Supreme Court Overturns Several Controversial Topics

[Delibird]

FIrstly, this is a debate thread and please be kind and courteous with citing of facts and opinions. We all want to be respectful regardless of which party you are or if you are in agreeance or non-agreeance.


Now off to the topics at hand. (I did study Constitutional Law in University and was Pre-Law)


1) Supreme Court guts Affirmative Action in College Admissions
This is a landmark case that was set up several years ago in order to give people of color an opportunity to be considered for universities and universities had to accept a certain amount of people of color and consideration in admissions.

The Supreme Court says that colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as specific basis for granting admission, a landmark decision overturning long-standing precedent that has benefited Black and Latino students in higher education.

Chief John Roberts wrote:
“The Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today,” Roberts
Source: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

The court basically said that race should not be a factor for consideration in admissions and that that does not stop applicants from stating how race has affected the applicant's life and can still be part of the application.

I did however appreciate the dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that dissented:
“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” she wrote. “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems.”
Source: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Many people have been outspoken and come forward such as Michelle Obama who stated that if it wasn't for affirmative action, she would not have in fact been where she is today.


2) Supreme Court says Christian Business Owners can refuse to create same-sex marriage websites.
The Supreme Court ruled Friday for a Christian web designer in Colorado who refuses to create website to celebrate same-sex weddings out of religious objections.

In dissent, Sotomayor said the decision will undermine the government’s compelling interest in ensuring that all Americans have equal access to the public marketplace.

“Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” she wrote.

“Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public.”

She called this a “sad day in American constitutional law and the lives of LGBT people.”

“By issuing this new license to discriminate in a case brought by a company that seeks to deny same-sex couples the full and equal enjoyment of its services, the immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status.”

This could in turn cause discrimination for LGBTQ+ communities or open up a reversal for gay marriage if a lawsuit were to arise.

Source: [Only registered and activated users can see links]


3) Supreme Court blocks Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness Program
The Supreme Court blocked the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness plan on Friday, invalidating a program aimed at delivering up to $20,000 of relief to millions of borrowers struggling with outstanding debt in the aftermath of Covid.

“The Secretary’s comprehensive debt cancellation plan cannot fairly be called a waiver — it not only nullifies existing provisions, but augments and expands them dramatically,” Roberts wrote.

Essentially, the Court Justices can take fancy vacations/trips and receive donations from billionaires but when it comes to student debt, they turn a blind eye.

Biden had a company that was wiling to do the student debt relief and was held up in the Supreme Court. Biden now faces the challenges of whether or not he can sign an executive order regarding the HEROES Act which congress approved previously.


My Dissent:
The Supreme Court has a responsibility to be impartial and to benefit its constituents at the highest level. The failure of not only the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Abortion rights and now Affirmative Action and Gay right's is backwards movement and sets back decades of civil rights.

To be upset is an understatement that the Supreme Court has become a political weapon to carry out certain agendas and NOT to benefit the American People. These Justices are not elected officials or justices and therefore should have some sort of liability when it comes to civil rights violations.

There are solutions to this conservative majority, however, Biden has stated he is against expanding the court. There are now 12 District Courts and there should technically be 12 justices. (1 for each).

If there is no action taken within the liberal party, the conservative party will come in and take over and possibly expand the court to overrule cases that will impact generations to come if actions are not met in 2024.

The Constitution says that the Church and State need to be separate. Justice Amy Coney Barrett contradicts this by saying she will bring religion into consideration on all her cases. To say this is a clusterfuck would be saying this very nicely.

Looking forward to everyone's opinions on these and including Roe v. Wade.

[Mothman]

I don't have a law degree or a well thought out way to put any of this, but these are devastating to hear.

Protected classes are protected for a reason. These decisions don't take into account anything other than the ideal societal conditions, not giving any respect to generational trauma, wealth, or inequality. To me, it's not about these decisions in a vacuum. This doesn't bode well as a precedent for anything that has been on the table today... as the saying goes, equity not equality is the goal.

My heart goes out to anyone else that is immediately affected.


The other thing that is insane to me is that the 303 Creative suit was made up. It's all fake. ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[Delibird]

I don't have a law degree or a well thought out way to put any of this, but these are devastating to hear.

Protected classes are protected for a reason. These decisions don't take into account anything other than the ideal societal conditions, not giving any respect to generational trauma, wealth, or inequality. To me, it's not about these decisions in a vacuum. This doesn't bode well as a precedent for anything that has been on the table today... as the saying goes, equity not equality is the goal.

My heart goes out to anyone else that is immediately affected.


The other thing that is insane to me is that the 303 Creative suit was made up. It's all fake. ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

If fake can take out LGBT rights as did in this situation, then we should be very scared for precedent moving forward on issues that could be fabricated to overturn.

