2018 SCOTUS cases

Political discussions
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14851
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby BDKJMU » Mon May 28, 2018 10:00 am

Decision time: Supreme Court will soon rule on gay rights, gerrymandering, unions

Decisions already announced

Workers rights and group arbitration: In Epic Systems vs. Lewis, the court ruled that employers can require workers to resolve all complaints through one-on-one arbitration, including allegations that the company was violating federal wage and hour laws. By a 5-4 vote, the justices rejected the argument that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 gave workers the right to join together to sue in court or bring group claims before an arbiter. The ruling is a victory for employers and the Trump administration, and it will limit the rights of more 60 million private sector workers whose companies rely on private arbitration.

Sports betting: In Murphy vs. NCAA, the court by a 6-3 vote struck down the federal law that prohibited the states from sponsoring or licensing betting on sports. The ruling in favor of New Jersey was based on the principle that the Constitution does not allow Congress to give the orders to the states. The justices said Congress was free to make sports betting a federal offense, but there is no sign such legislation is in the works.

Deportation and home burglaries: In Sessions vs. Dimaya, the justices, by a 5-4 vote, struck down part of a federal law that called for deporting noncitizens for a "crime of violence," but failed to describe which crimes qualify. The disputed provision referred to "a substantial risk that physical force" may be used, but the justices said that was too vague. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch cast a key vote for the majority. The California defendant, a long-time legal immigrant, was slated for deportation because he pleaded guilty to the burglary of an unoccupied home.

Jail and deportation: In Jennings vs. Rodriguez, the court ruled that U.S. immigration law permits long-term jailing of legal immigrants who are fighting their deportation. By a 5-3 vote, the justices rejected the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' view that these detainees had a right to a bond hearing after six months. The ruling dealt only with federal law and left open whether the Constitution puts a limit on such a detention. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case.
https://herald-review.com/news/national ... 970c7.html

User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14851
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby BDKJMU » Mon May 28, 2018 10:04 am

“..Major pending cases

Partisan gerrymandering: The court will decide a political line-drawing dispute that could determine which party controls Congress and many state legislatures in the decade ahead. At issue is whether state lawmakers may deliberately redraw election districts to ensure that a particular party controls most of the seats, even when most voters cast ballots for the other party. In the past, the court has struck down districts drawn along racial lines, but it has never struck down an election map because it was unfairly partisan. The justices are set to decide two cases on the issue. One from Wisconsin (Gill vs. Whitford) challenges a statewide map that assured Republicans at least 60% of the seats in its state House. The other, from Maryland (Benisek vs. Lamone), challenges a successful Democratic scheme to transform a Republican-held congressional district into a solidly Democratic one by shifting tens of thousands of voters.

Gay rights and religion: The court will decide whether certain store owners are entitled to an exemption from a state's anti-discrimination law because of their religious beliefs. It began when Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker and a conservative Christian, refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Colorado, like California and 20 other states, requires businesses that are open to the public to provide "full and equal" service to all customers regardless of sexual orientation. Phillips appealed on free-speech grounds, arguing that designing a custom cake is a form of expression. The court's conservatives, including Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, suggested during arguments that the owner may have been a victim of bias against religion. (Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission)

Unions and public employees: The court will decide whether teachers, police and other public employees in California, New York and 20 other mostly Democratic states can be required by law to pay a "fair share fee" to cover the cost of collective bargaining even if they don't belong to a union. The justices upheld such contracts in 1977, but said then that employees did not have to pay for the union's political spending. Anti-union advocates say the court now should go further and rule that forced fees violate the 1st Amendment because they require some employees to support a group whose views they may oppose. The conservative justices signaled they are likely to rule for the challengers in a case from Illinois and deal a blow to the public sector unions that traditionally support Democrats. (Janus vs. ASCME)

