False equivalence, he's not being forced to do anything.
Lady is a shit stain let's be clear but she is well within her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds. in fact her being honest about her bigotry is a good thing as it allows others to avoid her.
her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds
Usually true, except when it comes to discrimination against people of protected class for being under that protected class, which is why this ruling is so concerning.
The reality is that this sort of discrimination happens all the time under the guise of other rationale and is hard to stamp out (see: real estate redlining, gerrymandering, employment and rental discrimination, etc.), but theoretically a disenfranchised person with documentation can still seek recourse under the law.
This ruling (as well as the general apprehension around queer people living publicly) has laid the groundwork for christofascism to further underclass those (and other marginalized) communities and makes the violent rhetoric coming from "family values" white supremacist extremists more palatable to the public.
It is incredibly dangerous and further damages whatever remains of SCOTUS' credibility.
The first amendment is the thing you're missing with all of this. People can discriminate against gay people. But only if it takes away their first amendment. The courts ruled that art should not be forced. So they don't have to serve gay people. But if someone is selling a car, that has nothing to do with art.
It is not a protected class at the federal level. It is in many states.
However, part of the argument in favor of making same sex marriage a right, as ordered in Obergefell, so that no state can refuse to marry same sex couples, is that the only difference between an opposite sex couple and a same sex couple is the sex of one of the people. Hence, the discrimination is on the basis of sex, which is a protected class federally.
Why that same argument wouldn't apply to the more recent web designer case is beyond me.
Why that same argument wouldn’t apply to the more recent web designer case is beyond me.
Ahh, about that, well… welcome to the new Robert’s Court, where the facts are made up and the precedent doesn’t matter.
From courtroom to Congress, it seems these days conservatives only look at getting things their way, with consequences & the nation at large be damned. At times there’s startlingly little ideological consistency being proffered to justify their actions, and sometimes they even punish other conservatives to force getting their way (see recent rejection of a multitude of bills in Texas because the governor didn’t get his favored legislation through, for instance). I don’t see how this can be kept up long term… it’s like venture capitalism has infected the government and we’re working on burning out all the assets still.
Homophobes hate gay people because of their sex. Not them having sex, but that they are the same sex and Ina relationships ship.
Sex is a protected class in the US, so logically sexuality would be covered by any common sense reading of the law.
Also the SCOTUS decision is pure bullshit as any creative work I causing commercial business is creative work and the free speech justification is bullshit.
Sex is a protected class. There's no discrimination against gay or trans people that is not inherently discrimination based on sex. So no, it is absolutely a protected class.
Conservatives just allow their hatred of queer people to easily, easily, easily overcome their desire to appear to respect the law.
and being a lying pos doesnt give you standing. but here we are commenting on a case where someone lied to have standing and now rights are being eroded away.
They literally just said they think that's OK. You don't need to ask. This person thinks it's perfectly fine for a business to refuse service for any reason. They think it's fine to refuse service for nationality, race, gender, religion, disability, social caste, physical attractiveness, or whatever.
Which in the US us explicitly illegal as clearly outlined in civil rights legislation, but the current court would probably throw that out too as long as the person discriminating is a white Christian.
I 100% disagree with the ruling, but this is apparently what the court had to say. They effectively sectioned out "expressive services" as able to discriminate, versus non-expressive services, like restaurants , which are still covered by the first amendment.
The decision suggests that artists, photographers, videographers and writers are among those who can refuse to offer what the court called expressive services if doing so would run contrary to their beliefs. But that’s different from other businesses not engaged in speech and therefore not covered by the First Amendment, such as restaurants and hotels.
That distinction is horsecrap. A hotel manager can be forced to offer their wedding package for a gay wedding and a chef can be forced to cook for a gay wedding because they run venues that have been declared "nonexpressive" by 6 people who don't know the first thing about those professions. But a website designer cannot be forced to sell websites while running a website shop.
They don't believe in that distinction. They're just taking a step towards outright illegalizing queerness. They'll tear down that separation as soon as doing so can result in more discrimination.
Apparently you can be too queer for this lady to make your website, bit the cake decorator, DJ, caterer, wedding planner, dress designer and everyone else involved aren't real artists.
The conservative justices declaring which jobs do and don't show human creativity and expression was not on my Christofascist dystopia bingo card, but probably should've been.
You sweet summer child, how can you possibly think Obergefell isn't going to get challenged and killed by these same anti-queer justices?
Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas wrote the dissent to it. Gay marriage would still be federally unprotected if they had their way, and they have since netted 2 more allies to their cause to make it happen.
