Supreme Court Hands 2024 To Dems

a reply to: Degradation33

Which protected class if more valid in this ruling is the question.

hmmm hard question.

One is a belief while the other is a state of being.
One is a choice while the other is not.

Gun to my head i would have to choose sexuality as more important when it comes to happiness in a persons life but if it's a numbers game there are lots more religious people than gay people. So more people to harm in the religious sense.

Maybe the right thing to say is that they are both equally important and the property rights should decide. meaning the sc made the same choice I would have. This also means that i would side with a business owner not wanting to serve customers based on their religious affiliation as well though.

a reply to: DBCowboy

actually the law put in place for public accommodation

I'm not familiar with that law?

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Thats silly to refuse a person over a political affiliation. There's definite hypocrisy there.

To tell you the truth I'm finding it difficult to discern what the protected classes are. Have like 3 different answers for the Federal level..

Like the EEOC (Employment commission) lists the protected classes as:

Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).

So assuming they are both protected classes it's one of the most ridiculous detentes in US history.

"My snowflakeness to get married is more important than your snowflakeness to refuse me!"

"Yeah, but yours was added under a subcategory of sex."

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm 40 years old. pro choice, I know the border isn't "open" that's just fearmongering bs, I'm very happy that the war in afganstain was ended and I don't care how it was done so long as it was done, Presidents do not control inflation, My taxes are fine and depending on what they are spent on I wouldn't mind them going up.

I'm torn on the loan thing. I never got a loan of any kind ever but I do understand why people get them. But I also understand that loan companies pray on the young and inexperienced. So I'm fine with loans being forgiven and I'm fine if they are not.

The border is open.

Afghanistan was a complete disaster.

Biden is responsible for the economy. He's even calling it, "Bideneconomics".

a reply to: Degradation33

Thats silly to refuse a person over a political affiliation

What if they are a national socialist and the business owner is jewish?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: DBCowboy

actually the law put in place for public accommodation

I'm not familiar with that law?

Then I might suggest reading it before debating it.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Only one way to find out?

That's a worthwhile hypothetical to bring up, but I wouldn't equate Rebulicans to Nazis. I would assume if that happened the Jew would be allowed the same leeway that a conservative christian or Muslim wedding planner has now.

But I have a counter hypothetical:

Should Jabbari Mohammed Abdul Khalifa of the Nation of Islam be allowed to refuse to sell bean pies to white people on grounds that they are The White Devil created by the mad alien scientist Yakub?

a reply to: carewemust

Cannabis never stopped me from voting.
lol what a strange thing to say. unless you're being sarcastic.


I thought maga didn't trust mail in? What changed?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: carewemust

Cannabis never stopped me from voting.
lol what a strange thing to say. unless you're being sarcastic.


I thought maga didn't trust mail in? What changed?

MAGA gonna cheat like the dems do.

a reply to: Degradation33

I wouldn't equate Rebulicans to Nazis

Nether was I.
I just used the most likely scenario.

I doubt repub business owners would ever even deny service to their most hated political rivals the scary socialists. Capitalisms is profit over morals usually.
That's why I think it's silly for this women to not want to take a gay persons money. I guess her list of priorities was religious belief first profit 2ed.

a reply to: Degradation33

All those things are "protected" yet we all know that businesses discriminate for every one of them.

Sometimes for good reason. We wouldn't want a physically disabled person doing construction. Might get someone hurt or killed.

I've been turned down for roofing jobs because, and I was told this, working on a hot roof in the florida summer sun is not going to end well for a 5 foot 6 redhead. And honestly I wasn't mad. I understood. I didn't really think it through before I applied.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I'm finding my eyes glossing over all around.

But you never know.

About 3 years after I moved from Arizona they passed one of the most useful laws EVER for immigration. They made it so the cops don't have to deal with it and people could be detained for Immigration if they couldn't prove citizenship. Cut down on time, manpower, and paperwork.

Then people turned on Arizona again like it was MLK Day 2.0. Arizona being racist again. And much like the first time, when MLK Day killed the Rodeo bank holiday (or something bank holiday related), people jumped on with absolute mindless judgement.

Then as this national boycott was called, Arizona saw an INCREASE in tourism in 2010 and 2011 BECAUSE they passed the 'discrimatory' law. Mostly from places like Texas.

A person who pivots their business plan to stand their ground on this are more likely to see an increase in the clientele they prefer and a decrease in the one they don't. Especially if they get on the news for it.

They may end up helping their business by not wanting gay people's money.

Like how I really can't watch new TV and Movies until such time they stop the over-the-top inclusiveness pandering. It's just annoying now. But then...

"Holy crap, it's a cast without any token diversity characters and plot without any inclusiveness preaching, wow! Might have to watch this!"

a reply to: Degradation33

Like how I really can't watch new TV and Movies until such time they stop the over-the-top inclusiveness pandering.

I get what your saying to a point. But if the writing is good than the writing is good.
Like have you seen the last of us? The entire series is awesome! There's a male gay love story line that is beautiful and heart breaking. But then they also made a girl kiss her female best friend and it was out of place. Keeping the two girls best friends would have made the story better. So yeah I think it has a lot to do with how things are written.

the gay story line was written as a love story between to guys that happen to be gay while the girls kiss was obviously done for inclusion value.
But trust me you're missing out on some fantastic tv if you haven't seen the show.

