Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Designer Who Doesn't Want To Make Wedding Websites For Gay Couples, Affirmative Action, & Student Loan Forgiveness

[TTL News 319]

Quote

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples. 

The court ruled 6-3 for designer Lorie Smith despite a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender and other characteristics. Smith had argued that the law violates her free speech rights.

Smith’s opponents warned that a win for her would allow a range of businesses to discriminate, refusing to serve Black, Jewish or Muslim customers, interracial or interfaith couples or immigrants. But Smith and her supporters had said that a ruling against her would force artists — from painters and photographers to writers and musicians — to do work that is against their beliefs.

 

Read the rest here.

[Ann 273]

I do not have a problem with this decision.   I don’t like horror movies so does that mean I have the right to demand that those movies not be shown?  Of course not, I simply change the channel or don’t pay to watch those movies at the theater.
 For me, Capitalism means the buyer decides where and how they’ll spend their money.  If a business refuses you service for whatever reason that is their right.  Take your dollars elsewhere.  

[KarenK 384]

25 minutes ago, Ann said:

I do not have a problem with this decision.   I don’t like horror movies so does that mean I have the right to demand that those movies not be shown?  Of course not, I simply change the channel or don’t pay to watch those movies at the theater.
 For me, Capitalism means the buyer decides where and how they’ll spend their money.  If a business refuses you service for whatever reason that is their right.  Take your dollars elsewhere.  

Kind of on the same page as Ann on this one. There are so many options out there.  I have to wonder if the owner had made his feelings known but begrudgingly agreed to do it, if they would have even pursued it further from him at the time.  I wouldn't have.

[Chris 2,238]

If I read this correctly, the lady hadn’t even taken any clients yet. She was a startup and immediately wanted to make it known she wouldn’t be doing websites for same sex couples. 

Im fine with it. After all, what if an atheist didn’t want to make a website for a church? 

[MsKreed 1,204]

Agreed.

Just as I agreed when the wedding cake baker won his case years ago, and frankly didn’t understand why SCOTUS declined to hear the florist case a few years late (that was essentially the same premise).

A private individual or business shouldn’t be compelled to support anything they disagree with, and free to their own expression and only offer products/merchandise that align with their beliefs.  A Christian owned magazine stand should not be required to sell girly magazines, and I wouldn’t expect a Muslim or Jewish restaurateur to be forced to serve pork.

This is very different than a government representative, like the county clerk refusing to issue a marriage license as part of their sworn duties.

[KarenK 384]

1 hour ago, MsKreed said:

and I wouldn’t expect a Muslim or Jewish restaurateur to be forced to serve pork.

 

Speaking of this, did you see this about the celeb chef who just kicked the vegans out because they were demanding special food and gave his high end restaurant bad reviews for not accommodating them?  Celebrity chef John Mountain bans vegans from Fyre restaurant ‘for mental health reasons’ | The Independent

Same premise applies I think.  Lets head on over to a vegan restaurant and demand steak.

Most of the social media noise is in his favor.

[Adam 380]

if i read the story on this case correctly, there seems to be issue with the "complainant"

specifically that he is married (to a woman) and never actually requested services from this business in the first place link here: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/supreme-court-lgbtq-document-veracity-colorado

so this guy wasnt affected, wasnt discriminated against, didnt even KNOW about the case at hand and yet its gone all the way to SCOTUS? 

Quote

".....refuse to serve members of a protected class."          Sotomayor added, "By issuing this new license to discriminate in a case brought by a company that seeks to deny same-sex couples the full and equal enjoyment of its services, the immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status."

i would think that the existence of a protected class of Citizen is, in itself, government-sanctioned discrimination. further in my mind it is not really different than no shirt, no shoes no service....the owner is free to serve/not serve who they wish, they are also free( as many Leftists have themselves claimed) to deal with the consequences. in this case, loss of business, it also opens potential for an entrepreneur to create a like-business that caters to those who have been turned away.

