That's about what one would expect from this illegitimate Christian Nationist court. The only thing that matters to them is twisting the Constitution to suit their ideology. They are a political court, not one that comes anywhere close to practicing law.
This has been laid bare by the fact that the plaintiff in the "I wanna discriminate against gays" case was never asked to do what she was complaining about. She was suing on a hypothetical, which courts traditionally don't allow, as there has to be an actual legal injury, aka "ripeness," in order to get into the courthouse door. But here, because the Christian nationalist wing of the Supremes wanted to make such a ruling, they just ignored that pesky procedural rule.
Because that's what they do. They don't let the law or procedure or precedent or the Constitution get in the way of promoting their religo-fascist ideology.
So I guess the thing to do is dress up racial discrimination in a cloak of religion and see what they do with that. My guess is that, as long as the religion practicing discrimination is Christianist and if they discriminate against minorities, they'll be fine with that.
10 comments:
So, despite the cons claiming otherwise, they put themselves above the law.
Pretty much, yeah.
There is no "law" ... nothing "compels" us to "obey"
'Tis gunny how you cannot see past your ideology to the Constitutionality.
But that is why so may leftists are a joke, and are ignored by the rest of the country.
If only you applied the criteria that you apply to others to yourself.
Religious courts aren't good for business. See Egypt https://www.jstor.org/stable/4322823
B, pot, meet kettle. It’s your side that’s anti-everything that isn’t white, christian and male.
Smith has ideology, now she has advertised it.
Obviously the LBGTQIA will likely ignore her and
her services. Its a first amendment thing.
That A in the alphabet soup is those that agree or
assist. So now her business is self limited to those
who agree with her.
Simple question, what ever happen to Master Cake.
They won the case and went out of business. Seems
there were enough people that think religious
discrimination was a bad thing.
Discriminating against your potential customer base
is a rather poor business model.
Eck!
Eck!, indeed. That’s why I support the right to discriminate as long as you are also required to clearly advertise such discrimination and its extent.
B., you’ve lost your mind…you used to be thoughtful in your arguments, now it’s just your way or the highway.
What are you saying, *, that America is not great ?
If you don't think America is a great place to live, you can leave ...
The Smith case is a total fabrication of hypothetical.
She presented a hypothetical case to the court that
lacked ripeness and has no content or actual actions
that happened.
FYI the gay man named is already married and his wife
is likely surprised. Hes not gay!
The court is now officially illegitimate.
Eck!
Post a Comment