Sorry to be off topic op.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I dragged it off topic, no pun intended.

My favorite show at one point was Orange Is The New Black, because one of my favorite writers is Jenji Kohan (Sex and the City, Weeds), and there is nothing more LGBT inclusive than a woman's prison show, and that was one of the more preachy shows ever.

But because the preaching was against privatized prisons, it was just a show with a lot of lesbian characters.

It's when you can feel that this story arch was added primarily to be a groundbreaking character that it bugs me. With The Last of Us it seems forced in that way, regardless of writing. Just a personal opinion.

Liked the first game though. Walking dead meets post apocalyptic mad max survivor. Remember fireflies and not being able to make the rushing water jump in the tunnel at the end.

And if it bugs me, a technical LGBT person (hate labels and pronouns), then that type of thing is going to lead to more people exercising their right to refuse, because they also see a saturated culture. Only difference is what's annoying for me, is immoral for them.

As long as LGBT saturation goes over-the-top the conservative Supreme Court will be there to play cosmic joy buzzer IMO. And that will lead to more young people voting blue in response, unless they also get sick of it.

I think I pulled it back on topic.

a reply to: Degradation33

With Last of Us it seems forced in that way, regardless of writing

But the gay characters are only in one episode. The rest is about the bond of a grieving father and his kind of adopted daughter.

As long as LGBT saturation goes over-the-top the conservative Supreme Court will be there to play cosmic joy buzzer IMO. And that will lead to more young people voting blue in response, unless they also get sick of it.

I thing I pulled it back on topic.

That's why I agree with the op. This is going to get the blue vote out if for no other reason than they feel they are being targeted.
Some people say that the demographics are shifting left and nothing is going to stop that. maybe the sc agrees and feels no matter what they do the country is going to become more progressive with time.

For the record from what I can tell from the reasons the sc gave for their votes, I have no reason to disagree with their vote. Even the ones I didn't like the vote made. Their reasons are sound. At least in my laymens mind.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I get it.

The pendulum swings. Conservatives are taking their stand. They have a 6-3 advantage, they're gonna use it.

Just like the left swing went overboard, the right will so long as they have the advantage to do so.

That will lead either to young people voting in more liberal representatives or not. You want to change your local jurisdiction, vote in those who will change them, like San Fransisco did.

Pepperidge Farm remembers when California DIDN'T vote for Michael Dukakis.

Things swing. The conservatives are riding their momentum. I would prefer if they didn't touch Obergefell v. Hedges, but can't really cry foul if they do, democratic mojo and all.

originally posted by: Threadbare
Between Dobbs, yesterday's decision on affirmative action, and today's decisions making it legal for businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people and canceling the student loan forgiveness plan, the Supreme Court has all but guaranteed a Dem victory next year.

Young voters now make up the largest age demographic when it comes to voters, and as we saw from the Red Trickle last year, these kinds of court decisions are getting them to get out and vote.

If Dobbs was enough to ruin the Red Wave of 2022, imagine how much more pissed these kids are going to be now that SCOTUS has made three historic decisions the vast majority of young voters are utterly opposed to.

So when the House flips back to Blue next year, the Dems gain seats in the Senate, and Biden enters his second term, remember to thank the SCOTUS.

You make it sound like every young voters only concern is LGBTQ and affirmative action. Most of the young people just starting their life cannot afford the way things are right now.
Paying back college loans , the price right now of vehicles , gas , groceries , rent.

a reply to: Degradation33

The pendulum swings.

Agreed. And I like it that way. That's why I don't really worry that much. Last thing i would want is a total one party rule.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: carewemust

Cannabis never stopped me from voting.
lol what a strange thing to say. unless you're being sarcastic.


I thought maga didn't trust mail in? What changed?

Major strategy adjustments are being phased in.

MAGA-AF is learning fast.

1. Affirmative Action: This has been a very controversial topic over the years. Maybe it was for good intentions when it came out, but today it is really a dead-horse argument. A good number of notable Blacks also see it as an admission that Blacks are just not as smart as other races so they need special treatment, an insult like a slap to their faces.

Does anyone think in today's environment the population demographics in a college will really change at all?

2. Gay weddings: We are back to the cake for the gay wedding thing again, but it is with creating web pages for gay weddings. I think the government just needs to stay out of weddings period today. People should be able to accept or not any behavior without the government suggesting what they should or not do. If a bakery wants to make cakes only for gay weddings then have at it, they basically cut their own number of customers out so they kind of cut their own throats in the end. A company should stay as close to some generic middle as possible or they will lose customers...(bud lite anyone)

3. Student payoffs: This was just another magical liberal moment to do as they always do and offer whatever you desire for a vote, but like the devil who does the same for your soul they never deliver too. It's their mode of operation. Conservatives could do the same and say let's give 50 million to everyone who has at least 1% Black in them. When the liberals push back the Conservatives can just then say SEE we tried, but the liberals say no so still vote for us. Liberals pull this crap every four years and never deliver anything, and typically end up doing worst than nothing...lol