Is cooking not an expressive service... what about a really good mechanic with some flair... it Def covers lawyers and would most likely apply to ER nurses and doctors... this is fucked when you follow it to their intended conclusion...
Here's the thing. Her business isn't real. There is no "wedding website" business model and the person she alleged asked her to make a website for his gay wedding is straight and has been married to a woman for 15 years. This entire sham business exists for the sole purpose to get the court to rule against Colorado's anti-discrimination laws.
I am surprised that this is not being talked about more. It's a fake case, the situation never happened, some cash changed hands and our sham of a court made this ruling to set a precedent.
100% this. I read the article about the fake request for service a couple of days before I switched to kbin. it was really incomprehensible to me that the supreme Court would even hear the case given the false allegations. it was just to set the precedent.
Except for the fact that nobody was actually asking her to do a website for gay couple. The client she named in the suit isn't gay and is already marries and is a web designer.
It was a bullshit case put in front of the supreme court just so they can attack gay people again. The supreme court wants to disenfranchise gays, trans, women and other minorities.
I'm really wondering how much of the rumors are true. The ones about how the first cops in shot a kid running away from the shooter, and the whole rest of the debacle is a coverup.
The former chief was booked on 10 counts of child endangerment and known criminal negligence, according to an official at the Uvalde County Jail.
Depends on what the statutes cover. For example, you can be charged with "Serious Bodily Injury to a Minor" by way of direct action or failure to act to try to prevent the injury. It's broad and open to interpretation for a reason, and that's where juries come in.
I imagine they'll use that particular legal precedent you mentioned as part of their defense strategy, though. It's almost like a loophole, except it's literally just a gaping hole in police oversight.
This dude straight up admitted he didn't know he was in charge... Gun shots going off, each one another dead child, listening to the chaos, and his excuse was, "It wasn't clear who was in charge."
Someone take charge! Fuck these cowards.
In before, "Would you run into gun fire?!" Yes. I would and I have. In the military you learn to never leave a fallen soldier and I'd certainly rank dying children higher than an adult soldier.
Nah. This is some midwit Reddit bs that keeps getting repeated.
First off, this was ruled by the Appeals Court of DC, not SCOTUS. Not a national law ruling, and debatable if it's relevant at all in Texas.
Warren v DC's ruling is that the police have a duty to the public at large, and not to a specific individual at a specific time. The cops, even if well funded, can't be everywhere, all the time, and stuff will slip through. That is, if there are 20 cops on duty and 40 crimes happening by definition someone won't get get served; they can only be in so many places at once, and you're not able to sue because of that.
Same way you're not able to sue the Ambulance if the only free one is on the other side of town and grandpa died of a heart attack before the arrive.
Warren v DC is also a civil liability thing, while the former Police Chief is looking at Criminal Negligence. He can certainly try and appeal the ruling if he is found guilty, but Warren v DC won't have shit to do with that.
The entire incident is well documented through recorded 911 and response calls and tons of witness testimony. He's gonna eat shit, for sure. IMO it's not if he'll catch guilty, but how tough the sentence will be.
I definitely agree with you. My comment was more a statement of frustration and a bleak outlook on the efficacy of our legal system than it was my opinion of what will actually happen.
Family members of the victims have been meeting with the DA’s office to discuss the results of the months-long grand jury investigation, according to Brett Cross, the guardian of 10-year-old Uziyah Garcia, one of the fourth graders killed in the shooting rampage.
Earlier this year, the US Justice Department released a damning report that concluded law enforcement officers had many opportunities to reassess their flawed response to the May 24, 2022 shooting at Robb Elementary School.
During the fallout following the massacre, DPS Director Steven McCraw repeatedly called the law enforcement response to the shooting an “abject failure” and said each of its officers’ actions would be internally investigated and scrutinized by the district attorney.
School employees and victims of the shooting began their testimony before the grand jury in March – shortly after the Uvalde City Council released an independent report clearing all local officers of wrongdoing.
The report found ample problems also emerged after the gunman was killed – from getting students away from the school and reunited with families to how bereaved parents were told their children were dead, the release of information about what happened, and the provision of therapy services.
In May, 19 families of the students and teachers killed or injured in the mass shooting said they settled a lawsuit with the city for $2 million and announced they are suing 92 officers with Texas Department of Public Safety, the school district and individual employees.
The original article contains 1,026 words, the summary contains 236 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Dallas-area megachurch pastor Robert Morris admitted to “inappropriate sexual behavior with a young lady” in the 1980s after a woman accused him of molesting her when she was 12 years old, according to a statement obtained by CNN affiliate WFAA.
