3 ms·

This really is not that anyway and it is disingenuous that it keeps being argued that way. It is ridiculous that the person is claiming their 1st Amendment righ

by Kina 5y ago

This really is not that anyway and it is disingenuous that it keeps being argued that way. It is ridiculous that the person is claiming their 1st Amendment rights as an artist are being impinged on. This person is representing themselves as a business. As a business, you cannot discriminate against certain classes. What you do in your own home is your business; what you do when trying to make money off it, is another. Attempting to make these the same is an attack on civil rights. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), Rolon v. Kulwitzky, 200 Cal. Rptr. 217.

torstenvl 5y ago
Yes. It really is that. It is a question presented in the petition. It is the question on which certiorari was granted. It is the question that will be briefed. It is the question that will be decided by the court. And it is one of the most important questions facing society right now. You, personally, may be uninterested in that question, as it seems you are. But that is indisputably the question, and it's inappropriate to suggest others are being disingenuous. "Assume good faith." And, for the record, the question of compelled speech is a vital one. Can you be forced to answer detailed questions about race and ethnicity and family structure on the census (I'll note that there hasn't been a prosecution for failure to answer the census since before compelled speech became a hot topic in constitutional law)? Can you be forced to say "one nation under God" or the Pledge of Allegiance at all? Can the government force you to stand and sing along with the national anthem? Can the government force you to write a back door into your software? Can the government force you to denounce a political view you hold, or force you to promote a political view you oppose? Can it force you to talk to a counselor who "isn't an investigator" but will turn over your conversation to law enforcement? I appreciate that you appear to be a strong advocate for people like me. But you can't protect civil rights by trampling on them. Once we start down the path of denigrating individual freedom based on the majority's moral judgment, it's only a matter of time before minorities like us are trampled upon. Widespread acceptance of gay marriage is great, but ensuring individual freedom - like my freedom to date, fall in love, and marry - remains the bedrock of our nation is far far more important.
dahfizz 5y ago
If it was such a cut and dry, disingenuous case then the supreme court would not have agreed to hear it. It wouldn't have even made it to the supreme court if it was plainly rehashing old cases. There may be nuance here that you're not letting yourself see.
- Kina 5y ago
  > If it was such a cut and dry, disingenuous case then the supreme court would not have agreed to hear it. I don't understand this comment? Nothing in the law is fixed. I just find this current angle of attack really disheartening and insincere, but the law is about making a persuasive case to the appropriate audience, at the appropriate time. The Court hears lots of things that I'd argue it has no business in hearing, but that is its prerogative and what it chooses to hear depends on the the makeup of the Court at the time the case is presented. This case is a vehicle for the Alliance Defending Freedom to use to further their goals because they believe the Court will rule in a way that is sympathetic to their cause. This is not an opinion. This is a fact. I'm not judging them for doing that, it's the nature of the game. The legal argument they're making for it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. > It wouldn't have even made it to the supreme court if it was plainly rehashing old cases. The SCOTUS is 9 people in a conference room deciding what cases to hear. Of course, it's not _that_ simplistic, but there isn't some state machine here that determines ripeness, mootness, etc. Everyone in the court ascribes to a different jurisprudence (e.g. not everyone in the Court believes in stare decisis, not everyone cares for originalism, etc) and everyone has different motivations. Cases are selected in the pursuit of those goals by whatever happens to be the majority. I personally dislike the increasing use of the Court to answer what are ultimately political questions. It erodes the legitimacy of the Court and causes it to inherently appear more partisan as it takes on divisive cases.

by Kina 5y ago

torstenvl 5y ago

Yes. It really is that. It is a question presented in the petition. It is the question on which certiorari was granted. It is the question that will be briefed. It is the question that will be decided by the court. And it is one of the most important questions facing society right now. You, personally, may be uninterested in that question, as it seems you are. But that is indisputably the question, and it's inappropriate to suggest others are being disingenuous. "Assume good faith." And, for the record, the question of compelled speech is a vital one. Can you be forced to answer detailed questions about race and ethnicity and family structure on the census (I'll note that there hasn't been a prosecution for failure to answer the census since before compelled speech became a hot topic in constitutional law)? Can you be forced to say "one nation under God" or the Pledge of Allegiance at all? Can the government force you to stand and sing along with the national anthem? Can the government force you to write a back door into your software? Can the government force you to denounce a political view you hold, or force you to promote a political view you oppose? Can it force you to talk to a counselor who "isn't an investigator" but will turn over your conversation to law enforcement? I appreciate that you appear to be a strong advocate for people like me. But you can't protect civil rights by trampling on them. Once we start down the path of denigrating individual freedom based on the majority's moral judgment, it's only a matter of time before minorities like us are trampled upon. Widespread acceptance of gay marriage is great, but ensuring individual freedom - like my freedom to date, fall in love, and marry - remains the bedrock of our nation is far far more important.

dahfizz 5y ago

If it was such a cut and dry, disingenuous case then the supreme court would not have agreed to hear it. It wouldn't have even made it to the supreme court if it was plainly rehashing old cases. There may be nuance here that you're not letting yourself see.

Kina 5y ago
> If it was such a cut and dry, disingenuous case then the supreme court would not have agreed to hear it. I don't understand this comment? Nothing in the law is fixed. I just find this current angle of attack really disheartening and insincere, but the law is about making a persuasive case to the appropriate audience, at the appropriate time. The Court hears lots of things that I'd argue it has no business in hearing, but that is its prerogative and what it chooses to hear depends on the the makeup of the Court at the time the case is presented. This case is a vehicle for the Alliance Defending Freedom to use to further their goals because they believe the Court will rule in a way that is sympathetic to their cause. This is not an opinion. This is a fact. I'm not judging them for doing that, it's the nature of the game. The legal argument they're making for it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. > It wouldn't have even made it to the supreme court if it was plainly rehashing old cases. The SCOTUS is 9 people in a conference room deciding what cases to hear. Of course, it's not _that_ simplistic, but there isn't some state machine here that determines ripeness, mootness, etc. Everyone in the court ascribes to a different jurisprudence (e.g. not everyone in the Court believes in stare decisis, not everyone cares for originalism, etc) and everyone has different motivations. Cases are selected in the pursuit of those goals by whatever happens to be the majority. I personally dislike the increasing use of the Court to answer what are ultimately political questions. It erodes the legitimacy of the Court and causes it to inherently appear more partisan as it takes on divisive cases.