[Cocobutter]

I can't word anything as eloquently as Delibird did, but I am disappointed and outraged to hear this news. It does indeed set us back so far in terms of progress, and I'm really dreading the 2024 election. I typically find all politicians, regardless of party, to range from slimy to downright awful, but the fact that Republicans wish to take away people's rights is absolutely not okay with me. People should be very concerned about what this means for future generations. :( All I can hope is that the Democratic party will take steps to steer away from this dumpster fire somehow.

Is it just me, or does the conservative movement seem to be getting bigger and louder? I hate what this means for our country, for POC, disabled people, and LGBTQ+ youth and adults. The fact that middle-class and rich citizens would rather take the financial benefits from the Republican party than defend human rights is so disturbing.

[nousha]

I just don't get how the case went to court and on and on without being dismissed as a result of technicality in the first place - the technicality being that the information stated is not correct? The court doesn't care to check if the statements are correct and the person mentioned is really involved? I really don't get it. How is that possible?

Regarding the rest, it's not easy to comment as somebody who doesn't live in the US, as the situation from outside may look different. I don't believe religion should have any relevance in public and social matters, but apparently it does, even in some countries here in Europe (and nothing good comes from it, in my opinion, e.g. the abortion ban in Poland).

I know that private universities charge huge fees in US but is it the case with state universities too?

[Seohyun]

Man it's so scary how things have been lately for LGBT people in the United States.
It's like this very vocal minority is so angry for whatever reason at the community that they're pushing hard for rollbacks on every right that has been conquered in the past years. And the people in power abide.

My heart goes out to the american LGBT community :(

[Teakwood]

If fake can take out LGBT rights as did in this situation, then we should be very scared for precedent moving forward on issues that could be fabricated to overturn.

100% this. This is just the beginning of the end for the LGBTQIA+ community. Starting to take away our rights with the little things, eventually turns into them taking away a lot of things.

It's disgusting, and I am ashamed of this country and the justices who oversee important decisions such as this.

[Alcremie]

I was going to post about this on the angry/petty thread but decided not to in order to cool down. Deep down I knew this was going to happen, and I have a history degree so I can pretty much tell the direction things will keep going in.

However, I think what I need to say is get whatever community together that you can in your area. We only have each other. It's been years of watching these politicians and I have absolutely NO confidence in ANY of them. But I do have confidence in my community, as they've been the ones that only truly help when I need it.

When the whole abortion thing in TX went down, I knew it would ultimately go to the SC, so I immediately made an appt to get my tubes removed. There is no way I could ever comfortably have a child for affordability reasons and the time to educate them about.....all of this. I will not give this govt another taxpayer. Since then, I've been helping and educating my local community on accessible reproduction options. I also don't tell people my sexuality unless they're close or I'm anonymous. I've never felt safe here regarding that. Please reach out to your local orgs, we need each other.

[I_royalty_I]

May be some unpopular opinions in here, but it’s the debate zone and I’m completely open to hearing everyone else’s viewpoints and seeing things from other perspectives.

Many people fail to realize that many schools have already done away with affirmative action. I have no issue with that particular ruling because I look at everybody as a person and believe we should be judged off of our merit and not the color of our skin. To think that people of any color can’t get into a school based off their own merit and accomplishments is backwards thinking. Some of the smartest people I have EVER worked with are of African, Indian, and Asian descent. Im talking insanely intelligent people. I don’t see this decision as a loss for the country, but rather something that is outdated and not necessary anymore. What we REALLY should be looking at is college admissions of athletes, legacy students, and big donators. They have a significant percentage higher chance of getting accepted than the average Joe. Pay to play kind of rules there that make acceptance numbers for everybody else seem impossible.

I support gay marriage, rights for everyone to love who they love, and have voted that way as long as I can remember. The particular decision for the business owner to have the right to not do a website for a gay couples wedding doesn’t seem like something the Supreme Court needs to be ruling on to me. Church and state are separate, but at the same time, people are assholes and if they don’t want to do it based off their own beliefs - fine. If somebody didn’t want to make me a website because of a certain view or opinion that I had.. then I’d just find somebody else to give my business to and say forget you. Unless I’m missing the deeper implications here, I just view the person who refused service as somebody who is living in the past and putting the prejudices at the forefront of their business. Again, completely open to other interpretations as I didn’t read this one as closely - but it sounds like the court was just upholding the business owners right to not do business with who they want, not taking away rights of the gay couple?

Lastly, I support striking down the student loan forgiveness. Originally I was on the fence, because of personal benefits I’d receive, but changed my mind. When I took out loans, I knew full well that I’d have to pay them back. There are many people out there with student loans, yes they suck, but you don’t get to change your mind and ask for a free pass just because they suck. The real issue I feel like we should be tackling here related to interest payments on student loans. THOSE in particular are insane and companies shouldn’t be making record profits exploiting loans taken out by students. While we are at it, why not examine tuition rates of schools now a days, they have risen at a significantly higher proportion than things like wages and other expense. While I’d like to have a chunk of my loans erased, I have plans in place in order to pay them off and get rid of them. I think bearing the responsibility of your actions and decisions is an important life lesson. Many high school seniors don’t have the forward thinking, I know I didn’t, on the full extent on how student loans can impact them. We should be educating our youth on these processes more because we usually only get one shot at it and are oftentimes going into these decisions underprepared. Many student loans haven’t needed to be paid for quite awhile due to COVID. I took that time to set money aside and use that time to have a cushion of sorts for when payments started up. Fiscal responsibility is a huge part in adulting, even though it’s an incredibly difficult part. So I think the decision was fair, but we need to take a look at other aspects of student loans.