Morris, a senior pastor at Gateway Church and a member of then-candidate Donald Trump’s Evangelical Executive Advisory Board during the 2016 campaign, did not mention the name or age of the girl in his statement but said the inappropriate behavior lasted several years.
Since that time, I have walked in purity and accountability in this area,” Morris said in his statement, adding he and his wife met with the survivor and her family in 1989.
In a statement to WFAA, Gateway Church said Morris underwent a two-year “restoration process” after a “moral failure” in his twenties.
“Pastor Robert has been open and forthright about a moral failure he had over 35 years ago when he was in his twenties and prior to him starting Gateway Church.
In 2016, Morris was part of Trump’s Evangelical Executive Advisory Board, the campaign announced in a news release at the time.
The original article contains 561 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Yes, allegedly $1 billion per year over the next fifteen years plus $500 million for the tolling infrastructure. However, the MTA board could override the governor if they really need the money.
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
“After careful consideration I have come to the difficult decision that implementing the planned congestion system risks too many unintended consequences for New Yorkers at this time,” Hochul said during a video briefing from her office in Manhattan.
A source familiar with the Governor’s plan said Hochul pushed for the delay due to concerns about affordability and the potential impact to the city’s post-pandemic economic recovery.
Congestion pricing has been fiercely opposed by some members in the state legislature and New York’s congressional delegation, including some who represent districts outside the five boroughs and worry the toll will result in political backlash from their constituents in a crucial election year, which was part of the governor’s calculus in opting for the delay, the sources said.
City Councilmember Joe Borelli, a Republican who represents parts of Staten Island where the plan is deeply unpopular, said the governor’s decision was blatantly political.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who represents a congressional district that largely covers a swathe of southern Brooklyn, sought to take a middle path.
“To the extent immediate implementation of congestion pricing is being reconsidered, Leader Jeffries supports a temporary pause of limited duration to better understand the financial impact on working class New Yorkers who have confronted a challenging inflationary environment as a result of the pandemic.
but, what about those poor shareholders? did they get their 5th yacht? what an abomination to pay extra the people that actually are making money in a company.
President Joe Biden’s political operation raised $51 million in April — a significant decline from its March fundraising.
Biden’s campaign and affiliated committee still ended the month with $192 million remaining in the bank, according to his aides — a war chest they touted as the highest cash-on-hand figure for any Democratic candidate in history.
By comparison, Donald Trump’s campaign announced earlier this month that he had raised $76.2 million for his campaign and allied committees in April, after the former president ramped up his joint fundraising operation with the Republican National Committee and headlined high-dollar fundraisers.
Trump has not yet released any cash-on-hand totals for April.
Biden’s political operation had announced raising more than $90 million in March, anchored by a high-profile fundraiser in New York that featured him appearing alongside former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
CNN’s David Wright contributed to this report.
The original article contains 145 words, the summary contains 145 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I mean, I'd heard that this is how the labour market is supposed to work in theory, but I didn't realise that some CEOs were actually doing it. Corporate America does NOT want you to think about this.
I recently started at a private company that does profit sharing through ESOP. This year to all invested employees, so those more than ~1yr, they contributed around 30% of their annual salary in stock to their retirement. The private stock price rose about 32% from last year as well. On average the stock goes up 20%+ and the contributions have been around 18%. The founder and IG CEO found that companies that have an ESOP grow faster than others, and are happier. It takes 6 years for full investment, but after that, when you leave, they pay out your shares at that stock price, over a few payments I believe.
I wasn't a believer when I started at an ESOP. But looking at my retirement funds after working for 8 years at the company. Then comparing it to friends who were given shares of large public companies and making maybe like 10k over 4 years. Absolutely worth it.
If I were eligible this year, it would have been >20k just given to me for retirement. They also contribute to 401k. It's nothing crazy but it's something on top of ESOP. I don't want to need to work until I'm to old to enjoy retirement, but my wife and I like to travel now. This helps do both.
And this is like tip of the iceberg bare minimum type shit, it's not even suggesting workers own the means of production or anything that radical, all it is is paying employees a more appropriate share of the profits (the company is still making an obscene amount of that profit, and the employees are still under paid for their labour, it's how the pyramid scheme we call capitalism works, but this is proof that even while continuing to roll in billions, other employers don't have to be keeping their employees on poverty wages, they choose to).
Why would workers own the means of production if they didn’t set up the business in the first place? It’s just a hired labour. If you hire someone to do something this doesn’t mean they should suddenly have a part of that thing.
Just go and do it or join the existing one. There’s like plenty of them here. And if there isn’t at your location it’s still better to act than complain.
cnn.com
Hot