Supreme Court Overturns Several Controversial Topics

[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 I don’t see this decision as a loss for the country, but rather something that is outdated and not necessary anymore.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.(you need an account to 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.(you need an account to 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.