[Synth Salazzle]

May be some unpopular opinions in here, but it’s the debate zone and I’m completely open to hearing everyone else’s viewpoints and seeing things from other perspectives.

Many people fail to realize that many schools have already done away with affirmative action. I have no issue with that particular ruling because I look at everybody as a person and believe we should be judged off of our merit and not the color of our skin. To think that people of any color can’t get into a school based off their own merit and accomplishments is backwards thinking. Some of the smartest people I have EVER worked with are of African, Indian, and Asian descent. Im talking insanely intelligent people. I don’t see this decision as a loss for the country, but rather something that is outdated and not necessary anymore. What we REALLY should be looking at is college admissions of athletes, legacy students, and big donators. They have a significant percentage higher chance of getting accepted than the average Joe. Pay to play kind of rules there that make acceptance numbers for everybody else seem impossible.

I support gay marriage, rights for everyone to love who they love, and have voted that way as long as I can remember. The particular decision for the business owner to have the right to not do a website for a gay couples wedding doesn’t seem like something the Supreme Court needs to be ruling on to me. Church and state are separate, but at the same time, people are assholes and if they don’t want to do it based off their own beliefs - fine. If somebody didn’t want to make me a website because of a certain view or opinion that I had.. then I’d just find somebody else to give my business to and say forget you. Unless I’m missing the deeper implications here, I just view the person who refused service as somebody who is living in the past and putting the prejudices at the forefront of their business. Again, completely open to other interpretations as I didn’t read this one as closely - but it sounds like the court was just upholding the business owners right to not do business with who they want, not taking away rights of the gay couple?

Lastly, I support striking down the student loan forgiveness. Originally I was on the fence, because of personal benefits I’d receive, but changed my mind. When I took out loans, I knew full well that I’d have to pay them back. There are many people out there with student loans, yes they suck, but you don’t get to change your mind and ask for a free pass just because they suck. The real issue I feel like we should be tackling here related to interest payments on student loans. THOSE in particular are insane and companies shouldn’t be making record profits exploiting loans taken out by students. While we are at it, why not examine tuition rates of schools now a days, they have risen at a significantly higher proportion than things like wages and other expense. While I’d like to have a chunk of my loans erased, I have plans in place in order to pay them off and get rid of them. I think bearing the responsibility of your actions and decisions is an important life lesson. Many high school seniors don’t have the forward thinking, I know I didn’t, on the full extent on how student loans can impact them. We should be educating our youth on these processes more because we usually only get one shot at it and are oftentimes going into these decisions underprepared. Many student loans haven’t needed to be paid for quite awhile due to COVID. I took that time to set money aside and use that time to have a cushion of sorts for when payments started up. Fiscal responsibility is a huge part in adulting, even though it’s an incredibly difficult part. So I think the decision was fair, but we need to take a look at other aspects of student loans.

You pretty much summed up literally exactly what I was going to. So I don't see a point in writing out a long multi paragraph response like I was going to.
I was worried about it being unpopular but I don't feel like this is even close to the worst thing in the world the supreme court has done lately.
the roe v wade ruling was much, much more detrimental than this imo.

It might be unpopular, but I do actually completely agree with you.

[I_royalty_I]

You pretty much summed up literally exactly what I was going to. So I don't see a point in writing out a long multi paragraph response like I was going to.
I was worried about it being unpopular but I don't feel like this is even close to the worst thing in the world the supreme court has done lately.
the roe v wade ruling was much, much more detrimental than this imo.

It might be unpopular, but I do actually completely agree with you.

I feel like part of growing up is being able to have discussions and debates with a level head. I can appreciate different viewpoints and usually welcome them. I see the world through my eyes but others see the world through their eyes. The views can be very different so I like hearing other perspectives. I’m okay with unpopular from other people too. Feel free to punch holes in my thinking and tell me why you feel that way. I agree that the Roe decision is an insane one that I’m really really hope gets corrected in the future. The government has no right making decisions like that at all

[Alcremie]

May be some unpopular opinions in here, but it’s the debate zone and I’m completely open to hearing everyone else’s viewpoints and seeing things from other perspectives.

Many people fail to realize that many schools have already done away with affirmative action. I have no issue with that particular ruling because I look at everybody as a person and believe we should be judged off of our merit and not the color of our skin. To think that people of any color can’t get into a school based off their own merit and accomplishments is backwards thinking. Some of the smartest people I have EVER worked with are of African, Indian, and Asian descent. Im talking insanely intelligent people. I don’t see this decision as a loss for the country, but rather something that is outdated and not necessary anymore. What we REALLY should be looking at is college admissions of athletes, legacy students, and big donators. They have a significant percentage higher chance of getting accepted than the average Joe. Pay to play kind of rules there that make acceptance numbers for everybody else seem impossible.

