The thing that bugs me most is the DISHONESTY of their opinions. Look at the Bremerton Coach case that said he just "prayed silently on the sidelines" while the dissent posted a PICTURE of him in mid field in a huddle with the whole team. Look at Dobbs, going on about a definition of human life that is purely religious, and citing an actual WITCH HUNTER to support that. Look at the stupidity of accepting standing in the student loans case.
Most of all, look at creative 303. In fact the owner did not actually SAY she wanted to explicitly reject gays--or at least the court, in FN 5, denied they were basing their decision on such a statement. So they came up with a "holding" that the state cannot "force" someone to sell a product that disagrees with their religious belief. Thing is, that has been the law ALL ALONG. No one has EVER claimed that a custom hijab maker has to make yarmulkes. But in their reasoning they left the door open for interpretations that you CAN openly discriminate, and those interpretations will be rampant.
If she was legally able to sell the website version of a hijab maker, there was no imminent threat of administrative action to allow her standing as the 10th Circuit did. But the court just accepted that standing.
The justices didn't actually "lie" about their into to follow precedent. If you look at what they said, they dodged the question. The senate, including above all Susan Collins, just heard what they wanted to hear.
Sometimes precedent DOES need to be challenged--Plessy vs. Ferguson is an example. But there need to be damn good reasons. Citing a particular religious belief as your reason is damn bad.
You should run for office.if I was still in NY I would without a doubt it's for ya.
You are so right.
Peace....T
The thing that bugs me most is the DISHONESTY of their opinions. Look at the Bremerton Coach case that said he just "prayed silently on the sidelines" while the dissent posted a PICTURE of him in mid field in a huddle with the whole team. Look at Dobbs, going on about a definition of human life that is purely religious, and citing an actual WITCH HUNTER to support that. Look at the stupidity of accepting standing in the student loans case.
Most of all, look at creative 303. In fact the owner did not actually SAY she wanted to explicitly reject gays--or at least the court, in FN 5, denied they were basing their decision on such a statement. So they came up with a "holding" that the state cannot "force" someone to sell a product that disagrees with their religious belief. Thing is, that has been the law ALL ALONG. No one has EVER claimed that a custom hijab maker has to make yarmulkes. But in their reasoning they left the door open for interpretations that you CAN openly discriminate, and those interpretations will be rampant.
If she was legally able to sell the website version of a hijab maker, there was no imminent threat of administrative action to allow her standing as the 10th Circuit did. But the court just accepted that standing.
The justices didn't actually "lie" about their into to follow precedent. If you look at what they said, they dodged the question. The senate, including above all Susan Collins, just heard what they wanted to hear.
Sometimes precedent DOES need to be challenged--Plessy vs. Ferguson is an example. But there need to be damn good reasons. Citing a particular religious belief as your reason is damn bad.
Bravo! CJ, that was magnificent.