Trump and the travel ban: The court will decide whether President Trump has the power, acting on his own, to bar most visitors and immigrants from several Muslim-majority nations. The controversy over Trump's travel ban erupted during his first week in the White House, and his orders were repeatedly blocked by judges on the West Coast and East Coast. They ruled his orders were unconstitutional because they discriminated against Muslims. Others said he overstepped his authority under U.S. immigration laws. But the Supreme Court allowed the latest version of Trump's order to go into effect in December, and the justices sounded ready to uphold it during arguments in April. (Trump vs. Hawaii)

Cellphones and privacy: The court will decide whether police must obtain a search warrant based on "probable cause" before they obtain data from a cellphone company that would allow them to track a suspect's movements for days or weeks at a time. Privacy advocates on the right and the left agree on the need for warrants, and California law already includes such a requirement. But investigators say they sometimes need the data to identify a crime suspect or a terrorist. (Carpenter vs. United States)

Pregnancy centers and abortion: The court will decide whether California can require faith-based crisis pregnancy centers to notify their patients that the state provides free or low cost "prenatal care and abortion for eligible women." State lawmakers said these posted disclosures were needed because these centers use "deceptive advertising" to confuse or misinform women. But the challengers say the required notifications are "compelled speech" that violates the 1st Amendment and "drowns out the centers' pro-life messages." (National Institute of Family and Life Advocates vs. Becerra)

Online merchants and sales taxes: The court will decide whether internet merchants can be required to collect sales taxes for all the states and thousands of municipalities where their customers live. It is a $10-billion-dollar-a-year issue for states, a potential headache for small-scale merchants and a matter of basic fairness for traditional retail stores, who must collect such taxes. In 1992, in the era of mail-order catalogs, the court ruled it was unconstitutional to impose such a tax-collecting duty on merchants who had no stores or "physical presence" in a state. In South Dakota vs. Wayfair, the states say the justices should overturn that ruling.

Voting rolls and purges: The court will decide whether states can remove people from the voting rolls if they fail to cast a ballot for two years and do not respond to several notices in the mail. Ohio says it wants to clean up its voting rolls, but civil rights lawyers said the state has wrongly removed thousands of registered voters. And they point to a federal law that says voters may not be dropped simply because of a failure to vote. (Husted vs. A. Philip Randolph Institute).”

User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14851
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby BDKJMU » Tue May 29, 2018 11:09 am

Abortion restriction stands

“...refused Tuesday to block an Arkansas law targeting medication abortions, which threatens to leave the state with only one abortion clinic....

...The high court ruled in 2016 that a Texas law imposing strict limits on abortion clinics was unconstitutional because it would reduce the number of facilities in operation from about 40 to just seven or eight. The challenge to the Arkansas law was based on that precedent.

But for now, the justices ruled that the law can stand, pending another challenge to be based on more specific findings.

The ban on medication abortions is expected to close two of the state's three abortion clinics. It requires providers administering medication abortions to have ties to doctors and hospitals that can handle any drug-related emergencies.

Planned Parenthood runs two abortion clinics in the state that provide only medication abortions. A third clinic in Little Rock offers both surgical and medication abortions.

District Court Judge Kristine Baker ruled that the law was a "solution in search of a problem." But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit overturned that decision.

Planned Parenthood told the Supreme Court that the law "would make Arkansas the only state to effectively ban medication abortion, a common method of early abortion that has been safely used by over two million American women since its approval in 2000."

Arkansas responded that medication abortions are riskier, particularly since the second and final dose of the drug often is administered at home, without a medical provider nearby. Only 14% of Arkansas women seeking abortions opt for medication, the state said.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 651106002/

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12224
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby GannonFan » Tue May 29, 2018 11:40 am

Some good cases coming up - I had never heard of the Ohio case with the cleaning up of the voter rolls - can't imagine that just not voting for two years and not responding to mailers would be enough to wipe someone from the rolls. Heck, in this day and age and with our current political offerings, not voting is a very valid form of protest.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 21608
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Dela-Where?