I support gay marriage, rights for everyone to love who they love, and have voted that way as long as I can remember. The particular decision for the business owner to have the right to not do a website for a gay couples wedding doesn’t seem like something the Supreme Court needs to be ruling on to me. Church and state are separate, but at the same time, people are assholes and if they don’t want to do it based off their own beliefs - fine. If somebody didn’t want to make me a website because of a certain view or opinion that I had.. then I’d just find somebody else to give my business to and say forget you. Unless I’m missing the deeper implications here, I just view the person who refused service as somebody who is living in the past and putting the prejudices at the forefront of their business. Again, completely open to other interpretations as I didn’t read this one as closely - but it sounds like the court was just upholding the business owners right to not do business with who they want, not taking away rights of the gay couple?

Lastly, I support striking down the student loan forgiveness. Originally I was on the fence, because of personal benefits I’d receive, but changed my mind. When I took out loans, I knew full well that I’d have to pay them back. There are many people out there with student loans, yes they suck, but you don’t get to change your mind and ask for a free pass just because they suck. The real issue I feel like we should be tackling here related to interest payments on student loans. THOSE in particular are insane and companies shouldn’t be making record profits exploiting loans taken out by students. While we are at it, why not examine tuition rates of schools now a days, they have risen at a significantly higher proportion than things like wages and other expense. While I’d like to have a chunk of my loans erased, I have plans in place in order to pay them off and get rid of them. I think bearing the responsibility of your actions and decisions is an important life lesson. Many high school seniors don’t have the forward thinking, I know I didn’t, on the full extent on how student loans can impact them. We should be educating our youth on these processes more because we usually only get one shot at it and are oftentimes going into these decisions underprepared. Many student loans haven’t needed to be paid for quite awhile due to COVID. I took that time to set money aside and use that time to have a cushion of sorts for when payments started up. Fiscal responsibility is a huge part in adulting, even though it’s an incredibly difficult part. So I think the decision was fair, but we need to take a look at other aspects of student loans.

You're right that it's just a band-aid. The whole system is horrible regarding this. YES, tuition shouldn't be this ungodly high and the banks are predatory. The thing that bothers me is that everyone else gets bailed out no problem, even other countries. Everyone before the people that really need it. Also, my state's lovely billionaire DeVos was present during the hearings. There are WAY too many sus connections between the rich that control things and government. This whole things sucky because then we just argue with each other instead of looking at the people that are screwing all of us over.

[I_royalty_I]

You're right that it's just a band-aid. The whole system is horrible regarding this. YES, tuition shouldn't be this ungodly high and the banks are predatory. The thing that bothers me is that everyone else gets bailed out no problem, even other countries. Everyone before the people that really need it. Also, my state's lovely billionaire DeVos was present during the hearings. There are WAY too many sus connections between the rich that control things and government. This whole things sucky because then we just argue with each other instead of looking at the people that are screwing all of us over.

Oh the issue of billionaires and a two tier justice system could spin into an entirely different debate. There’s info out of black rock that you can “buy a congressman pretty cheap”. I don’t doubt that at all. There are many changes I’d like to see on that front.. but boy oh boy we don’t have enough time in the day haha

[Crooked]

Again, completely open to other interpretations as I didn’t read this one as closely - but it sounds like the court was just upholding the business owners right to not do business with who they want, not taking away rights of the gay couple?

The thing is, private businesses in the US already have the right to refuse service. This Supreme Court ruling has now set a legal precedent that will allow businesses to discriminate against LGBT+ customers without penalty, even if there are state laws that protect LGBT+ people from such discrimination. If a gay couple wants to go on a dinner date at a restaurant but the business refuses to serve them because they're gay, for example, this ruling pretty much gives the restaurant the chance to argue in court that there was no wrongdoing and win their case. "Taking your business elsewhere" may seem like a solution, but it's not; it doesn't fix the actual issue at hand of them being denied a service due to discrimination. It also doesn't take into consideration that this may not be an option for everyone. This will most certainly disproportionately impact LGBT+ people living in conservative areas, and telling them to "just move" is also not a solution.

This ruling also cannot be viewed in a vacuum. In the past few years there has been a vicious campaign to attack the LGBT+ community and their rights throughout the country. The Supreme Court's decision is just another example of this current trend. If this was about denying service due to race, religion, or disability, I doubt we would have seen the same outcome, let alone have seen it go this far.