[TTL News 319]

In addition to the above case, the Supreme Court also ruled on other issues:

Quote

 

On voting rights, for example, the justices rejected a Republican-led effort to weaken a landmark voting rights law. Instead, they ruled in favor of Black voters in Alabama in a congressional redistricting case. The state, where more than one in four voters is Black, will now have to redraw its congressional districts in a way that gives Black voters more power. The decision was 5-4 with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the court’s three liberals

On affirmative action, they achieved a long-desired victory. While the court had narrowly upheld race-conscious college admissions programs in the past 20 years, including as recently as 2016, a conservative wing of the court strengthened by three appointees of former President Donald Trump struck down the practice 6-3.

Separately, while the justices just last year overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to ban abortion, the court in April rejected a conservative-led effort to get a drug used in the most common method of abortion pulled from the market. The justices allowed the drug, mifepristone, to stay on the market for now while a lawsuit proceeds.

On student loans, the court split 6-3 along ideological lines to kill a signature Biden administration program.

 

Source

[Ann 273]

I agree with the Court over turning Biden’s student loan debt forgiveness.  When asked about the Court’s Decision, Biden stated he believed the Supreme Court “misinterpreted the Constitution”.  
No, you overreached the powers of your office, used the promise of loan forgiveness as a means to harvest votes from young voters knowing it would be challenged and never come to fruition.
Just my opinion of course.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Ann
word correction

[KarenK 384]

29 minutes ago, Ann said:

I agree with the Court over turning Biden’s student loan debt forgiveness.  When asked about the Court’s Decision, Biden stated he believed the Supreme Court “misinterpreted the Constitution”.  
No, you overreached the powers of your office, used the promise of loan forgiveness as a means to harvest votes from young voters knowing it would be challenged and never come to fruition.
Just my opinion of course.

Yep.  Never thought for a minute that would pass.  It would have been to my advantage had it. 

I graduated in 2009 at 47 years old and I am still paying off a student loan.  I was smart enough to continue to make the same monthly payment for the last 3+yrs so it was all applied straight to my balance with no interest and knocked it down about $7K.

[MsKreed 1,204]

31 minutes ago, Elmira Telegram said:

In addition to the above case, the Supreme Court also ruled on other issues:

Source

Very happy about the Student Loan decision.

From the time it was proposed everyone knew it's not within POTUS power. 

I really don't understand why we seldom (never) heard the side against Biden's plan point out that, for anyone willing to work for 10 years in public service (in any capacity, whether related to their college studies or not) can already have their Student Loans forgiven. 

So Biden's proposal was only going to apply to students who make a choice to work in the private for-profit sector. 

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) was passed in 2007 through the legal process of Congressional legislation. 

 

 

 

Also......They also handed down a unanimous ruling last month that local governments cannot retain the equity beyond what is owed when property is seized and sold at auction:

Quote

In 2016, a Minnesota county sold 94-year-old Geraldine Tyler’s condo at auction after she failed to pay her property taxes for several years. The sale yielded $40,000; Hennepin County kept not only the $15,000 in taxes, penalties, and costs that Tyler owed it, but also the $25,000 that was left over. The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the county’s actions violated the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause, which bars the government from taking private property for public use without adequately compensating the property owner.

More HERE

[Chris 2,238]

On 7/1/2023 at 8:59 AM, MsKreed said:

Very happy about the Student Loan decision.

Yeah this was BS from the word go, and nothing more than an empty campaign promise. I've helped make student loan payments since I got married and now we have sons taking out loans. Never did it cross my mind that we or they shouldn't have to pay them back. And all I can think of is, what would have been next? Suddenly we'll start paying off mortgages for people? 

Bull. You signed the line, you know what you were getting into. And if you didn't, hopefully college smartened you up in more ways than one. 

[Adam 380]

what an idea it would be to make education more affordable!?

mmm perhaps stop having ONE company be the main supplier of textbooks throughout the Nation?

Pipe-dreaming here but quit feeding the Union machines, it has been shown time and again that more money does NOT equate to better results. 2022 NYS spent just shy of 30k/pupil yet has middling results for student outcomes...so where is the money going?

[Ann 273]

So now AOC wants to start impeaching Supreme Court Justices and other Dems are talking about stacking the Court. 

[Chris 2,238]

She's a complete moron. I pay very little attention to her.

[Adam 380]

11 hours ago, Chris said:

She's a complete moron. I pay very little attention to her.

anymore, its often the loudest voice in the room, not the smartest, that eventually gets their way

[Chris 2,238]

Then who is more stupid, the loud one or the rest who let them have their way?