The Illegitimate SCOTUS - What can be done?

[greysfang]

I'm so frustrated. All the rights that women and minorities have are being eroded one by one. Roe v Wade, Affirmative Action, and the new ruling today that you can discriminate against gay people. Its just sickening.

Not to mention striking down student loan debt, yes, let's just keep people from being able to participate in the economy because predatory student loans that can never be paid off are destroying them financially. How does any of this make sense?

[cornflakegrl]

I've only read briefly on the LGBTQ decision.

So if I understand it, a business owner was not allowed, by state law, to put on their website that they will not provide their services to gay couples.

The business owner sued saying it infringed on their first amendment rights. (The state government was limiting their speech)

The decision is not about refusal to serve, but not being able to post it on a website.

Is it in an infringement on free speech when the state mandates what can you say or post on your website?

I mean the plaintiff is a bigot through and through. I'm not denying that. I'm trying to look at it from a legal perspective, which is how the courts should be viewing it.

Is the state dictating what you can and cannot say on a business website and violation of the first amendment?

[greysfang]

Not when that law collided with anti-discrimination laws.

[tulip]

The whole thing is making me sick. Fucking Mitch McConnell.

[ravenna]

Jun 30, 2023 20:32:46 GMT cornflakegrl said:

I've only read briefly on the LGBTQ decision.

So if I understand it, a business owner was not allowed, by state law, to put on their website that they will not provide their services to gay couples.

The business owner sued saying it infringed on their first amendment rights. (The state government was limiting their speech)

The decision is not about refusal to serve, but not being able to post it on a website.

Is it in an infringement on free speech when the state mandates what can you say or post on your website?

I mean the plaintiff is a bigot through and through. I'm not denying that. I'm trying to look at it from a legal perspective, which is how the courts should be viewing it.

Is the state dictating what you can and cannot say on a business website and violation of the first amendment?

From what I understand,  it's not about limiting speech in this case, but compelling it.  The court ruled that being forced to express something that goes against her beliefs would be a violation of her first amendment rights.  She can't refuse to serve people because they are gay.  But she can refuse to design a web page celebrating a couple's gay marriage.