[Synth Salazzle]

I feel like part of growing up is being able to have discussions and debates with a level head. I can appreciate different viewpoints and usually welcome them. I see the world through my eyes but others see the world through their eyes. The views can be very different so I like hearing other perspectives. I’m okay with unpopular from other people too. Feel free to punch holes in my thinking and tell me why you feel that way. I agree that the Roe decision is an insane one that I’m really really hope gets corrected in the future. The government has no right making decisions like that at all

I'll start with roe v wade. That's easy and can be summed up in a single sentence. That's literally health care and the government has no right to intervene.
pro choice is actually my most hardcore die hard belief (well, ties with free speech but that's another topic for another day.), so that one really just struck something in me and I couldn't not bring that up. Plus it was encouraged to talk about it by delibird, so I brought it up too. I just can't agree with that one in any way. I can agree with specific doctors not wanting to do it in non emergency for religious reasons because then that infringes on the doctor's freedoms, but not the medical industry as a WHOLE. Having options to suit your own freedoms is the entire point. And revoking roe v wade took away freedoms for one side, but not the other which isn't fair or right. That's not pro choice at all, that's making a choice for people.

To the main topics now though.
1. Affirmative action, I have nothing different to add on, that one is summed up perfectly. I don't have a lot to say.

2. To preface, I am not straight, and I am not religious so what I have to say does not come from a place of hatred, or even in agreement, I just strongly believe in the rights of others. But, you should not be allowed to force someone to do something because you live a certain way and it works well for you, they should not be punished by the law because they did not want to service you. (Social stigma is another thing entirely and is what should take place in these situations.) If someone doesn't want to, you shouldn't force them. That's the benefits of capitalism. For every one that won't bake a cake or make a webpage? there's dozens more that will. Why do you NEED that one specific place or person to do that for you? That's infringing on their rights to freedom at that point. They aren't stopping you from getting married or having a webpage. They're just living their lives too. Honestly you're likely going to get subpar quality because they don't want to do it for you to begin with, why would you not go somewhere better? A lot of places would treat you warmly and try to give you a better experience if they knew that's what you were dealing with from other places also. It fuels the market to better offer what you're looking for.

3. Anyone who is a student knew they were going to have to pay them back, partly why I dropped out is that I knew I couldn't pay off my degree if I had one, I think colleges are actually a scam in general in the current state of the world, and that degrees are oversaturated and destroying the job market. Very 'if everyone is qualified, no one is' sort of thinking I have there. And considering the absolute state of our country right now? Not throwing countless more at student loans is the least we could do to try to save our economy right now. Maybe when groceries don't cost literal hundreds of dollars for 3 people anymore we can work on student loan forgiveness.

US politics are really getting to me right now so that might be heated, but to be fair? I think I'm far from the only one who's starting to have enough of the state of the country. I'm not mad at anyone on this forum about any of it though.

[I_royalty_I]

The thing is, private businesses in the US already have the right to refuse service. This Supreme Court ruling has now set a legal precedent that will allow businesses to discriminate against LGBT+ customers without penalty, even if there are state laws that protect LGBT+ people from such discrimination. If a gay couple wants to go on a dinner date at a restaurant but the business refuses to serve them because they're gay, for example, this ruling pretty much gives the restaurant the chance to argue in court that there was no wrongdoing and win their case. "Taking your business elsewhere" may seem like a solution, but it's not; it doesn't fix the actual issue at hand of them being denied a service due to discrimination. It also doesn't take into consideration that this may not be an option for everyone. This will most certainly disproportionately impact LGBT+ people living in conservative areas, and telling them to "just move" is also not a solution.

This ruling also cannot be viewed in a vacuum. In the past few years there has been a vicious campaign to attack the LGBT+ community and their rights throughout the country. The Supreme Court's decision is just another example of this current trend. If this was about denying service due to race, religion, or disability, I doubt we would have seen the same outcome, let alone have seen it go this far.

Okay I can see your point there, it’s a good one. I personally can’t imagine going to a restaurant and being turned away because of how I live my life, so I can see how that would set a precedent in that regard. Makes sense to me. I looked at it as a business just not wanting to work with certain clients but I can see it stemming from there and I didn’t think about that aspect.

Given your first point about there already being things in place to allow private businesses to do business or not do business with whoever they want - do you think this case should have gone to the Supreme Court? Do you know WHY it got that far anyway? I not as well versed on this one. If I were the couple I would have given that business the finger and gone somewhere else. If I were the business I’d have carried on with work on another project. Who pushed the matter?

[Crooked]

2. To preface, I am not straight, and I am not religious so what I have to say does not come from a place of hatred, or even in agreement, I just strongly believe in the rights of others. But, you should not be allowed to force someone to do something because you live a certain way and it works well for you, they should not be punished by the law because they did not want to service you. (Social stigma is another thing entirely and is what should take place in these situations.) If someone doesn't want to, you shouldn't force them. That's the benefits of capitalism. For every one that won't bake a cake or make a webpage? there's dozens more that will. Why do you NEED that one specific place or person to do that for you? That's infringing on their rights to freedom at that point. They aren't stopping you from getting married or having a webpage. They're just living their lives too. Honestly you're likely going to get subpar quality because they don't want to do it for you to begin with, why would you not go somewhere better? A lot of places would treat you warmly and try to give you a better experience if they knew that's what you were dealing with from other places also. It fuels the market to better offer what you're looking for.

