

So until that barrier is removed, this institution will continue to thrive in the US

Not to mention to be considered a domestic partner in terms of benefit eligibility, your relationship had to be at least 18 months old

I read that quote was from Ja Rule at first

Not to mention to be considered a domestic partner in terms of benefit eligibility, your relationship had to be at least 18 months old

Reveal Your Uncool Conservative Beliefs Here

Well! This thread got derailed.

Biden's contingency plan is totally going to be "showing disappointment" isn't it

Same-sex marriage didn’t provide the equal rights that are desperately needed. That should have been the real objective, and now people are fucked. What’s the victory in being able to get married when shithole flyover states can still fire you for your sexuality or gender identity?

I don’t understand Americans’ obsessions with marriage, anyway. No one does it anymore in Canada or the U.K., as common law protections are more than adequate.

Your first paragraph is inaccurate. Plus, if you want to get married, do it! It's a right.

In a highly unusual move, Justice Clarence Thomas read a concurring opinion from the bench. He said he felt compelled to do so because of “race-based discrimination against Asian-American students,” which he likened to discriminatory practices that Asian immigrants in the West and Black students in the South faced during the 20th century. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to tense up at times while he spoke.

she's totally going to smack him soon

student loan decision coming 5pm on friday huh

as is the awful anti-gay 303 Creative case I guess, about a Colorado website designer who won't accept wedding website designs for gay clients.

Except that Lorrie Smith hasn't actually yet designed a wedding website, for anyone at all, and has not yet been asked to design one by any gay couple. It has been fabricated by the SPLC-designated anti-gay hate group Alliance Defending Freedom with her cooperation, to present her as the victim

so it's not based on an actual request for service? What?!

The true origin story of 303 Creative is much less sympathetic than the lawyer-crafted narrative. Before this litigation, Lorie Smith appeared to be a normal website designer who advertised her services to all potential customers. In 2016, after ADF took her on as a client, she rebranded as a conservative Christian who channeled her faith in God through her work. Indeed, her revamped website included language seemingly finessed to transform her into a First Amendment test case, explaining that her “expressive content … communicates ideas or messages.”

Also worth noting:  No same-sex couple has ever asked Smith to make them a wedding website; in fact, she has never made a wedding website for anyone. Her work to date focuses on local politicians, dog breeders, contractors, and houses of worship—not celebrations of life events. Nonetheless, ADF sued Colorado on Smith’s behalf in 2016, challenging a state law that bars anti-gay discrimination in public accommodations.

Smith one day might be asked to make a same-sex couple’s website, ADF asserted. And when that day comes, she wants the right to say no.

at oral arguments “A lot of these questions ran into the fundamental problem with this case: There is no live controversy, and therefore no facts against which the justices could test their legal theories. It would be supremely helpful to know, for instance, how Smith would have responded to a request from a same-sex couple. There is a legal difference between saying no “because you’re gay” (which discriminates on the basis of identity) and saying no “because you’re celebrating a gay wedding” (which, according to ADF, is discrimination on the basis of message). But because the central clash in 303 Creative is purely speculative, no such facts exist.

The conservative justices indulged in increasingly outlandish hypotheticals that drew them further and further from the case at hand, and closer and closer to Alito’s incomprehensible KKK example.”

-from a Joseph Stern article 12/5/22

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/303-creative-gay-rights-free-speech-supreme-court.html

also, there is an interesting article in The New Republic about the case from today, calling her out on her naming speculative clients, who had nothing to do with her

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

Their absence of victims left space for ADF to paint Smith as an underdog, a fighter — the hero of the story. "The Supreme Court can adopt that narrative and depict its decision as a triumph for constitutional rights without the sorrowful objections from the actual victims, since there are none."

I though this was a really perceptive and valid take on AA from a Black individual on the left. Gift article.

This is what I have been re-reading from yesterday-- the Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent in affirmative action case is eloquently phrased and takes on Clarence Thomas directly

It must be; the Twitter blue check brigade have spent the last day circling wagons against her

ruled in favor of the bigot "web designer"

pathetic country

They've gone and saved the worst for last

My religion tells me these people suck.

The Supreme Court on Friday sided with a web designer in Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages despite a state law that forbids discrimination against gay people.

In a 6 to 3 vote, split along ideological lines, the court held that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion.

The case, though framed as clash between free speech and gay rights, was the latest in a series of decisions in favor of religious people and groups, notably conservative Christians.

The decision also appeared to suggest that the rights of L.G.B.T.Q. people, including to same-sex marriage, are on more vulnerable legal footing, particularly when they are at odds with claims of religious freedom. At the same time, the ruling limited the ability of the governments to enforce anti-discrimination laws.

The designer, Lorie Smith, said her Christian faith requires her to turn away customers seeking wedding-related services to celebrate same-sex unions. She added that she intends to post a message saying the company’s policy is a product of her religious convictions.

Helluva an end to pride month. Fuck this absolute burning trash pile of a country.

Preemptively fuck Biden and the Dems for the forthcoming round of head shaking and being “concerned” while not lifting a fucking finger to fight back against the creeping fascism.

what would you like done?

I'm the gay guy in Florida. What would you have us do?

The Supreme Court's third and final decision is the second student debt case. The majority finds that Missouri has standing and STRIKES DOWN Biden's student debt relief program. It is 6–3. https://t.co/TK3eTzQgiE

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 30, 2023

Fair, I don’t have the easy answer. I know it was a long shot anyway, but for one thing Biden could have not just shot down the very idea of expanding the court from the start.

I just want more out of my elected representatives than just concerned tweets.

Lots of very bad things this 6-3 majority has done, (Dobbs being, imho, the worst), but them deciding you are now $10,000 poorer than you were yesterday is really a helluva thing.

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) June 30, 2023

so cool of the supreme court to stick up for the disenfranchised. in this case, white bigots.

Fair, I don’t have the easy answer. I know it was a long shot anyway, but for one thing Biden could have not just shot down the very idea of expanding the court from the start.

I just want more out of my elected representatives than just concerned tweets.

― Maxmillion D. Boosted (jon /via/ chi 2.0),

Biden took executive action and the Sinister Six slapped him across the face. If you wanna blame anyone, blame Ruth Bader Ginsberg for not retiring in 2013.

all just in time to catch a friend's private jet out of town for the weekend.

blame Ruth Bader Ginsberg for not retiring in 2013

Why stop there? Blame everyone older than, well, me personally

BYRON couldn't have said so graciously.

Ruth's legacy is in shambles

xp Bill's 32. He looks 32. He looked it five years ago, he'll look it 20 years from now. I hate men.

"The Supreme Court's decision today means that no one who qualified for relief under Biden's plan will have even a penny of their student debt cancelled. The majority has blocked about $430 billion in debt relief for roughly 40 million Americans"

Do I have this right? In the span of 2 days SCOTUS said that businesses can refuse service to protected minorities, but also businesses have to give their Christian employees Sundays off or whatever other religious demands they make?

From a quick scan of the decision this might be true:

In my understanding the Court's ruling refers to Biden's action under the HEROES Act 2003. He has the legal authority to modify or waive student debt through other means.

— Richard M. Nixon (@dick_nixon) June 30, 2023