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby Ivytalk » Tue May 29, 2018 5:28 pm

Big Fourth Amendment decision today. Court rules 8-1 in Collins v. Virginia that “automobile exception” for warrantless searches on public streets doesn’t extend to search of vehicle parked in private driveway. Sotomayor wrote majority opinion. All conservative justices except Alito agreed.
Don’t get me wrong. I am generally a fan of tax increases. — John “Bernie!” St. Onge 11/16/18

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19840
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby CID1990 » Tue May 29, 2018 6:08 pm

Ivytalk wrote:Big Fourth Amendment decision today. Court rules 8-1 in Collins v. Virginia that “automobile exception” for warrantless searches on public streets doesn’t extend to search of vehicle parked in private driveway. Sotomayor wrote majority opinion. All conservative justices except Alito agreed.


A rare libertarian decision from the high court!

I'd be curious to read Alito's dissent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14851
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby BDKJMU » Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:20 am

BDKJMU wrote:“..Major pending cases

Gay rights and religion: The court will decide whether certain store owners are entitled to an exemption from a state's anti-discrimination law because of their religious beliefs. It began when Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker and a conservative Christian, refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Colorado, like California and 20 other states, requires businesses that are open to the public to provide "full and equal" service to all customers regardless of sexual orientation. Phillips appealed on free-speech grounds, arguing that designing a custom cake is a form of expression. The court's conservatives, including Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, suggested during arguments that the owner may have been a victim of bias against religion. (Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission)


And SCOTUS rules 7-2 you don’t have to bake that cake.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06 ... ouple.html

Get ready for a rant for barebackjohn in 3, 2, 1....

User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 16967
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Don't call it Seattle...

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby Chizzang » Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:30 am

BDKJMU wrote:
BDKJMU wrote:“..Major pending cases

Gay rights and religion: The court will decide whether certain store owners are entitled to an exemption from a state's anti-discrimination law because of their religious beliefs. It began when Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker and a conservative Christian, refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Colorado, like California and 20 other states, requires businesses that are open to the public to provide "full and equal" service to all customers regardless of sexual orientation. Phillips appealed on free-speech grounds, arguing that designing a custom cake is a form of expression. The court's conservatives, including Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, suggested during arguments that the owner may have been a victim of bias against religion. (Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission)


And SCOTUS rules 7-2 you don’t have to bake that cake.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06 ... ouple.html

Get ready for a rant for barebackjohn in 3, 2, 1....



That this is even on the table is a statement to the sadness that is America...
any independently owned business has the right to refuse service (period)
the idea that a bakery has to "serve you" is so retarded I can't believe it's even in question
and goes miles towards describing the overly sensitive and petty nature of the "Gay Rights" movement

:geek:
How would you define a Republican?
"Somebody comfortable betting that science is wrong and oil companies are right..."

User avatar
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 40816
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: klam
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby kalm » Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:33 am

Chizzang wrote:
BDKJMU wrote:
And SCOTUS rules 7-2 you don’t have to bake that cake.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06 ... ouple.html

Get ready for a rant for barebackjohn in 3, 2, 1....



That this is even on the table is a statement to the sadness that is America...
any independently owned business has the right to refuse service (period)
the idea that a bakery has to "serve you" is so retarded I can't believe it's even in question
and goes miles towards describing the overly sensitive and petty nature of the "Gay Rights" movement

:geek:


Same for blacks, right?
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14851
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby BDKJMU » Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:35 am

kalm wrote:
Chizzang wrote:

That this is even on the table is a statement to the sadness that is America...
any independently owned business has the right to refuse service (period)
the idea that a bakery has to "serve you" is so retarded I can't believe it's even in question
and goes miles towards describing the overly sensitive and petty nature of the "Gay Rights" movement

:geek:


Same for blacks, right?

Race to sexual orientation = apples to oranges..

User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 16967
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Don't call it Seattle...

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby Chizzang » Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:45 am

kalm wrote:
Chizzang wrote:

That this is even on the table is a statement to the sadness that is America...
any independently owned business has the right to refuse service (period)
the idea that a bakery has to "serve you" is so retarded I can't believe it's even in question
and goes miles towards describing the overly sensitive and petty nature of the "Gay Rights" movement

:geek:


Same for blacks, right?