It's not infringing anyone's freedom to walk into a bakery and expect them to bake you a cake. There may not be dozens of more places willing to bake you a cake. What are you supposed to do if you live in a rural county of a red state? Obviously we want to live in a perfect world where everyone can buy from places that are friendly to them, but that's not the case. What if you need to get your oil changed but the only mechanic in town is homophobic Harry? This ruling would enable him to deny you service based on your sexual orientation and gender identity and have that be completely excusable in the eyes of the law. I don't understand why we want to defend business owners being allowed to discriminate. Saying it's good for the capitalist free market ignores the very real danger this ruling poses against LGBT+ people having basic rights the heterosexual population enjoys. The law shouldn't punish you for being gay.

Referring to being LGBT+ as "living a certain way and it working well for you" fall into the fraught rhetoric of "the gay lifestyle" and sexual orientation/gender identity as a choice, which is highly contentious at best. These sentiments fuel viewpoints of LGBT+ people being sexual deviants and predators.There are still states where "gay panic" is a legally viable excuse to get away with murdering LGBT+ people. ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

Conservatives are very strategic in what cases they choose to highlight. It's no coincidence that these examples are a wedding cake and a gay marriage site. They invoke a legacy of homophobia— that LGBT+ people destroying Christianity and threatening traditional family values. These cases play right into the fears of their most radical homophobic bases.

This ruling is yet another example of the Supreme Court stripping away the legal protections of people and that's not okay.

[Mothman]

It's not infringing anyone's freedom to walk into a bakery and expect them to bake you a cake. There may not be dozens of more places willing to bake you a cake. What are you supposed to do if you live in a rural county of a red state? Obviously we want to live in a perfect world where everyone can buy from places that are friendly to them, but that's not the case. What if you need to get your oil changed but the only mechanic in town is homophobic Harry? This ruling would enable him to deny you service based on your sexual orientation and gender identity and have that be completely excusable in the eyes of the law. I don't understand why we want to defend business owners being allowed to discriminate. Saying it's good for the capitalist free market ignores the very real danger this ruling poses against LGBT+ people having basic rights the heterosexual population enjoys. The law shouldn't punish you for being gay.

Referring to being LGBT+ as "living a certain way and it working well for you" fall into the fraught rhetoric of "the gay lifestyle" and sexual orientation/gender identity as a choice, which is highly contentious at best. These sentiments fuel viewpoints of LGBT+ people being sexual deviants and predators looking to convert others to their lifestyle.There are still states where "gay panic" is a legally viable excuse to get away with murdering LGBT+ people. ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

Conservatives are very strategic in what cases they choose to highlight. It's no coincidence that these examples are a wedding cake and a gay marriage site. They invoke a legacy of homophobia— that LGBT+ people destroying Christianity and threatening traditional family values. These cases play right into the fears of their most radical homophobic bases.

This ruling is yet another example of the Supreme Court stripping away the legal protections of people and that's not okay.

Don't forget that this can extend to things like healthcare, medication, things that are lifesaving. Doctors can deny care, pharmacies can deny meds, you can be denied tenancy for being gay or trans.

It's easy to forget if you are not gay, or if you live in a place with lots of different vendors for these things, that you sometimes have no other options around you and no money to move.

side note on this:
re: student loans.... I understand the fiscal responsibility thing here, but when you take out loans you don't have any idea what you are getting into. I am highly educated, master's degree, and work in the field I have a degree in. Breaking down the cost of the loans, of rent, of all the other bills I need to pay... the problem isn't the loan themselves. It's the interest, it's the high monthly payments, it's everything surrounding those loans that is the problem. I can't afford to pay the $250 a month they are asking me to, and still live my life in a decent way.

You can say it's all about knowing what you are doing, or working harder, or whatever. But to me, these loans are the difference between someone having a good quality of life or a bad one. I will always choose the route that makes other people's life better instead of harder.

[Crooked]

Don't forget that this can extend to things like healthcare, medication, things that are lifesaving. Doctors can deny care, pharmacies can deny meds, you can be denied tenancy for being gay or trans.

It's easy to forget if you are not gay, or if you live in a place with lots of different vendors for these things, that you sometimes have no other options around you and no money to move.

side note on this:
re: student loans.... I understand the fiscal responsibility thing here, but when you take out loans you don't have any idea what you are getting into. I am highly educated, master's degree, and work in the field I have a degree in. Breaking down the cost of the loans, of rent, of all the other bills I need to pay... the problem isn't the loan themselves. It's the interest, it's the high monthly payments, it's everything surrounding those loans that is the problem. I can't afford to pay the $250 a month they are asking me to, and still live my life in a decent way.

You can say it's all about knowing what you are doing, or working harder, or whatever. But to me, these loans are the difference between someone having a good quality of life or a bad one. I will always choose the route that makes other people's life better instead of harder.

Yes, exactly! The same arguments that fueled these cases about denying LGBT+ people service are also what fueled Roe VS Wade to be struck down, which created the domino effect of abortion bans across the country. They're all tightly interlinked... they're all heads on the same hydra.

Thanks too for adding the commentary on student loans, I have a lot to say on that topic as well but don't have the capacity to rn... you just saved me some sentences, haha.

[Synth Salazzle]

I have decided to sit out the rest of the debate because I am getting too heated every time I try to jump back in, and it is unproductive to both sides if I just get angry and start shit flinging only because I can't express myself properly.
I apologize for cutting it short early, but I am not able to keep myself in check so I am just going to step back and just read from here on out.
I just wanted to explain so that it didn't seem weird that I just stop responding.

[Crooked]

Okay I can see your point there, it’s a good one. I personally can’t imagine going to a restaurant and being turned away because of how I live my life, so I can see how that would set a precedent in that regard. Makes sense to me. I looked at it as a business just not wanting to work with certain clients but I can see it stemming from there and I didn’t think about that aspect.

Given your first point about there already being things in place to allow private businesses to do business or not do business with whoever they want - do you think this case should have gone to the Supreme Court? Do you know WHY it got that far anyway? I not as well versed on this one. If I were the couple I would have given that business the finger and gone somewhere else. If I were the business I’d have carried on with work on another project. Who pushed the matter?

Someone with a background in law would be more qualified to answer these questions, but aside from looking for monetary compensation, people push these kinds of cases because they ultimately impact how laws are enforced. This is why Roe VS Wade was so important, and why it being struck down has had such drastic effects. Bringing discrimination cases to court creates the possibility for the offender to be held accountable and to strengthen anti-discrimination laws.

[kalez]

I'm not good at debates or anything, but abortion being illegal due to religious reasons alone is such a misstep, especially for the myriad medical concerns alone.
Like I can understand the beliefs of some that life begins in the womb and all that, you are free to believe that, but it's so disingenuous to force that across people who don't share that belief.
Honestly boggles my mind.

[Nameless Ghoul]

I don't think the supreme court can remotely call itself impartial and unbiased anymore (if it ever was) making these decisions. None of these decisions they've made are in the best interest of the citizens but are clearly pushing conservative politics. Corrupt is an understatement.

The church and state haven't been separate in ages, and these are the same people using the Constitution as an arguing point every chance they get as long as it supports their agenda.

I mean, these are clearly religiously motivated to some degree. We can't forgive student debt but we can forgive the church 3 billion dollars or some odd amount; they're outright allowing Christian/Catholic businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people--

I'm scared of the precedent these overturns are setting, they're just the tip of the iceberg for destroying so much civil rights progress the States have made; it always starts small.

- - - Updated - - -


kalez Oh absolutely, as soon as the government has control over people's bodies and the agency they have over their own bodies, things have gone wrong.

[kalez]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Just ran into this... Apparently the guy never requested such services and is also just not gay
How did nobody even verify this

[phantasia]

FIrstly, this is a debate thread and please be kind and courteous with citing of facts and opinions. We all want to be respectful regardless of which party you are or if you are in agreeance or non-agreeance.


Now off to the topics at hand. (I did study Constitutional Law in University and was Pre-Law)


1) Supreme Court guts Affirmative Action in College Admissions
This is a landmark case that was set up several years ago in order to give people of color an opportunity to be considered for universities and universities had to accept a certain amount of people of color and consideration in admissions.

The Supreme Court says that colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as specific basis for granting admission, a landmark decision overturning long-standing precedent that has benefited Black and Latino students in higher education.

Chief John Roberts wrote:
“The Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today,” Roberts
Source: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

The court basically said that race should not be a factor for consideration in admissions and that that does not stop applicants from stating how race has affected the applicant's life and can still be part of the application.

I did however appreciate the dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that dissented:
“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” she wrote. “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems.”
Source: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Many people have been outspoken and come forward such as Michelle Obama who stated that if it wasn't for affirmative action, she would not have in fact been where she is today.


2) Supreme Court says Christian Business Owners can refuse to create same-sex marriage websites.
The Supreme Court ruled Friday for a Christian web designer in Colorado who refuses to create website to celebrate same-sex weddings out of religious objections.

In dissent, Sotomayor said the decision will undermine the government’s compelling interest in ensuring that all Americans have equal access to the public marketplace.

“Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” she wrote.

“Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public.”

She called this a “sad day in American constitutional law and the lives of LGBT people.”

“By issuing this new license to discriminate in a case brought by a company that seeks to deny same-sex couples the full and equal enjoyment of its services, the immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status.”

This could in turn cause discrimination for LGBTQ+ communities or open up a reversal for gay marriage if a lawsuit were to arise.