Actually yes... The Government has to be fully equal opportunity based
But let society in a free republic respond by boycotting or social penalty

Bad ideas have their own punishment

If a Bakery in Seattle refused to serve black people
it would go out of business in 30 days

:nod:

An educated free society is capable of managing situations such as these
and there isn't an educated black person in America that wouldn't get a kick out of letting those dice roll

Imagine if Business were free to display their social and sexual anxiety by refusing to do business
play that out in your head for a minute -
Last edited by Chizzang on Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
How would you define a Republican?
"Somebody comfortable betting that science is wrong and oil companies are right..."

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12224
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby GannonFan » Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:47 am

Chizzang wrote:
BDKJMU wrote:
And SCOTUS rules 7-2 you don’t have to bake that cake.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06 ... ouple.html

Get ready for a rant for barebackjohn in 3, 2, 1....



That this is even on the table is a statement to the sadness that is America...
any independently owned business has the right to refuse service (period)
the idea that a bakery has to "serve you" is so retarded I can't believe it's even in question
and goes miles towards describing the overly sensitive and petty nature of the "Gay Rights" movement

:geek:


That's not what any of the ruling was about. The lack of detail in the reporting of this case has been part of the problem why people react so strongly one way or the other. You cannot refuse service to someone for their sexual orientation (or race). That's not in dispute. In this case, this particular baker sells standard cakes, but he also then designs and creates custom wedding cakes. He argued that it is an artistic expression as well as a commercial one, and in that his religious beliefs rightfully prevent him from creating the custom cake (rather than just supplying a regular cake). He apparently offered to do this to the couple who then sued him.

It is a very narrow ruling, and probably rightfully so because there's almost always going to be a lot of nuance in cases like these. You can't operate a business and just flat out say - "I will not sell to gay people or black people or anyone I want to refuse to sell to" - that's never going to fly. But there are going to be some cases (this one is one of those) when someone can have a religious belief that stops them providing a service.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 16967
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Don't call it Seattle...

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby Chizzang » Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:50 am

GannonFan wrote:
Chizzang wrote:

That this is even on the table is a statement to the sadness that is America...
any independently owned business has the right to refuse service (period)
the idea that a bakery has to "serve you" is so retarded I can't believe it's even in question
and goes miles towards describing the overly sensitive and petty nature of the "Gay Rights" movement

:geek:


That's not what any of the ruling was about. The lack of detail in the reporting of this case has been part of the problem why people react so strongly one way or the other. You cannot refuse service to someone for their sexual orientation (or race). That's not in dispute. In this case, this particular baker sells standard cakes, but he also then designs and creates custom wedding cakes. He argued that it is an artistic expression as well as a commercial one, and in that his religious beliefs rightfully prevent him from creating the custom cake (rather than just supplying a regular cake). He apparently offered to do this to the couple who then sued him.

It is a very narrow ruling, and probably rightfully so because there's almost always going to be a lot of nuance in cases like these. You can't operate a business and just flat out say - "I will not sell to gay people or black people or anyone I want to refuse to sell to" - that's never going to fly. But there are going to be some cases (this one is one of those) when someone can have a religious belief that stops them providing a service.



But it should be ^ in a Free Republic
Those that take the social risks pay the social price in an educated society

mommy state **** is getting old frankly
How would you define a Republican?
"Somebody comfortable betting that science is wrong and oil companies are right..."

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12224
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby GannonFan » Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:52 am

Chizzang wrote:
kalm wrote:
Same for blacks, right?


Actually yes... The Government has to be fully equal opportunity based
But let society in a free republic respond by boycotting or social penalty

Bad ideas have their own punishment

If a Bakery in Seattle refused to serve black people
it would go out of business in 30 days

:nod:

An educated free society is capable of managing situations such as these
and there isn't an educated black person in America that wouldn't get a kick out of letting those dice roll

Imagine if Business were free to display their social and sexual anxiety by refusing to do business
play that out in your head for a minute -