Source: [Only registered and activated users can see links]


3) Supreme Court blocks Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness Program
The Supreme Court blocked the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness plan on Friday, invalidating a program aimed at delivering up to $20,000 of relief to millions of borrowers struggling with outstanding debt in the aftermath of Covid.

“The Secretary’s comprehensive debt cancellation plan cannot fairly be called a waiver — it not only nullifies existing provisions, but augments and expands them dramatically,” Roberts wrote.

Essentially, the Court Justices can take fancy vacations/trips and receive donations from billionaires but when it comes to student debt, they turn a blind eye.

Biden had a company that was wiling to do the student debt relief and was held up in the Supreme Court. Biden now faces the challenges of whether or not he can sign an executive order regarding the HEROES Act which congress approved previously.


My Dissent:
The Supreme Court has a responsibility to be impartial and to benefit its constituents at the highest level. The failure of not only the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Abortion rights and now Affirmative Action and Gay right's is backwards movement and sets back decades of civil rights.

To be upset is an understatement that the Supreme Court has become a political weapon to carry out certain agendas and NOT to benefit the American People. These Justices are not elected officials or justices and therefore should have some sort of liability when it comes to civil rights violations.

There are solutions to this conservative majority, however, Biden has stated he is against expanding the court. There are now 12 District Courts and there should technically be 12 justices. (1 for each).

If there is no action taken within the liberal party, the conservative party will come in and take over and possibly expand the court to overrule cases that will impact generations to come if actions are not met in 2024.

The Constitution says that the Church and State need to be separate. Justice Amy Coney Barrett contradicts this by saying she will bring religion into consideration on all her cases. To say this is a clusterfuck would be saying this very nicely.

Looking forward to everyone's opinions on these and including Roe v. Wade.


I am a law graduate. Although I never entered practice

The thing that I spotted in all your arguments and that you are only looking at one side. Remeber there are two sides to every case.
I am in South Africa and I really don't keep up so sorry if this was considered.

In the case about the student loans... what about those that did pay and is now living a lower income life than they would should there debts has also be paid? Should there money also be returned?
When ever money is granted somewhere it is take somewhere ells. To give the students there debt alleviation it might mean that someone might get less medical treatment or the taxrate will need to be pushed up further.

Regarding the website developer. What about the developers right. Should we be forced to do what we are against? Everything is about freedom - you are free to practice your own religion and no one can force you into something but here you want to force the website developers. What cant they just go to someone different that has no objection?

So yea that's just my input. Remeber that everything can be argued in different directions and a legal professional need to be able to weigh different rights and think of the wider implications.

[I_royalty_I]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Just ran into this... Apparently the guy never requested such services and is also just not gay
How did nobody even verify this

Honestly, I am beyond confused on that one now. I thought it was a website designer at first who refused service. Then after seeing posts here and looking up articles a little more, I thought it was a bakery that refused service to the gay couple. Now that article says it was a website designer. Right now I don’t know who was refusing service to who and what that article is even trying to say lol

[Sylveon231]

I'm not good at debates or anything, but abortion being illegal due to religious reasons alone is such a misstep, especially for the myriad medical concerns alone.
Like I can understand the beliefs of some that life begins in the womb and all that, you are free to believe that, but it's so disingenuous to force that across people who don't share that belief.
Honestly boggles my mind.

It's definitely worth to note that making abortion illegal is actually SUPPRESSING religious rights.
Judaism pretty strictly says that if the mother's life is at risk, she is the priority and must be able to have an abortion to save her life. It varies between denominations and probably even in families what exactly constitutes 'life-threatening' but it's pretty unanimous, and especially that a fetus is not a human until it breaches.

But yeah, basically to sate one religions teaching, they're actively suppressing other religions.


For me, my religious beliefs don't even mention or particularly care about abortion. A fetus is just kinda... there, there's no morality based on it. Even in the research I've done there's no consensus on when life begins. Personally I think life doesn't begin until the birth.

[Misha]

#2 stinks of Westboro shit. Any business has the right to refuse service EXCEPT on the basis of race, religion, sexual preference, or gender. This should not only apply to brick and mortar establishments. Chick fil a or however it's spelled (I don't give a chicken fried fuck) can also eat a bag of dicks along with the Salvation Army.

The one good thing I will say about Activision as a former employee, was that they ALWAYS adhered to and made sure that everyone was represented and addressed by their preferred pronouns/properly represented when it came to LGBTQ+ game content. Most progressive workplace I've ever been a part of.

A handful of the people that I'm around being in a rural community are Trumpsters and it makes me insane. I do however believe in the 2nd amendment, and I'll gladly take any of my allies to the range and show them how to safely and effectively use any of the firearms tat I own and practice with every weekend. I've been in 2 physical fights in Walmart because of conservative bullies taking their shit out on LGBTQ+ people and I'll gladly defend them every day of the week. You don't have to agree with my position on firearms, but I'll defend your life with mine.


Kinda rambled a little bit there, but main takeaway is fuck these christian companies that are being allowed to do what they're doing. So much for separation of church and state.