But what if a bakery in a place other than Seattle said they weren't going to sell to Black people? Say in Louisiana. Say in Alabama. Would that business go out of business as quickly? Reverse it, say that a bakery in a heavily Black populated area, say Detroit (84% of the population is African-American), comes out and says Whites are not welcome. Is that bakery going to go under in 30 days? Allowing the majority to exclude the minority from business transactions simply because they are a minority is never a good thing.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12224
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby GannonFan » Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:54 am

Chizzang wrote:
GannonFan wrote:
That's not what any of the ruling was about. The lack of detail in the reporting of this case has been part of the problem why people react so strongly one way or the other. You cannot refuse service to someone for their sexual orientation (or race). That's not in dispute. In this case, this particular baker sells standard cakes, but he also then designs and creates custom wedding cakes. He argued that it is an artistic expression as well as a commercial one, and in that his religious beliefs rightfully prevent him from creating the custom cake (rather than just supplying a regular cake). He apparently offered to do this to the couple who then sued him.

It is a very narrow ruling, and probably rightfully so because there's almost always going to be a lot of nuance in cases like these. You can't operate a business and just flat out say - "I will not sell to gay people or black people or anyone I want to refuse to sell to" - that's never going to fly. But there are going to be some cases (this one is one of those) when someone can have a religious belief that stops them providing a service.



But it should be ^ in a Free Republic
Those that take the social risks pay the social price in an educated society

mommy state **** is getting old frankly


Mommy state exists because your idea of an educated society doesn't always exist. The idea that a social price will everywhere and always correct whatever you deem as wrong (that by itself is part of the problem - what is the accepted idea of right and wrong) is fantasy and there are mountains of real life examples to prove you to be naïve.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 16967
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Don't call it Seattle...

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby Chizzang » Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:56 am

GannonFan wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
Actually yes... The Government has to be fully equal opportunity based
But let society in a free republic respond by boycotting or social penalty

Bad ideas have their own punishment

If a Bakery in Seattle refused to serve black people
it would go out of business in 30 days

:nod:

An educated free society is capable of managing situations such as these
and there isn't an educated black person in America that wouldn't get a kick out of letting those dice roll

Imagine if Business were free to display their social and sexual anxiety by refusing to do business
play that out in your head for a minute -


But what if a bakery in a place other than Seattle said they weren't going to sell to Black people? Say in Louisiana. Say in Alabama. Would that business go out of business as quickly? Reverse it, say that a bakery in a heavily Black populated area, say Detroit (84% of the population is African-American), comes out and says Whites are not welcome. Is that bakery going to go under in 30 days? Allowing the majority to exclude the minority from business transactions simply because they are a minority is never a good thing.


But if that is the true nature of who we are...
If that really is how it would work and what would happen it says a lot about America

I have a feeling people would "come together more" given the freedom to discriminate

Allowing humans to behave based entirely on what's in their hearts
is the only way we can grow past this

I think you might be surprised how much it might bring us together
How would you define a Republican?
"Somebody comfortable betting that science is wrong and oil companies are right..."

User avatar
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 40816
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: klam
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby kalm » Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:57 am

GannonFan wrote:
Chizzang wrote:

But it should be ^ in a Free Republic
Those that take the social risks pay the social price in an educated society

mommy state **** is getting old frankly


Mommy state exists because your idea of an educated society doesn't always exist. The idea that a social price will everywhere and always correct whatever you deem as wrong (that by itself is part of the problem - what is the accepted idea of right and wrong) is fantasy and there are mountains of real life examples to prove you to be naïve.


:nod:

Where 100% libertarianism meets reality.
Image
Image
Image

∞∞∞
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9713
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:30 am

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby ∞∞∞ » Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:58 am

I don't see how the ruling even settled the fundamental question. It just ruled that the Commission investigating the matter was hostile to him based on his religious beliefs, which is a fair ruling.

This was a narrow ruling, even by SCOTUS standards of narrow.

User avatar
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 40816
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: klam
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby kalm » Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:58 am

Chizzang wrote:
GannonFan wrote:
But what if a bakery in a place other than Seattle said they weren't going to sell to Black people? Say in Louisiana. Say in Alabama. Would that business go out of business as quickly? Reverse it, say that a bakery in a heavily Black populated area, say Detroit (84% of the population is African-American), comes out and says Whites are not welcome. Is that bakery going to go under in 30 days? Allowing the majority to exclude the minority from business transactions simply because they are a minority is never a good thing.


But if that is the true nature of who we are...
If that really is how it would work and what would happen it says a lot about America

I have a feeling people would "come together more" given the freedom to discriminate

Allowing humans to behave based entirely on what's in their hearts
is the only way we can grow past this

I think you might be surprised how much it might bring us together


Heavy Troll Alert!!!

(****)
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12224
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby GannonFan » Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:02 am

Chizzang wrote:
GannonFan wrote:
But what if a bakery in a place other than Seattle said they weren't going to sell to Black people? Say in Louisiana. Say in Alabama. Would that business go out of business as quickly? Reverse it, say that a bakery in a heavily Black populated area, say Detroit (84% of the population is African-American), comes out and says Whites are not welcome. Is that bakery going to go under in 30 days? Allowing the majority to exclude the minority from business transactions simply because they are a minority is never a good thing.


But if that is the true nature of who we are...
If that really is how it would work and what would happen it says a lot about America

I have a feeling people would "come together more" given the freedom to discriminate

Allowing humans to behave based entirely on what's in their hearts
is the only way we can grow past this

I think you might be surprised how much it might bring us together


You're doubling down on the naivete. Do you have any appreciation of history? And not just American history, the history of any country? The amount of discrimination both here and abroad over the last two centuries, right up to today, can and has filled volumes of textbooks. Do you honestly think the American South would've ever turned away from Jim Crow and a century of discrimination if they were just asked to do so, or "shamed" into it? It took laws and the National Guard to do so, and we're still not there yet today. Life isn't a Coca-Cola commercial, no matter how much you seem to think it is.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12224
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby GannonFan » Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:03 am

kalm wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
But if that is the true nature of who we are...
If that really is how it would work and what would happen it says a lot about America

I have a feeling people would "come together more" given the freedom to discriminate

Allowing humans to behave based entirely on what's in their hearts
is the only way we can grow past this

I think you might be surprised how much it might bring us together


Heavy Troll Alert!!!

(****)


Yes, but if being wrong on something is trolling then chizz can't keep up with the master of that, which is JSO.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 16967
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Don't call it Seattle...

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby Chizzang » Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:09 am

kalm wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
But if that is the true nature of who we are...
If that really is how it would work and what would happen it says a lot about America

I have a feeling people would "come together more" given the freedom to discriminate

Allowing humans to behave based entirely on what's in their hearts
is the only way we can grow past this

I think you might be surprised how much it might bring us together


Heavy Troll Alert!!!

(****)



:ohno:

You are such an asshole... I was on a roll
How would you define a Republican?
"Somebody comfortable betting that science is wrong and oil companies are right..."

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12224
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby GannonFan » Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:13 am

Chizzang wrote:
kalm wrote:
Heavy Troll Alert!!!

(****)



:ohno:

You are such an asshole... I was on a roll


Okay JSO. :rofl:
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 40816
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: klam
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby kalm » Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:22 am

Chizzang wrote:
kalm wrote:
Heavy Troll Alert!!!

(****)



:ohno:

You are such an asshole... I was on a roll


:mrgreen:

But I liked how it was libertarianism with twist of hippie love. :thumb:
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 49785
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Postby Ibanez » Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:41 am

Chizzang wrote:
kalm wrote:
Same for blacks, right?


Actually yes... The Government has to be fully equal opportunity based
But let society in a free republic respond by boycotting or social penalty

Bad ideas have their own punishment

If a Bakery in Seattle refused to serve black people
it would go out of business in 30 days

:nod:

An educated free society is capable of managing situations such as these
and there isn't an educated black person in America that wouldn't get a kick out of letting those dice roll

Imagine if Business were free to display their social and sexual anxiety by refusing to do business
play that out in your head for a minute -

Seattle has like what, 100 black people?

200 if you count the whites that identify as black.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17


Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 44 guests